# Ryzen 9 5950X Curve Optimizer to 5.1 GHz, PBO and overclocking



## mothergoose729

LOVE IT! I have a Ryzen 3600 and it always frustrated me that best performance profile was the "extreme" PBO settings, as anything I can do manually would take more performance off my top end for small gains on all core. I'll spend weeks playing with all the sliders until I get something that performs 3% better, but gosh darn it imma get that 3%.


----------



## LancerVI

mothergoose729 said:


> LOVE IT! I have a Ryzen 3600 and it always frustrated me that best performance profile was the "extreme" PBO settings, as anything I can do manually would take more performance off my top end for small gains on all core. I'll spend weeks playing with all the sliders until I get something that performs 3% better, but gosh darn it imma get that 3%.


Yeah, on my 2700x, 3900x, and 3900XT I ended up throwing up my hands, turning on PBO and leaving it. OC'ing is frustrating, to say the least, with these guys.


----------



## Gadfly

Hey Elmor, long time. I hope you are well.

Any word on max fclk?


----------



## Yuke

I hope we will see DOS on all the boards...


----------



## qwrty

Dropping my 10980XE to this one 
Promising. Can't wait !


----------



## elmor

mothergoose729 said:


> LOVE IT! I have a Ryzen 3600 and it always frustrated me that best performance profile was the "extreme" PBO settings, as anything I can do manually would take more performance off my top end for small gains on all core. I'll spend weeks playing with all the sliders until I get something that performs 3% better, but gosh darn it imma get that 3%.





LancerVI said:


> Yeah, on my 2700x, 3900x, and 3900XT I ended up throwing up my hands, turning on PBO and leaving it. OC'ing is frustrating, to say the least, with these guys.





Yuke said:


> I hope we will see DOS on all the boards...


It might be possible to port back Curve Optimizer to Zen 2, I'll keep you updated on that  DOS should also work with older CPUs, but you need the Dark Hero for it unfortunately.



Gadfly said:


> Hey Elmor, long time. I hope you are well.
> 
> Any word on max fclk?


My chip did max 1900 MHz, I'm hearing some are able to do 2000 MHZ but not sure how reliably.



qwrty said:


> Dropping my 10980XE to this one
> Promising. Can't wait !


Crazy that this will be an upgrade from 10980XE


----------



## supdawg580

Does the curve optimizer still obey Ryzen's FIT limits? I'm still paranoid about degradation after I killed my 1800X.


----------



## qwrty

elmor said:


> Crazy that this will be an upgrade from 10980XE


380watts (10980xe @4,8ghz) vs 240watts for better performance (production and games) even with 2 less cores, choice is quickly made


----------



## ThrashZone

Hi,
Wouldn't take much to beat x299 at gaming lol 
10900k though only claim is in some games this chip might be better.


----------



## qwrty

Certainly, but when you had OCed a X299 processor, it defended itself well anyway, now it's a new story...


----------



## ThrashZone

qwrty said:


> Certainly, but when you had OCed a X299 processor, it defended itself well anyway, now it's a new story...


HI,
Nope x299 still had the crappy cache anchor.


----------



## FlanK3r

Great info Elmor-will test 11.11 on stream some things what u wrote here. 

I hope, you have also some video from crazy OC session on HQ of Asus


----------



## nick name

Is this what Robert Hallock was talking about on twitter?


----------



## nesty

sooo... any estimation when to expect bioses with agesa that have VF curve optimizer ?
my new 5800x in b550-f acts like this :

1) f-max enhancer : "boosts" to 5.05 .. but is clock stretching AF, 4.3-4.5 effective in single
performance is 10 percent lower

2) pbo with default PPT, TDC and EDC, scaler 1x, offset, max offset 200Mhz : "boosts" to 4.975 ... actually holds 4.9 effective in single... single and multi performance is 1-2 percent higher than stock (PBO does something this time... )

so I think VF curve optimizer is what I need


----------



## nick name

nesty said:


> sooo.. any estimation when to expect bioses with agesa that have VF curve optimizer ?
> my new 5800x in b550-f acts like this :
> 
> 1) f-max enhancer :
> "boosts" to 5.05 .. but is clock stretching AF, 4.3-4.5 effective in single
> performance is 10 percent lower
> 
> 2) pbo with default PPT, TDC and EDC, scaler 1x, offset, max offset 200Mhz :
> "boosts" to 4.975 ... actualy holds 4.9 effective in single...
> single and multi performance is 1-2 percent higher than stock (PBO does something this time .. )
> 
> so i think VF curve optimizer is what i need


It's tough to use HWiNFO Effective Clock unless you lock something to one specific core.


----------



## Nighthog

nesty said:


> sooo.. any estimation when to expect bioses with agesa that have VF curve optimizer ?
> my new 5800x in b550-f acts like this :
> 
> 1) f-max enhancer :
> "boosts" to 5.05 .. but is clock stretching AF, 4.3-4.5 effective in single
> performance is 10 percent lower
> 
> 2) pbo with default PPT, TDC and EDC, scaler 1x, offset, max offset 200Mhz :
> "boosts" to 4.975 ... actualy holds 4.9 effective in single...
> single and multi performance is 1-2 percent higher than stock (PBO does something this time .. )
> 
> so i think VF curve optimizer is what i need


If ASUS special *F-Max* works like PBO bug, you need a load on the cpu to stop throttling to kick in, it tries to and get idle /low amps under single core load. For benchmark, try moving your mouse around continually to see it improve the score stopping the throttle.


----------



## gerardfraser

@elmor 
Great thread,thanks for sharing and I have had good results with using the AMD Curve Optimizer on 5800X


----------



## elmor

FlanK3r said:


> Great info Elmor-will test 11.11 on stream some things what u wrote here.
> 
> I hope, you have also some video from crazy OC session on HQ of Asus


There's some video footage but I don't think I'll be uploading a compiled video this time.



nick name said:


> Is this what Robert Hallock was talking about on twitter?


It's possible but I really have no clue.



nick name said:


> It's tough to use HWiNFO Effective Clock unless you lock something to one specific core.


Yes since it's an average read you need constant load on the thread you want to measure during the entire measurement interval.



gerardfraser said:


> @elmor
> Great thread,thanks for sharing and I have had good results with using the AMD Curve Optimizer on 5800X


Awesome, which values ended up working well for you? Did you have any stability issues? To go higher than 5050 you need to add the Fmax offset


----------



## gerardfraser

elmor said:


> Awesome, which values ended up working well for you? Did you have any stability issues? To go higher than 5050 you need to add the Fmax offset


First off thank you again for the thread.I do not know anything about the AMD Curve Optimizer .
Well PBO boost I seen at up to 5200Mhz short burst , with the 5800X I notice core 5 topping out at 5050Mhz so I just set negative 15 for all cores but core 5 and set that negative 5.

Now changing values on cores positive/negative can cause no boot and crash for sure. I made about 5hrs-6hrs of playing different games at up to 5050Mhz boost and have not notice stability issues. Just a trial and error thing as you know.

For Fmax I did not see or notice this on my MSI X570 Tomahawk Motherboard . Probably not added yet to BIOS,just guessing.

You would know for sure could I get around the slower core 5 on my 5800X using Fmax on per core basis.

Video of Cinbench 20 single with 3 games and actual bios setting for anyone interested.
- Cinbench20
- single score - 653
- Multi did not include in video but was 6100+ can not remember exact score, just adding because people like cinebench scores for some reason but 650+ single score at up to 
- 5050Mhz



Spoiler


----------



## dante`afk

so only MSI has curve optimizer?
Only the dark Hero has DOS?


like, what's up with all other boards, garbage?




Yuke said:


> I hope we will see DOS on all the boards...


that skatterbencher guy said no only dark hero due to pcb level change


----------



## elmor

dante`afk said:


> so only MSI has curve optimizer?
> Only the dark Hero has DOS?
> 
> 
> like, what's up with all other boards, garbage?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> that skatterbencher guy said no only dark hero due to pcb level change


I used Curve Optimizer on the Dark Hero, it's in the OP. Only a single value for all cores but probably because of older AGESA. It's an AMD feature so all boards should have it together with BIOS and Ryzen Master control.


----------



## shamino1978

nesty said:


> sooo.. any estimation when to expect bioses with agesa that have VF curve optimizer ?
> my new 5800x in b550-f acts like this :
> 
> 1) f-max enhancer :
> "boosts" to 5.05 .. but is clock stretching AF, 4.3-4.5 effective in single
> performance is 10 percent lower


for fmax enhancer on vermeer u need to add positive offset voltage since the vid is too low for clock stability (which is not a problem since almost everyone wishes to be at vmin) u can do that runtime while checking perf and should be quite quick to find the offset v u need.

for the curve optimizer, amd wanted it to be hidden for newer bioses, perhaps they are working on improving it and want it to be more ready.


----------



## Kha

Thank y


elmor said:


> View attachment 2464469
> 
> 
> *Zen 3 is here*
> 
> The much anticipated Zen 3 architecture has finally been launched close to a year and a half after Zen 2 while remaining on the same 7nm TSMC process. AMD's recently released Ryzen 3000XT showed there are frequency gains to be had just by manufacturing improvements over time. The question is what else is brought to the table. Below you can find my findings on overclocking and performance tuning.
> 
> *The boost clock is fixed*
> 
> I'm very pleased to be able to report that on Ryzen 5000, the advertised boost and actual seen clock frequencies are in line. Possibly the aftermath from the Zen 2 with users not hitting the expected boost frequencies had some impact on this change. In fact while the advertised boost speed of the 5950X is an already impressive 4.9 GHz, the factory programmed frequency limit is all the way up to 5.05 GHz.
> 
> *FCLK and memory frequencies are about the same*
> 
> As AMD uses the same IO-die as on Ryzen 3000, it should not be a surprise that there's no noticeable change here. There has been leaked slides floating around indicating that it should now be possible to get most chips up to 2000 MHz FCLK. However from my own testing the expectation is still very much 1900 MHz on AGESA 1.1.0.0. There are indications that there could be AGESA or other firmware updates in the future that improves FCLK frequencies on Zen 3.
> 
> *Curve Optimizer lets you tune the VF-curve*
> 
> With the latest AGESA for this platform there's a new option hiding in the AMD Overclocking menu. It's called the "Curve Optimizer" and lets you modify the factory programmed Voltage-Frequency Curve when using PBO. Theoretically this should finally allow overclocking the 1T boost (without using reference clock) by combining it with an Fmax offset ("Max CPU Boost Clock Override").
> 
> There's no documentation or explanation available for what it does exactly. My theory is that it lets you add a voltage offset to the curve which affects what voltage the CPU thinks is required for each frequency. This leads to higher frequencies due to larger margin to the voltage ceiling and increased power budget.
> 
> *ASUS DOS Overclocking*
> 
> A new exclusive feature on the ASUS ROG Crosshair VIII Dark is the Dynamic Overclock Switcher (DOS). It allows you to set a load current threshold for switching between PBO and manual overclocking settings, including per-CCX overclocking. In theory this offers the best of two worlds, allowing you to maintain high frequencies when few cores are loaded and a manually tuned overclock at all core loads. Unfortunately I didn't have time to try this function myself, but check out these videos by SkatterBencher and der8auer which tests the feature:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Test Setup*
> 
> 
> AMD Ryzen 9 3950X (16 cores, 4.9 GHz Boost, 105W TDP)
> ASUS ROG Crosshair VIII Dark Hero (BIOS 0090, AGESA 1.1.0.0)
> G.Skill 3200C14D-16GTZR (2x8GB)
> Corsair H115i
> Windows 10 2004
> *Method*
> 
> Any benchmark results are the average of three runs. HWInfo was used to record the monitoring information during the run. The average frequency was measured using the “Effective Clock” item. The average power was measured directly from the VRM controller and reports the CPU Core power only (excl SOC and other rails). Load-Line Calibration was set to Level 3 for the overclocked results. For the single-threaded tests, the affinity of the benchmark was lock to the highest ranked core according to CPPC.
> 
> *Results*
> 
> *Single-Thread PBO*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At default settings we're already exceeding the advertised 4.9 GHz boost clock at 4945 MHz. Keep in mind that this is a sustained average during the Cinebench R15 1T benchmark. If the max recorded boost clock was recorded it would show several bursts above 5000 MHz.
> 
> After setting the Curve Optimizer to -15, the average sustained boost clock sees an increase to 5035 MHz while the boost voltage is reduced by 27 mV. By then setting the Fmax offset to 50 MHz the boost clock is further increased to 5065 Mhzat the expense of a 38 mV voltage increase. With Curve Optimizer set to -25 it was necessary to add a voltage offset of +50 mV in order to keep the system stable. These settings gave us an average boost clock of 5080 MHz and the voltage was now reaching 1519 mV. Further testing showed the limit was reached and there were no further increases. The frequency even dropped if the voltage offset was too high.
> 
> *Multi-Thread PBO*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When setting Curve Optimizer to -15 for multi-threaded workloads, the voltage is reduced by 6mV by simultaneously increasing the all-core boost frequency from 4425 MHz to 4525 MHz. At the -25 setting again it was necessary to increase the voltage offset to +50 mV. In total this resulted in a 4575 MHz clock frequency while the voltage increased by 63 mV. Further reducing the Curve Optimizer to -35 did not result in additional frequency, however it did reduce the voltage by 7 mV.
> 
> *Manual Overclocking*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Through manual overclocking the limit was found to be around 4650 MHz with 1.29 V actual voltage during load. At this point the CPU is very close to the thermal limit as it reaches close to 100°C while consuming up to 236 W.
> 
> *Other Recommended Content*
> 
> Ryzen 9 5950X Curve Optimizer to 5.1 GHz, PBO and overclocking
> SkatterBencher tests ASUS DOS
> Ryzen 7 5800X overclocked to 7 GHz, but it's not real
> End of an ERA - "Vermeer" has arrived



Thank you for your wonderful thread. 

As a paranthesis, since I just found read something about this, can you please tell me what's the catch with the MSI boards having a +500 mhz PBO comparing to the rest ? People are reporting 5200 boosts on 5800x using this trick, which, afaik, is nowhere to find on other boards. Thanks.


----------



## shamino1978

not sure, gotta check this out.


----------



## nick name

Kha said:


> Thank y
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for your wonderful thread.
> 
> As a paranthesis, since I just found read something about this, can you please tell me what's the catch with the MSI boards having a +500 mhz PBO comparing to the rest ? People are reporting 5200 boosts on 5800x using this trick, which, afaik, is nowhere to find on other boards. Thanks.


On my CH7 you can manually enter values in the AMD CBS menu though I don't know what it maxes out at so it might be the same as the PBO drop-down options.

Edit:
After entering a 500 value it doesn't appear to be valid as there is no extra boost.

Edit 2:
Using a value of 50 didn't work either. So perhaps it doesn't work at all or there is something else you have to use in conjunction. 



Spoiler: BIOS Screens


----------



## nesty

nick name said:


> It's tough to use HWiNFO Effective Clock unless you lock something to one specific core.


 i tied cb to my best core during single thread test..



shamino1978 said:


> for fmax enhancer on vermeer u need to add positive offset voltage since the vid is too low for clock stability (which is not a problem since almost everyone wishes to be at vmin) u can do that runtime while checking perf and should be quite quick to find the offset v u need.


yeah, kind of thought so, but since I was impresed by default perfomance + pbo offset, I left it until vf curve offset comes 



nick name said:


> On my CH7 you can manually enter values in the AMD CBS menu though I don't know what it maxes out at so it might be the same as the PBO drop-down options.
> Edit:
> After entering a 500 value it doesn't appear to be valid as there is no extra boost.
> Edit 2:
> Using a value of 50 didn't work either. So perhaps it doesn't work at all or there is something else you have to use in conjunction.


I concur,
i don´t believe this is the (only) value changed by fmax enhancer, it has been there for a long time. I have tested it year or so back and concluded that it does nothing by itself..


----------



## nick name

nesty said:


> i tied cb to my best core during single thread test..
> 
> -snip-


Do you do it before or after you start the run? Because it has to be done after you start the run.


----------



## nick name

Has anyone seen more hints to the Crosshair Dark's pricing? I found a couple listings, one in Australia and the other New Zealand (the New Zealand site showed on in stock), and the conversion to USD were both over $600. That's pretty rough.


----------



## nesty

nick name said:


> Do you do it before or after you start the run? Because it has to be done after you start the run.


after ... i would definitely notice it is jumping across cores 

i just hope I will do some tweaking in 5800x machine this weekend ... since it is PC for my gf i am not always allowed to occupy it


----------



## ManniX-ITA

dante`afk said:


> so only MSI has curve optimizer?
> Only the dark Hero has DOS?
> 
> 
> like, what's up with all other boards, garbage?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> that skatterbencher guy said no only dark hero due to pcb level change


PCB level change?
No, I don't think so 
It can be done purely via software.

Guess they'll keep it for the Dark Hero for a while but would be stupid not to extend the trick to the whole range.


----------



## Marucins

This new ASUS DOS Overclocking feature in Crosshair VIII Dark motherboards is great. 

*I wonder if GIGABYTE in the X570 will add something similar?*

Ideally, let them release ZEN and ZEN + support to free up resources.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Despite I'm falling asleep I managed to record a video demoing OCMaestro, the custom OC tool I'm developing.
It can do the same as ASUS DOS; it's software but it's not limited to a single motherboard model


----------



## elmor

Kha said:


> As a paranthesis, since I just found read something about this, can you please tell me what's the catch with the MSI boards having a +500 mhz PBO comparing to the rest ? People are reporting 5200 boosts on 5800x using this trick, which, afaik, is nowhere to find on other boards. Thanks.





nick name said:


> On my CH7 you can manually enter values in the AMD CBS menu though I don't know what it maxes out at so it might be the same as the PBO drop-down options.
> Edit:
> After entering a 500 value it doesn't appear to be valid as there is no extra boost.
> Edit 2:
> Using a value of 50 didn't work either. So perhaps it doesn't work at all or there is something else you have to use in conjunction.
> 
> 
> Spoiler: BIOS Screens
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2465073
> View attachment 2465074


I'm not sure what their implementation is doing. But with the normal Fmax offset function it will only increase the ceiling. It doesn't guarantee that your CPU will actually boost higher. The Curve Optimizer helps with this problem by allowing for more aggressive boost. For example the Fmax on the 5950X is factory programmed to 5050 MHz, it may or may not reach that value on some cores during brief moments depending on your chip. But the average sustained frequency is around 4900 MHz. If I set the Fmax offset to +200 MHz, it will still briefly burst to 5050 + maybe a few steps higher. The average sustained frequency will stay at 4900 MHz. On the other hand if I change the Curve Optimizer I can get the CPU to get maintain an average boost clock of 5050 MHz with Fmax offset = 0 and any short bursts will also be 5050 MHz. If I then add +50 MHz for example, I may see 5050 MHz average still but bursts up to 5100 MHz. All dependent on the chip and actual settings of course.



ManniX-ITA said:


> PCB level change?
> No, I don't think so
> It can be done purely via software.
> 
> Guess they'll keep it for the Dark Hero for a while but would be stupid not to extend the trick to the whole range.





ManniX-ITA said:


> Despite I'm falling asleep I managed to record a video demoing OCMaestro, the custom OC tool I'm developing.
> It can do the same as ASUS DOS; it's software but it's not limited to a single motherboard model


A similar solution can be done by software, sure. But the implementation on the Dark Hero is using hardware + BIOS without any need for software.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

elmor said:


> I'm not sure what their implementation is doing. But with the normal Fmax offset function it will only increase the ceiling. It doesn't guarantee that your CPU will actually boost higher. The Curve Optimizer helps with this problem by allowing for more aggressive boost. For example the Fmax on the 5950X is factory programmed to 5050 MHz, it may or may not reach that value on some cores during brief moments depending on your chip. But the average sustained frequency is around 4900 MHz. If I set the Fmax offset to +200 MHz, it will still briefly burst to 5050 + maybe a few steps higher. The average sustained frequency will stay at 4900 MHz. On the other hand if I change the Curve Optimizer I can get the CPU to get maintain an average boost clock of 5050 MHz with Fmax offset = 0 and any short bursts will also be 5050 MHz. If I then add +50 MHz for example, I may see 5050 MHz average still but bursts up to 5100 MHz. All dependent on the chip and actual settings of course.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A similar solution can be done by software, sure. But the implementation on the Dark Hero is using hardware + BIOS without any need for software.


Yeah, I hope they'll port it to the whole line-up soon and other vendors will follow with the same functionality. It's indeed more convenient to have it in BIOS, would work OOB also with Linux.

My goal is to support the Meerstetter TEC controllers and possibly other chillers together with the Aquaero. Even if available under BIOS I'd use my software solution to support more complex use cases. The BIOS solution is more lightweight but at the same time not flexible.


----------



## qwrty

But if it can be done only by software, it can be done only via a BIOS update too ?
Asus wants some « exclusive » options to sell this Dark Hero I guess...

Anyway, good job Mannix, I will follow your project !


----------



## ManniX-ITA

qwrty said:


> But if it can be done only by software, it can be done only via a BIOS update too ?
> Asus wants some « exclusive » options to sell this Dark Hero I guess...
> 
> Anyway, good job Mannix, I will follow your project !


I don't see anything that can't be done with just a BIOS update on any board. It's fair if they keep it for a while an exclusive for the Dark Hero but I hope it's not going to last for too long.

I'll create a thread here in OCN when the first public Alpha will be ready. If someone want to test earlier a pre-Alpha can drop me a PM.


----------



## Kha

elmor said:


> I'm not sure what their implementation is doing. But with the normal Fmax offset function it will only increase the ceiling. It doesn't guarantee that your CPU will actually boost higher. The Curve Optimizer helps with this problem by allowing for more aggressive boost. For example the Fmax on the 5950X is factory programmed to 5050 MHz, it may or may not reach that value on some cores during brief moments depending on your chip. But the average sustained frequency is around 4900 MHz. If I set the Fmax offset to +200 MHz, it will still briefly burst to 5050 + maybe a few steps higher. The average sustained frequency will stay at 4900 MHz. On the other hand if I change the Curve Optimizer I can get the CPU to get maintain an average boost clock of 5050 MHz with Fmax offset = 0 and any short bursts will also be 5050 MHz. If I then add +50 MHz for example, I may see 5050 MHz average still but bursts up to 5100 MHz. All dependent on the chip and actual settings of course.


I understand. The reason I asked is that a user on this forum is reporting boosts in excess of 5200 Mhz with a 5800x, which afaik, has a lower than 5050 Mhz factory max boost limit than the 5950x (correct me if I'm wrong). He is indeed using some settings in Curve Optimizer and obviously his sample is really good, however me and several other people are extremely interested into finding out _if_ the reason behind these numbers is the Curve Optimizer or the MSI +500 offset.


----------



## elmor

ManniX-ITA said:


> Yeah, I hope they'll port it to the whole line-up soon and other vendors will follow with the same functionality.
> It's indeed more convenient to have it in BIOS, would work OOB also with Linux.
> 
> My goal is to support the Meerstetter TEC controllers and possibly other chillers together with the Aquaero.
> Even if available under BIOS I'd use my software solution to support more complex use cases.
> The BIOS solution is more lightweight but at the same time not flexible.





qwrty said:


> But if it can be done only by software, it can be done only via a BIOS update too ?
> Asus wants some « exclusive » options to sell this Dark Hero I guess...
> 
> Anyway, good job Mannix, I will follow your project !





ManniX-ITA said:


> I don't see anything that can't be done with just a BIOS update on any board.
> It's fair if they keep it for a while an exclusive for the Dark Hero but I hope it's not going to last for too long.
> 
> I'll create a thread here in OCN when the first public Alpha will be ready.
> If someone want to test earlier a pre-Alpha can drop me a PM.


No it's not possible through BIOS alone. You need external hardware or software to trigger the change.



Kha said:


> I understand. The reason I asked is that a user on this forum is reporting boosts in excess of 5200 Mhz with a 5800x, which afaik, has a lower than 5050 Mhz factory max boost limit than the 5950x (correct me if I'm wrong). He is indeed using some settings in Curve Optimizer and obviously his sample is really good, however me and several other people are extremely interested into finding out _if_ the reason behind these numbers is the Curve Optimizer or the MSI +500 offset.
> 
> View attachment 2465289


I see, I don't have any answer for you there.


----------



## qwrty

elmor said:


> No it's not possible through BIOS alone. You need external hardware or software to trigger the change.


So yes, with a BIOS update and hardware only you can trigger DOC without any software. 

But it is possible with only software. 
I Love the fact that it can be done without software, but no way I will paid 200€ more vs the Strix-E to not use software


----------



## ManniX-ITA

elmor said:


> No it's not possible through BIOS alone. You need external hardware or software to trigger the change.


Then a working software solution is really needed.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

I don't know really well the x86 architecture as I work only with Set-Top Box SoCs but I think I can see why it's not possible without an external IC. It's just an educated guess of course; couldn't resist wondering about why it's not possible 

Did a quick check of the documentation of the Nuvoton NCT6796D Super I/O chip and the AMD BIOS and Kernel developer's guide. The Super I/O chip is only connected via serial interfaces to the CPU; my guess is using the LPC Bus Interface. Through this interface it can access some CPU registers.

Programming the OC mode and the clocks needs access to the SMU. The SMU is part of the NorthBridge and it's an isolated system with its own LM32 processor. Looking at the guide seems there's no access via LPC (which is connected to the FCH, the SouthBridge) or any bridge to it. So seems to be a problem of access; you need an IC connected to the PCI bus to control the SMU.

But I may be wrong


----------



## gerardfraser

For anyone interested I did some test with AMD curve setting from +100 to -100





AMD Curve Optimizer Voltage Offset 5800X - Google Drive







docs.google.com


----------



## DeletedMember558271

Noob question but how did you add the voltage offset of +50 mV? These are my settings but as you can see it's way too low and keeps the clock at 3800mhz. I watched a Buildzoid video and changed the exact same settings he did except he went with a negative sign for undervolting, which also doesn't work the same for me and is way lower.













With everything on Auto I get good results but can't push further negative values without increasing the voltage.


----------



## Alexshunter

Is it possible i do manual overclock at 4600MHz with 1.25V +I use this curve optimizer for single core boost? Like the Asus DOS?


----------



## gerardfraser

Dreamic said:


> Noob question but how did you add the voltage offset of +50 mV? These are my settings but as you can see it's way too low and keeps the clock at 3800mhz. I watched a Buildzoid video and changed the exact same settings he did except he went with a negative sign for undervolting, which also doesn't work the same for me and is way lower.
> View attachment 2465538
> View attachment 2465539
> 
> With everything on Auto I get good results but can't push further negative values without increasing the voltage.
> View attachment 2465540


Check out 1 post #43 above yours. Now AMD is not great of telling people things but they try.
Now check #9 below. Use AMD Curve Optimizer as @Alexshunter suggest and use my chart as a rough template for actual overvolt/undervolt if you want.

Robert Hallock twitter: 

1) Ryzen 5000 Series doesn't need a power plan. Don't expect to see one.

2) Yes, it can clock to DDR4-4000 1:1 if you have a good sample. Upcoming AGESA work will make this easier.

3) But you CAN tweak Ryzen perf vs. power with the Win10 Power & Sleep sider AFTER you install the chipset driver.

4) Is the memory controller the same? YES.

5) Do you need a new AGESA for pre-5000 Series CPUs? No. Not really. Stay on the BIOS you have.

6) But ROBERT what about the VOLTS and the CELSIUSES. WHAT IS NORMAL?!?!!?! ROB HELP. See below:
*https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EmHKqLuXIAAdJLq?format=jpg&name=large*

7) What is the best memory to buy? TOUGH QUESTION

8) I see this a lot: "precision boost is automatic overclocking." No. False. Wrong. Precision Boost is our boost technology. Every processor has a boost technology. But ours is unique in that X THREADS do not equal Y CLOCKS. Why? Because that is SLOW.
*https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EmHS-6QW0AEFA7N?format=jpg&name=large*

9) But Robert, where is undervolting? Answer: IT'S GONE. j/k. Temporarily gone for 5000 series. It'll be back in an upcoming AGESA with new functionality.  It's gonna be HYPE.

Y'aint never seen undervolting quite like this.


----------



## DeletedMember558271

I don't think anything you said has anything to do with anything I said. I'm talking about this:


elmor said:


> After setting the Curve Optimizer to -15, the average sustained boost clock sees an increase to 5035 MHz while the boost voltage is reduced by 27 mV. By then setting the Fmax offset to 50 MHz the boost clock is further increased to 5065 Mhzat the expense of a 38 mV voltage increase. *With Curve Optimizer set to -25 it was necessary to add a voltage offset of +50 mV in order to keep the system stable.* These settings gave us an average boost clock of 5080 MHz and the voltage was now reaching 1519 mV. Further testing showed the limit was reached and there were no further increases. The frequency even dropped if the voltage offset was too high.


I posted an image of my BIOS settings and HWinfo during a CineBench run trying +50 mV Offset. I already figured everything else out and have Curve Optimizer running fine on CPU Core Voltage [Auto], that's the good CineBench score I posted. It's [Offset Mode] that ruins everything for some reason stopping me from trying more extreme negative Curve Optimizer values.


----------



## gerardfraser

l


----------



## elmor

Alexshunter said:


> Is it possible i do manual overclock at 4600MHz with 1.25V +I use this curve optimizer for single core boost? Like the Asus DOS?


It's possible with Asus DOS, not otherwise right now.



Dreamic said:


> I don't think anything you said has anything to do with anything I said. I'm talking about this:
> 
> I posted an image of my BIOS settings and HWinfo during a CineBench run trying +50 mV Offset. I already figured everything else out and have Curve Optimizer running fine on CPU Core Voltage [Auto], that's the good CineBench score I posted. It's [Offset Mode] that ruins everything for some reason stopping me from trying more extreme negative Curve Optimizer values.


As your BIOS screenshot shows should be correct. It looks like Core Performance Boost is disabled as you're stuck at the base frequency 3.8 GHz. Probably the bios sets that automatically when manually changing the voltage. I'm not sure where the option is in the MSI BIOS, possibly under AMD CBS?


----------



## DeletedMember558271

elmor said:


> As your BIOS screenshot shows should be correct. It looks like Core Performance Boost is disabled as you're stuck at the base frequency 3.8 GHz. Probably the bios sets that automatically when manually changing the voltage. I'm not sure where the option is in the MSI BIOS, possibly under AMD CBS?


Yea and voltage is just 1.150 V with Offset +50 mV, CBS has only two options Disabled or Auto and it's on Auto. It seems like MSI or just my board doesn't have this functionality? Switching CPU Core Voltage off Auto seems to disable all the AMD dynamic goodness, if anyone else with MSI or B550 Tomahawk has got it working I'd like to know. Maybe this is something future BIOS will address, hopefully.


----------



## elmor

Dreamic said:


> Yea and voltage is just 1.150 V with Offset +50 mV, CBS has only two options Disabled or Auto and it's on Auto. It seems like MSI or just my board doesn't have this functionality? Switching CPU Core Voltage off Auto seems to disable all the AMD dynamic goodness, if anyone else with MSI or B550 Tomahawk has got it working I'd like to know. Maybe this is something future BIOS will address, hopefully.


For testing at least, you may be able to use this tool to re-enable CPB in the OS: *ZenStates*


----------



## DeletedMember558271

elmor said:


> For testing at least, you may be able to use this tool to re-enable CPB in the OS: ZenStates


Unsupported CPU it says. New BIOS for B550 Tomahawk today too, but it doesn't change anything. Oh well, -10 All Core it is I guess, -15 isn't completely stable


----------



## BluePaint

Dreamic said:


> Unsupported CPU it says. New BIOS for B550 Tomahawk today too, but it doesn't change anything. Oh well, -10 All Core it is I guess, -15 isn't completely stable


Try -10 for two best cores (they have a special icon in Ryzen Master) and -20 or -25 for all other cores, with +100 for max clock.

That's what gives my CPU the best mix between single- (4950) and all core boost (up to 4750 if temps < 80 celsius allow). For quick testing use CB in single (for single core boost) or normal mode (all core test).

If it crashes in single core load, up voltage for two best cores curve to -5 or lower max clock to +50. If it crashes in all core, raise voltage for all other cores to -20 or -15 or, ...

Here are my results with +100, -10, -25 (4950 SC, up to 4750 MC, typical 4650MC):


----------



## schoenzy

Dreamic said:


> Yea and voltage is just 1.150 V with Offset +50 mV, CBS has only two options Disabled or Auto and it's on Auto. It seems like MSI or just my board doesn't have this functionality? Switching CPU Core Voltage off Auto seems to disable all the AMD dynamic goodness, if anyone else with MSI or B550 Tomahawk has got it working I'd like to know. Maybe this is something future BIOS will address, hopefully.


I'm seeing the same thing when I try offset. If you figure it out, please do let us know. I'm wondering if it has anything to do with the fact you can set overclock settings in 2 parts of the BIOS - in both settings > advanced > AMD overclocking and the OC section. These areas also have different settings.. for instance, curve optimizer is not in the OC section, but in AMD overclocking. Voltage offset mode is in OC section, but you can only set a fixed custom in AMD overclocking

edit: It seems to be a bug that's been around for a while





MSI Global English Forum


...




forum-en.msi.com


----------



## Mullcom

schoenzy said:


> I'm seeing the same thing when I try offset. If you figure it out, please do let us know. I'm wondering if it has anything to do with the fact you can set overclock settings in 2 parts of the BIOS - in both settings > advanced > AMD overclocking and the OC section. These areas also have different settings.. for instance, curve optimizer is not in the OC section, but in AMD overclocking. Voltage offset mode is in OC section, but you can only set a fixed custom in AMD overclocking
> 
> edit: It seems to be a bug that's been around for a while
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MSI Global English Forum
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forum-en.msi.com


Technically it can be up to 4 or maybe 5 Places of a specific setting.

But I think it is AMD fault. Amd deliver base code to the manufacturers that they are forbidden to touch. 

Skickat från min SM-G973F via Tapatalk


----------



## schoenzy

Mullcom said:


> Technically it can be up to 4 or maybe 5 Places of a specific setting.
> 
> But I think it is AMD fault. Amd deliver base code to the manufacturers that they are forbidden to touch.
> 
> Skickat från min SM-G973F via Tapatalk


Does every manufacturer have a voltage offset issue though? It seems to be a MSI thing. Auto vcore + Voltage offset enabled seems to disable CPB with our boards


----------



## Mullcom

schoenzy said:


> Does every manufacturer have a voltage offset issue though? It seems to be a MSI thing. Auto vcore + Voltage offset enabled seems to disable CPB with our boards


No idea.

I know for sure every manufacturer has some sorts of problems more or less. 

I hope for they realize that is important to working and maintain there AMD bords a longer time now. Because user are not going to replace the bords as they did before.

This going to be a manufacturer battle. Who can maintain and have best bios for there all users. Going to win and get upper hand.

Skickat från min SM-G973F via Tapatalk


----------



## qwrty

Just received my 5950X yesterday and play a little bit around before bed time 

My system:
3*360*55mm rads
Waterblock CPU is the TechN one. 
Ambiant was arrond 20 degrees. 
Did not note my water temp, sorry, but around 24 degrees I guess. 

I just enable PBO and set my ram sticks to 3600 16-16-16-36-1T, nothing else. 
Bandwidth was(RWC): 55900/54643/52774/57,8ns)

R20 Multi: 11263
Max temps: 70 degrees 
All cores boosted to 4,4ghz (200watts)

R20 Single: 625
Max temps: 56 degrees
2 cores boost ~5,050ghz. 
During the run, it stay ~4,920ghz. 

As my temps are good, I have a good OC headroom. 

Voltage bump to 1.48/1.49v on each cores when running multithreaded workload to keep 4,4ghz, I will have to play with PBO settings to lower this, which seems very high to me. 
And I have to tune my ram sticks too. 

And just to let you know, my old friend 10980xe scored around 11000 in R20, but it was OC @4,8ghz and pull 400 watts ^^

Anyway, this CPU is amazing.


----------



## KedarWolf

qwrty said:


> Just received my 5950X yesterday and play a little bit around before bed time
> 
> My system:
> 3*360*55mm rads
> Waterblock CPU is the TechN one.
> Ambiant was arrond 20 degrees.
> Did not note my water temp, sorry, but around 24 degrees I guess.
> 
> I just enable PBO and set my ram sticks to 3600 16-16-16-36-1T, nothing else.
> Bandwidth was(RWC): 55900/54643/52774/57,8ns)
> 
> R20 Multi: 11263
> Max temps: 70 degrees
> All cores boosted to 4,4ghz (200watts)
> 
> R20 Single: 625
> Max temps: 56 degrees
> 2 cores boost ~5,050ghz.
> During the run, it stay ~4,920ghz.
> 
> As my temps are good, I have a good OC headroom.
> 
> Voltage bump to 1.48/1.49v on each cores when running multithreaded workload to keep 4,4ghz, I will have to play with PBO settings to lower this, which seems very high to me.
> And I have to tune my ram sticks too.
> 
> And just to let you know, my old friend 10980xe scored around 11000 in R20, but it was OC @4,8ghz and pull 400 watts ^^
> 
> Anyway, this CPU is amazing.


Try the Curve Optimizer, much better than PBO, might need a BIOS update though.


----------



## qwrty

My BIOS is up to date (1.1.0.0 Patch C from Asus)
(X570-E board)

I definitely will try if I have the option in BIOS. 

I also tried to enable Fmax enhancer in BiOs, but with it active, it perform less in Multi thread, in description, it says, that could be allowed better mono thread OC, but it affect multithreaded boost in fact (I’m new to AMD, so maybe I do something wrong)

I have to do more tests this afternoon.


----------



## qwrty

I lost at silicon.
My IMC don’t want anything higher than 1800FCLK. I can’t even POST...
Edit: at least "Out of the Box", maybe with more tweaking)


----------



## schoenzy

KedarWolf said:


> Try the Curve Optimizer, much better than PBO, might need a BIOS update though.


curve optimizer is part of PBO, so it's neither or PBO only or PBO + curve optimizer


----------



## qwrty

After some little tunning:



I would like to keep PBO enable, but reduce voltage, in heavy load (R20 for example), the CPU is asking 1,5v which is too much right ?
(As my cooling is very good, the CPU use this headroom I guess)

Or can I make it boost higher ?

Temps are good, 70 degrees in R20.

How can I do that with ASUS BIOS ?


----------



## Mullcom

qwrty said:


> After some little tunning:
> 
> 
> 
> I would like to keep PBO enable, but reduce voltage, in heavy load (R20 for example), the CPU is asking 1,5v which is too much right ?
> (As my cooling is very good, the CPU use this headroom I guess)
> Temps are good, 70 degrees in R20.
> 
> How can I do that with ASUS BIOS ?


Have any of you experience bios freeze in bios ?

I have start to get this with the latest bios.

And look at this. Buggy???

Don't blame me about the quality now with a camera photo. I can't no longer take omg to my usb lol.









Skickat från min SM-G973F via Tapatalk


----------



## qwrty

Yes, it freeze when settings arent stable (I encounter one freeze when I set too much agressive timing, it could POST, but not stable more than few sec in BIOS => Freeze, have to clear CMOS)
Otherwise no issue so far.


----------



## Mullcom

qwrty said:


> Yes, it freeze when settings arent stable (I encounter one freeze when I set too much agressive timing, it could POST, but not stable more than few sec in BIOS => Freeze, have to clear CMOS)
> Otherwise no issue so far.


It only freeze in bios menu. When I jumping around to check things. No issue in windows. I have safe timings on men's and cpu is stock .

Skickat från min SM-G973F via Tapatalk


----------



## qwrty

When Curve optimizer will be available on ASUS Bios ?
I guess I need this...

I can't find in BIOS (X570 Strix E)


----------



## Banko

So I have the Asus Crosshair VIII Hero Wifi, and I was actually playing around wit the curve optimizer before I found this post. I came to same conclusions but I'm also wondering how a +50 mV voltage offset was applied. (Or is this currently only available on the Hero Dark?) If I try to manually offset the voltage it doesn't really work.

I'm almost stable at -20 on all cores on a 5800x and I just need a little voltage bump.


----------



## qwrty

Where did you find the curve optimizer in the bios ?

Can’t find it in the X570 Strix E 

Thank you 

Edit: should be exposed in AMD/OC/PBO/Advanced. 

But no chance... guess I should wait a bios update...


----------



## Banko

qwrty said:


> Where did you find the curve optimizer in the bios ?
> 
> Can’t find it in the X570 Strix E
> 
> Thank you
> 
> Edit: should be exposed in AMD/OC/PBO/Advanced.
> 
> But no chance... guess I should wait a bios update...


No idea if it's in the updated bios for the Strix but it should be here:

Advanced/AMD Overclocking/Precision Boost Override/Curve Optimizer

Note that in the Advanced/AMD Overclocking/Precision Boost Override screen you have to set Precision Boost to Advanced first.


----------



## Banko

Okay I figured out how to do a voltage offset along with the Curve Optimizer on the Crosshair VIII Hero (WiFi).

First I downloaded the bios here *ASUS ROG X570 Crosshair VIII Overclocking &amp...* (I don't actually know if this is necessary since I only started the experiment after I went to this bios)

Second I noticed when I was applying a voltage offset with a positive sign and say 50mv (+0.0500) the voltage would go down in AMD Ryzen Master so I thought it was still broken.

However I figured let's trying applying the voltage offset with a negative sign (-0.0500). To my surprise the clocks and everything stayed the same but a voltage offset was applied, and it went up in Ryzen Master.

However even though the voltage went up the clocks went down because I'm pretty sure the curve is taking your voltage offset into account so I had to go even lower on the negative offset for the curve. So I went from -20 to -30.

I don't know if this will also apply to the MSI motherboard people have posted in this thread but give it a try.

My guess is there is just bugs in the bios where if you set the Curve Optimizer Negative to gain clocks, it just multiplies the voltage calculation by -1 all the time. So if you set it to -1 you'll end up adding voltage!

This did allow me to reach a stable overclock so far I've hit 4.7 on all cores while running Cinebench r20.


----------



## qwrty

Banko said:


> Note that in the Advanced/AMD Overclocking/Precision Boost Override screen you have to set Precision Boost to Advanced first.


That’s maybe what I’m doing wrong, will try, thank you. 

And thanks for your feedback about Curve Optimizer, very instructive 

Edit: no chance, we have to wait a bios update I guess...


----------



## jomama22

There must be a limit or somthing to how low of voltage the curve will actually chop from the output voltage or there is some odd relationship between all the cores and their voltages.

Using a 5950x, I can get my two best cores to boost to 5125 using -10/-20 on the curve. From that point I can set all other 14 cores to literally any negative value and will be stuck at 1.29-1.31v on load. Does not matter their negative voltage on the curve.

This gets me a 4725 clock, but the effective clock for ccd0 is 4725 while ccd1 will have an effective near 4675-4713. This is with temps staying below 75 for ccd0 and 70 for ccd1.

Some strange behavior going on for sure. I also found that I'll get better scores in cinabench using an edc of 200-205 than 206+.

With I could try setting a negative offset...or just have a higher edc that worked properly...

Edit: Doing further testing, edc is definitely a killer on the 5950x, at least. I'm not sure if it boils down to the specific motherboards limits or AMDs built in agesa limits (I have a msi ace for reference) but the performance limit seems to be 200-210 for an edc setting (where "motherboard" setting for power is used, I am given a 215 edc limit). Going above that will see a regression in clocks/scoring.

Looking at the total cpu power (in watts) in ryzen master while benching will give you a good indication of what edc value is actually giving you the most power (and obviously the score you attain from the bench).

It should also be noted that your volaltage values for vddg settings (CCD and iod) do have an effect on the total power that it will allow the cpu to pull. It's not huge, but moving from 1.05v CCD and iod to 1.0v saw an increase of about 5-7w for me and a score increase of about 30-50pts(r20 all core) with higher effective clocks.

For 5900x/5950x users, you should pay attention to the effective clocks of each ccd in hwinfo when testing. For me, there is a clear difference between two ccds. In r20, this isn't very noticeable, but running p95 (small fft is best) you will see a considerable difference in effective clock speeds between the two dies. We are for sure dealing with the same concept as last gen where we get one fantastic die and one mediocre die.

My suggestion at this point is to really get the your two best cores on your ccd0 dialed in with the curve using negative voltages and the increase in max frequency setting in pbo. Then for the other 14 cores, just start dropping the curve values until you hit a wall where you stop gaining clock speed/performance from doing so.

I'm going to do some testing with llc and see what comes of it, though I don't expect much, if any, change.

I really wish edc limits could actually be increased, that we could adjust per core frequency and that we could set the frequency at given voltage bins (like the curve for Nvidia gpu's) or even just a shift in frequency values compared to the voltage bins (ie, frequency offsetting). That would really give use much better overclock a while maintaining single core boost.

For reference, my chip will for 4.9ghz @ 1.34 stable when doing manual overclocking.


----------



## schoenzy

jomama22 said:


> There must be a limit or somthing to how low of voltage the curve will actually chop from the output voltage or there is some odd relationship between all the cores and their voltages.
> 
> Using a 5950x, I can get my two best cores to boost to 5125 using -10/-20 on the curve. From that point I can set all other 14 cores to literally any negative value and will be stuck at 1.29-1.31v on load. Does not matter their negative voltage on the curve.
> 
> This gets me a 4725 clock, but the effective clock for ccd0 is 4725 while ccd1 will have an effective near 4675-4713. This is with temps staying below 75 for ccd0 and 70 for ccd1.
> 
> Some strange behavior going on for sure. I also found that I'll get better scores in cinabench using an edc of 200-205 than 206+.
> 
> With I could try setting a negative offset...or just have a higher edc that worked properly...
> 
> Edit: Doing further testing, edc is definitely a killer on the 5950x, at least. I'm not sure if it boils down to the specific motherboards limits or AMDs built in agesa limits (I have a msi ace for reference) but the performance limit seems to be 200-210 for an edc setting (where "motherboard" setting for power is used, I am given a 215 edc limit). Going above that will see a regression in clocks/scoring.
> 
> Looking at the total cpu power (in watts) in ryzen master while benching will give you a good indication of what edc value is actually giving you the most power (and obviously the score you attain from the bench).
> 
> It should also be noted that your volaltage values for vddg settings (CCD and iod) do have an effect on the total power that it will allow the cpu to pull. It's not huge, but moving from 1.05v CCD and iod to 1.0v saw an increase of about 5-7w for me and a score increase of about 30-50pts(r20 all core) with higher effective clocks.
> 
> For 5900x/5950x users, you should pay attention to the effective clocks of each ccd in hwinfo when testing. For me, there is a clear difference between two ccds. In r20, this isn't very noticeable, but running p95 (small fft is best) you will see a considerable difference in effective clock speeds between the two dies. We are for sure dealing with the same concept as last gen where we get one fantastic die and one mediocre die.
> 
> My suggestion at this point is to really get the your two best cores on your ccd0 dialed in with the curve using negative voltages and the increase in max frequency setting in pbo. Then for the other 14 cores, just start dropping the curve values until you hit a wall where you stop gaining clock speed/performance from doing so.
> 
> I'm going to do some testing with llc and see what comes of it, though I don't expect much, if any, change.
> 
> I really wish edc limits could actually be increased, that we could adjust per core frequency and that we could set the frequency at given voltage bins (like the curve for Nvidia gpu's) or even just a shift in frequency values compared to the voltage bins (ie, frequency offsetting). That would really give use much better overclock a while maintaining single core boost.
> 
> For reference, my chip will for 4.9ghz @ 1.34 stable when doing manual overclocking.


Damn dude, nice work! Setting EDC to 205 on my 5800x gave me 65 higher score in MT on CB R20. Weirdly, though, it lowered my cpu-z all core score, so honestly I don't know which is better for real-world perf

Interestingly, changing CCD and IOD from 1.05 to 1.0 with EDC 205 lowered my score by about 20 points from the EDC 205 only score despite indeed raising my effective clocks. I hit 90C though so I think temps ended up lowing my score. What are you using for scalar?

*Auto PBO limits, 1.05v CCD/IOD*

R20 SC: 638
R20 MC: 6034

cpu-z SC: 669
cpu-z MC: 6756
*AMD Ryzen 7 5800X @ 4623.92 MHz - CPU-Z VALIDATOR*

*EDC 205, 1.05v CCD/IOD*
- higher CB temps and effective clocks, yet lower cpu-z temps and effective clocks 

R20 SC: 638
R20 MC: 6091

cpu-z SC: 669
cpu-z MC: 6689








AMD Ryzen 7 5800X @ 4598.93 MHz - CPU-Z VALIDATOR


[revj1j] Validated Dump by DESKTOP-1J13971 (2020-11-20 19:53:32) - MB: MSI MAG X570 TOMAHAWK WIFI (MS-7C84) - RAM: 16384 MB




valid.x86.fr





*EDC 205, 1.0v CCD/IOD*

R20 SC: 638
R20 MC: 6070


----------



## jomama22

schoenzy said:


> Damn dude, nice work! Setting EDC to 205 on my 5800x gave me 65 higher score in MT on CB R20. Weirdly, though, it lowered my cpu-z all core score, so honestly I don't know which is better for real-world perf
> 
> Interestingly, changing CCD and IOD from 1.05 to 1.0 with EDC 205 lowered my score by about 20 points from the EDC 205 only score despite indeed raising my effective clocks. I hit 90C though so I think temps ended up lowing my score. What are you using for scalar?
> 
> *Auto PBO limits, 1.05v CCD/IOD*
> 
> R20 SC: 638
> R20 MC: 6034
> 
> cpu-z SC: 669
> cpu-z MC: 6756
> AMD Ryzen 7 5800X @ 4623.92 MHz - CPU-Z VALIDATOR
> 
> *EDC 205, 1.05v CCD/IOD*
> - higher CB temps and effective clocks, yet lower cpu-z temps and effective clocks
> 
> R20 SC: 638
> R20 MC: 6091
> 
> cpu-z SC: 669
> cpu-z MC: 6689
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AMD Ryzen 7 5800X @ 4598.93 MHz - CPU-Z VALIDATOR
> 
> 
> [revj1j] Validated Dump by DESKTOP-1J13971 (2020-11-20 19:53:32) - MB: MSI MAG X570 TOMAHAWK WIFI (MS-7C84) - RAM: 16384 MB
> 
> 
> 
> 
> valid.x86.fr
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *EDC 205, 1.0v CCD/IOD*
> 
> R20 SC: 638
> R20 MC: 6070


After lowering your iod/cc'd, try increasing the edc to 210. Did that today while messing around and did have a higher score then before, if only slightly.

I don't use any scalar with my pbo as it seemed to always have a negative affect on the score. It may be useful to try for single core benches though as I haven't gone down that path yet.

Messing with llc did actually help me a bit. On my msi, moving down to LLC 5 helped keep the effective clocks higher overall on multi thread but didn't have much of an affect on single.

Atm my r20 scores are:
ST: 661
MT: 12309
PBO: 500 240 210 for limits
Scalar: 0x
Max freq: 75mhz
Curve: -15/-20 (best core/second best core (the ones windows uses))
-80 for all other cores
LLC: mode 5

Running 4.7 manually does give you higher scores in multi for sure. I get 12513 doing it this way with voltage set to 1.3v, so there is a bit more going on behind the scenes than what we can see.

Highest score I have gotten overall is at 4.9ghz = 12674 MT.

I'll give some runs of cpuz a try and see what they say.

Btw, I'm running a custom loop with 2x360 HW gtx in push/pull just for the cpu, so temps for me havnt been bad. I can run the pbo stuff all day and stay under 76* on ccd0 and under 71* on ccd1(but that's a bit lame since pbo will downclock/undervolt severely for prime 95 and such). Running 4.825ghz @1.32v nets me about 88* ccd0 and 84* ccd1 in prime95 smallest fft, 93*/88* on small fft. 4.9 just explodes in p95 lol


----------



## schoenzy

jomama22 said:


> After lowering your iod/cc'd, try increasing the edc to 210. Did that today while messing around and did have a higher score then before, if only slightly.
> 
> I don't use any scalar with my pbo as it seemed to always have a negative affect on the score. It may be useful to try for single core benches though as I haven't gone down that path yet.
> 
> Messing with llc did actually help me a bit. On my msi, moving down to LLC 5 helped keep the effective clocks higher overall on multi thread but didn't have much of an affect on single.
> 
> Atm my r20 scores are:
> ST: 661
> MT: 12309
> PBO: 500 240 210 for limits
> Scalar: 0x
> Max freq: 75mhz
> Curve: -15/-20 (best core/second best core (the ones windows uses))
> -80 for all other cores
> LLC: mode 5
> 
> Running 4.7 manually does give you higher scores in multi for sure. I get 12513 doing it this way with voltage set to 1.3v, so there is a bit more going on behind the scenes than what we can see.
> 
> Highest score I have gotten overall is at 4.9ghz = 12674 MT.
> 
> I'll give some runs of cpuz a try and see what they say.
> 
> Btw, I'm running a custom loop with 2x360 HW gtx in push/pull just for the cpu, so temps for me havnt been bad. I can run the pbo stuff all day and stay under 76* on ccd0 and under 71* on ccd1(but that's a bit lame since pbo will downclock/undervolt severely for prime 95 and such). Running 4.825ghz @1.32v nets me about 88* ccd0 and 84* ccd1 in prime95 smallest fft, 93*/88* on small fft. 4.9 just explodes in p95 lol


Thanks man, I'll give it a go. On mine anything more (negative) than -5 in curve optimizer crashes. I'll try out EDC 210 with the CCD/IOD voltage change now..


----------



## DeletedMember558271

As an update to not being able to use Offset Voltage on MSI motherboards...

*"CPU Frequency Cannot Go Turbo Frequency
Note. This issue should be common issue on all motherboard vendor*
This issue happens when using Ryzen 5000 CPU + PBO enable + adjust CPU voltage
*Symptom: CPU frequency locks at base frequency and will not boost to turbo
Solution: No ETA"*

So MSI doesn't think it's their problem and think it doesn't work on other vendors when it does. Promising 





MSI Global English Forum


...




forum-en.msi.com


----------



## schoenzy

Dreamic said:


> As an update to not being able to use Offset Voltage on MSI motherboards...
> 
> *"CPU Frequency Cannot Go Turbo Frequency
> Note. This issue should be common issue on all motherboard vendor*
> This issue happens when using Ryzen 5000 CPU + PBO enable + adjust CPU voltage
> *Symptom: CPU frequency locks at base frequency and will not boost to turbo
> Solution: No ETA"*
> 
> So MSI doesn't think it's their problem and think it doesn't work on other vendors when it does. Promising
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MSI Global English Forum
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forum-en.msi.com


Thanks for the update. Doesn't sound good but at this point I'm like meh. Stable with -5 curve and +175MHz boost so I'm happy enough. Before this launched I didn't expect it to boost to 5GHz, but was optimistic it might. Impressive enough that it goes beyond that with minimal changes.


----------



## xSneak

Dreamic said:


> As an update to not being able to use Offset Voltage on MSI motherboards...
> 
> *"CPU Frequency Cannot Go Turbo Frequency
> Note. This issue should be common issue on all motherboard vendor*
> This issue happens when using Ryzen 5000 CPU + PBO enable + adjust CPU voltage
> *Symptom: CPU frequency locks at base frequency and will not boost to turbo
> Solution: No ETA"*
> 
> So MSI doesn't think it's their problem and think it doesn't work on other vendors when it does. Promising
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MSI Global English Forum
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forum-en.msi.com


I'm having the same problem. lol guess we're going to have to wait until december to get a working bios.


----------



## Anvi

Dreamic said:


> Noob question but how did you add the voltage offset of +50 mV? These are my settings but as you can see it's way too low and keeps the clock at 3800mhz. I watched a Buildzoid video and changed the exact same settings he did except he went with a negative sign for undervolting, which also doesn't work the same for me and is way lower.
> View attachment 2465538
> View attachment 2465539
> 
> With everything on Auto I get good results but can't push further negative values without increasing the voltage.
> View attachment 2465540


I'm having same difficulties on my MSI MAG X570 Tomahawk bios 1.51.
Setting any kind of voltage offset absolutely demolishes performance by CPU not boosting properly.

-15 to -25 CPU curve optimizer doesn't seem to be stable without CPU offset voltage.
Currently I'm trying with high LLC settings, but doesn't seem to provide any meaningful performance increase.

Despite seeing high praises for this motherboard on some Youtube channels, IMO this board cannot be currently recommended for Ryzen 5000 series.
Experience so far has been abhorrent.


----------



## schoenzy

Anvi said:


> I'm having same difficulties on my MSI MAG X570 Tomahawk bios 1.51.
> Setting any kind of voltage offset absolutely demolishes performance by CPU not boosting properly.
> 
> -15 to -25 CPU curve optimizer doesn't seem to be stable without CPU offset voltage.
> Currently I'm trying with high LLC settings, but doesn't seem to provide any meaningful performance increase.
> 
> Despite seeing high praises for this motherboard on some Youtube channels, IMO this board cannot be currently recommended for Ryzen 5000 series.
> Experience so far has been abhorrent.


You'll see in the thread voltage offset on MSI boards is broken at the moment. -15 to -25 should be pretty much expected not to be stable without voltage offset based on most people's experience, and that really has nothing to do with the motherboard, but the CPU. Most who lack the ability to do voltage offset have found -5 all cores to be stable and allow for a noticeable increase in all cores' ability to hit higher frequencies.

It's a brand new CPU that comes with new features, there will be growing pains. You're right that reviews have praised the board, particularly for how strong the VRM is, and that remains true. You still got the VRM that belongs on boards twice the price. Other companies don't have the curve optimizer at all right now. It seems some of the higher end asus boards are not having either of those issues, so if you're looking to return what you got maybe look there, but things should improve in the coming months.


----------



## jomama22

Lets be clear about offsetting the voltage, all you are doing is raising the entire floor for every single core, pretty much defeating the purpose of doing negative offsets anyway. You're better off just finding the core(s) that arent playing nice and reducing the amount of negative voltage you are putting in the curve. Its a balancing act.

Also keep in mind that doing offset voltage will eat into the pbo budget (specifically edc) and you will get lower overall clocks. Doing it manually per core and finding the sweetspot for each one will result in better overall performance.

Its interesting that amd released the slide deck on this today and it seems what I stated before about there being a limit to the lowest possible offset rings true. For me, that was around negative 70 (the value entered in). Anything below that didnt do anything at all.

What I said last page also holds true. Tune your best 2 cores first to maximize their single core boost freq (just do runs of r20 single core and observe your core frequency in ryzen master to see what you actual effective clock speed is and hwinfo does not update fast/accurate enough to make it reliable in what the clocks are actually doing) and comnpare them with the score you get in r20). This will probably be around -20 - -5 for each of those two cores as pbo needs the voltage for the higher end (but does eat into your overall clock as there are per core currant/power limits).

Next, drop all of your other cores that are NOT the two best cores windows uses (can view this in ryzen master as well). I'm sure many people could drop all of these other cores to -20 - -70 without much issue. The reason being is that these cores are never running a heavy single core load. Those loads will always be shoved to your two best cores because...windows.

Just keep running r20 all core loads and turning down the remaining cores. For me, i hit the negative wall on all 14 remaining cores on my 5950x. I literally have 14/16 cores set to negative 160 because it lets me lol, not that it does anything different that what negative 70 does,
My two best are set to negative 10 and negative 20, which nets me a max effective freq of 5120 (5150 set) for single core and ~ 4.725ghz all core.

Results:


----------



## mongoled

Re HWInfo64, does changing the update timer settings not help ??


----------



## jomama22

mongoled said:


> Re HWInfo64, does changing the update timer settings not help ??


It's seems more reliable to watch it in ryzen master I have found. Could try cranking up (down) the update rate in hwinfo but I found it doesn't help much in the single core testing.


----------



## berethon

gerardfraser said:


> Well PBO boost I seen at up to 5200Mhz short burst , with the 5800X I notice core 5 topping out at 5050Mhz so I just set negative 15 for all cores but core 5 and set that negative 5.
> 
> Now changing values on cores positive/negative can cause no boot and crash for sure. I made about 5hrs-6hrs of playing different games at up to 5050Mhz boost and have not notice stability issues. Just a trial and error thing as you know.


Latest gigabyte bios update now has this fuction enabled. I tried few hours but its not stable. How you find out which cores need to be lower?
I tired -15 all cores didnt load windows. -10 all and it worked once even did cinebences then reboot and not stable anymore.
I have 2 cores that boost over 5Ghz (the best ones) if i set just +200 PBO and disable curve optimizer all works fine. I should lower those best cores to negative 5 then?

I have 5800x. 
Maybe i should change few bios option.

Start with PBO +75Mhz and then negative -10 best 2 cores rest -70 ??
My IOD CCD are both 1.05v
Currently my LLC for cpu is sest to high.


----------



## qwrty

PBO2 and Curve Optimizer explaned by Robert: What’s New with Precision Boost Overdrive 2 - YouTube


----------



## gerardfraser

I used PBO enhanced mode MSI Motherboard with HWinfo64 to check how my cores boosted.Some will use Ryzen Master. I made the post 14 days ago I am still testing. With BIOS/Agesa up date in December there will be new features added. 
Simple as I said in post you quoted,I set something and tested. It is overclocking and I personally will not be satisfied until 100% stable and I think another two weeks of testing I will have a answer for myself. 
I say keep trying if it gets to frustrating there is nothing the matter with default setting on 5800X.


----------



## schoenzy

gerardfraser said:


> I used PBO enhanced mode MSI Motherboard with HWinfo64 to check how my cores boosted.Some will use Ryzen Master. I made the post 14 days ago I am still testing. With BIOS/Agesa up date in December there will be new features added.
> Simple as I said in post you quoted,I set something and tested. It is overclocking and I personally will not be satisfied until 100% stable and I think another two weeks of testing I will have a answer for myself.
> I say keep trying if it gets to frustrating there is nothing the matter with default setting on 5800X.


Hey Gerard, I'm still stable on -5 all core +175MHz - have you messed with LLC at all? I have mine on auto.. wondering if changing that will get me up to +200MHz stable


----------



## gerardfraser

No I have not touched LLC at all yet,but I know all the drops on the voltage when I do. I feel with the new tools in BIOS/Agesa 1.1.8.0 release in December AMD Adaptive Undervolting may not to bother at all. I am still happy with performance as is and I like seeing 5000Mhz plus gaming.


----------



## BluePaint

-20, -70 is too aggressive for most CPUs imho, especially 5600X/5800X since they are not binned like 5900X/5950X.
I also think that the values are clipped at -30 (or maybe -50). So it will not use any lower values.

My starting recommendation is -5 (2 best cores), -10 (other cores), +100Mhz max boost. LLC auto should be fine.
On my 5800X with decent cooling (AIO 360) this gives 4950 single core boost and 4600Mhz all core depending on load/temperatures.

From there u can test lower steps (e.g. -8/-15, -10/-20, ...). If you want higher single core boost, raise max boost. With higher max boost it's usually necessary to use less aggressive voltage reduction which will lower all-core boost/performance. It could also be that there is a weak core which doesn't like the high max boost and will cause sporadic crashes with high max boost. 

On my CPU, I found core 3 to be causing crashes @5000+ Mhz while all others were still stable, using CB 23 single core test + task manager affinity. I also found the CPU test of TimeSpy extreme a pretty good stability test (it crashed unstable configurations reliably when CB20 was still stable). 

My current values are +150Mhz boost, -10/-20 and LLC 6 which results in 5000 SC and about 4700MC.


----------



## berethon

Yeah going low negative seems to be case for stable if going +200 and trying highest single core. I got stable for now going -10 for 2 best cores and -20 for 2 worst cores. Other cores i set 15.
HWinfo shows 3 best cores going to 5040Mhz and rest are 4915-4990 range. All core boost is around 4540Mhz Since i dont need all core most times its fine as long single cores going high for gaming.
Temps are below 80c with AIO on silent fans (50%) when doing allcore cinebench. In gaming its around 58-67c

Have to wait new agesa release see if it can do bit better but i doubt.


----------



## goondam

anyone try their curve optimized pbo settings with p95 test??


----------



## jomama22

goondam said:


> anyone try their curve optimized pbo settings with p95 test??


Yeah, it will just downclock/downvolt you as pbo normally would when it's used. Isn't going to act like a manual overclock and stay at your set volts/clocks. I think mine went down to 4.3-4.45 mhz @ 1.12v and just bounced around there when running small fft


----------



## pantsoftime

Anyone here doing curve optimizer on CH8? I can't get it to work even with super conservative settings. I've got a 5950x and +25MHz with -5 won't even load the OS even with positive voltage offset. I'm guessing that there's a toggle that I'm missing. Chip overclocks well with standard PBO and also with CCD overclocking, so I don't think it's a weak CPU issue.


----------



## jomama22

pantsoftime said:


> Anyone here doing curve optimizer on CH8? I can't get it to work even with super conservative settings. I've got a 5950x and +25MHz with -5 won't even load the OS even with positive voltage offset. I'm guessing that there's a toggle that I'm missing. Chip overclocks well with standard PBO and also with CCD overclocking, so I don't think it's a weak CPU issue.


I would just ignore the max frequency clock at first and just try negative offsets first. That alone should give you a boost in clocks. 

There isn't anything special you should need to turn on other than pbo advanced and setting the pbo limits


----------



## qwrty

jomama22 said:


> Lets be clear about offsetting the voltage, all you are doing is raising the entire floor for every single core, pretty much defeating the purpose of doing negative offsets anyway. You're better off just finding the core(s) that arent playing nice and reducing the amount of negative voltage you are putting in the curve. Its a balancing act.
> 
> Also keep in mind that doing offset voltage will eat into the pbo budget (specifically edc) and you will get lower overall clocks. Doing it manually per core and finding the sweetspot for each one will result in better overall performance.
> 
> Its interesting that amd released the slide deck on this today and it seems what I stated before about there being a limit to the lowest possible offset rings true. For me, that was around negative 70 (the value entered in). Anything below that didnt do anything at all.
> 
> What I said last page also holds true. Tune your best 2 cores first to maximize their single core boost freq (just do runs of r20 single core and observe your core frequency in ryzen master to see what you actual effective clock speed is and hwinfo does not update fast/accurate enough to make it reliable in what the clocks are actually doing) and comnpare them with the score you get in r20). This will probably be around -20 - -5 for each of those two cores as pbo needs the voltage for the higher end (but does eat into your overall clock as there are per core currant/power limits).
> 
> Next, drop all of your other cores that are NOT the two best cores windows uses (can view this in ryzen master as well). I'm sure many people could drop all of these other cores to -20 - -70 without much issue. The reason being is that these cores are never running a heavy single core load. Those loads will always be shoved to your two best cores because...windows.
> 
> Just keep running r20 all core loads and turning down the remaining cores. For me, i hit the negative wall on all 14 remaining cores on my 5950x. I literally have 14/16 cores set to negative 160 because it lets me lol, not that it does anything different that what negative 70 does,
> My two best are set to negative 10 and negative 20, which nets me a max effective freq of 5120 (5150 set) for single core and ~ 4.725ghz all core.
> 
> Results:
> View attachment 2466457


Are you stable when system is idling ?
In my case too much negative count, makes my system unstable at idle (no issue at all in load)


----------



## jomama22

qwrty said:


> Are you stable when system is idling ?
> In my case too much negative count, makes my system unstable at idle (no issue at all in load)


Yeah, I haven't had any issues when idling. Computer will also go to sleep/hibernate just fine.


----------



## bmagnien

@qwrty @jomama any solution for the reset at idle issue? Aside from just not putting the curve too low?


----------



## berger0

I am a little confused on how the curve optimizer works. My impressions are that you want to give your preferred cores more of an undervolt. To do so you assign positive or negative 'counts' to each individual core. Each count is said to represent 3-5mv. The AMD slides* said you could go to +/- 30 counts. However, I am able to assign greater than 30 counts to any/all cores. So I am not sure what a 'count' actually is.

I am running a 5900x. Ryzen Master designates my preferred cores as 2/5/8/9. So my thought is to set those cores at a greater negative count value than my others. 
Example: Preferred cores (2/5/8/9) set at -20 counts All other cores (0/1/3/4/6/7/10/11) set at -10 counts. I expect this to yield better results in benchmarks than setting my preferred cores at -10 counts and all others at -20 counts. 
In practice I am seeing better benchmark results when I set my preferred cores to -10, all others to -20
This does not make sense to me. What is really going on?

Settings in PBO:
PBO Limits: Motherboard
PBO Scalar: 10x
Max CPU Boost Override: 200
Curve optimizer: On

Motherboard: Gigabyte 570x Ultra on F31j bios. 
CPU 5900x
Ram: 4x8 running at 3866Mhz 14-15-14-14.

* = AMD Slides defining a count: AMD Unveils Precision Boost Overdrive 2 To Amp-Up Ryzen 5000 Performance Even Further Image Gallery


----------



## qwrty

bmagnien said:


> @qwrty @jomama any solution for the reset at idle issue? Aside from just not putting the curve too low?


Yes, it was a too much agressive count on the Curve Optimizer.

I finally have -4 on my two best core. And -14(or -13, dont remember) on the other. (5950x)

Since I reduced them, no more crash at idle.

In light tasks, like videos games, I have 6/7 cores boosting at 5050mhz and all the other between 4875mhz and 4975mhz. (R20 give me 640 in single thread)
And in heavy task I still have a good boost (~4,5ghz all cores in R20 for example ~ 11500 scoring)

PBO + Curve optimizer is the way too go, but don’t go too much with Curve Optimizer (which is undervolting)

Is there a way to bypass the Auto limit of EDC and TDC ?
Because if I manually changed it in BIOS, it won’t change when I checked with HWinfo. 
Looks like it’s the max value accepted when PBO is activated :/

My PBO set 395watts on PPT, so it’s fine for this value, I never go more than ~200 watts but I trigger the maximum value of EDC and TDC (160A and 190A)
As I have lot of headroom with my cooling to go higher, I would like too try higher value on it, but no chance. 

Any ideas ?


----------



## bmagnien

qwrty said:


> Yes, it was a too much agressive count on the Curve Optimizer.
> 
> I finally have -4 on my two best core. And -14(or -13, dont remember) on the other. (5950x)
> 
> Since I reduced them, no more crash at idle.
> 
> In light tasks, like videos games, I have 6/7 cores boosting at 5050mhz and all the other between 4875mhz and 4975mhz.
> 
> PBO + Curve optimizer is the way too go, but don’t go too much with Curve Optimizer (which is undervolting)


Perfect, I’ve been playing around with it for 2 days now, also with a 5950x. Having 16 cores to optimize for is taking a long time, I’ve split them into 5 groups: 2 best cores in ccd0, 2nd best two in ccd 0, all the rest in ccd0, 2 best in ccd 1, all the rest in ccd 1. In order those 5 groups go: -1, -5, -15, -5, -15. I think this is the max total under volt without crashing at idle. It’s been a crazy ride !


----------



## ManniX-ITA

berger0 said:


> I am a little confused on how the curve optimizer works. My impressions are that you want to give your preferred cores more of an undervolt. To do so you assign positive or negative 'counts' to each individual core. Each count is said to represent 3-5mv. The AMD slides* said you could go to +/- 30 counts. However, I am able to assign greater than 30 counts to any/all cores. So I am not sure what a 'count' actually is.
> 
> I am running a 5900x. Ryzen Master designates my preferred cores as 2/5/8/9. So my thought is to set those cores at a greater negative count value than my others.
> Example: Preferred cores (2/5/8/9) set at -20 counts All other cores (0/1/3/4/6/7/10/11) set at -10 counts. I expect this to yield better results in benchmarks than setting my preferred cores at -10 counts and all others at -20 counts.
> In practice I am seeing better benchmark results when I set my preferred cores to -10, all others to -20
> This does not make sense to me. What is really going on?
> 
> Settings in PBO:
> PBO Limits: Motherboard
> PBO Scalar: 10x
> Max CPU Boost Override: 200
> Curve optimizer: On
> 
> Motherboard: Gigabyte 570x Ultra on F31j bios.
> CPU 5900x
> Ram: 4x8 running at 3866Mhz 14-15-14-14.
> 
> * = AMD Slides defining a count: AMD Unveils Precision Boost Overdrive 2 To Amp-Up Ryzen 5000 Performance Even Further Image Gallery


I'll try to explain as easiest as possible.

As you said each count is 3-5mV; therefore 30 counts are between 90mV and 150mV delta above or below the voltage that PBO decides to apply to the single core.
Upon the quality of the core PBO will use more voltage for the best cores and less for the worse cores.
An high quality core can sustain more voltage and reach a higher frequency, reach a higher frequency with the same voltage or sustain a lower voltage while keeping a higher frequency.

Therefore it makes perfect sense that it works better if you reduce less the voltage for the best cores and more for the others.
You need to think about what is driving the algorithm; current and temperature, both locally and globally.
If the worse cores are pushed higher with voltage they'll gain very little but will generate much more heat and will need more current.
This will constraint locally the adjacent good cores and the whole CCD.
Globally they will reduce the budget for the whole CPU which will constraint the good cores boost; that's why AMD is suggesting also to bring down the whole 2nd CCD to boost the 1st one.

But then why reducing the voltage for the good cores is improving their performances?
There are a number or reasons; most important are the heat and the default curve settings.
The unbalance of voltage against the other cores will make more headroom for the good ones due to the lower heat.
PBO has a rough idea about the quality which means doesn't know exactly at which voltage/frequency the core is stable.
Upon a set of tests ran on the silicon it's programmed with a set of values that will work 99.9% of times; it's conservative to ensure as much as possible reliability.
But if you fine-tune it, based upon your specific setup, you can usually get same or higher frequency/IPC with less voltage.
If you put the right strain on the core, you'll get the best performances.
The default curve is a catch-all setting; it's working quite well on Zen3 looking at the results. That was not the case with Zen2...

Maybe you are wondering why it can't de done automatically without user intervention.
Sure, it could be done better, like everything.
But I think the curve optimizer is the best compromise.

First it's important to understand that PBO and all these algorithms behind are not _pre-emptive_ but _reactive_.
They have a set of parameters that are used to drive the CPU and they'll react to the changing conditions.
There's no memory (except a few things), there's no learning.

Then where's the bottleneck? Are they too stupid, too simple, not enough comprehensive?
Yes and no.

They are all the above but there are also reasons they are like that.
We are already talking about fairly complex algorithms that are reacting to thousands of sensors input with a 1ms granularity.

If you add more factors, variables, inputs, etc then the complexity will increase. Often by orders of magnitude.
You want to remember? You need storage.
You want to learn? You need an AI.
This is die space, quite a lot if you want to be really "smart".
And die space it's not only precious but for all this stuff will need power and add heat which will quickly overcome any advantage.

It's better to do simple things if you are not smart enough.
Manual tuning is more welcome; trying to do something so complex without being smart enough is always counter-productive.
And it's costing money and time to implement and maintain which is surely better spent somewhere else.

Simplicity in this case has also many benefits.
Imagine your have a not enough smart PBO that knows your cooling capacity and learns about it.
It's not going to drive the CPU above some thresholds.
But maybe you switch your AIO to an Extreme cooling profile.
The "not smart enough" PBO will need time to understand it's not just an open window.
Maybe will decide it is an open window and will keep your CPU running at lower frequencies...
A more simple and reactive algorithm will just drive the CPU higher in few ms due to the changing conditions.

Really hope I'll get my 5950x soon to join the party


----------



## berger0

ManniX-ITA said:


> I'll try to explain as easiest as possible.
> 
> As you said each count is 3-5mV; therefore 30 counts are between 90mV and 150mV delta above or below the voltage that PBO decides to apply to the single core.
> Upon the quality of the core PBO will use more voltage for the best cores and less for the worse cores.
> An high quality core can sustain more voltage and reach a higher frequency, reach a higher frequency with the same voltage or sustain a lower voltage while keeping a higher frequency.
> 
> Therefore it makes perfect sense that it works better if you reduce less the voltage for the best cores and more for the others.
> You need to think about what is driving the algorithm; current and temperature, both locally and globally.
> If the worse cores are pushed higher with voltage they'll gain very little but will generate much more heat and will need more current.
> This will constraint locally the adjacent good cores and the whole CCD.
> Globally they will reduce the budget for the whole CPU which will constraint the good cores boost; that's why AMD is suggesting also to bring down the whole 2nd CCD to boost the 1st one.
> 
> But then why reducing the voltage for the good cores is improving their performances?
> There are a number or reasons; most important are the heat and the default curve settings.
> The unbalance of voltage against the other cores will make more headroom for the good ones due to the lower heat.
> PBO has a rough idea about the quality which means doesn't know exactly at which voltage/frequency the core is stable.
> Upon a set of tests ran on the silicon it's programmed with a set of values that will work 99.9% of times; it's conservative to ensure as much as possible reliability.
> But if you fine-tune it, based upon your specific setup, you can usually get same or higher frequency/IPC with less voltage.
> If you put the right strain on the core, you'll get the best performances.
> The default curve is a catch-all setting; it's working quite well on Zen3 looking at the results. That was not the case with Zen2...
> 
> Maybe you are wondering why it can't de done automatically without user intervention.
> Sure, it could be done better, like everything.
> But I think the curve optimizer is the best compromise.
> 
> First it's important to understand that PBO and all these algorithms behind are not _pre-emptive_ but _reactive_.
> They have a set of parameters that are used to drive the CPU and they'll react to the changing conditions.
> There's no memory (except a few things), there's no learning.
> 
> Then where's the bottleneck? Are they too stupid, too simple, not enough comprehensive?
> Yes and no.
> 
> They are all the above but there are also reasons they are like that.
> We are already talking about fairly complex algorithms that are reacting to thousands of sensors input with a 1ms granularity.
> 
> If you add more factors, variables, inputs, etc then the complexity will increase. Often by orders of magnitude.
> You want to remember? You need storage.
> You want to learn? You need an AI.
> This is die space, quite a lot if you want to be really "smart".
> And die space it's not only precious but for all this stuff will need power and add heat which will quickly overcome any advantage.
> 
> It's better to do simple things if you are not smart enough.
> Manual tuning is more welcome; trying to do something so complex without being smart enough is always counter-productive.
> And it's costing money and time to implement and maintain which is surely better spent somewhere else.
> 
> Simplicity in this case has also many benefits.
> Imagine your have a not enough smart PBO that knows your cooling capacity and learns about it.
> It's not going to drive the CPU above some thresholds.
> But maybe you switch your AIO to an Extreme cooling profile.
> The "not smart enough" PBO will need time to understand it's not just an open window.
> Maybe will decide it is an open window and will keep your CPU running at lower frequencies...
> A more simple and reactive algorithm will just drive the CPU higher in few ms due to the changing conditions.
> 
> Really hope I'll get my 5950x soon to join the party


Thanks for the reply. I will continue to play around with the curve optimizer. When you get your chip, you could write a tutorial on best practices with the new features. Your explanation was easy to understand and has spurred me to learn more. I hope your day job involves you explaining technical things to non-technical people!


----------



## bmagnien

bmagnien said:


> Perfect, I’ve been playing around with it for 2 days now, also with a 5950x. Having 16 cores to optimize for is taking a long time, I’ve split them into 5 groups: 2 best cores in ccd0, 2nd best two in ccd 0, all the rest in ccd0, 2 best in ccd 1, all the rest in ccd 1. In order those 5 groups go: -1, -5, -15, -5, -15. I think this is the max total under volt without crashing at idle. It’s been a crazy ride !


Just in case it helps anyone else, I've most recently had stability success via the following strategy:
Used HWMonitor to view core perf#s and split into 8 groups of core pairs: 2 best in CCD0, 2nd best pair in CCD0, etc. And then 2 best in CCD 1, 2nd best pair in CCD1, etc.
For the 8 pairs, I set the following negative offsets in curve optimizer by core. Again, groups 1-4 are pairs in CCD0, 5-8 are pairs in CCD1:
1: -1
2: -5
3: -15
4: -20
5: -5
6: - 25
7: -35
8: -45


----------



## jomama22

qwrty said:


> Yes, it was a too much agressive count on the Curve Optimizer.
> 
> I finally have -4 on my two best core. And -14(or -13, dont remember) on the other. (5950x)
> 
> Since I reduced them, no more crash at idle.
> 
> In light tasks, like videos games, I have 6/7 cores boosting at 5050mhz and all the other between 4875mhz and 4975mhz. (R20 give me 640 in single thread)
> And in heavy task I still have a good boost (~4,5ghz all cores in R20 for example ~ 11500 scoring)
> 
> PBO + Curve optimizer is the way too go, but don’t go too much with Curve Optimizer (which is undervolting)
> 
> Is there a way to bypass the Auto limit of EDC and TDC ?
> Because if I manually changed it in BIOS, it won’t change when I checked with HWinfo.
> Looks like it’s the max value accepted when PBO is activated :/
> 
> My PBO set 395watts on PPT, so it’s fine for this value, I never go more than ~200 watts but I trigger the maximum value of EDC and TDC (160A and 190A)
> As I have lot of headroom with my cooling to go higher, I would like too try higher value on it, but no chance.
> 
> Any ideas ?


Is that on a 5950x or 5900x? Where are you changing the edc values and such? Iv had instances where did I don't go into amd overclocking through the advanced menu (msi x570 ace) and set the values, it won't actually set them. So I just manually set them in both places they are listed, even if the value is already there lol.

Going over the motherboard limits that are in the pbo settings does yield any benefit anyway. I get better performance at 210 (215 is mobo limit for 5950x on the ace). Not sure why but so it goes lol.


----------



## kingmob

I'm wondering if adding a positive value to the best cores would do anything of value.

Edit: this doesn't do anything of value.


----------



## DueAlian

What is the best 5900X overclock purely for 4k gaming? I am using rtx 3080, 4x8GB 3200MHz ram, nzxt kraken Z63 and msi mpg x570 gaming pro carbon wifi

I am seeing very high idle(around 40-50) and gaming(60-70) temperatures by the way, us that normal?


----------



## skalinator

DueAlian said:


> What is the best 5900X overclock purely for 4k gaming? I am using rtx 3080, 4x8GB 3200MHz ram, nzxt kraken Z63 and msi mpg x570 gaming pro carbon wifi
> 
> I am seeing very high idle(around 40-50) and gaming(60-70) temperatures by the way, us that normal?


I second this, question, almost exact same setup, trying to figure out what works, but i can't keep it from just black screening/rebooting. How do we go about tuning these on a 5900x?


----------



## bratt01

My 5800 works best when going with <more negative> for best performing cores, and <less negative> for worst cores.
ie. Core 1 and 3 are the best cores.In curve optimizer I set them at -15.
The rest of the cores are worse, so for them I set -10.
(Best cores -15, worst cores -10)

Thoery is, as one guy said above : Best cores need a lot less volts, to reach a high Mhz. Bad cores need a lot more volts, to reach a high Mhz.
By using this method, best cores use as little volts as required, and same with the worse ones. And due to lower temps because of lower voltage, temps are lower.
Lower temps = higher sustained boost.

The outcome:
Core 1 & 3 reach 5050 in SC Cinebench. The rest around 4.85ish if and when they are used. Temps hit max 60C.
But in MC Cinebench - all cores boost up to 4.5. Temp hit max 77C.
{note - this is custom water cooled}

If I flip them around ie. assign -10 to best cores, and -15 to worst cores. <more negative for worst cores> and <less negative for best cores>
Core 1&3 barely touch 4.95 in SC, and all cores only boost up to 4.4 in MC. At the same time, single core max temp =65, multicore max temp goes up to 83.

So my suggestion is, finding the best cores - give them the lowest negative number, and then give a higher number to the worst cores.
This will give you lower temps - and lower temps give you a higher boost - both in SC and MC mode.

Screenshot below is after 2 consecutive SC runs in CinebenchR23 - cleared about 1 sec after the first run started.
Spec are 
Gigabyte X570 Ultra - PBO Manual - Scalar 1x - Boost offset 200Mhz - Motherboard TDP limits - And LLC one step below max. 
No voltage offsets - everything on Auto.


----------



## jomama22

You guys really need to be looking at the effective clock, not that clock like posted above. Clock stretching is a real thing. Just because the clock says "5050" or whatever it may be, doesn't actually mean it's hitting that nor running at that.

You need to validate any improvement with scores and benchmarks.


----------



## KedarWolf

16 preorders ahead of me at the local store I ordered my 5950x from.

According to the stock website (not my store) stores getting lots of stock before New Years.









AMD Ryzen 5000 CPU Stock Update


Missed out on a 5000 series CPU? New stock is coming in ready for Christmas. Here's where you can get hold of one!




www.wepc.com


----------



## ManniX-ITA

KedarWolf said:


> 16 preorders ahead of me at the local store I ordered my 5950x from.
> 
> According to the stock website (not my store) stores getting lots of stock before New Years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AMD Ryzen 5000 CPU Stock Update
> 
> 
> Missed out on a 5000 series CPU? New stock is coming in ready for Christmas. Here's where you can get hold of one!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.wepc.com


Could be true, just got mine today


----------



## KedarWolf

ManniX-ITA said:


> Could be true, just got mine today


Awesome. let us know how good it is and if it'll do 4000 memory synced. Seems not too many peeps have one that does.


----------



## jomama22

bratt01 said:


> My 5800 works best when going with <more negative> for best performing cores, and <less negative> for worst cores.
> ie. Core 1 and 3 are the best cores.In curve optimizer I set them at -15.
> The rest of the cores are worse, so for them I set -10.
> (Best cores -15, worst cores -10)
> 
> Thoery is, as one guy said above : Best cores need a lot less volts, to reach a high Mhz. Bad cores need a lot more volts, to reach a high Mhz.
> By using this method, best cores use as little volts as required, and same with the worse ones. And due to lower temps because of lower voltage, temps are lower.
> Lower temps = higher sustained boost.
> 
> The outcome:
> Core 1 & 3 reach 5050 in SC Cinebench. The rest around 4.85ish if and when they are used. Temps hit max 60C.
> But in MC Cinebench - all cores boost up to 4.5. Temp hit max 77C.
> {note - this is custom water cooled}
> 
> If I flip them around ie. assign -10 to best cores, and -15 to worst cores. <more negative for worst cores> and <less negative for best cores>
> Core 1&3 barely touch 4.95 in SC, and all cores only boost up to 4.4 in MC. At the same time, single core max temp =65, multicore max temp goes up to 83.
> 
> So my suggestion is, finding the best cores - give them the lowest negative number, and then give a higher number to the worst cores.
> This will give you lower temps - and lower temps give you a higher boost - both in SC and MC mode.
> 
> Screenshot below is after 2 consecutive SC runs in CinebenchR23 - cleared about 1 sec after the first run started.
> Spec are
> Gigabyte X570 Ultra - PBO Manual - Scalar 1x - Boost offset 200Mhz - Motherboard TDP limits - And LLC one step below max.
> No voltage offsets - everything on Auto.
> 
> View attachment 2468214


This really only worked because of your temps. You reduced your temp to below 80, which is the hardline before clocks and voltages begin to be reduced.

That is why you are seeing the differences you are. If your cooling allowed for it, setting the best cores to -10 and others to -20 (arbitrary numbers just as an example) will result in better clocks in multi core and single core as you are giving more power headroom at a given clock.

Also, the curve is not a static linear voltage drop throughout the clock range, that would just be normal undervolting like usual. Instead, you will have maximum undervoltage at lower clocks (i.e. at idle, you will have maximum undervoltage) and at the top range of clocks, you will have significantly less undervoltage. 

For single core boosting, you need to find at what negative voltage # gives you the best balance of reduced power consumption and actual clock speed. The reason this is suggested to be of a lower negative (10 as opposed to 20 for instance) is because the higher clock bins (such as 5075,5100, etc) will require near their actual stock voltage to operate while also allowing extra power head room. Doing a larger negative values on the best cores runs the risk of instability, which can be easily found by doing single core stress testing (cinabench is not a good stress test at all).

That is the reason to run the best cores at a lesser negative voltage than the worst cores. If you can run your best cores at a lower voltage, then that's great, but you shouldn't then turn up your worst cores, that defeats the whole purpose if cooling allows.

Also, you should be maximizing the 'max frequency' to see the benefits in single core boosting.


----------



## lowmotion

This is intriging to read. I set PBO to allcore and -30 and get 30700 in CB21, but not enough points in single core. So i tried some manuell setting and set every core to different negative voltage from 0 to -45 (wont run that deep). I am now pretty clueless. I tried -20 on the bad cores and -10/-5 on the 4 best cores. Its not boosting above 5ghz. I am stuck at ~1650.

How do i test single cores? I tried affinity in the taskmanager. This wont work because the demand is divided and switching cores permanently.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

lowmotion said:


> This is intriging to read. I set PBO to allcore and -30 and get 30700 in CB21, but not enough points in single core. So i tried some manuell setting and set every core to different negative voltage from 0 to -45 (wont run that deep). I am now pretty clueless. I tried -20 on the bad cores and -10/-5 on the 4 best cores. Its not boosting above 5ghz. I am stuck at ~1650.
> 
> How do i test single cores? I tried affinity in the taskmanager. This wont work because the demand is divided and switching cores permanently.


You can use CPU-z to test.
Open the affinity window for the cpu-z executable, set the threads to 1.
Run the bench and change the affinity while it's running the multi-threaded test.
The single thread will run fully on the core you have selected.

Got my 5950x and seems I was pretty lucky with silicon lottery:










Up to 2067 MHz IF easy 

Unfortunately my Master is awful, have to wait for the Unify-X.
It can't run my B-die kit above 3933 MHz.
Needs ProcODT at 30 ohm and I just can't go below that...

Last F31 BIOS for the first time can run it at 4000 MHz but only with desync.
Unfortunately also has IF locking at 1900 MHz.

But I could run up to 3933 MHz insync with F31K and it rocks:










Unfortunately F31k is dropping WHEA errors like crazy and the CO is not working at all, random reboots.
Now I'm on F31 waiting for a better BIOS or for the Unify-X to come in.

I'm also testing CO but I'm still using an air cooler so it's heavily thermally constrained.

The limits are pretty weird, but I'm thermally constrained there as well; motherboard limits seems to work better.
Issue seems to be EDC; at 215A is more balance, going to 230A improves a bit single thread but it's worse for multi thread.
Above that it just drops significantly.


----------



## PJVol

jomama22 said:


> Instead, you will have maximum undervoltage at lower clocks (i.e. at idle, you will have maximum undervoltage) and at the top range of clocks, you will have significantly less undervoltage.


Is it kinda ehmm... simplified interpretation? Ain't "undervoltage" depends on power rather than clock? So if neg.offset in "counts" applied then real offset value (in mV) will increase from light to heavy load.


----------



## jomama22

PJVol said:


> Is it kinda ehmm... simplified interpretation? Ain't "undervoltage" depends on power rather than clock? So if neg.offset in "counts" applied then real offset value (in mV) will increase from light to heavy load.


No. Loads will determine the actual fequency-voltage bin that stays within the power limit of each core/number of cores. Amd has stated that the curve optimizer is an adaptive style of undervolting, where the higher frequency-voltage bins will have less undervolting (less voltage reduction) than a lower frequency-voltage bin for the same curve optimizer value.

In effect, a -15 value in curve optimizer will (made up numbers here) undervolt 30mv at the 4.7ghz/1.4v and 50mv at the 4ghz/1.1v bin. It is not a linear undervolt as a traditional undervolt would do.


----------



## PJVol

Sorry, but i failed to comprehend your point. Although, your conclusions are not much at odds with mine, I'd ask you to clarify, how is it different your 4.7/1.4v and 4.1/1.1v "bins" from my (and amd's btw) LOW and HIGH load states respectively, or do I get it wrong from this slide ?


----------



## ManniX-ITA

PJVol said:


> Sorry, but i failed to comprehend your point. Although, your conclusions are not much at odds with mine, I'd ask you to clarify, how is it different your 4.7/1.4v and 4.1/1.1v "bins" from my (and amd's btw) LOW and HIGH load states, or do I get it wrong from this slide ?
> View attachment 2469065


The are multiple types of loads; multi-threaded and light-threaded.
Both can be between heavy and light.
CB20 MT is medium multi-threaded, P95 is heavy multi-threaded, TM5 is light multi-threaded.

Above was an example of a multi-threaded workload.
AMD slide is a marketing slide which is trying to simplify as much as possible.

When there's a low frequency-voltage bin, which does not require to boost the frequency, the undervolting will be higher.
eg. P95 that trigger a thermal constraint or just low core usage 

Whenever the load triggers a high frequency-voltage bin the undervolting will be lower because you need voltage for a higher frequency.
If the offset would be static the bigger UV range used for the lower frequencies would crash the core for the higher frequencies.
eg. TM5 memory test which is a very light threaded workload or CPU-z single thread bench.

It's the same as what PBO was doing already but now you can control the offset for each core on top of the scalar which is a global setting.


----------



## domdtxdissar

Done tweaking my final 24/7 PBO + curve optimizer settings.
Had to handtune the curve optimizer setting for each core on my cpu to make it 100% stable and boost like it should, and it took pretty much whole day, but it was worth it in the end 

Screenshot below show the curve optimizer offset for each of the corresponding cores in ryzen master.
Hwinfo's T0 effective clock show what each core can *sustain* in cinebench r23 singlethread with these settings. (forced the thread around by affinity)









Some benchmarks with my 24/7 settings:
Notes: Passmark runs really hot, had 82max temp after cinebench r20 and r23 multicore with passmark upping it to 90 (!)










Memory settings after completed memtester 1000% run








Will do a real highscore run with everything pushed to the max next week when i get the new TechN water block.


----------



## lowmotion

Thanks

Yesterday i tested every core. Its still getting better (singlecore). IF is still at 1733mhz and i have to get better memory. The fans on my testbenchtable are runnung low-max (2x360mm radiator). The cpu temperature is below 84°. Dont expect much better results with TechN waterblock. I tested four blocks. Its more likely about a stronger pump (MCP450 here).

To Do:


switching to 32gb B-DIE Kit
switching to mora420
switchting to stronger pump


----------



## gerardfraser

@lowmotion 
Unless you have a specific need for faster DDR4 Ram I say do not bother, especially for higher Cinebench scores.Now my screenshot below is with XMP profile ,so extremely loose timings. 
If your only PC gamming then just tight your timings a little and your good to go with DDR4 3733Mhz. Now I am not saying do not buy different Ram/more Ram or anything but do not expect performance when there will be none. Just My 2 Cent's

5800X DDR4 CL20 3600Mhz


----------



## lowmotion

How did you get your CB23 Single Score on close to 1700?

First i try to get as much as points on benchmarks for fun and then i choose my 24/7 setting. For gaming i will disabled smt.


----------



## gerardfraser

lowmotion said:


> How did you get your CB23 Single Score on close to 1700?
> 
> First i try to get as much as points on benchmarks for fun and then i choose my 24/7 setting. For gaming i will disabled smt.


Well not trying for high scores. I am testing AMD curve optimizer and that run was at up to 5175Mhz.. I can break 1700 but it is not important ,All I am saying stop worrying about the Ram.Now I am not telling you what to do buy anything you want that makes you feel good but I can say buying new ram is not the answer unless you need it.


----------



## BluePaint

Got a 5950 with -20 (best 2) -30 (all others) + 150Mhz boost and tested it with open window @ 5 celsius ambient with a 360AIO.
It can go very low with like @ 1.28v @ 4700 Mhz even when not extremely cooled. But +150 SC boost (=5200Mhz) is only possible with extreme cooling. Normally +50 is rather stable.

The 5950er definitely needs lower voltage for same clocks (at least 0.05 less @ 4700) and also can go about 100Mhz higher SC with the right cooling than the 5800 sample. Ofc, due to temps, the 5800 can go about +100Mhz when under full load with same AIO.

Unfortunately, the memory controller isn't as good as the one on my 5800X. The 5800X did 2033 relatively easy but the 5950X is very difficult to get to 2000. And even then I had to relax tRDWR for it to get into the bios. It also took more voltage finetuning for it to not generate any WHEA errors @ 1900 fclck (1.1v SOC LLC3, 0.9v VDDP, 1v VDDG).

Looking forward to new AGESA/BIOS which will hopefully bring some improvements to the fclk/whea situations. But I guess that the 5800x will still be a better RAM overclocker since it seems to have the better memory controller silicon. I assume that the 59XXer are only selected by core quality, not IO die quality.


----------



## domdtxdissar

domdtxdissar said:


> Done tweaking my final 24/7 PBO + curve optimizer settings.
> Had to handtune the curve optimizer setting for each core on my cpu to make it 100% stable and boost like it should, and it took pretty much whole day, but it was worth it in the end
> 
> Screenshot below show the curve optimizer offset for each of the corresponding cores in ryzen master.
> Hwinfo's T0 effective clock show what each core can *sustain* in cinebench r23 singlethread with these settings. (forced the thread around by affinity)
> View attachment 2468951
> 
> 
> Some benchmarks with my 24/7 settings:
> Notes: Passmark runs really hot, had 82max temp after cinebench r20 and r23 multicore with passmark upping it to 90 (!)
> 
> View attachment 2469085
> 
> 
> Memory settings after completed memtester 1000% run
> View attachment 2469086
> 
> Will do a real highscore run with everything pushed to the max next week when i get the new TechN water block.


Have been playing around with different settings for the curve optimizer..  

Balanced PBO for both singlethread and multithread: 









Geekbench 4 = ASUS System Product Name - Geekbench Browser
Geekbench 5 = ASUS System Product Name - Geekbench Browser 

PBO settings for maximum multithread performance:


----------



## qwrty

Nice scoring. 
But are you stable when idleing ?


----------



## BluePaint

@domdtxdissar 
Great scores! 
What are your temperatures and how do u cool that? In my experience, cooling beomes the limiting factor for all-core PBO curve configuration since the algorithm wants really low temperatures for low voltages to clock high (which is reasonable ofc).


----------



## dante`afk

played a little bit with the curve optimizer today...-10 on best cores, -20 on worst.....+150mhz

I either don't get it, or its in fact just worse than allcore. overall I had worse results than my below setting.


----------



## BluePaint

dante`afk said:


> I either don't get it, or its in fact just worse than allcore. overall I had worse results than my below setting.


If your curve result is better than your fixed allcore with a benchmark like cb which uses all cores to 100% (no wiggle room for pbo) then your fixed oc is not completely optimized. A variable boost algorithm will always need to have somewhat more safety room than a fixed oc at the razers edge. I would also assume that the pbo switching has a minimal impact as well.

For comparison here is fixed 4750 on a 5950


----------



## KedarWolf

*Edit: Added more tests, changed the .cfg, but still avoids tests like the Small FFT tests that cause dangerous temps and crashes AMD Zen 2 and Zen 3 CPUs.*

This is my .cfg for y-cruncher for a 3950x or 5950x, hence the 0-31 cores setting and for 32GB of RAM. Adjust for your CPU cores and amount of RAM.

Remember, 0 in the cores settings is the first core, hence 0-31, not 32.

And best to keep the RAM amount around 90% of your RAM.

You need to make a shortcut to the .exe, right-click, go to Properties and add like below to the Target of the shortcut with your y-cruncher file path.



Code:


"D:\y-cruncher v0.7.8.9507\y-cruncher v0.7.8.9507\y-cruncher.exe" pause:1 config memtest.cfg

Right click the shortcut and Run As Admin.

The y-cruncher memtest.cfg below.



Code:


//  y-cruncher Configuration File
//  Version: 0.7.8 Build 9507
//
//  Load this from y-cruncher or run directly:
//      y-cruncher config filename.cfg
//
//  If you're copying Windows file paths into here, be sure to replace
//  all backslashes "\" with forward slashes "/". Backslash is an
//  escape character.
//

{
    Action : "StressTest"
    StressTest : {
        AllocateLocally : "true"
        LogicalCores : [0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31]
        TotalMemory : 27487790694
        SecondsPerTest : 200
        SecondsTotal : 3600
        StopOnError : "false"
        Tests : [
            "BKT"
            "FFT"
            "N32"
            "N64"
            "VST"
            "C17"
        ]
    }
}


----------



## ManniX-ITA

dante`afk said:


> played a little bit with the curve optimizer today...-10 on best cores, -20 on worst.....+150mhz
> 
> I either don't get it, or its in fact just worse than allcore. overall I had worse results than my below setting.
> 
> View attachment 2470137


Not sure what are your expectations With PBO you will get a lower MT score and a higher ST score.

You have to find out at which negative count your worse and best cores gets unstable.
It depends on your cooling capacity; mine is miserable right now so going down almost immediately triggers thermal protection.

Mine below 35 the worse and 20 the best cores becomes unstable.

The best cores will run like hell more you go down.

These are my best, core 1 and 4.

Core number, max boost clock, max effective clock, CPU-z single thread bench score:

1-4 count 20, rest 35

1 5000 5015 687.8
4 5075 5007 686.5

1-4 count 28, rest 40

1 5150 5110 696.6
4 5150 5113 702.4

Going down to 25 will bring the sustained effective clock to 5050-5075.

Lower you go with count for the worse cores and better will get the MT score.
But it's going to affect also the boost voltage of the best cores.
They need to be adjusted both to find a good balance.

I had no luck at all so far trying to find a per-core count; only got worse results.

Seems the algorithm has some special triggers for the best cores.
My cores 1 and 4 are quality 216 and core 0 is quality 211.
Despite the small difference its behavior it's similar to the other worse cores.
It can go down to 35 and it doesn't boost like core 1 and 4; it doesn't go above 5000 and something.
Core 1 and 4 they boost up to 5200 with count 30 but it's a miracle to boot in Windows with that.

Lower is the delta between the two counts and better are the results; I couldn't go below 5.
If they all have the same count the boosting will be dramatically reduced.
Needs to be lower as possible but also not too much otherwise the performances will drop.

Disabling Global C-States will also cut 100-150MHz from the boost.

This a decent CB32 result considering it's air cooled:










Single core is running at 5 GHz with 1.45V sustained:










MT is running at 4.45 GHz with 1.288V:










Not sure how PBO would boost in MT with a proper cooling but I guess better than this.


----------



## BluePaint

Good AIO will give u about 4600 boost with full load like CB. Stable single core > 5050 really likes low temps with my cpu.


----------



## aussie7

quick question, I can't boot at any negative curve optimizer setting only positive at around +15 works ?
MSI Unify x570 / 5800x / Gskill DDR4 / PBO 200Mhz


----------



## BluePaint

@aussie7
Try without SC boost. Even +50 can be unstable without curve adjustments, and especially negative ones. Also, if it seems stable to some people it might be simply because their CPU never actually uses that additional boost to boost higher than stock because the temperature is already too high. People simply set to to +200 but never check that their CPU actually reaches that frequency and assume it's stable. The max boost for a 5950 with +200 would 5250Mhz which probably no CPU does without extreme cooling.

I would start with 0 boost. With that, you can try to find lowest voltage (highest negative offset), starting with -5 or -10 all core. The better your cooling the lower u can go.


----------



## aussie7

Thanks BluePaint  
Managed to get the Negative Curve working

negative 10 curve on all cores
boost set at 125Mhz
max cpu speed 4975Mhz on all cores
any higher boost crashes on booting windows


----------



## aussie7

any tips on what to adjust to get lower negative curve ?
I'm stuck at -10 on all cores 
*EDIT:* I've tried

Pbo set at advanced
Pbo lowered to 100Mhz
Motherboard
Scaler at 5x
thermal throtle set at 255
windows crashes on boot at anything above curve -10


----------



## PJVol

Scaler to 1x or auto
Boost override - one or two steps down


----------



## ManniX-ITA

aussie7 said:


> any tips on what to adjust to get lower negative curve ?
> I'm stuck at -10 on all cores
> *EDIT:* I've tried
> 
> Pbo set at advanced
> Pbo lowered to 100Mhz
> Motherboard
> Scaler at 5x
> thermal throtle set at 255
> windows crashes on boot at anything above curve -10


If you don't want to crash you can use the thermal throttle but set to 80 or 90.


----------



## aussie7

Thanks PJVol adn ManniX-ITA  
No matter what I do I can't get Cinebench 20 to complete (it crashes windows), when using curve -5 or more and 100Mhz PBO 
PBO 75Mhz and curve -5 seems stable as Cinebench 20 completes without crashing windows


----------



## BluePaint

aussie7 said:


> No matter what I do I can't get Cinebench 20 to complete (it crashes windows), when using curve -5 or more and 100Mhz PBO
> PBO 75Mhz and curve -5 seems stable as Cinebench 20 completes without crashing windows


That's nothing unusual. High PBO boost needs low temps and/or golden chip. Remember that it's enough when a single core doesn't do the frequency. But I wouldn't worry too much about it, it's only additional max boost to the existing boost. You get more performance (except for single core application) by having a higher undervolt rather than a very high additional boost.
I would try -5 (best 2 cores according to Ryzen Master) / -10 or -15 (for other cores) with a boost of 50. Then compare with -10 (2 best cores)/-15 or -20 (other cores) (if possible) in CB20 with boost +0.

Also, what is your cooling and your temps? Especially single core max boost is sensitive to temps


----------



## aussie7

BluePaint said:


> Also, what is your cooling and your temps? Especially single core max boost is sensitive to temps


Thanks BluePaint 
cooling is Corsair AIO H150i
with prime95 temps getup to 90c
gaming around 65c


----------



## KedarWolf

*The kits listed are b-die.

F4-3600C14D-32GTZN*
Trident Z Neo
DDR4-3600MHz CL14-15-15-35 1.45V
32GB (2x16GB)










F4-3600C14D-32GTZN-G.SKILL International Enterprise Co., Ltd.


G.SKILL




www.gskill.com





*F4-3800C14D-32GTZN*
Trident Z Neo
DDR4-3800MHz CL14-16-16-36 1.50V
32GB (2x16GB)









F4-3800C14D-32GTZN - G.SKILL International Enterprise Co., Ltd.


Trident Z Neo DDR4-3800 CL14-16-16-36 1.50V 32GB (2x16GB) Engineered and optimized for full compatibility on the latest AMD Ryzen platforms, Trident Z Neo brings unparalleled DRAM memory performance and vibrant RGB lighting to any gaming PC or workstation with latest AMD Ryzen CPUs and AMD DDR4...




www.gskill.com


----------



## mongoled

What have peeps understood regards the possibility of being able to adjust the "base" CPU voltage when using PBO2 ??

With the current BIOS (A82) on my MSI X570 Unify, any adjustment to the CPU base clock voltage using any method in combination with PBO2 will lock the CPU to a static voltage of 1.0v and a core speed of 3800 mhz.

I then have to reset the BIOS to be able to get the CPU voltage to automatically change voltage depending on load etc.

But using in combination with PBO2 is a no go.

So I went back and watched the AMD video regards PBO2 and I didnt not see any information that clearly defines if we will have access to changing the CPU base voltage using an offset etc.

From the presentation, it looks to me that we wont be able to control the CPU base voltage in combination with PBO2 ....


----------



## mirzet1976

Here R5 5600X on Rog B550 F Gaming using PBO + Curve Optimizer + Max CPU Clock Override +400 + offset 0.05V my 5600X boosts up to 5050mhz. Max CPU Boost Clock Override can
go up to 2000 but without some exotic cooling it cannot be used to have an effect. U can see in CPU-Z voltage offset and PBO2 is working.


----------



## Boldish

mirzet1976 said:


> Here R5 5600X on Rog B550 F Gaming using PBO + Curve Optimizer + Max CPU Clock Override +400 + offset 0.05V my 5600X boosts up to 5050mhz. Max CPU Boost Clock Override can
> go up to 2000 but without some exotic cooling it cannot be used to have an effect. U can see in CPU-Z voltage offset and PBO2 is working.
> 
> View attachment 2471466
> View attachment 2471467
> View attachment 2471473


Any proof that setting this higher than 200 has a meaningful effect on anything?


----------



## BluePaint

Std boost clock of 5600 is 4.6 ghz. If a core goes much higher than 4800, then it seems to do sth


----------



## nowords

mirzet1976 said:


> Here R5 5600X on Rog B550 F Gaming using PBO + Curve Optimizer + Max CPU Clock Override +400 + offset 0.05V my 5600X boosts up to 5050mhz.


whats your curve optimizer settings?


----------



## mirzet1976

Boldish said:


> Any proof that setting this higher than 200 has a meaningful effect on anything?


Look at CB score 654 without 5+GHz is a mission impossible and 400mhz offset allows me to do that and CPU-Z i proof that PBO2 is enabled low voltage if by any chance I used a multipler the voltage would be fixed.















[/QUOTE]


nowords said:


> whats your curve optimizer settings?


All negativ 30-25-25-20-20-30 cores 4 and 5 are best based on the ryzen master , but without the offset at 400mhz 5ghz it is impossible to accomplish on the R5 5600X.


----------



## nirurin

I've read through this thread, and my new 5950x arrived today, and I was wondering if anyone had put together a quick-guide walkthrough on the best steps for tweaking and setting up the curve optimiser settings?


----------



## Boldish

mirzet1976 said:


> Look at CB score 654 without 5+GHz is a mission impossible and 400mhz offset allows me to do that and CPU-Z i proof that PBO2 is enabled low voltage if by any chance I used a multipler the voltage would be fixed.
> View attachment 2471855
> View attachment 2471859


What are your CB20 scores with only a 200 boost?


----------



## mirzet1976

Boldish said:


> What are your CB20 scores with only a 200 boost?


Here


----------



## PJVol

mirzet1976 said:


> 400mhz offset allows me to do that


That HWInfo screen shows your boost override set to +350. That's exactly gives you max clock at 5000Mhz


----------



## mirzet1976

PJVol said:


> That HWInfo screen shows your boost override set to +350. That's exactly gives you max clock at 5000Mhz


Exactly so as i stated in post # 146 offset +400 gives me 5050mhz max boost but this only works with curve optimizer, disable curve optimizer and leave boost override at +400 and max boost drops to 4.85ghz.


----------



## nirurin

So after some playing with settings, I've been struggling to hit 5ghz single core. I've found that I can either have 200mhz boost increase, but with smaller curve offsets, or have larger curve offsets with a smaller max boost increase. Otherwise it gets unstable. In either case, my best single core speed so far is 4.95ghz, which runs at an all core in cinebench of 4.6ghz. Not sure what the problem is. May be temps. That cinebench run is 80c, and the single core load runs at 60c ish.


----------



## Spoutti

mirzet1976 said:


> Look at CB score 654 without 5+GHz is a mission impossible and 400mhz offset allows me to do that and CPU-Z i proof that PBO2 is enabled low voltage if by any chance I used a multipler the voltage would be fixed.
> View attachment 2471855
> View attachment 2471859



All negativ 30-25-25-20-20-30 cores 4 and 5 are best based on the ryzen master , but without the offset at 400mhz 5ghz it is impossible to accomplish on the R5 5600X.
[/QUOTE]
Hi there, 5600x/strix-F b550 board here as well. Congrats for your CB R20 scores! Im looking to get the best SC score to apply it to gaming after. Now, the best I can do is 625. That is with:
-20/-15/-20/-20/-20/-15 offset
-Fmax auto
-APE off
-+200mhz

Most of my tests were done with APE enabled; I just recently tried to turn it off and got my SC 625 (had 622 before), but at the expense of my MC score.
My system crashes if I just change +200mhz to +300mhz. 
My cpu ppt tops at 112,453W and temps stays at 74.4C, so I feel some UEFI settings are limiting my performance

You said you did "+ offset 0.05V ", was does it mean in the UEFI setting? The way I understand it, you added + offset 0.05V and then substracted it, and more, in the curve optimizer.
Any other specific UEFI settings you feel helped? What could I change to be able to apply a +40omhz?
Any help will be appreciated. Im getting addicted to tweaking my cpu  Tx


----------



## nirurin

No matter what I do, I seem to be limited to 4.95ghz for single core and 4.6ghz for cinebench all-core. 

Weirdest part is that if I have the max boost on +100, my clocks will be 4.62ghz ish and get me 29000 on R23. 
Or if I drop the boost to 0, my clocks drop to 4.58ghz... and my score increases to 30000. 

Which would make sense if I was clock stretching, but these are all effective clocks. 

My temps are 75c-78c for a cinebench run, so not all that bad. 

I've never seen the single-core clock go above 5.0ghz, even though it shouldn't be limited to that right now. My fastest core is currently on -15 on the curve, if I raise it to -10 or -5 it get slower.


----------



## mirzet1976

Spoutti said:


> Hi there, 5600x/strix-F b550 board here as well. Congrats for your CB R20 scores! Im looking to get the best SC score to apply it to gaming after. Now, the best I can do is 625. That is with:
> -20/-15/-20/-20/-20/-15 offset
> -Fmax auto
> -APE off
> -+200mhz
> 
> Most of my tests were done with APE enabled; I just recently tried to turn it off and got my SC 625 (had 622 before), but at the expense of my MC score.
> My system crashes if I just change +200mhz to +300mhz.
> My cpu ppt tops at 112,453W and temps stays at 74.4C, so I feel some UEFI settings are limiting my performance
> 
> You said you did "+ offset 0.05V ", was does it mean in the UEFI setting? The way I understand it, you added + offset 0.05V and then substracted it, and more, in the curve optimizer.
> Any other specific UEFI settings you feel helped? What could I change to be able to apply a +40omhz?
> Any help will be appreciated. Im getting addicted to tweaking my cpu  Tx


For 5ghz U need to add CPU core voltage through offset +0.05V, U can't have both MC and SC performance with this metod, that is only possible through a multiplier.



nirurin said:


> No matter what I do, I seem to be limited to 4.95ghz for single core and 4.6ghz for cinebench all-core.
> 
> Weirdest part is that if I have the max boost on +100, my clocks will be 4.62ghz ish and get me 29000 on R23.
> Or if I drop the boost to 0, my clocks drop to 4.58ghz... and my score increases to 30000.
> 
> Which would make sense if I was clock stretching, but these are all effective clocks.
> 
> My temps are 75c-78c for a cinebench run, so not all that bad.
> 
> I've never seen the single-core clock go above 5.0ghz, even though it shouldn't be limited to that right now. My fastest core is currently on -15 on the curve, if I raise it to -10 or -5 it get slower.


Try -20 this will rise your SC boost not oppsite way -5.


----------



## nirurin

mirzet1976 said:


> Try -20 this will rise your


Unfortunately not, still maxes out at 4.95. 

I've even managed to get the 4.6ghz all core to run at closer to 75c instead of 80c, so the cap doesn't seem to be direct temp related. It's like the chip is hard limited to those speeds, even though I have the frequency max increased.


----------



## mirzet1976

nirurin said:


> Unfortunately not, still maxes out at 4.95.
> 
> I've even managed to get the 4.6ghz all core to run at closer to 75c instead of 80c, so the cap doesn't seem to be direct temp related. It's like the chip is hard limited to those speeds, even though I have the frequency max increased.


Did you try to give him some juice?


----------



## Alexshunter

Hey floks, why i see people negative offset the bad cores more? Instead i would do the opposite, giving more negative for the better cores and less for less good ones.


----------



## mirzet1976

Alexshunter said:


> Hey floks, why i see people negative offset the bad cores more? Instead i would do the opposite, giving more negative for the better cores and less for less good ones.


Tthat way you have a better SC boost and a worse MC boost and in order to get closer to the SC boost with the MC boost you need to increase the CPU voltage via offset.


----------



## Spoutti

mirzet1976 said:


> For 5ghz U need to add CPU core voltage through offset +0.05V, U can't have both MC and SC performance with this metod, that is only possible through a multiplier.
> 
> 
> 
> Try -20 this will rise your SC boost not oppsite way -5.


Thanks, I dared up my voltage. One thing I noticed is my voltage stayed in the 1.47 zone. It feels like the curve optimizer didnt do its thing.

I added a +0.05v offset and could reach +300mhz, but it game me the same sc score than if I put +250mhz. Maybe its the new bios (1601) I installed..
One thing maybe obvious to others, I think cranking my NH-D15 up helped me. I was on the AI Suit 3 auto-tuned curve, but I changed it to
-50% until 40C
-80% to 50C
-100% to 75C
Maybe the PBO2 algorytthm adjust to the fan curve.

I will probably try myself at overclocking my ram. Another rabbit hole to end my Chrismas vacation lol


----------



## mirzet1976

Spoutti said:


> Thanks, I dared up my voltage. One thing I noticed is my voltage stayed in the 1.47 zone. It feels like the curve optimizer didnt do its thing.
> 
> I added a +0.05v offset and could reach +300mhz, but it game me the same sc score than if I put +250mhz. Maybe its the new bios (1601) I installed..
> One thing maybe obvious to others, I think cranking my NH-D15 up helped me. I was on the AI Suit 3 auto-tuned curve, but I changed it to
> -50% until 40C
> -80% to 50C
> -100% to 75C
> Maybe the PBO2 algorytthm adjust to the fan curve.
> 
> I will probably try myself at overclocking my ram. Another rabbit hole to end my Chrismas vacation lol


U need ti play with curve optimizer and test it to find best combo for your CPU. In bios enable PBO Fmax Enhancer


----------



## nirurin

mirzet1976 said:


> Did you try to give him some juice?


How do you mean? Give a + offset to vcore? I think I tried that without any effect, but I can try again


----------



## Spoutti

mirzet1976 said:


> U need ti play with curve optimizer and test it to find best combo for your CPU. In bios enable PBO Fmax Enhancer


Ok, tx. I will play with curve optimizer from the +300mhz setting and go from there.

About fmax, my previous test showed higher clocks speeds in hw64 with fmax enabled, but lower results in CB R20. I dont undersand what happened..

@nirurin Upping my cpu fan speed made +300mhz possible with +0.05V offset. But had the same CB R20 SC score with +250mhz, 618..


----------



## mirzet1976

Spoutti said:


> Ok, tx. I will play with curve optimizer from the +300mhz setting and go from there.
> 
> About fmax, my previous test showed higher clocks speeds in hw64 with fmax enabled, but lower results in CB R20. I dont undersand what happened..
> 
> @nirurin Upping my cpu fan speed made +300mhz possible with +0.05V offset. But had the same CB R20 SC score with +250mhz, 618..


Enable Asus Performance Enhacer, SB Clock Spread Spectrum -disable
By Enabling fmax L3 Cache boosts to 600+GB/s left pic enabled - right disabled + adding voltage to the processor via offset increases all core boost.


----------



## Spoutti

mirzet1976 said:


> Enable Asus Performance Enhacer, SB Clock Spread Spectrum -disable
> By Enabling fmax L3 Cache boosts to 600+GB/s left pic enabled - right disabled + adding voltage to the processor via offset increases all core boost.
> 
> View attachment 2472215
> View attachment 2472214
> View attachment 2472252


So, i have been today. Thanks for the suggestions
-Since I can see 5050mhz in hw64, im sticking to +350
-SB clock spread spectrum off seems to help
-After lots of tests, I did turn APE on and gained 3 SC pts in CB R20
-+0.025v does it for me to get through a CB R20 test
-Curve at -16/11/16/16/16/11

Now I updated to UEFI 1601 since yesterday and get lower results overall. 623 is my best SC score so far. Reports of better ram overclocks stability got me to try it since its my next overclock adventure. 

What UEFI are you using btw? I saw you installed 1401 in another tread. Still on that one?


----------



## mirzet1976

Spoutti said:


> So, i have been today. Thanks for the suggestions
> -Since I can see 5050mhz in hw64, im sticking to +350
> -SB clock spread spectrum off seems to help
> -After lots of tests, I did turn APE on and gained 3 SC pts in CB R20
> -+0.025v does it for me to get through a CB R20 test
> -Curve at -16/11/16/16/16/11
> 
> Now I updated to UEFI 1601 since yesterday and get lower results overall. 623 is my best SC score so far. Reports of better ram overclocks stability got me to try it since its my next overclock adventure.
> 
> What UEFI are you using btw? I saw you installed 1401 in another tread. Still on that one?


No 1601 here, try -26-21-26-26-26-21, set LLC to Level 5 ,+130% , give CPU more voltage if you want 5ghz to have in CB, you are now overclocking the CPU it needs voltage.


----------



## Spoutti

mirzet1976 said:


> No 1601 here, try -26-21-26-26-26-21, set LLC to Level 5 ,+130% , give CPU more voltage if you want 5ghz to have in CB, you are now overclocking the CPU it needs voltage.


1601 will deliver that, Windows wont load when i put those values..
When i changed more values, those suggested in the power system tab by the dram calculator, I had a dos type screen saying it will boot in safe mode. A different "windows wont load" process. 

If i understand, the general idea is to give more voltage, use the adaptive properties of the curve optimiser and ask for a bigger boost, correct?

I think inwill take a break on the cou tweaking and try my ram overclock. Just had to press power for my computer to boot. On too many cpu crash happened for my risk tolerance.


----------



## PJVol

Spoutti said:


> My system crashes if I just change +200mhz to +300mhz.


With the curve setting you've got, it is hardly enough voltage to pass any CB tests. Try my settings:
PBO: Limits - motherboard, Boost Override: +375 (may try 350 as well), CO: 8/10 (best and 2nd best), 15 (for 3rd and 4th), 17 - 5th, 18 - 6th.
LLC cpu - medium, Vcore - offset +10mv


----------



## Spoutti

PJVol said:


> With the curve setting you've got, it is hardly enough voltage to pass any CB tests. Try my settings:
> PBO: Limits - motherboard, Boost Override: +375 (may try 350 as well), CO: 8/10 (best and 2nd best), 15 (for 3rd and 4th), 17 - 5th, 18 - 6th.
> LLC cpu - medium, Vcore - offset +10mv
> View attachment 2472299


Tx for your input PJvol. Cb R20 Scores were nearly indentical. But, upon restarting my computer, it wouldnt load anything. Not even the bios. Its the 2nd time it happens when i change LLC values. So i will explore a bit with your curve optimizer ratio and leave LLC to auto for now

I am hoping i can get a CB R20 sc of 630+. Im so far from the 654 I cant believe its all due the silicon lottery. There must be some tuning I can do


----------



## dante`afk

odd issue here, testing things out with PBO again, updated bios to 3101 but no matter what settings I change, max boost is always only 4300 on all cores? pbo +50, 100, 200 doesnt matter

it worked fine before on previous bios


----------



## mirzet1976

Spoutti said:


> Tx for your input PJvol. Cb R20 Scores were nearly indentical. But, upon restarting my computer, it wouldnt load anything. Not even the bios. Its the 2nd time it happens when i change LLC values. So i will explore a bit with your curve optimizer ratio and leave LLC to auto for now
> 
> I am hoping i can get a CB R20 sc of 630+. Im so far from the 654 I cant believe its all due the silicon lottery. There must be some tuning I can do


Try this



Spoiler: bios


----------



## PJVol

Spoutti said:


> But, upon restarting my computer, it wouldnt load anything.


Funny thing is that happenes to me with a 50% chance, whenever I change some settings in PBO or CLDO voltages, wherein POST hangs at 07, but after "reset" always boots successfily. I've got used to it , no worries.
As for LLC, I have it at auto indeed, just on my MB it means medum compensation (3th from 5 modes), of course your bios may assign different order, so leaving it at auto may be safe.


----------



## DeletedMember558271

Edit: nvm I'm dumb I guess, new MSI BIOS changed behavior it seems, I can still get high clocks but only if I enable Curve Optimizer now and with pretty extreme negative values


----------



## Dyngsur

Wheres the person writing to me on Reddit and trying to convince me that minus negativ offset vcore + negative CO will give better results than a correct curve with CO core by core.
Have tried to tell the person that if you use negative offset on vcore and negative on CO you will cripple the performance... But the person telling me that I am wrong!

Please show yourself and give me the CPU-Z scores and CR20 scores!

Have I missed something or is this some kind of trolling


----------



## Mr.Sunshine

domdtxdissar said:


> Have been playing around with different settings for the curve optimizer..
> 
> Balanced PBO for both singlethread and multithread:
> View attachment 2469774
> 
> 
> Geekbench 4 = ASUS System Product Name - Geekbench Browser
> Geekbench 5 = ASUS System Product Name - Geekbench Browser
> 
> PBO settings for maximum multithread performance:
> View attachment 2469775


Nice scores!!! What PBO,CO, voltage BIOS setttings for the first pic? I have a 5800X trying to decode best settings.


----------



## domdtxdissar

Mr.Sunshine said:


> Nice scores!!! What PBO,CO, voltage BIOS setttings for the first pic? I have a 5800X trying to decode best settings.


_edit_
getting new settings


----------



## Mr.Sunshine

jomama22 said:


> Lets be clear about offsetting the voltage, all you are doing is raising the entire floor for every single core, pretty much defeating the purpose of doing negative offsets anyway. You're better off just finding the core(s) that arent playing nice and reducing the amount of negative voltage you are putting in the curve. Its a balancing act.
> 
> Also keep in mind that doing offset voltage will eat into the pbo budget (specifically edc) and you will get lower overall clocks. Doing it manually per core and finding the sweetspot for each one will result in better overall performance.
> 
> Its interesting that amd released the slide deck on this today and it seems what I stated before about there being a limit to the lowest possible offset rings true. For me, that was around negative 70 (the value entered in). Anything below that didnt do anything at all.
> 
> What I said last page also holds true. Tune your best 2 cores first to maximize their single core boost freq (just do runs of r20 single core and observe your core frequency in ryzen master to see what you actual effective clock speed is and hwinfo does not update fast/accurate enough to make it reliable in what the clocks are actually doing) and comnpare them with the score you get in r20). This will probably be around -20 - -5 for each of those two cores as pbo needs the voltage for the higher end (but does eat into your overall clock as there are per core currant/power limits).
> 
> Next, drop all of your other cores that are NOT the two best cores windows uses (can view this in ryzen master as well). I'm sure many people could drop all of these other cores to -20 - -70 without much issue. The reason being is that these cores are never running a heavy single core load. Those loads will always be shoved to your two best cores because...windows.
> 
> Just keep running r20 all core loads and turning down the remaining cores. For me, i hit the negative wall on all 14 remaining cores on my 5950x. I literally have 14/16 cores set to negative 160 because it lets me lol, not that it does anything different that what negative 70 does,
> My two best are set to negative 10 and negative 20, which nets me a max effective freq of 5120 (5150 set) for single core and ~ 4.725ghz all core.
> 
> Results:
> View attachment 2466457


What are you settings in PBO?


----------



## Mr.Sunshine

domdtxdissar said:


> _edit_
> getting new settings


Thanks. trying to compile a list of common settings that seem to be key to getting most out of this chips. CPU lotto helps also...lol.
Those first numbers you posted were crazy... 800+ on CPUZ?!? 660+ on CB20


----------



## domdtxdissar

Mr.Sunshine said:


> Thanks. trying to compile a list of common settings that seem to be key to getting most out of this chips. CPU lotto helps also...lol


Here we go 

My current 24/7 settings with fans on auto, 24 degrees ambient etc 


> [2021/01/14 04:22:38]
> Ai Overclock Tuner [Manual]
> BCLK Frequency [100.0000]
> Memory Frequency [DDR4-3800MHz]
> FCLK Frequency [1900MHz]
> Core Performance Boost [Enabled]
> CPU Core Ratio [Auto]
> Core VID [Auto]
> CCX0 Ratio [Auto]
> CCX0 Ratio [Auto]
> TPU [Keep Current Settings]
> Performance Bias [Auto]
> PBO Fmax Enhancer [Auto]
> Precision Boost Overdrive [Manual]
> PPT Limit [300]
> TDC Limit [235]
> EDC Limit [245]
> Precision Boost Overdrive Scalar [Auto]
> Max CPU Boost Clock Override [50]
> Platform Thermal Throttle Limit [Auto]
> DRAM CAS# Latency [14]
> Trcdrd [15]
> Trcdwr [8]
> DRAM RAS# PRE Time [12]
> DRAM RAS# ACT Time [24]
> Trc [36]
> TrrdS [4]
> TrrdL [4]
> Tfaw [16]
> TwtrS [4]
> TwtrL [10]
> Twr [12]
> Trcpage [Auto]
> TrdrdScl [2]
> TwrwrScl [2]
> Trfc [252]
> Trfc2 [187]
> Trfc4 [115]
> Tcwl [14]
> Trtp [6]
> Trdwr [9]
> Twrrd [2]
> TwrwrSc [1]
> TwrwrSd [6]
> TwrwrDd [6]
> TrdrdSc [1]
> TrdrdSd [5]
> TrdrdDd [5]
> Tcke [Auto]
> ProcODT [40 ohm]
> Cmd2T [1T]
> Gear Down Mode [Enabled]
> Power Down Enable [Disabled]
> RttNom [RZQ/7]
> RttWr [RZQ/3]
> RttPark [RZQ/1]
> MemAddrCmdSetup [Auto]
> MemCsOdtSetup [Auto]
> MemCkeSetup [Auto]
> MemCadBusClkDrvStren [24.0 Ohm]
> MemCadBusAddrCmdDrvStren [20.0 Ohm]
> MemCadBusCsOdtDrvStren [24.0 Ohm]
> MemCadBusCkeDrvStren [24.0 Ohm]
> Mem Over Clock Fail Count [Auto]
> Voltage Monitor [Die Sense]
> CPU Load-line Calibration [Level 1]
> CPU Current Capability [140%]
> CPU VRM Switching Frequency [Manual]
> Fixed CPU VRM Switching Frequency(KHz) [500]
> CPU Power Duty Control [T.Probe]
> CPU Power Phase Control [Extreme]
> CPU Power Thermal Control [120]
> VDDSOC Load-line Calibration [Level 3]
> VDDSOC Switching Frequency [Auto]
> VDDSOC Phase Control [Extreme]
> DRAM Current Capability [130%]
> DRAM Power Phase Control [Extreme]
> DRAM Switching Frequency [Auto]
> CPU Core Current Telemetry [Auto]
> CPU SOC Current Telemetry [Auto]
> Force OC Mode Disable [Disabled]
> SB Clock Spread Spectrum [Auto]
> VTTDDR Voltage [Auto]
> VPP_MEM Voltage [Auto]
> DRAM CTRL REF Voltage on CHA [Auto]
> DRAM CTRL REF Voltage on CHB [Auto]
> VDDP Voltage [Auto]
> 1.8V Standby Voltage [Auto]
> CPU 3.3v AUX [Auto]
> 1.2V SB Voltage [Auto]
> DRAM R1 Tune [Auto]
> DRAM R2 Tune [Auto]
> DRAM R3 Tune [Auto]
> DRAM R4 Tune [Auto]
> PCIE Tune R1 [Auto]
> PCIE Tune R2 [Auto]
> PCIE Tune R3 [Auto]
> PLL Tune R1 [Auto]
> PLL reference voltage [Auto]
> T Offset [Auto]
> Sense MI Skew [Auto]
> Sense MI Offset [Auto]
> Promontory presence [Auto]
> Clock Amplitude [Auto]
> CPU Core Voltage [Offset mode]
> 
> Offset Mode Sign [+]
> CPU Core Voltage Offset [0.02500]
> CPU SOC Voltage [Manual]
> - VDDSOC Voltage Override [1.10625]
> DRAM Voltage [1.54500]
> VDDG CCD Voltage Control [0.890]
> VDDG IOD Voltage Control [Auto]
> CLDO VDDP voltage [0.880]
> 1.00V SB Voltage [Auto]
> 1.8V PLL Voltage [Auto]
> TPM Device Selection [Discrete TPM]
> Erase fTPM NV for factory reset [Enabled]
> PSS Support [Enabled]
> PPC Adjustment [PState 0]
> NX Mode [Enabled]
> SVM Mode [Disabled]
> SMT Mode [Auto]
> Core Leveling Mode [Automatic mode]
> CCD Control [Auto]
> SATA Port Enable [Enabled]
> SATA Mode [AHCI]
> NVMe RAID mode [Disabled]
> SMART Self Test [Enabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> HD Audio Controller [Enabled]
> PCIEX16_1 Bandwidth Bifurcation configuration [Auto Mode]
> PCIEX16_2 Bandwidth Bifurcation configuration [Auto Mode]
> When system is in working state [All On]
> Q-Code LED Function [POST Code Only]
> When system is in sleep, hibernate or soft off states [All On]
> Realtek 2.5G LAN Controller [Enabled]
> Realtek PXE OPROM [Disabled]
> Intel LAN Controller [Enabled]
> Intel LAN OPROM [Disabled]
> ASM1074 Controller [Enabled]
> Wi-Fi 6 (802.11ax) Controller [Enabled]
> Bluetooth Controller [Enabled]
> USB power delivery in Soft Off state (S5) [Enabled]
> PCIEX16_1 Mode [Auto]
> PCIEX16_2 Mode [Auto]
> PCIEX1 Mode [Auto]
> PCIEX16_3 Mode [Auto]
> M.2_1 Link Mode [Auto]
> M.2_2 Link Mode [Auto]
> SB Link Mode [Auto]
> ErP Ready [Disabled]
> Restore AC Power Loss [Power Off]
> Power On By PCI-E [Disabled]
> Power On By RTC [Disabled]
> Above 4G Decoding [Enabled]
> Re-Size BAR Support [Auto]
> SR-IOV Support [Disabled]
> Legacy USB Support [Enabled]
> XHCI Hand-off [Enabled]
> Corsair Voyager GTX 0 [Auto]
> USB Device Enable [Enabled]
> U32G2_2 [Enabled]
> U32G2_3 [Enabled]
> U32G2_4 [Enabled]
> U32G1_10 [Enabled]
> U32G1_11 [Enabled]
> USB12 [Enabled]
> USB13 [Enabled]
> U32G2_7 [Enabled]
> U32G2_8 [Enabled]
> U32G2_C9 [Enabled]
> Network Stack [Disabled]
> Device [SATA6G_7: Samsung SSD 850 PRO 1TB]
> CPU Temperature [Monitor]
> CPU Package Temperature [Monitor]
> MotherBoard Temperature [Monitor]
> VRM Temperature [Monitor]
> T_Sensor Temperature [Monitor]
> Water In T Sensor Temperature [Monitor]
> Water Out T Sensor Temperature [Monitor]
> CPU Fan Speed [Monitor]
> CPU Optional Fan Speed [Monitor]
> Chassis Fan 1 Speed [Monitor]
> Chassis Fan 2 Speed [Monitor]
> Chassis Fan 3 Speed [Monitor]
> High Amp Fan Speed [Monitor]
> W_PUMP+ Speed [Monitor]
> AIO PUMP Speed [Monitor]
> PCH Fan Speed [Monitor]
> Flow Rate [Monitor]
> CPU Core Voltage [Monitor]
> 3.3V Voltage [Monitor]
> 5V Voltage [Monitor]
> 12V Voltage [Monitor]
> CPU Fan Q-Fan Control [Auto]
> CPU Fan Step Up [2.1 sec]
> CPU Fan Step Down [0 sec]
> CPU Fan Speed Low Limit [600 RPM]
> CPU Fan Profile [Manual]
> CPU Fan Upper Temperature [70]
> CPU Fan Max. Duty Cycle (%) [100]
> CPU Fan Middle Temperature [40]
> CPU Fan Middle Duty Cycle (%) [60]
> CPU Fan Lower Temperature [30]
> CPU Fan Min Duty Cycle (%) [50]
> Chassis Fan 1 Q-Fan Control [Auto]
> Chassis Fan 1 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
> Chassis Fan 1 Step Up [0 sec]
> Chassis Fan 1 Step Down [0 sec]
> Chassis Fan 1 Speed Low Limit [600 RPM]
> Chassis Fan 1 Profile [Manual]
> Chassis Fan 1 Upper Temperature [60]
> Chassis Fan 1 Max. Duty Cycle (%) [100]
> Chassis Fan 1 Middle Temperature [40]
> Chassis Fan 1 Middle Duty Cycle (%) [90]
> Chassis Fan 1 Lower Temperature [20]
> Chassis Fan 1 Min Duty Cycle (%) [85]
> Chassis Fan 2 Q-Fan Control [Auto]
> Chassis Fan 2 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
> Chassis Fan 2 Step Up [0 sec]
> Chassis Fan 2 Step Down [0 sec]
> Chassis Fan 2 Speed Low Limit [600 RPM]
> Chassis Fan 2 Profile [Manual]
> Chassis Fan 2 Upper Temperature [65]
> Chassis Fan 2 Max. Duty Cycle (%) [100]
> Chassis Fan 2 Middle Temperature [45]
> Chassis Fan 2 Middle Duty Cycle (%) [60]
> Chassis Fan 2 Lower Temperature [40]
> Chassis Fan 2 Min Duty Cycle (%) [60]
> Chassis Fan 3 Q-Fan Control [Auto]
> Chassis Fan 3 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
> Chassis Fan 3 Step Up [0 sec]
> Chassis Fan 3 Step Down [0 sec]
> Chassis Fan 3 Speed Low Limit [600 RPM]
> Chassis Fan 3 Profile [Manual]
> Chassis Fan 3 Upper Temperature [70]
> Chassis Fan 3 Max. Duty Cycle (%) [100]
> Chassis Fan 3 Middle Temperature [45]
> Chassis Fan 3 Middle Duty Cycle (%) [100]
> Chassis Fan 3 Lower Temperature [40]
> Chassis Fan 3 Min Duty Cycle (%) [100]
> High Amp Fan Q-Fan Control [Auto]
> High Amp Fan Q-Fan Source [CPU]
> High Amp Fan Step Up [0 sec]
> High Amp Fan Step Down [0 sec]
> High Amp Fan Speed Low Limit [600 RPM]
> High Amp Fan Profile [Manual]
> High Amp Fan Upper Temperature [70]
> High Amp Fan Max. Duty Cycle (%) [100]
> High Amp Fan Middle Temperature [60]
> High Amp Fan Middle Duty Cycle (%) [70]
> High Amp Fan Lower Temperature [30]
> High Amp Fan Min Duty Cycle (%) [60]
> Water Pump+ Q-Fan Control [Auto]
> Water Pump+ Q-Fan Source [CPU]
> Water Pump+ Upper Temperature [70]
> Water Pump+ Max. Duty Cycle (%) [100]
> Water Pump+ Middle Temperature [45]
> Water Pump+ Middle Duty Cycle (%) [70]
> Water Pump+ Lower Temperature [35]
> Water Pump+ Min Duty Cycle (%) [60]
> AIO Pump Q-Fan Control [Auto]
> AIO Pump Q-Fan Source [CPU]
> AIO Pump Upper Temperature [70]
> AIO Pump Max. Duty Cycle (%) [100]
> AIO Pump Middle Temperature [45]
> AIO Pump Middle Duty Cycle (%) [80]
> AIO Pump Lower Temperature [30]
> AIO Pump Min Duty Cycle (%) [70]
> Above 4GB MMIO Limit [39bit (512GB)]
> Fast Boot [Enabled]
> Next Boot after AC Power Loss [Fast Boot]
> Boot Logo Display [Disabled]
> Bootup NumLock State [On]
> POST Report [5 sec]
> Wait For 'F1' If Error [Enabled]
> Option ROM Messages [Force BIOS]
> Interrupt 19 Capture [Disabled]
> Setup Mode [Advanced Mode]
> Launch CSM [Disabled]
> OS Type [Other OS]
> AMI Native NVMe Driver Support [Enabled]
> Flexkey [Reset]
> Setup Animator [Disabled]
> Load from Profile [6]
> Profile Name [12.01.21 done]
> Save to Profile [1]
> DIMM Slot Number [DIMM_A1]
> Bus Interface [PCIEX16_1]
> Download & Install ARMOURY CRATE app [Enabled]
> CPU Frequency [0]
> CPU Voltage [0]
> CCD Control [Auto]
> Core control [Auto]
> SMT Control [Auto]
> Overclock [Enabled ]
> Memory Clock Speed [Auto]
> Tcl [Auto]
> Trcdrd [Auto]
> Trcdwr [Auto]
> Trp [Auto]
> Tras [Auto]
> Trc Ctrl [Auto]
> TrrdS [Auto]
> TrrdL [Auto]
> Tfaw Ctrl [Auto]
> TwtrS [Auto]
> TwtrL [Auto]
> Twr Ctrl [Auto]
> Trcpage Ctrl [Auto]
> TrdrdScL Ctrl [Auto]
> TwrwrScL Ctrl [Auto]
> Trfc Ctrl [Auto]
> Trfc2 Ctrl [Auto]
> Trfc4 Ctrl [Auto]
> Tcwl [Auto]
> Trtp [Auto]
> Tcke [Auto]
> Trdwr [Auto]
> Twrrd [Auto]
> TwrwrSc [Auto]
> TwrwrSd [Auto]
> TwrwrDd [Auto]
> TrdrdSc [Auto]
> TrdrdSd [Auto]
> TrdrdDd [Auto]
> ProcODT [Auto]
> Power Down Enable [Auto]
> Cmd2T [Auto]
> Gear Down Mode [Auto]
> CAD Bus Timing User Controls [Auto]
> CAD Bus Drive Strength User Controls [Auto]
> Data Bus Configuration User Controls [Auto]
> Infinity Fabric Frequency and Dividers [Auto]
> ECO Mode [Disable]
> Precision Boost Overdrive [Advanced]
> PBO Limits [Motherboard]
> Precision Boost Overdrive Scalar [Auto]
> Curve Optimizer [Per Core]
> Core 0 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 0 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
> Core 1 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 1 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
> Core 2 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 2 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
> Core 3 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 3 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
> Core 4 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 4 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
> Core 5 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 5 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
> Core 6 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 6 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
> Core 7 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 7 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
> Core 8 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 8 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
> Core 9 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 9 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
> Core 10 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 10 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
> Core 11 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 11 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
> Core 12 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 12 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
> Core 13 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 13 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
> Core 14 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 14 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
> Core 15 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 15 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
> Max CPU Boost Clock Override [0MHz]
> Platform Thermal Throttle Limit [Auto]
> LN2 Mode [Auto]
> SoC/Uncore OC Mode [Disabled]
> VDDP Voltage Control [Auto]
> VDDG Voltage Control [Auto]
> NUMA nodes per socket [Auto]
> Custom Pstate0 [Auto]
> L1 Stream HW Prefetcher [Auto]
> L2 Stream HW Prefetcher [Auto]
> Core Watchdog Timer Enable [Auto]
> SMEE [Auto]
> Core Performance Boost [Auto]
> Global C-state Control [Disabled]
> Power Supply Idle Control [Typical Current Idle]
> SEV ASID Count [Auto]
> SEV-ES ASID Space Limit Control [Auto]
> Streaming Stores Control [Auto]
> Local APIC Mode [Auto]
> ACPI _CST C1 Declaration [Auto]
> MCA error thresh enable [Auto]
> PPIN Opt-in [Auto]
> Fast Short REP MOVSB [Enabled]
> Enhanced REP MOVSB/STOSB [Enabled]
> RdRand Speedup Disable [Enabled]
> IBS hardware workaround [Auto]
> DRAM scrub time [Auto]
> Poison scrubber control [Auto]
> Redirect scrubber control [Auto]
> Redirect scrubber limit [Auto]
> NUMA nodes per socket [Auto]
> Memory interleaving [Auto]
> Memory interleaving size [Auto]
> 1TB remap [Auto]
> DRAM map inversion [Auto]
> ACPI SRAT L3 Cache As NUMA Domain [Auto]
> ACPI SLIT Distance Control [Auto]
> ACPI SLIT remote relative distance [Auto]
> GMI encryption control [Auto]
> xGMI encryption control [Auto]
> CAKE CRC perf bounds Control [Auto]
> 4-link xGMI max speed [Auto]
> 3-link xGMI max speed [Auto]
> xGMI TXEQ Mode [Auto]
> PcsCG control [Auto]
> Disable DF to external downstream IP SyncFloodPropagation [Auto]
> Disable DF sync flood propagation [Auto]
> CC6 memory region encryption [Auto]
> Memory Clear [Auto]
> Overclock [Enabled]
> Memory Clock Speed [Auto]
> Tcl [Auto]
> Trcdrd [Auto]
> Trcdwr [Auto]
> Trp [Auto]
> Tras [Auto]
> Trc Ctrl [Auto]
> TrrdS [Auto]
> TrrdL [Auto]
> Tfaw Ctrl [Auto]
> TwtrS [Auto]
> TwtrL [Auto]
> Twr Ctrl [Auto]
> Trcpage Ctrl [Auto]
> TrdrdScL Ctrl [Auto]
> TwrwrScL Ctrl [Auto]
> Trfc Ctrl [Auto]
> Trfc2 Ctrl [Auto]
> Trfc4 Ctrl [Auto]
> Tcwl [Auto]
> Trtp [Auto]
> Tcke [Auto]
> Trdwr [Auto]
> Twrrd [Auto]
> TwrwrSc [Auto]
> TwrwrSd [Auto]
> TwrwrDd [Auto]
> TrdrdSc [Auto]
> TrdrdSd [Auto]
> TrdrdDd [Auto]
> ProcODT [Auto]
> Power Down Enable [Auto]
> Disable Burst/Postponed Refresh [Auto]
> DRAM Maximum Activate Count [Auto]
> Cmd2T [Auto]
> Gear Down Mode [Auto]
> CAD Bus Timing User Controls [Auto]
> CAD Bus Drive Strength User Controls [Auto]
> Data Bus Configuration User Controls [Auto]
> Data Poisoning [Auto]
> DRAM Post Package Repair [Default]
> RCD Parity [Auto]
> DRAM Address Command Parity Retry [Auto]
> Write CRC Enable [Auto]
> DRAM Write CRC Enable and Retry Limit [Auto]
> Disable Memory Error Injection [True]
> DRAM ECC Symbol Size [Auto]
> DRAM ECC Enable [Auto]
> DRAM UECC Retry [Auto]
> TSME [Auto]
> Data Scramble [Auto]
> DFE Read Training [Auto]
> FFE Write Training [Auto]
> PMU Pattern Bits Control [Auto]
> MR6VrefDQ Control [Auto]
> CPU Vref Training Seed Control [Auto]
> Chipselect Interleaving [Auto]
> BankGroupSwap [Auto]
> BankGroupSwapAlt [Auto]
> Address Hash Bank [Auto]
> Address Hash CS [Auto]
> Address Hash Rm [Auto]
> SPD Read Optimization [Enabled]
> MBIST Enable [Disabled]
> Pattern Select [PRBS]
> Pattern Length [6]
> Aggressor Channel [1 Aggressor Channel]
> Aggressor Static Lane Control [Disabled]
> Target Static Lane Control [Disabled]
> Worst Case Margin Granularity [Per Chip Select]
> Read Voltage Sweep Step Size [1]
> Read Timing Sweep Step Size [1]
> Write Voltage Sweep Step Size [1]
> Write Timing Sweep Step Size [1]
> IOMMU [Auto]
> Precision Boost Overdrive [Auto]
> Precision Boost Overdrive Scalar [Auto]
> FCLK Frequency [Auto]
> SOC OVERCLOCK VID [0]
> UCLK DIV1 MODE [Auto]
> VDDP Voltage Control [Auto]
> VDDG Voltage Control [Auto]
> SoC/Uncore OC Mode [Auto]
> LN2 Mode [Auto]
> ACS Enable [Auto]
> PCIe ARI Support [Auto]
> PCIe ARI Enumeration [Auto]
> PCIe Ten Bit Tag Support [Auto]
> cTDP Control [Auto]
> EfficiencyModeEn [Auto]
> Package Power Limit Control [Auto]
> APBDIS [Auto]
> DF Cstates [Auto]
> CPPC [Auto]
> CPPC Preferred Cores [Auto]
> NBIO DPM Control [Auto]
> Early Link Speed [Auto]
> Presence Detect Select mode [Auto]
> Preferred IO [Auto]
> CV test [Auto]
> Loopback Mode [Auto]
> Data Link Feature Exchange [Disabled]


Scores in benchmarks with current settings:









And some heavyer y-cruncher benchmarks, do note the 295 watt usage.. Good cooling is required


----------



## VPII

domdtxdissar said:


> Here we go
> 
> My current 24/7 settings with fans on auto, 24 degrees ambient etc
> 
> Scores in benchmarks with current settings:
> View attachment 2474066
> 
> 
> And some heavyer y-cruncher benchmarks, do note the 295 watt usage.. Good cooling is required
> View attachment 2474067


Your results look pretty great. I've tried various curves but the most negative I can go all cores is 22 anything higher the system would reset when just opening benchmate. Not sure if I am missing something. I know the 5950X I have is not too bad. Under dry ice I was able to do 5.25ghz using 1.525vcore as for some reason I could not go higher on the vcore.


----------



## jedlarosa

Hi domdtxdissar,

I followed your settings and finally, for two days. No more crashing! Thank you so much!!! My only problem now is my temp. During cinebench, it reached 90 degrees and when I do something on my computer like browsing, downloading games and installing other stuffs. My temp plays from 50 to 65. Are these normal?



domdtxdissar said:


> Here we go
> 
> My current 24/7 settings with fans on auto, 24 degrees ambient etc
> 
> Scores in benchmarks with current settings:
> View attachment 2474066
> 
> 
> And some heavyer y-cruncher benchmarks, do note the 295 watt usage.. Good cooling is required
> View attachment 2474067


----------



## BluePaint

Did u check the max voltages? domdtxdissar screens show > 1,5v which is quite high and require very good cooling


----------



## jedlarosa

BluePaint said:


> Did u check the max voltages? domdtxdissar screens show > 1,5v which is quite high and require very good cooling


Ohh sorry. It is my first time using a bios and most especially using AMD. I have been an intel boy since 1995. lol Can you please recommend how to lower the temp please? I'm using kraken z73 and uni fan sl120 as my coolers.


----------



## Mullcom

jedlarosa said:


> Ohh sorry. It is my first time using a bios and most especially using AMD. I have been an intel boy since 1995. lol Can you please recommend how to lower the temp please? I'm using kraken z73 and uni fan sl120 as my coolers.


Welcome on board  


Skickat från min SM-G973F via Tapatalk


----------



## Mr.Sunshine

domdtxdissar said:


> Here we go
> 
> My current 24/7 settings with fans on auto, 24 degrees ambient etc
> 
> Scores in benchmarks with current settings:
> View attachment 2474066
> 
> 
> And some heavyer y-cruncher benchmarks, do note the 295 watt usage.. Good cooling is required
> View attachment 2474067


Tried your setting couldnt get same or close results. Clocks were way low. Dont know? Maybe 2 CCD chips power needs make difference. I was able to tweak my settings... My two best cores don't like anything past -5 on curve and was only stable to 5050mhz in CB23 at that point effective clocks didn't return as high, ex.(set 5075mhz but eff. was 5020mhz)or would just crash CB23 and give error. Binning and high base boost definitely help 5950X chips reach alittle higher. I was able to get it to this point 24/7 stable.

Temps are good. running custom loop with 480/360 rads. Hopefully newer BIOS for my X470 board will get be better clocks and tighter timings on memory.


----------



## KedarWolf

MSI MEG B550 UNIFY-X AM4 ATX Motherboard


Buy MSI MEG B550 UNIFY-X AM4 ATX Motherboard featuring ATX Form Factor, AMD B550 Chipset, AM4 Socket, 2 x Dual-Channel DDR4 DIMM Slots, 6 x SATA III, 4 x M.2 PCIe Slots, 1 x PCIe 4.0/3.0 x16 Slot, 1 x PCIe 3.0 x16 Slot, 2 x PCIe 3.0 x1 Slots, 1 x RJ45 2.5 Gigabit Ethernet Port, Windows 10...




www.bhphotovideo.com





Pre-order, but B&H Photo are pretty decent, and delays not too bad.

STILL haven't gotten my 5950x and but I'll quite likely have it by the time I get the board. Guy that ordered from the same store as me the same day got his four days ago. 

Running a 3950x currently.


----------



## def

Nice one, may i know what cooling/aio you using ? 



domdtxdissar said:


> Here we go
> 
> My current 24/7 settings with fans on auto, 24 degrees ambient etc
> 
> Scores in benchmarks with current settings:
> View attachment 2474066
> 
> 
> And some heavyer y-cruncher benchmarks, do note the 295 watt usage.. Good cooling is required
> View attachment 2474067


----------



## domdtxdissar

def said:


> Nice one, may i know what cooling/aio you using ?


Custom EK waterloop + TechN waterblock.
70mm thick 120mm*360mm rad + standard 140mm*280mm rad


----------



## Mr.Sunshine

Little more tweaking

Still working on memory...


----------



## Mr.Sunshine

Has anyone noticed that dropping EDC,TDC,PPT and playing with LLC drops L3 cache performance? I noticed that my clocks were high 5050mhz single and 4750mhz multi but L3 scores in Aida64 were tanked for R/W/C. As soon as I raised EDC noticed they went up. Ex:

R20 Multi Core

EDC 110A 4725-4750mhz- score 6150-6200pts Aida-R-175GBs/W-310GBs/C-180GBs
EDC 135A 4625-4650mhz- score 6225-6320pts Aida-R-210GBs/W-335GBs/C-354GBs


----------



## Bojamijams

I've noticed that. Not sure what chip you have but my L3 numbers at 600GB/s + on my 5900x


----------



## domdtxdissar

One last hurrah for bios 3003 before i update to a bios with AMD AM4 AGESA V2 PI 1.2.0.0 and support for Nvidia smart access memory.
Cold air benching with EK custom waterloop+TechN Zen3 waterblock 
Curve optimizer = -30 allcore
Stable in everything i throw at it, and no WHEA errors.








Cinebench r23 multithread = 32229 points
Cinebench r23 singlethread = 1729 points

Cinebench r20 multithread = 12441 points
Cinebench r20 singlethread = 674 points

Cinebench r15 multithread = 5404 points
Cinebench r15 multithread = 288 points

CPU-Z validator @ AMD Ryzen 9 5950X @ 4798.88 MHz - CPU-Z VALIDATOR

Some Asus realbench + Passmark performancetest numbers @ PassMark Software - Display Baseline ID# 1359214 (This machine is ranked #36 out of 156355 results globally)









Geekbench 4 @ ASUS System Product Name - Geekbench Browser
Singlethread = 8215 points
Multithread = 74733 points

Geekbench5 @ ASUS System Product Name - Geekbench Browser
Singlethread = 1844 points
Multithread = 20054 points

Some heavy IBT high+very high and Y-Cruncher numbers:









Did also run a full sweep of all 3dmarks, but i will post that in one other thread 



Spoiler: Bios dump



[2021/01/20 16:26:21]
Ai Overclock Tuner [Manual]
BCLK Frequency [100.0000]
Memory Frequency [DDR4-3800MHz]
FCLK Frequency [1900MHz]
Core Performance Boost [Enabled]
CPU Core Ratio [Auto]
Core VID [Auto]
CCX0 Ratio [Auto]
CCX0 Ratio [Auto]
TPU [Keep Current Settings]
Performance Bias [Auto]
PBO Fmax Enhancer [Auto]
Precision Boost Overdrive [Manual]
PPT Limit [300]
TDC Limit [235]
EDC Limit [245]
Precision Boost Overdrive Scalar [Manual]
Customized Precision Boost Overdrive Scalar [4X]
Max CPU Boost Clock Override [50]
Platform Thermal Throttle Limit [Auto]
DRAM CAS# Latency [14]
Trcdrd [15]
Trcdwr [8]
DRAM RAS# PRE Time [12]
DRAM RAS# ACT Time [24]
Trc [36]
TrrdS [4]
TrrdL [4]
Tfaw [16]
TwtrS [4]
TwtrL [10]
Twr [12]
Trcpage [Auto]
TrdrdScl [2]
TwrwrScl [2]
Trfc [252]
Trfc2 [187]
Trfc4 [115]
Tcwl [14]
Trtp [6]
Trdwr [9]
Twrrd [2]
TwrwrSc [1]
TwrwrSd [6]
TwrwrDd [6]
TrdrdSc [1]
TrdrdSd [5]
TrdrdDd [5]
Tcke [Auto]
ProcODT [40 ohm]
Cmd2T [1T]
Gear Down Mode [Enabled]
Power Down Enable [Disabled]
RttNom [RZQ/7]
RttWr [RZQ/3]
RttPark [RZQ/1]
MemAddrCmdSetup [Auto]
MemCsOdtSetup [Auto]
MemCkeSetup [Auto]
MemCadBusClkDrvStren [24.0 Ohm]
MemCadBusAddrCmdDrvStren [20.0 Ohm]
MemCadBusCsOdtDrvStren [24.0 Ohm]
MemCadBusCkeDrvStren [24.0 Ohm]
Mem Over Clock Fail Count [Auto]
Voltage Monitor [Die Sense]
CPU Load-line Calibration [Level 3]
CPU Current Capability [140%]
CPU VRM Switching Frequency [Manual]
Fixed CPU VRM Switching Frequency(KHz) [500]
CPU Power Duty Control [T.Probe]
CPU Power Phase Control [Extreme]
CPU Power Thermal Control [120]
VDDSOC Load-line Calibration [Level 3]
VDDSOC Switching Frequency [Auto]
VDDSOC Phase Control [Extreme]
DRAM Current Capability [130%]
DRAM Power Phase Control [Extreme]
DRAM Switching Frequency [Auto]
CPU Core Current Telemetry [Auto]
CPU SOC Current Telemetry [Auto]
Force OC Mode Disable [Disabled]
SB Clock Spread Spectrum [Auto]
VTTDDR Voltage [Auto]
VPP_MEM Voltage [Auto]
DRAM CTRL REF Voltage on CHA [Auto]
DRAM CTRL REF Voltage on CHB [Auto]
VDDP Voltage [Auto]
1.8V Standby Voltage [Auto]
CPU 3.3v AUX [Auto]
1.2V SB Voltage [Auto]
DRAM R1 Tune [Auto]
DRAM R2 Tune [Auto]
DRAM R3 Tune [Auto]
DRAM R4 Tune [Auto]
PCIE Tune R1 [Auto]
PCIE Tune R2 [Auto]
PCIE Tune R3 [Auto]
PLL Tune R1 [Auto]
PLL reference voltage [Auto]
T Offset [Auto]
Sense MI Skew [Auto]
Sense MI Offset [Auto]
Promontory presence [Auto]
Clock Amplitude [Auto]
CPU Core Voltage [Offset mode]

Offset Mode Sign [+]
CPU Core Voltage Offset [0.01250]
CPU SOC Voltage [Manual]
- VDDSOC Voltage Override [1.11875]
DRAM Voltage [1.54500]
VDDG CCD Voltage Control [0.890]
VDDG IOD Voltage Control [Auto]
CLDO VDDP voltage [0.880]
1.00V SB Voltage [Auto]
1.8V PLL Voltage [Auto]
TPM Device Selection [Discrete TPM]
Erase fTPM NV for factory reset [Enabled]
PSS Support [Enabled]
PPC Adjustment [PState 0]
NX Mode [Enabled]
SVM Mode [Disabled]
SMT Mode [Auto]
Core Leveling Mode [Automatic mode]
CCD Control [Auto]
SATA Port Enable [Enabled]
SATA Mode [AHCI]
NVMe RAID mode [Disabled]
SMART Self Test [Enabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
HD Audio Controller [Enabled]
PCIEX16_1 Bandwidth Bifurcation configuration [Auto Mode]
PCIEX16_2 Bandwidth Bifurcation configuration [Auto Mode]
When system is in working state [All On]
Q-Code LED Function [POST Code Only]
When system is in sleep, hibernate or soft off states [All On]
Realtek 2.5G LAN Controller [Enabled]
Realtek PXE OPROM [Disabled]
Intel LAN Controller [Enabled]
Intel LAN OPROM [Disabled]
ASM1074 Controller [Enabled]
Wi-Fi 6 (802.11ax) Controller [Disabled]
Bluetooth Controller [Enabled]
USB power delivery in Soft Off state (S5) [Enabled]
PCIEX16_1 Mode [Auto]
PCIEX16_2 Mode [Auto]
PCIEX1 Mode [Auto]
PCIEX16_3 Mode [Auto]
M.2_1 Link Mode [Auto]
M.2_2 Link Mode [Auto]
SB Link Mode [Auto]
ErP Ready [Disabled]
Restore AC Power Loss [Power Off]
Power On By PCI-E [Disabled]
Power On By RTC [Disabled]
Above 4G Decoding [Enabled]
Re-Size BAR Support [Auto]
SR-IOV Support [Disabled]
Legacy USB Support [Enabled]
XHCI Hand-off [Enabled]
Corsair Voyager GTX 0 [Auto]
USB Device Enable [Enabled]
U32G2_2 [Enabled]
U32G2_3 [Enabled]
U32G2_4 [Enabled]
U32G1_10 [Enabled]
U32G1_11 [Enabled]
USB12 [Enabled]
USB13 [Enabled]
U32G2_7 [Enabled]
U32G2_8 [Enabled]
U32G2_C9 [Enabled]
Network Stack [Disabled]
Device [SATA6G_7: Samsung SSD 850 PRO 1TB]
CPU Temperature [Monitor]
CPU Package Temperature [Monitor]
MotherBoard Temperature [Monitor]
VRM Temperature [Monitor]
T_Sensor Temperature [Monitor]
Water In T Sensor Temperature [Monitor]
Water Out T Sensor Temperature [Monitor]
CPU Fan Speed [Monitor]
CPU Optional Fan Speed [Monitor]
Chassis Fan 1 Speed [Monitor]
Chassis Fan 2 Speed [Monitor]
Chassis Fan 3 Speed [Monitor]
High Amp Fan Speed [Monitor]
W_PUMP+ Speed [Monitor]
AIO PUMP Speed [Monitor]
PCH Fan Speed [Monitor]
Flow Rate [Monitor]
CPU Core Voltage [Monitor]
3.3V Voltage [Monitor]
5V Voltage [Monitor]
12V Voltage [Monitor]
CPU Fan Q-Fan Control [Auto]
CPU Fan Step Up [2.1 sec]
CPU Fan Step Down [0 sec]
CPU Fan Speed Low Limit [600 RPM]
CPU Fan Profile [Manual]
CPU Fan Upper Temperature [70]
CPU Fan Max. Duty Cycle (%) [100]
CPU Fan Middle Temperature [50]
CPU Fan Middle Duty Cycle (%) [50]
CPU Fan Lower Temperature [30]
CPU Fan Min Duty Cycle (%) [40]
Chassis Fan 1 Q-Fan Control [Auto]
Chassis Fan 1 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
Chassis Fan 1 Step Up [0 sec]
Chassis Fan 1 Step Down [0 sec]
Chassis Fan 1 Speed Low Limit [600 RPM]
Chassis Fan 1 Profile [Manual]
Chassis Fan 1 Upper Temperature [70]
Chassis Fan 1 Max. Duty Cycle (%) [100]
Chassis Fan 1 Middle Temperature [50]
Chassis Fan 1 Middle Duty Cycle (%) [65]
Chassis Fan 1 Lower Temperature [20]
Chassis Fan 1 Min Duty Cycle (%) [60]
Chassis Fan 2 Q-Fan Control [Auto]
Chassis Fan 2 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
Chassis Fan 2 Step Up [0 sec]
Chassis Fan 2 Step Down [0 sec]
Chassis Fan 2 Speed Low Limit [600 RPM]
Chassis Fan 2 Profile [Manual]
Chassis Fan 2 Upper Temperature [65]
Chassis Fan 2 Max. Duty Cycle (%) [100]
Chassis Fan 2 Middle Temperature [45]
Chassis Fan 2 Middle Duty Cycle (%) [60]
Chassis Fan 2 Lower Temperature [40]
Chassis Fan 2 Min Duty Cycle (%) [60]
Chassis Fan 3 Q-Fan Control [Auto]
Chassis Fan 3 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
Chassis Fan 3 Step Up [0 sec]
Chassis Fan 3 Step Down [0 sec]
Chassis Fan 3 Speed Low Limit [600 RPM]
Chassis Fan 3 Profile [Manual]
Chassis Fan 3 Upper Temperature [70]
Chassis Fan 3 Max. Duty Cycle (%) [100]
Chassis Fan 3 Middle Temperature [45]
Chassis Fan 3 Middle Duty Cycle (%) [100]
Chassis Fan 3 Lower Temperature [40]
Chassis Fan 3 Min Duty Cycle (%) [100]
High Amp Fan Q-Fan Control [Auto]
High Amp Fan Q-Fan Source [CPU]
High Amp Fan Step Up [0 sec]
High Amp Fan Step Down [0 sec]
High Amp Fan Speed Low Limit [600 RPM]
High Amp Fan Profile [Manual]
High Amp Fan Upper Temperature [70]
High Amp Fan Max. Duty Cycle (%) [100]
High Amp Fan Middle Temperature [45]
High Amp Fan Middle Duty Cycle (%) [70]
High Amp Fan Lower Temperature [30]
High Amp Fan Min Duty Cycle (%) [60]
Water Pump+ Q-Fan Control [Auto]
Water Pump+ Q-Fan Source [CPU]
Water Pump+ Upper Temperature [70]
Water Pump+ Max. Duty Cycle (%) [100]
Water Pump+ Middle Temperature [50]
Water Pump+ Middle Duty Cycle (%) [65]
Water Pump+ Lower Temperature [30]
Water Pump+ Min Duty Cycle (%) [60]
AIO Pump Q-Fan Control [Auto]
AIO Pump Q-Fan Source [CPU]
AIO Pump Upper Temperature [70]
AIO Pump Max. Duty Cycle (%) [100]
AIO Pump Middle Temperature [50]
AIO Pump Middle Duty Cycle (%) [65]
AIO Pump Lower Temperature [30]
AIO Pump Min Duty Cycle (%) [60]
Above 4GB MMIO Limit [39bit (512GB)]
Fast Boot [Enabled]
Next Boot after AC Power Loss [Fast Boot]
Boot Logo Display [Disabled]
Bootup NumLock State [On]
POST Report [5 sec]
Wait For 'F1' If Error [Enabled]
Option ROM Messages [Force BIOS]
Interrupt 19 Capture [Disabled]
Setup Mode [Advanced Mode]
Launch CSM [Disabled]
OS Type [Other OS]
AMI Native NVMe Driver Support [Enabled]
Flexkey [Reset]
Setup Animator [Disabled]
Load from Profile [5]
Profile Name [20.01 minus 30]
Save to Profile [5]
DIMM Slot Number [DIMM_A1]
Bus Interface [PCIEX16_1]
Download & Install ARMOURY CRATE app [Enabled]
CPU Frequency [0]
CPU Voltage [0]
CCD Control [Auto]
Core control [Auto]
SMT Control [Auto]
Overclock [Enabled ]
Memory Clock Speed [Auto]
Tcl [Auto]
Trcdrd [Auto]
Trcdwr [Auto]
Trp [Auto]
Tras [Auto]
Trc Ctrl [Auto]
TrrdS [Auto]
TrrdL [Auto]
Tfaw Ctrl [Auto]
TwtrS [Auto]
TwtrL [Auto]
Twr Ctrl [Auto]
Trcpage Ctrl [Auto]
TrdrdScL Ctrl [Auto]
TwrwrScL Ctrl [Auto]
Trfc Ctrl [Auto]
Trfc2 Ctrl [Auto]
Trfc4 Ctrl [Auto]
Tcwl [Auto]
Trtp [Auto]
Tcke [Auto]
Trdwr [Auto]
Twrrd [Auto]
TwrwrSc [Auto]
TwrwrSd [Auto]
TwrwrDd [Auto]
TrdrdSc [Auto]
TrdrdSd [Auto]
TrdrdDd [Auto]
ProcODT [Auto]
Power Down Enable [Auto]
Cmd2T [Auto]
Gear Down Mode [Auto]
CAD Bus Timing User Controls [Auto]
CAD Bus Drive Strength User Controls [Auto]
Data Bus Configuration User Controls [Auto]
Infinity Fabric Frequency and Dividers [Auto]
ECO Mode [Disable]
Precision Boost Overdrive [Advanced]
PBO Limits [Motherboard]
Precision Boost Overdrive Scalar [Auto]
Curve Optimizer [Per Core]
Core 0 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 0 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
Core 1 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 1 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
Core 2 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 2 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
Core 3 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 3 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
Core 4 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 4 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
Core 5 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 5 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
Core 6 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 6 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
Core 7 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 7 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
Core 8 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 8 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
Core 9 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 9 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
Core 10 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 10 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
Core 11 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 11 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
Core 12 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 12 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
Core 13 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 13 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
Core 14 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 14 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
Core 15 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 15 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
Max CPU Boost Clock Override [0MHz]
Platform Thermal Throttle Limit [Auto]
LN2 Mode [Auto]
SoC/Uncore OC Mode [Disabled]
VDDP Voltage Control [Auto]
VDDG Voltage Control [Auto]
NUMA nodes per socket [Auto]
Custom Pstate0 [Auto]
L1 Stream HW Prefetcher [Auto]
L2 Stream HW Prefetcher [Auto]
Core Watchdog Timer Enable [Auto]
SMEE [Auto]
Core Performance Boost [Auto]
Global C-state Control [Disabled]
Power Supply Idle Control [Typical Current Idle]
SEV ASID Count [Auto]
SEV-ES ASID Space Limit Control [Auto]
Streaming Stores Control [Auto]
Local APIC Mode [Auto]
ACPI _CST C1 Declaration [Auto]
MCA error thresh enable [Auto]
PPIN Opt-in [Auto]
Fast Short REP MOVSB [Enabled]
Enhanced REP MOVSB/STOSB [Enabled]
RdRand Speedup Disable [Enabled]
IBS hardware workaround [Auto]
DRAM scrub time [Auto]
Poison scrubber control [Auto]
Redirect scrubber control [Auto]
Redirect scrubber limit [Auto]
NUMA nodes per socket [Auto]
Memory interleaving [Auto]
Memory interleaving size [Auto]
1TB remap [Auto]
DRAM map inversion [Auto]
ACPI SRAT L3 Cache As NUMA Domain [Auto]
ACPI SLIT Distance Control [Auto]
ACPI SLIT remote relative distance [Auto]
GMI encryption control [Auto]
xGMI encryption control [Auto]
CAKE CRC perf bounds Control [Auto]
4-link xGMI max speed [Auto]
3-link xGMI max speed [Auto]
xGMI TXEQ Mode [Auto]
PcsCG control [Auto]
Disable DF to external downstream IP SyncFloodPropagation [Auto]
Disable DF sync flood propagation [Auto]
CC6 memory region encryption [Auto]
Memory Clear [Auto]
Overclock [Enabled]
Memory Clock Speed [Auto]
Tcl [Auto]
Trcdrd [Auto]
Trcdwr [Auto]
Trp [Auto]
Tras [Auto]
Trc Ctrl [Auto]
TrrdS [Auto]
TrrdL [Auto]
Tfaw Ctrl [Auto]
TwtrS [Auto]
TwtrL [Auto]
Twr Ctrl [Auto]
Trcpage Ctrl [Auto]
TrdrdScL Ctrl [Auto]
TwrwrScL Ctrl [Auto]
Trfc Ctrl [Auto]
Trfc2 Ctrl [Auto]
Trfc4 Ctrl [Auto]
Tcwl [Auto]
Trtp [Auto]
Tcke [Auto]
Trdwr [Auto]
Twrrd [Auto]
TwrwrSc [Auto]
TwrwrSd [Auto]
TwrwrDd [Auto]
TrdrdSc [Auto]
TrdrdSd [Auto]
TrdrdDd [Auto]
ProcODT [Auto]
Power Down Enable [Auto]
Disable Burst/Postponed Refresh [Auto]
DRAM Maximum Activate Count [Auto]
Cmd2T [Auto]
Gear Down Mode [Auto]
CAD Bus Timing User Controls [Auto]
CAD Bus Drive Strength User Controls [Auto]
Data Bus Configuration User Controls [Auto]
Data Poisoning [Auto]
DRAM Post Package Repair [Default]
RCD Parity [Auto]
DRAM Address Command Parity Retry [Auto]
Write CRC Enable [Auto]
DRAM Write CRC Enable and Retry Limit [Auto]
Disable Memory Error Injection [True]
DRAM ECC Symbol Size [Auto]
DRAM ECC Enable [Auto]
DRAM UECC Retry [Auto]
TSME [Auto]
Data Scramble [Auto]
DFE Read Training [Auto]
FFE Write Training [Auto]
PMU Pattern Bits Control [Auto]
MR6VrefDQ Control [Auto]
CPU Vref Training Seed Control [Auto]
Chipselect Interleaving [Auto]
BankGroupSwap [Auto]
BankGroupSwapAlt [Auto]
Address Hash Bank [Auto]
Address Hash CS [Auto]
Address Hash Rm [Auto]
SPD Read Optimization [Enabled]
MBIST Enable [Disabled]
Pattern Select [PRBS]
Pattern Length [6]
Aggressor Channel [1 Aggressor Channel]
Aggressor Static Lane Control [Disabled]
Target Static Lane Control [Disabled]
Worst Case Margin Granularity [Per Chip Select]
Read Voltage Sweep Step Size [1]
Read Timing Sweep Step Size [1]
Write Voltage Sweep Step Size [1]
Write Timing Sweep Step Size [1]
IOMMU [Auto]
Precision Boost Overdrive [Auto]
Precision Boost Overdrive Scalar [Auto]
FCLK Frequency [Auto]
SOC OVERCLOCK VID [0]
UCLK DIV1 MODE [Auto]
VDDP Voltage Control [Auto]
VDDG Voltage Control [Auto]
SoC/Uncore OC Mode [Auto]
LN2 Mode [Auto]
ACS Enable [Auto]
PCIe ARI Support [Auto]
PCIe ARI Enumeration [Auto]
PCIe Ten Bit Tag Support [Auto]
cTDP Control [Auto]
EfficiencyModeEn [Auto]
Package Power Limit Control [Auto]
APBDIS [Auto]
DF Cstates [Auto]
CPPC [Auto]
CPPC Preferred Cores [Auto]
NBIO DPM Control [Auto]
Early Link Speed [Auto]
Presence Detect Select mode [Auto]
Preferred IO [Auto]
CV test [Auto]
Loopback Mode [Auto]
Data Link Feature Exchange [Disabled]


----------



## BluePaint

Great scores! Which kind of temps did u have under full load and do u use LM?


----------



## domdtxdissar

BluePaint said:


> Great scores! Which kind of temps did u have under full load and do u use LM?


Maxtemp tctl/tdie was 65 degrees in IBT/Y-cruncher with 300watt load 
Noctua NT-H2 paste.


----------



## Mr.Sunshine

I updated to the AMD AM4 AGESA V2 PI 1.2.0.0 Beta BIOS(5833) for my ROG Strix x470 board but it seemed to lower scores by 2-3% and PBO for my 5800X was locked to 5025mhz boost. Where before I could clock as high as CPU would let me(5100mhz) under old BIOS(5809). Went back to old BIOS for now till they post non beta version.


----------



## Mr.Sunshine

Best "stable" speed I can push the 5800X to:


Unfortunately AGESA firmware and I'm sure microcoding limit the top end speed each CPU can get to. As you can see in chart 5950X get to 5025/5050mhz with PBO enabled then you have another 200mhz worth of boost to push it more, if stable depending on your CPU quality. I've seen the following clocks stable w/o clock stretching per chip:
5950X- 5100-5150mhz
5900X- no info
5800X- 5025-5100mhz
5600X- 4900-4950mhz


Listed
1TFirm
ware
1T*Data
1TListed
BaseData
nTTDP
(W)Data
(W)nT
W/core*Ryzen 9 5950X*4900_5025_*5050*3400*3775*1051426.12*Ryzen 9 5900X*4800_4925_*4950*3700*4150*1051427.85*Ryzen 7 5800X*4700_4825_*4825*3800*4450*10514014.55*Ryzen 5 5600X*4600_4625_*4650*3700*4450*657610.20_*Listed 1T: The official number on the box
*Firmware 1T: 'Maximum Frequency' as listed in CPU registers in AGESA 1100_


----------



## wisebear

Mr.Sunshine said:


> I updated to the AMD AM4 AGESA V2 PI 1.2.0.0 Beta BIOS(5833) for my ROG Strix x470 board but it seemed to lower scores by 2-3% and PBO for my 5800X was locked to 5025mhz boost. Where before I could clock as high as CPU would let me(5100mhz) under old BIOS(5809). Went back to old BIOS for now till they post non beta version.


That's exactly the same problem i have on my 5800x. I was trying to figure out whether it's a specific issue on Gigabyte BIOSes or maybe an AGESA 1.2.0.0 'fix' to allow >1900 IF clocks.
(i could never even post beyond 1867 on 1.1.0.0, on 1.2.0.0 i can get to 2000 although i'm not happy with the RAM and SOC voltage requirements, so i'm currently at 1966 stable)

I guess your comment does at least answer my first theory (it's not Gigabyte specific...) however i really hope it's not meant to stay like this in the final version, cause it's just extra performance down the toilet...

(edit: grammar)


----------



## Mr.Sunshine

wisebear said:


> That's exactly the same problem i have on my 5800x. I was trying to figure out whether it's a specific issue on Gigabyte BIOSes or maybe an AGESA 1.2.0.0 'fix' to allow >1900 IF clocks.
> (i could never even post beyond 1867 on 1.1.0.0, on 1.2.0.0 i can get to 2000 although i'm not happy with the RAM and SOC voltage requirements, so i'm currently at 1966 stable)
> 
> I guess your comment does at least answer my first theory (it's not Gigabyte specific...) however i really hope it's not meant to stay like this in the final version, cause it's just extra performance down the toilet...
> 
> (edit: grammar)


I was also stuck at 1867mhz, I dropped it back to 1900mhz and tighten timings down. I'll try AGESA 1.2.0.0 when it non Beta see if there is fix. For now I'm at 5075mhz Boost and 3800mhz memory and rock stable. So I'm happy.


----------



## KedarWolf

domdtxdissar said:


> One last hurrah for bios 3003 before i update to a bios with AMD AM4 AGESA V2 PI 1.2.0.0 and support for Nvidia smart access memory.
> Cold air benching with EK custom waterloop+TechN Zen3 waterblock
> Curve optimizer = -30 allcore
> Stable in everything i throw at it, and no WHEA errors.
> View attachment 2475344
> 
> Cinebench r23 multithread = 32229 points
> Cinebench r23 singlethread = 1729 points
> 
> Cinebench r20 multithread = 12441 points
> Cinebench r20 singlethread = 674 points
> 
> Cinebench r15 multithread = 5404 points
> Cinebench r15 multithread = 288 points
> 
> CPU-Z validator @ AMD Ryzen 9 5950X @ 4798.88 MHz - CPU-Z VALIDATOR
> 
> Some Asus realbench + Passmark performancetest numbers @ PassMark Software - Display Baseline ID# 1359214 (This machine is ranked #36 out of 156355 results globally)
> View attachment 2475345
> 
> 
> Geekbench 4 @ ASUS System Product Name - Geekbench Browser
> Singlethread = 8215 points
> Multithread = 74733 points
> 
> Geekbench5 @ ASUS System Product Name - Geekbench Browser
> Singlethread = 1844 points
> Multithread = 20054 points
> 
> Some heavy IBT high+very high and Y-Cruncher numbers:
> View attachment 2475346
> 
> 
> Did also run a full sweep of all 3dmarks, but i will post that in one other thread


A 5950x does much better than my 3950x with a CCX overclock of 44/43.5/43.25/43. even with memory really tight at below.

*Edit: I'm really upset at the local PC store I pre-ordered a 5950x from launch day Nov. 5th. A guy that ordered the same day I did got his a month ago.

Toronto went on lockdown a week after he got it. Canada Computers isn't answering their phones, isn't answering email tickets, nada, I'm in limbo.

I AM an essential worker that does tech support at a health agency, I said that in an email to them, I AM allowed to go pick it up even with the lockdown.

And the store is still open, just their customer support is terrible. I'll never pre-order anything from them again. It'll be B&H Photo for sure.

I preordered an MSI MEG B550 Unify-X from B&H Jan. 15th and their customer support told me they are shipping it Jan. 29th, decent turnaround.*


----------



## KedarWolf

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

Edit: I think I figured it out, the BG number is the year and week of so mine is 2048, 2020 between 

*Week 48*Nov. 23, *2020*Nov. 29, *2020*


----------



## 72kos




----------



## KedarWolf

72kos said:


> View attachment 2476795
> View attachment 2476795


I don't take much stock in peeps that overclock but don't show OCCT with no WHEA errors.


----------



## JohnnyFlash

KedarWolf said:


> I don't take much stock in peeps that overclock but don't show OCCT with no WHEA errors.


Now Skeeter, he ain't hurtin' nobody.


----------



## mtavel

KedarWolf said:


> I don't take much stock in peeps that overclock but don't show OCCT with no WHEA errors.


Shots fired! 🏹

I agree though, it's disappointing to get some great OC numbers and then realize you can't even get through a millisecond of AVX2 workload or memory pattern tests without the CPU/Memory/VRM puking up its guts.


----------



## Sam64

Maybe a more realistic one, at least 1 hour OCCT. CO with -20 on CCD1 and -25 CCD2


----------



## Dreams-Visions

I feel like I'm about to ask a dumb question but...there's no Curve Optimizer on the Dark Hero, is there? I see DOC switching and PBO, but there is no Curve Optimizer in the sub-menus. 

Just making sure I'm not missing something.


----------



## D0MINUS

Dreams-Visions said:


> I feel like I'm about to ask a dumb question but...there's no Curve Optimizer on the Dark Hero, is there? I see DOC switching and PBO, but there is no Curve Optimizer in the sub-menus.
> 
> Just making sure I'm not missing something.


Advanced -> AMD Overclocking -> Precision Boost Overdrive -> Advanced -> Curve Optimizer


----------



## gabian

domdtxdissar said:


> Have been playing around with different settings for the curve optimizer..
> 
> Balanced PBO for both singlethread and multithread:
> View attachment 2469774
> 
> 
> Geekbench 4 = ASUS System Product Name - Geekbench Browser
> Geekbench 5 = ASUS System Product Name - Geekbench Browser
> 
> PBO settings for maximum multithread performance:
> View attachment 2469775


Hi, how do you achieve this performance on you 5950x, it seems so far for me. Do you have some bios dump ?


----------



## mtavel

gabian said:


> Hi, how do you achieve this performance on you 5950x, it seems so far for me. Do you have some bios dump ?


Not all 5950x are created equally. I couldn't get my 5950x to break 30000 in Cinebench after DAYS of testing different settings. I made tweaks, took notes, made refinements... and wasn't getting the results some people were seeing. I eventually tried Ryzen ClockTuner which has a 'Diagnostic' feature which runs through some basic tests and gives you an idea of how good your processor is (if it falls into Gold, Silver, Bronze 'bins' for silicon quality). Mine was reported as 'Bronze'. Considering this is my second 5950x - which replaced my first 5950x that suffered from constant low-utilization/low-power shutdowns (WHEA & APIC errors), I'm happy to have a stable PC and have learned to live with my 'bronze' friend. He may not be the smartest in the school, but he's reliable!


----------



## Sam64

From my experience it's all about cooling. My 5950X also didn't reach 30k in CB23 with my old 240 AiO. After i changed to a custom watercooling solution (Watercool Mo-Ra 420): 30222 CB23 points. (with Mainboard limits)


----------



## mtavel

Sam64 said:


> From my experience it's all about cooling.


Cooling is definitely critical, and you want to make sure that is closely monitored and being managed. If your temperatures look good and you don't see your clocks drop as the temperature goes up, then the performance cap might be somewhere else. 

The "silicon lottery" is a real thing. There is a reason binning exists. It's all about finding out the optimal performance for YOUR silicon sample (given all the other variables in your system like cooling of course). Not every chip will find the same optimal point and peak performance even if every other component in the PC is the same.


----------



## Sam64

True @mtavel, lottery matters. Finding out the optimal performance also takes time. Took me several weeks of testing my ram and curve values to get to this point.


----------



## mtavel

Has anyone getting good Cinebench scores also run the Ryzen Clock Tuner diagnostic and know if it ranked their CPU as a Gold, Silver or Bronze sample? 

Just curious. Thanks!

Here is a sample of mine:

DIAGNOSTIC RESULTS​AMD Ryzen 9 5950X 16-Core Processor​CPU VID: 1187​CPU TEL: 1187​Max temperature: 68.9°​Energy efficient: 3.69​Your CPU is BRONZE SAMPLE​


----------



## ManniX-ITA

When @danakin told me he was going to send back its new 5950x cause it was failing CoreCycler even with very mild CO counts, I wasn't worried. But I should have.
It was not a good sample, it couldn't boot at FCLK 1900 and I've seen a lot of people complaining about the same issue with their new 5000.
But even his new 5950x that could run FCLK 1900 couldn't pass CoreCycler... and then I got worried. And indeed there were reasons to be.

At first I thought it was the Prime95 issue but the last CoreCycler is including the updated version.
Then I downloaded the last version and run it on my 5950x and it failed on all cores. Horror 
It was quite some time since I've run it last time.
I've run OCCT SSE/Large/Extreme which I did run not recently but later than CoreCycler.
Failures as well on many cores... Why?

The conclusion is that AMD in AGESA 1.2.x.x changed drastically how Curve Optimizer works; at least how it behaves with mine.
But I guess it's a common issue since there are so may reporting the same problems with cores failing in OCCT and CoreCycler.
If you didn't run CoreCycler with AGESA 1.2.x.x, do it.
OCCT is more forgiving even with Large/Extreme but CoreCycler it's not.

The Scalar works differently as well, from what I remember (this may interest you @Veii).
I see the same positive 60-75mV offset on all-core but on a single thread the offset is much less 3-9mV at best.
Previously I'm pretty sure for some cores was up to 10-20mV.
I guess it's a sort of nerfing since in theory you can dial the offset with the count.
I don't like it cause made much more difficult for the worst cores to keep reliably the clock and reduced the range of the best ones.

The big change is really in how the CO counts are working.
I tried relentlessly to fine tune my counts to get the best performances but failed.
A simple base count for all the non best cores and 1 or 2 for the best ones always yielded much better results.
Which is, sadly, still true; problem is that this method doesn't work anymore.
I could get good performances and pass OCCT and CoreCycler.
Now the boosting is a bit better, very high clocks (should have suspected something was off), but it's not stable anymore.

When I last run CoreCycler, at the time was only Large, it wouldn't really keep a high clock even on the best one.
Now the best core with Huge can run at 5,134 MHz. It's massive.
But this means that all the other cores that can't run Prime at these speeds are failing miserably.
It's like they removed a layer of intelligence which was throttling the clock with very intense workloads.
Which in theory I'd say is better but it ended up badly for me with a silent air cooler 

The counts behavior was pretty straightforward before. Now it's not.
Lower count meant, in a certain range, lower voltage and higher frequency; simple (almost) and linear.
But reducing the negative count now can have different outcomes; usually lower the voltage but not always and the frequency only jumps up when it likes the "tune".
I have the feeling that now it's going to be like finding an FM radio station with a knob.
The inter-connection between the counts still exist, when you change one count it does affect the others.

Previously changing a count by just 2 ticks on one of my best cores had a very big impact.
A much less aggressive count would make it run like one the worst cores.
Now to fix my Core 1, which is in theory my best core #1/1 (!!!), I had to go from -20 to -8.
I've lost something but much less than expected, only 50 MHz in max boost and a few points in CPU-z.
In CoreCycler still runs 5020 MHz despite -8 seems a miserable negative count.

I had to spend 10-12 hours fine tuning each core and of course the result is a sensible loss in almost all benchmarks.

Since no one cared to share how to fine tune the counts I'll share my experience.
Made some mistakes at the start and of course it costed me quite some time and loss of data.
It's very tedious and time consuming so better to avoid mistakes...



Spoiler: PBO Curve Optimizer counts fine-tuning guide



If you don't have a CO configuration start with something aggressive like -25 the best and Core0 and -31 all the rest.
Otherwise keep the current CO configuration.
Do some stability checks like running Geekbench 5 to understand if it's rebooting under load.
Adjust the counts to something that doesn't reboot.

If you have OCCT with a license start and run its CoreCycler function with SSE/Large/Extreme.
You can do a rough adjustment of the counts and take note of the Cores which are failing.
For me Core 8, 9, 1 needed an adjustment in the count to pass.
These are the first candidates to check and fix with CoreCycler.
Otherwise go straight to CoreCycler.

For CoreCycler I used dataset Huge and 6 minutes.
You should test all the datasets and also for longer but honestly... not sure it's feasible, it takes months 
If you have the guts, try at least to run Small. I'm terrified it could crash so....

Open in CoreCycler directory the config.ini and find the coreTestOrder parameter, it's set to Default.

Below how I structured it, of course you can keep the information somewhere else.
But you need to avoid to keep open, use or run anything else running CoreCycler.
Only HWInfo with a speedy 500ms refresh and Notepad++ with the config.ini.



Code:


coreTestOrder = 1, 0,  2, 4, 13, 5, 6, 3, 10, 7, 11 12, 14, 15, 8, 9
# Core EffC VID   CO        
#    0 4981 1.315 18 < 20 4975 1.330
#    1 5021 1.386 8  < 10 5037 1.386 < 10 5027 1.390
#    2 4980 1.339 25 < 25 4943 1.323 < 25 4992 1.313
#    3 4985 1.301 22 < 22 5011 1.347 < 25 5000 1.324 < 28 4986 1.331
#    4 5108 1.391 20 < 20 5134 1.405 < 20 5132 1.402
#    5 4975 1.332 28 < 28 4982 1.322
#    6 5021 1.346 28 < 28 5046 1.360
#    7 4947 1.324 22 < 22 4959 1.329 < 25 4965 1.321 < 28 4826 1.271
#    8 4867 1.382 22
#    9 4772 1.394 10 < 10 4788 1.401 < 10 4767 1.399 < 10 4788 1.401
#   10 4885 1.384 28
#   11 4786 1.392 15 < 18 4789 1.383 < 20 4754 1.373 < 22 4816 1.374 < 25 4840 1.378 < 28 4775 1.367
#   12 4935 1.387 25 < 28 4921 1.373
#   13 4806 1.372 28 < 28 4840 1.378
#   14 4880 1.386 28
#   15 4814 1.376 28
#
# Huge 6 minutes
# vCore SVI2 1.5V
# vSOC  SVI2 1.2V
# Scalar     10
# Boost      125
# PPT        280
# TDC        165
# EDC        215
# CB23 ST 1661 MT 29326
# CB23 MT 90% VID Min-Max 1.042-1.284 EffClock 4.333-4.407-4.540
# CB23 ST 6TL Core 4 VID Max 1.369 EffClock 4.994-5.010
# CPU-Z ST 682.4 MT 12954.7 CORE4 699.2
# Geekbench5 ST 1765 MT 19038

You need to specify every core you have and put them in the order you want to test.
If you have already identified bad cores with OCCT put them first.
Fixing them will help fix others without touching their CO count.

Before fixing the counts for Core 9 and 1 testing with OCCT, the Core 15 failed under CoreCycler.
After started working properly and didn't need a change.

Then in the order I've put the Core 0 and the best ones, 2 and 4.
That was a mistake in second thought, put all the worst in reverse priority order.
Fixing them will "free" more resources for the ones you care the most.

Once you find a core failing change the order and reboot to change the count.

Let's say all good till you find an issue on Core 13:

coreTestOrder = 1, 0, 2, 4, *13*, 5, 6, 3, 10, 7, 11 12, 14, 15, 8, 9

Put the Core 13 first and the Cores you already tested at the end:

coreTestOrder = 13, 5, 6, 3, 10, 7, 11 12, 14, 15, 8, 9, *1, 0, 2, 4*

Now reboot, adjust the count and re-start CoreCycler.
I decided to change the count by 2 or 3 ticks depending on the Core quality and time of occurrence.
If it's a good core it's worth to try a smaller change or if it's crashing very late.
Anyway it's worth to make another round with a more fine tuning.

It's very important you keep HWInfo open and record the effective max clock and VID.
Of course it's not super accurate but it should be enough.
This info is important to verify in the future if the CO behavior changed or as a reference to restore the same if it did change.
It's also a baseline for further tuning; you know if a Core is worth to try to fine tune or not.

Record the change you made and its count.
A count change will have an impact on the other Cores.
If you see there's a difference that's worth noting, record it also if you didn't change the CO.
I didn't record the first changes and I regret it.

When you are done fixing all the cores failing, you'll have at least one record for each Core.
If you pass a cycle with all the Cores (yay), let it run for another cycle if you have time.

If you are not exhausted you can make other runs trying to improve the count for the best cores.
At last you can try to improve also the bad ones but it's less relevant.

Just as example why it's important to record the data:

Core 0 seems to under-volt with a lesser negative count (or HWInfo didn't catch it and it's the same VID), frequency almost the same.
It's a candidate to check if an even less negative count can improve.
# 0 4981 1.315 18 < 20 4975 1.330

Core 1 needed an adjustment not to fail after other Cores got fixed.
Not sure it can be improved as it was originally at -20. Also VID and clock didn't change much from -10 to -8.
Seems to be at the limit already.
# 1 5021 1.386 8 < 10 5037 1.386 < 10 5027 1.390

Core 2 was influenced by the changes, fine tuning could recover the small loss and maybe improve it
# 2 4980 1.339 25 < 25 4943 1.323 < 25 4992 1.313

For Core 3 I know already I can't do much:
# 3 4985 1.301 22 < 22 5011 1.347 < 25 5000 1.324 < 28 4986 1.331

But maybe I can improve a bit Core 4 now and regain the small loss:
# 4 5108 1.391 20 < 20 5134 1.405 < 20 5132 1.402

At the bottom I've added some values and benchmarks as a reference to compare future changes.
Don't ask me about the VSOC for some reason got locked at 1.2V and I didn't notice...
Hope it doesn't make a difference when I change it back 

Update: and it does; VSOC 1.16V at LLC3 can't pass, VSOC 1.175V LLC2 did it.

The loss in boost from the fine tuning was substantial:










To this:










About 400 points in CB23 MT, 5 points in CPU-z ST and 80 in MT.
In Geekbench 5 the MT loss was about 100-200 points.

But I hope to recover some with more fine tuning.


----------



## Biscottoman

Hi guys my 5950x was instable: random rebooting in game and it was impossible to complete a geekbench run while every other bench/stress test was 100% stable. I just found out that this was caused by the load line calibration setted to 4, how could i set this value (or adjust other voltages) to keep my overclock stability? I was running dynamic oc switch with ccd1 4.7 and ccd2 at 4.6 with the pbo curve at all core -25, voltage offset +0.025


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Biscottoman said:


> Hi guys my 5950x was instable: random rebooting in game and it was impossible to complete a geekbench run while every other bench/stress test was 100% stable. I just found out that this was caused by the load line calibration setted to 4, how could i set this value (or adjust other voltages) to keep my overclock stability? I was running dynamic oc switch with ccd1 4.7 and ccd2 at 4.6 with the pbo curve at all core -25, voltage offset +0.025


Very likely some of your cores are not stable.

Use CoreCycler to verify, -25 all core is extreme.

High LLC and PWM are required to sustain low CO counts.
You can also set Boost clock from 0 to 50 to reduce the frequency boost, performances will be slightly impacted.
Unless you have a royal cooling the cores will not keep more than 5100 MHz on sustained load.


----------



## Biscottoman

ManniX-ITA said:


> Very likely some of your cores are not stable.
> 
> Use CoreCycler to verify, -25 all core is extreme.
> 
> High LLC and PWM are required to sustain low CO counts.
> You can also set Boost clock from 0 to 50 to reduce the frequency boost, performances will be slightly impacted.
> Unless you have a royal cooling the cores will not keep more than 5100 MHz on sustained load.


I've found that with my stable curve i get better results running +25 MHz than something like 75 or even 100 MHz as boost clock, still have to test it the voltage offset of 0.0375 could help me handle a better curve since this has been tested with no offset and best core seems not able to be 100% under -5


----------



## Biscottoman

I keep getting random reboot using dynamic oc switch mainly while gaming, I've tested the pbo curve using prime 95 and setting core affinity to test each core individually and it was stable even after many cycles. I didn't test too much the manual core overclock but it was stable during 20 loop run of cinebench r20 and it shouldn't be an issue during gaming since the Dynamic oc should be running the pbo curve. Any suggestions on how could i fix this issue?


----------



## skalinator

Biscottoman said:


> I keep getting random reboot using dynamic oc switch mainly while gaming, I've tested the pbo curve using prime 95 and setting core affinity to test each core individually and it was stable even after many cycles. I didn't test too much the manual core overclock but it was stable during 20 loop run of cinebench r20 and it shouldn't be an issue during gaming since the Dynamic oc should be running the pbo curve. Any suggestions on how could i fix this issue?


well dynamic oc rebooting would imply your oc settings in the per ccx overclock. We are talking dynamic oc on dark hero correct? How have you pinned down its dynamic? Are you fully stable with it off? If so, it has nothing to do with pbo, dynamic oc disables pbo and enables an all core overclock that you set in your per ccx settings. It can act a little weird and cause issues too if you don’t have the right amps for when it switches, and how fast it switches. What are your settings? Cooling and pbo curve?


----------



## Sam64

ManniX-ITA said:


> In CoreCycler still runs 5020 MHz despite -8 seems a miserable negative count.


It only seems so. I'm running my 5950X with -11 and -10 on the 2 best cores. The rest ist between -12 and -18 on the 1. (better) CCD and between -22 and -27 on the 2. CCD. Plus I'm adding +200 Boost Override. Works fine on every scenario (CoreCycler tested with 100 iterations, Agesa 1202 Bios).


----------



## EastCoast

Biscottoman said:


> I keep getting random reboot using dynamic oc switch mainly while gaming, I've tested the pbo curve using prime 95 and setting core affinity to test each core individually and it was stable even after many cycles. I didn't test too much the manual core overclock but it was stable during 20 loop run of cinebench r20 and it shouldn't be an issue during gaming since the Dynamic oc should be running the pbo curve. Any suggestions on how could i fix this issue?


What is your voltage, frequency and amperage switching point?
And what cpu?


----------



## Bal3Wolf

playing with my 5950x so far i found these settings i like only thing does push quite a bit of volts on single core going to work on dialing offset back without causing crashes or low boosts.


----------



## Sam64

Nice Results, Bal3Wolf, but I see some core-stretching, when i look at you effective clocks. I get better SC-results with my 5950X when I balance the cores with CO trying to reduce core-stretching. (Results with custom TDP Limits):


----------



## skalinator

So i guess i am in the ballpark of 5950x on my 5900x  custom loop tho


----------



## Bal3Wolf

Sam64 said:


> Nice Results, Bal3Wolf, but I see some core-stretching, when i look at you effective clocks. I get better SC-results with my 5950X when I balance the cores with CO trying to reduce core-stretching. (Results with custom TDP Limits):
> 
> View attachment 2517764
> 
> 
> View attachment 2517765
> 
> 
> View attachment 2517766


What kind of settings do you run might try to plug them in and see what i get i am very happy with the muticore speeds tho topping 30-31k in cb23 and my app i use to make money hit a all time high from high boosts. At timess i can break 700 on cpu benchmark with same settings see 707 as the top speed but i notice what you mean per sc vs ef sc muti is great tho.


----------



## PACIFIST

Bal3Wolf said:


> playing with my 5950x so far i found these settings i like only thing does push quite a bit of volts on single core going to work on dialing offset back without causing crashes or low boosts.
> 
> View attachment 2517588
> 
> 
> View attachment 2517589
> 
> 
> View attachment 2517590


Very impressive! What are your BIOS parameters?


----------



## Bal3Wolf

well i kinda screwed up lol started trying to get a better sc clock and screwed it all up to point had to a do a bios reset and turned out i was stupid and didnt save the profile lol mainly im using fmax with a offset voltage to make it stable and clock correct and a little co negative offset.


----------



## Sam64

Oh yeah, same here Bal3Wolf. I also ran into troubles, trying to optimize sc. Mayn things can go wrong 

Besides CO, I used PPT 150, TDC 105 EDC 150, Boost Override +200, PBOFmax disabled (used it one year ago successfully with my 3900X, but with zen3 it only results in instabilities) for my above results. For CO i use currently -16/-17 on my best cores up to -29 on my worst cores on my second CCD.

When i switch to mainboard-limits (Asus C8HW at ~ PPT 274, TDC 184, EDC 200), i get a higher mc result, but still no better sc-result:










Better MC-results are possible, but only with an allcore setting at about 4600/4700.


----------



## Sam64

Also I adjusted the telemetry setting of the board, since the bios implementations are not really adjusted perfectly to every cpu. For my 5950X I had to specify a +4000 CPU TelemetryOffset to reach ~ 100% Power Deviation Report (on HWInfo) while running a CB23 MC benchmark or CPU-Z stresstest in a loop. If the PRD is more than +- 5% away from 100% (only during mc-runs), then you can try to adjust this as well. On my Asus C8HW it's located under Extreme Tweaker/Tweaker's Paradise/CPU Core Current Telemetry.


----------



## PACIFIST

Sam64 said:


> Also I adjusted the telemetry setting of the board, since the bios implementations are not really adjusted perfectly to every cpu. For my 5950X I had to specify a +4000 CPU TelemetryOffset to reach ~ 100% Power Deviation Report (on HWInfo) while running a CB23 MC benchmark or CPU-Z stresstest in a loop. If the PRD is more than +- 5% away from 100% (only during mc-runs), then you can try to adjust this as well. On my Asus C8HW it's located under Extreme Tweaker/Tweaker's Paradise/CPU Core Current Telemetry.


Thank you, but unfortunately on Gigabyte XTREME MOBO we do not have such features. What are your PBO params?


----------



## Sam64

PACIFIST said:


> What are your PBO params?


The ones, that I mentioned in my post above, nothing special. What do you miss?


----------



## Bal3Wolf

i decided to use a ccd overclock 4.8Ghz on ccd1 4.6Ghz on ccd2 about 1.35-1.38 vcore 100% stable cb23 will peg 85-93c but nothing else even gets past 80c even 100% metatrader load system feels very fast now.


----------



## gtz

Bal3Wolf said:


> i decided to use a ccd overclock 4.8Ghz on ccd1 4.6Ghz on ccd2 about 1.35-1.38 vcore 100% stable cb23 will peg 85-93c but nothing else even gets past 80c even 100% metatrader load system feels very fast now.


What kind of cooling are you using? Just curious. I will do a all core overclock soon (or ccd overclocking depending on how week it is).


----------



## Bal3Wolf

I have 1 hardware labs 360 gts with 3 ek 120mk vardars in push and hardwarelabs 360 gtx with 6 Ek 120mm vardar fans and my last rad is a ek ce420 rad with 6 artic cooling 140mm fans. Im using dual ddc 3.2 pumps in serial and a TECHN block along with a 3090 Kingpin HC in the loop. Highest normal temps iv seen ar 75c sorry if some typos typing on my phone..


----------



## JohnnyFlash

Bal3Wolf said:


> i decided to use a ccd overclock 4.8Ghz on ccd1 4.6Ghz on ccd2 about 1.35-1.38 vcore 100% stable cb23 will peg 85-93c but nothing else even gets past 80c even 100% metatrader load system feels very fast now.


That voltage will eat your chip over time. If you're going to upgrade in the next 18 months, it might not be a problem.


----------



## skalinator

JohnnyFlash said:


> That voltage will eat your chip over time. If you're going to upgrade in the next 18 months, it might not be a problem.


Who decides this? Do you know something amd doesn’t? It’s roughly within spec. Maybe you designed the chip. And no one asks about llc, is that voltage drooping? It matters.


----------



## Bal3Wolf

skalinator said:


> Who decides this? Do you know something amd doesn’t? It’s roughly within spec. Maybe you designed the chip. And no one asks about llc, is that voltage drooping? It matters.


i know right same thing happend on 3000 series certain people going crazy like they were cpu gods and knew exacty what was gonna kill a cpu I havet had 1 eek of problems out of my 3900x running 1.36 for 2+ years now it has been known 1.35vcore is unoffical safe vcore for 7nm underload im at 1.34-1.35.


----------



## Sam64

Everyone can do allcore with fixed vcore instead of AMD PBO, of course. But that has nothing do to with this thread.


----------



## JohnnyFlash

skalinator said:


> Who decides this? Do you know something amd doesn’t? It’s roughly within spec. Maybe you designed the chip. And no one asks about llc, is that voltage drooping? It matters.


If you're running all-core, you should have LLC set to at least medium, if not high; you want a little voltage variability as possible. My board droops 0.1v at default, but only 0.03v at LLC4; that let's me set 1.05v instead of 1.12v for the same clocks and stability. At idle and gaming the heat output difference in my office is noticeable. I can do 4400/4350 at 1.12v with my current cooling, but my office temps get near 30C, which isn't worth it to me at present.

As for what is safe: Community feedback on ryzen 3000, and some instances starting to come back on 5000 chips now. I myself build a watercooled video production rig for a friend with a 3900X set to 4400/1.35v that lost stability after about 14 months. It wouldn't do 4200 at 1.35v after being 24H prime avx stable when built.

der8auer is doing a test on 3 ryzen 5000 cpus that should be done the first stage on Aug 25th and the year mark is Feb 25th, so that should give us some hard data.


----------



## Sam64

I will never understand, why somebody is using allcore settings for gaming. For video rendering it makes sense, but not at all for gaming. To optimize Ryzen for gaming, PBO an CO is a much better approach and that is, what this thread is about, isn't it?


----------



## JohnnyFlash

Sam64 said:


> I will never understand, why somebody is using allcore settings for gaming. For video rendering it makes sense, but not at all for gaming. To optimize Ryzen for gaming, PBO an CO is a much better approach and that is, what this thread is about, isn't it?


This thread is for that mainly, you are correct.

In general, if you have a 5950X for only gaming, you've wasted money. The main gaming use-case is gaming while doing other things, that's where all-core make more sense. You're not getting full boost if you have 16 x265 threads going, and it's very difficult to confirm 100% stability with PBO/CO.


----------



## 1devomer

The good rule of thumbs for assessing the maximum voltage, avoiding too much degradation.

-Electromigration and silicon degradation also depend on the t° and the current flowing, through the chip.
-Good binned, low leakage silicon chips, require less voltage, heat up more, don't scale with cold(LN2/Voltage).
-Badly binned, high leakage silicon chips, require more voltage, heat up less, scale with cold(LN2/Voltage).

The maximum voltage range, allowed by standard condition, is dictated by the silicon quality of the chip itself.
For example, pushing the voltage, on a godly binned 3900/3950x, that can run real 7nm voltages (less than 1.25 full load), just to get a bit more PBO boost, is not advised.
On the other hands, pushing high voltage on a badly binned 3600x/3700x, will not degrade too much the cpu, if one cools the chip properly.

I would not go above 1.35v under load, if i know that i own a good and nicely binned cpu.
The better the cpu is, the lower the bar of the max voltage is, that one can apply under load.


----------



## skalinator

JohnnyFlash said:


> If you're running all-core, you should have LLC set to at least medium, if not high; you want a little voltage variability as possible. My board droops 0.1v at default, but only 0.03v at LLC4; that let's me set 1.05v instead of 1.12v for the same clocks and stability. At idle and gaming the heat output difference in my office is noticeable. I can do 4400/4350 at 1.12v with my current cooling, but my office temps get near 30C, which isn't worth it to me at present.
> 
> As for what is safe: Community feedback on ryzen 3000, and some instances starting to come back on 5000 chips now. I myself build a watercooled video production rig for a friend with a 3900X set to 4400/1.35v that lost stability after about 14 months. It wouldn't do 4200 at 1.35v after being 24H prime avx stable when built.
> 
> der8auer is doing a test on 3 ryzen 5000 cpus that should be done the first stage on Aug 25th and the year mark is Feb 25th, so that should give us some hard data.


Lmao Der8auer trolls people that make these stupid voltage statements as if they know better than AMD does. Here you go: 



, yes, it's not specifically static overclock, but DOS overclock, he does this on water. 1.32 + voltage offset. I have a 5900x on dark hero with 1.34v llc 3 47.50 ccx1, 46.50 ccx2 with CB scores above 9400. I mean if your office get hot well that's one thing, a preference and nothing to do with the statement, the point is, the voltages stated are not over the top, that's just fact.


----------



## skalinator

skalinator said:


> Lmao Der8auer trolls people that make these stupid voltage statements as if they know better than AMD does. Here you go:
> 
> 
> 
> , yes, it's not specifically static overclock, but DOS overclock, he does this on water. 1.32 + voltage offset. I have a 5900x on dark hero with 1.34v llc 3 47.50 ccx1, 46.50 ccx2 with CB scores above 9400. I mean if your office get hot well that's one thing, a preference and nothing to do with the statement, the point is, the voltages stated are not over the top, that's just fact.


Correction, it's technically llc 3, but it's auto, I am testing leaving at auto as some have infeered it's preferable to PBO to be on auto. Not enough data on that yet.


----------



## Bal3Wolf

so lets get back on topic some we have some proof now 1.35 is safe by amd/asus. One thing i have noticed is with fmax on my cpu will pull 1.38 on cb23 which is a pretty heavy avx load not prime95 heavy but still enough to push 90c on some cooling loops even without fmax iv seen pbo push 1.35 with it on auto. I have a ccd overclock tuned and stable and a C0 overclock also tuned and i think stable most my cores can do -23 had 1 that could only do -4 guess i see why ctr gives my cpu a gold sample.


----------



## skalinator

Is that at SVI2? But yes, I believe I did read for X amount of override voltage is added. Then we have multiplier which makes the cores pursue more voltage if conditions are right. Then we undervolt via CO, maybe a little more with said settings. Then we have power limits, higher EDC is better, no wait lower edc is better! Ah and fmax enhancer actually works now nearly pushing every core over 5 ghz on light single threaded workload, but with DOS thrown in it’s still totally unstable. Then telemetry and voltage offsets. I just want an authoritative source that documents what each nob does in the bios. I’ve read the EYPC server tuning guides, as it’s the closest I can find to at least get some information. Maybe we can divide and conquer as a community and document each nob and it’s behavior. Until the next ASEGA changes pukes on something. I feel like I have been pissing in the wind for the last few months because I just can’t settle lol. I don’t mind doing the homework, reading anything I can but majority of this stuff is undocumented or very poorly documented, maybe it’s time we demand at the very least complete documentation. Ahhh, I digress


----------



## tcclaviger

This old voltage cherry again lol, same blathering every generation.

To start, DOS is a noob crutch. I've matched or beaten every all core DOS score I've tried to on HWBOT using PBO configured properly. If setup right, PBO is more aggressive than most people are IRT all core boost.

Stop using anything non-amd 7nm as a model of voltage tolerance.

AMD allow 1.5v GET at max freq and max temp for unlimited duration on a single core. This is perfectly fine.

AMD socket specs dictate total power draw not chip tolerance to degradation. Don't believe it, look up power per core across 2xxx, 3xxx, 5xxx chips. 5800x being the stand out, clearly the actual cores are vastly tougher than 5900/5950 limits would lead one to believe or it would not be 140/95/142.

Socket specs were set FOUR(4.5 really)generations ago as a measure to allow board partners to have a minimum spec to build for. It has everything to do with minimum VRM capability and nearly nothing to do with CPU capability.

The CPU's own built in limits happily accommodate well over 1.35v at 4850+mhz all core loads when SMU is controlling boost, no screwing with EDC bug etc, just give it leash and it will run.

Heat is the #1 contributor to degradation. Want fast and long lasting? Invest in cooling to cope, it takes more than the latest lolAIO to keep 59xx chips cold.

TSMC 7nm is vastly more durable to voltage than the claimed node size would lead you to believe. The gate sizr has literally zero to do with interconnect size for voltage. 7nm Ryzen interconnects are beefy, there are technical white papers about it, I suggest you read them before making wild ass claims of 1.3v being too much voltage.

I ran a 3900x 24/7 at EDC bug with only the FIT controller limiting power to chip limits for over a year, zero degradation. Why? Cold. Keep them cold and they don't care. Buy into the idiotuber claims that water-cooling is dead or air cooling is enough for Ryzen and yeah, your chips are going to degrade when OCd hard. These influences, with very few exceptions, know exactly **** all about OCing limits. They exist for you to click stuff, aside from Roman, I can think of only 2 who are hardcore OCers.

You can have your cake or you can eat it. If you want both, you need sub ambient cooling.

PS: All core OC has a place, but it's 100% NOT gaming, period. No scenario conceivable (outside some wild ass edge case) is better all core OC than tuned PBO on Zen3 unless the human tuning it did something wrong.


----------



## tcclaviger

The documentation exists for PBO settings, however, there is no way to expose the logic behind which settings are prioritized over others outside of testing your configuration (thanks AMD). By configuration I mean, CPU sample, board bios, AGESA revision, cooling solution, PBO settings, etc etc. The whole setup.

Perfect example is scalar. 

Scalar = auto my PC is happy. Scalar = anything besides auto I have to drastically cut down on CO adjustments, and boost/scores are commensurate to the change. Scalar shows no change in voltage or max achieved boost levels ony board, but definitely shows stability changes. Clearly I'm bumping into a decision tree point where I'm already on knife edge before scalar is even considered, changing the scalar in any way, pushes me over that edge.

Other people find luck with 1x, some with 5x, some with 10x. Why? It depends where in the boost decision tree your temp, voltage, power, and limits land.

Throw in oddball board builder options, like Asus DOS or Forced OC Mode Disable and you find many aspects are influenced with NO feedback besides test scores.

With Force OC Mode Disable turned on and 101 BCLK and 50x multi CPU-Z single score = 715 at a claimed 5045 mhz effective clock (in reality its boosting past 5050).

With PBO disabled I still get a reported 5050 effective clock, but 705 cpuz single.

R23 scores, PBO tweaked 1686, PBO disabled 1665. Same claimed effective speeds, same claimed voltages, same power limits.

No that's not a margin of error, it's reproducible and repeatable. 

Just a couple examples of why any "guide" should be taken at the literal meaning of guide. It is not a how to, that's up to each user, it only shows you the way. 

I agree it's a terrible situation for the community who likes to tweak and OC. The trade off is much better performance out of the box. 

Board partners and AMD have really screwed OCing up by obfuscating names, functions, and logical function of options. Many are placebo on one generation only to be pivotal on the next. This imho is purely the long term socket effect and board partner laziness to not remove placebo/defunct options from bios revisions (c7h is littered with them).


----------



## skalinator

tcclaviger said:


> The documentation exists for PBO settings, however, there is no way to expose the logic behind which settings are prioritized over others outside of testing your configuration (thanks AMD). By configuration I mean, CPU sample, board bios, AGESA revision, cooling solution, PBO settings, etc etc. The whole setup.
> 
> Perfect example is scalar.
> 
> Scalar = auto my PC is happy. Scalar = anything besides auto I have to drastically cut down on CO adjustments, and boost/scores are commensurate to the change. Scalar shows no change in voltage or max achieved boost levels ony board, but definitely shows stability changes. Clearly I'm bumping into a decision tree point where I'm already on knife edge before scalar is even considered, changing the scalar in any way, pushes me over that edge.
> 
> Other people find luck with 1x, some with 5x, some with 10x. Why? It depends where in the boost decision tree your temp, voltage, power, and limits land.
> 
> Throw in oddball board builder options, like Asus DOS or Forced OC Mode Disable and you find many aspects are influenced with NO feedback besides test scores.
> 
> With Force OC Mode Disable turned on and 101 BCLK and 50x multi CPU-Z single score = 715 at a claimed 5045 mhz effective clock (in reality its boosting past 5050).
> 
> With PBO disabled I still get a reported 5050 effective clock, but 705 cpuz single.
> 
> R23 scores, PBO tweaked 1686, PBO disabled 1665. Same claimed effective speeds, same claimed voltages, same power limits.
> 
> No that's not a margin of error, it's reproducible and repeatable.
> 
> Just a couple examples of why any "guide" should be taken at the literal meaning of guide. It is not a how to, that's up to each user, it only shows you the way.
> 
> I agree it's a terrible situation for the community who likes to tweak and OC. The trade off is much better performance out of the box.
> 
> Board partners and AMD have really screwed OCing up by obfuscating names, functions, and logical function of options. Many are placebo on one generation only to be pivotal on the next. This imho is purely the long term socket effect and board partner laziness to not remove placebo/defunct options from bios revisions (c7h is littered with them).


So it sounds like we agree on the voltage conversation. These guys are literally castrating their CPUs with this stupid low-voltage all-core OCs.. Yes, if you don't have proper cooling things simply get too hot, the cpu is not the issue, it's the cooling. I dunno where these guys get their information.

I may or may not agree on DOS OC. It's just another tool, and if I can actually get it stable, it would be great. But you're right, the thing I am struggling with is my C8H finely tuned CO I can reach what I am stable at all core DOS OC. I thought the whole point of dos OC was pushing past the plateau of CO, which there definitely is but to your point it's depending on the choice, either top all core speeds and cut off some single-threaded boost or vice-versa. I have never seen anyone prove out you can have both. WIth DOS OC I can, but I can't get past most stability tests. So if in the end i can achieve the same speed multicore with tuned C/O as I can with DOS OC, then what's the point? Maybe @shamino1978 can help.

I am not even asking for a guide. Like half the setting in the bios don't even have a help string. I'd be happy with like 3 sentences documenting what each thing does(in a document, not the bios lol). I absolutely understand that each and every feature/setting can't simply be summarized in three sentences, they are too complex with too many interactions. Put a link to a white paper, an overview with a disclaimer it's oversimplified. I agree it's impossible to give prescriptive guidance on 99% of these, as the amount of variables involved is staggering. Really it's just a starting point then you have at least some information and can decide for yourself how/if you want to use it. That's all I am after. I have found some useful information in the AMD developers guide relating to bios, but it's geared towards coding rather than deeper explanation, but at least it's something. The other resource has been computerbase.de forums, now my blood may have german but i don't speak it lol. So translate on the browser makes it invaluable. They seem to be much more of a coordinated community, there is some high-quality content relating to CO, some Bios optimization guides, RAM OC. I can post some translated PDFs if anyone wants them.


----------



## skalinator

tcclaviger said:


> The documentation exists for PBO settings, however, there is no way to expose the logic behind which settings are prioritized over others outside of testing your configuration (thanks AMD). By configuration I mean, CPU sample, board bios, AGESA revision, cooling solution, PBO settings, etc etc. The whole setup.
> 
> Perfect example is scalar.
> 
> Scalar = auto my PC is happy. Scalar = anything besides auto I have to drastically cut down on CO adjustments, and boost/scores are commensurate to the change. Scalar shows no change in voltage or max achieved boost levels ony board, but definitely shows stability changes. Clearly I'm bumping into a decision tree point where I'm already on knife edge before scalar is even considered, changing the scalar in any way, pushes me over that edge.
> 
> Other people find luck with 1x, some with 5x, some with 10x. Why? It depends where in the boost decision tree your temp, voltage, power, and limits land.
> 
> Throw in oddball board builder options, like Asus DOS or Forced OC Mode Disable and you find many aspects are influenced with NO feedback besides test scores.
> 
> With Force OC Mode Disable turned on and 101 BCLK and 50x multi CPU-Z single score = 715 at a claimed 5045 mhz effective clock (in reality its boosting past 5050).
> 
> With PBO disabled I still get a reported 5050 effective clock, but 705 cpuz single.
> 
> R23 scores, PBO tweaked 1686, PBO disabled 1665. Same claimed effective speeds, same claimed voltages, same power limits.
> 
> No that's not a margin of error, it's reproducible and repeatable.
> 
> Just a couple examples of why any "guide" should be taken at the literal meaning of guide. It is not a how to, that's up to each user, it only shows you the way.
> 
> I agree it's a terrible situation for the community who likes to tweak and OC. The trade off is much better performance out of the box.
> 
> Board partners and AMD have really screwed OCing up by obfuscating names, functions, and logical function of options. Many are placebo on one generation only to be pivotal on the next. This imho is purely the long term socket effect and board partner laziness to not remove placebo/defunct options from bios revisions (c7h is littered with them).


Couple more things, given the issues still persist with USB, and may not relate to BCLK, have you experienced instabitliy on your NVME or GPU? 
Curious also on your cooling setup? I guess i am mid range, custom loop, EKWB Quantum Velocity Waterblock, EK Thick 360 Rad Push/Pull only for CPU. 
On the Scaler it does add voltage, but it's, to your point, based on your silicon quality aka what's good for me may not be for you. Skatterbencher did an extensive review of PBO with hard data on youtube, and proved out that it does infact add voltage should your CPU be able to tolerate higher frequencies


----------



## tcclaviger

To your first post -

Asus bios are ... Atrocious. They work (ish), they're usually good performers, and usually have a couple of unique features, but Asus deliberately obfuscates things.

Force OC Mode Disabled - great example. It does WAY more than turn boosting back on when BCLK is raised. It, somehow, deceives the SMU lol.

There are other cases in history of Asus naming things names that don't even remotely do what the name implies, to hide the function from competitors.

It really comes down to doing a lot of reading, research and testing to squeeze out the last percent.

Completely agree, it can add voltage, but...only when other points along the path to adding voltage from scalar are not already maxed out precluding it to do so. I've also done extensive controlled testing, and published a white paper on in using zen 2, obviously little translates to zen 3, but I saw the same results with scalar. If the CPU is maxed already, scalar does nothing but cause instability, if there's "headroom" left along the decision tree it will bump voltage to try and hit the next bin up.

Cooling is chilled water with an Optimus Foundation and Conductonaut, heat is a non-issue, I pick my water temps 

Have been raising baseclock on CPUs for...like 25+ years, I've had 2 corruption events over that time associated with it, 1 on SB-E (1680v2)while using PCIE 3.0 + NVME booting (neither officially supported features for the x79 platform), and one ages ago on Athlon XPs modded to work as Athlon MPs in a dual CPU rig. Both were operating way way out of design specs doing things never intended so they get a pass for wetting the bed lol.

Far fewer than have resulted from playing with memory timings. 

NVME - Honestly it seems to be Samsung's drives primarily that don't tolerate it well, I use PNY drives.

GPUs - Never seen an issue I traced back to link speed, even back in the PCI (no E) days when it has hard coupled and highly sensitive.


----------



## tcclaviger

Proof 1.394v @ 4832 while banging up against the EDC limit is normal behavior on 5950x for any doubters, drop in CO with PBO at sock limits and that climbed to 4933 @ 1.38v.

PBO DISABLED in this shot...


----------



## skalinator

tcclaviger said:


> To your first post -
> 
> Asus bios are ... Atrocious. They work (ish), they're usually good performers, and usually have a couple of unique features, but Asus deliberately obfuscates things.
> 
> Force OC Mode Disabled - great example. It does WAY more than turn boosting back on when BCLK is raised. It, somehow, deceives the SMU lol.
> 
> There are other cases in history of Asus naming things names that don't even remotely do what the name implies, to hide the function from competitors.
> 
> It really comes down to doing a lot of reading, research and testing to squeeze out the last percent.
> 
> Completely agree, it can add voltage, but...only when other points along the path to adding voltage from scalar are not already maxed out precluding it to do so. I've also done extensive controlled testing, and published a white paper on in using zen 2, obviously little translates to zen 3, but I saw the same results with scalar. If the CPU is maxed already, scalar does nothing but cause instability, if there's "headroom" left along the decision tree it will bump voltage to try and hit the next bin up.
> 
> Cooling is chilled water with an Optimus Foundation and Conductonaut, heat is a non-issue, I pick my water temps
> 
> Have been raising baseclock on CPUs for...like 25+ years, I've had 2 corruption events over that time associated with it, 1 on SB-E (1680v2)while using PCIE 3.0 + NVME booting (neither officially supported features for the x79 platform), and one ages ago on Athlon XPs modded to work as Athlon MPs in a dual CPU rig. Both were operating way way out of design specs doing things never intended so they get a pass for wetting the bed lol.
> 
> Far fewer than have resulted from playing with memory timings.
> 
> NVME - Honestly it seems to be Samsung's drives primarily that don't tolerate it well, I use PNY drives.
> 
> GPUs - Never seen an issue I traced back to link speed, even back in the PCI (no E) days when it has hard coupled and highly sensitive.


Ahhh that has been the next thing on my list. I guess I was worried about condensation. What kind of chiller do you use?


----------



## goondam

been getting clock watchdog timeout bsod now, among other weird and annoying behaviour.
might have to rma my 5950x.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

I am having some issues with my 5950X. When I enabled PBO and use Curve Optimizer -15, my core for 1T is only 4.95GHz but its running at only 1.435v. How to I get the core to keep scaling?


----------



## Sleepycat

ZealotKi11er said:


> I am having some issues with my 5950X. When I enabled PBO and use Curve Optimizer -15, my core for 1T is only 4.95GHz but its running at only 1.435v. How to I get the core to keep scaling?


What is your overclock offset limit? Is your cooling adequate for your CPU? What temperatures are you getting under 1T load?


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Sleepycat said:


> What is your overclock offset limit? Is your cooling adequate for your CPU? What temperatures are you getting under 1T load?


Not sure what you mean by overclock offset limit? Is the option 0-200MHz, that I have 200MHz which gives max clk 5250MHz (possible). 
I have 280mm AIO. With one core I am at 70C.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

ZealotKi11er said:


> Not sure what you mean by overclock offset limit? Is the option 0-200MHz, that I have 200MHz which gives max clk 5250MHz (possible).


Which kind of 1T load are you limited at 4950?
I'd first try setting Boost clock to 0, you should reach at least 5050 MHz.

Run this BoostTester, let it loop with HWInfo open set with a pooling rate of 500ms.






BoostTesterMannix.zip







drive.google.com





You should see max effective clock for at least the best cores at 5050 MHz.
If it's working raise the boost clock and check if it's scaling up.
Very often above 100 MHz it's getting troublesome for a 5950x and the boost clock falls down or the cores becomes unstable.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

ManniX-ITA said:


> Which kind of 1T load are you limited at 4950?
> I'd first try setting Boost clock to 0, you should reach at least 5050 MHz.
> 
> Run this BoostTester, let it loop with HWInfo open set with a pooling rate of 500ms.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BoostTesterMannix.zip
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drive.google.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You should see max effective clock for at least the best cores at 5050 MHz.
> If it's working raise the boost clock and check if it's scaling up.
> Very often above 100 MHz it's getting troublesome for a 5950x and the boost clock falls down or the cores becomes unstable.


CBR23


----------



## Luggage

ZealotKi11er said:


> CBR23


Try superpi


----------



## ManniX-ITA

ZealotKi11er said:


> CBR23


Try with the BoostTester, I don't remember mine how much does but CB23 is AVX load so could be normal.
Max boost clock is heavily affected by background load, try also to close as much as possible.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Yeah, no issues with BoostTester. Some cores go to 5.2GHz and voltage is at 1.5v. In CBR23 voltage does not go that high.


----------



## iraff1

question to you 5950x overclockers, is it safe longterm to use a positive CPU Core Voltage Offset of like 0.03 volts long term? it will make the vi VId peak above 1.5 at times.

I feel like i am hiting some power cealing, no matter what i do my cpu will only boost to 4450-4575 mhz all core in cinebench even though i am not hitting the heat limit, i am in fact at like 65c at max cinebench load.... So what exaclty is limiting my cpu from boosting more? It must be power?


----------



## ManniX-ITA

iraff1 said:


> question to you 5950x overclockers, is it safe longterm to use a positive CPU Core Voltage Offset of like 0.03 volts long term? it will make the vi VId peak above 1.5 at times.


Yes it's safe.
If you want higher clocks for all-core boost than that you need to play with PBO limits, scalar, CO counts.
Also telemetry if your board is exposing it.


----------



## Cartesius68

elmor said:


> Crazy that this will be an upgrade from 10980XE


Hi, elmor, please, would it be possible to contact you via email regarding some AMD/ASUS machine-check exceptions and the Linux kernel?


----------

