# Mandatory 1.000v CPU clock speed competition



## cstkl1

10900k will win this..


----------



## geriatricpollywog

cstkl1 said:


> 10900k will win this..


Not if my 10700K and 11900K have anything to say about it.


----------



## GRABibus

Or my 5900X


----------



## JSHamlet234

This is intriguing. My 5960X could probably squeak by with 4.0GHz. I could probably drop the ring multiplier into the basement and get just a smidge more. The only problem is that I'm very reluctant to boot with not-actually-stable settings on this machine. ASUS X99 boards do some very naughty things under those conditions.


----------



## cstkl1

0451 said:


> Not if my 10700K and 11900K have anything to say about it.


whats ure 10700k gonna say to a normal sp90 10900k that will do pretty much 4.9-5ghz @1v


----------



## geriatricpollywog

cstkl1 said:


> whats ure 10700k gonna say to a normal sp90 10900k that will do pretty much 4.9-5ghz @1v


I’ll have to ask it later.


----------



## cstkl1

0451 said:


> I’ll have to ask it later.


and die sense. what your asrock etc gonna do, lol


----------



## geriatricpollywog

cstkl1 said:


> and die sense. what your asrock etc gonna do, lol


I forgot about that. Most boards don’t have die sense, so this whole competition will be pretty much invalid.


----------



## o1dschoo1

One sec booting pc. Can i disable cores? Or do i need full enable.


----------



## storm-chaser

o1dschoo1 said:


> One sec booting pc. Can i disable cores? Or do i need full enable.


Yeah I dont know if we can pull this off but I figured I'd at least put it out there and see if we get any bites. 

In terms of cores, you can disable as many as you want.


----------



## o1dschoo1

storm-chaser said:


> Yeah I dont know if we can pull this off but I figured I'd at least put it out there and see if we get any bites.
> 
> In terms of cores, you can disable as many as you want.


This is gonna be riddled with 5.3+ghz 10900s and 11900ks. Hell i can boot 4.9 1.0vcore on a 7800x with 2 cores active lol


----------



## storm-chaser

o1dschoo1 said:


> This is gonna be riddled with 5.3+ghz 10900s and 11900ks. Hell i can boot 4.9 1.0vcore on a 7800x with 2 cores active lol


What do you think we should do? Drop the requirement down to .5v??


----------



## Cryptedvick

storm-chaser said:


> What do you think we should do? Drop the requirement down to .5v??


I think we should just keep the CPU stock and see how high we can get with 1.0v fixed. Disabling cores takes all the fun out of it, as we'll just have a lot of 2 core CPUs pushing close to 5Ghz or over and that just makes no sense anymore.


----------



## storm-chaser

Okay, so lets do that. No disabling cores, whatsoever. 1.0v requirement stays. Again, you have to pass the quick CPUz benchmark and post those results with your highest achieved clock speed.


----------



## kairi_zeroblade

storm-chaser said:


> Okay, so lets do that. No disabling cores, whatsoever. 1.0v requirement stays. Again, you have to pass the quick CPUz benchmark and post those results with your highest achieved clock speed.


you should also make it clear if SMT/HT would be enabled/disabled for fairness..as we all obnoxiously know that would also have an impact on the OC of the chip specially with limited voltage..(well except for those who doesn't have SMT/HT feature)


----------



## storm-chaser

Lets see what ya got!


----------



## Tehone

0451 said:


> Not if my 10700K and 11900K have anything to say about it.


my 11700k either >


----------



## Tehone

Here is my submission im not sure is 1.074 is within 2% please lmk if it isnt ill drop the clocks a little lower but the only way I could get 1.000v in my bios was fixed EDIT: just realized this is way to high I have to be 1.02 tops ill adjust the clocks and try again


----------



## storm-chaser

Tehone said:


> Here is my submission im not sure is 1.074 is within 2% please lmk if it isnt ill drop the clocks a little lower but the only way I could get 1.000v in my bios was fixed EDIT: just realized this is way to high I have to be 1.02 tops ill adjust the clocks and try again
> View attachment 2526166


Yeah, to make it easier than percentages, we will just say the voltage range will be up to 20mv above/below 1.000v. In other words, nothing above 1.020v will be allowed.


----------



## MrTOOSHORT

10980xe, 4.3GHz:


----------



## Tehone

storm-chaser said:


> Yeah, to make it easier than percentages, we will just say the voltage range will be up to 20mv above/below 1.000v. In other words, nothing above 1.020v will be allowed.


well i guess im out on this one because even on fixed it wont go lower then 1.073 ^_^ all good next time win shall be mine Muhahahahahah


----------



## MadGoat

A quick and dirty run:


----------



## storm-chaser

Tehone said:


> well i guess im out on this one because even on fixed it wont go lower then 1.073 ^_^ all good next time win shall be mine Muhahahahahah


Im actually going to allow your result to stand, it's pretty close to the required spec and we need the interest. *Consequently, we will raise the bar to a maximum CPU voltage limit of 1.073v*


----------



## Nikado7

0451 said:


> I forgot about that. Most boards don’t have die sense, so this whole competition will be pretty much invalid.


Exactly what I was thinking. Vcore readings between boards are all over the place. Vrout is more accurate on some etc etc.


----------



## storm-chaser

Okay so it sounds like this comp is a no go. Oh well, we will come up with something else that works and is fair and competitive for everyone.


----------



## Nikado7

I know what you're trying to find and it would be interesting but I think vcore will have to be better controlled. How do we know if their llc is maxed or if it's drooping to 0.8. I think it needs to be a l loaded 1v, as in vcore while running cpuz benchmark. And maybe a hwinfo showing the min/max of vcore and vrout for the validation. If the voltage is set to static then the min should be what it hits under load which should be 1v.


----------



## MadGoat

Nikado7 said:


> I know what you're trying to find and it would be interesting but I think vcore will have to be better controlled. How do we know if their llc is maxed or if it's drooping to 0.8. I think it needs to be a l loaded 1v, as in vcore while running cpuz benchmark. And maybe a hwinfo showing the min/max of vcore and vrout for the validation. If the voltage is set to static then the min should be what it hits under load which should be 1v.


Agreed, A hwinfo64 window showing min / max voltages and Clocks would be good validation with the CPUz Bench.


----------



## ssateneth

deleted


----------



## Nikado7

Alright so heres what I did and think it will be most accurate. I set hwinfo to 1000ms since 2000 is a little meh, I got cpuz on benchmark button tab, I clicked the clock on hwinfo (resets everything) and then clicked benchmark right after. The instant the benchmark was over I hit printscreen. Meaning hwinfo should be 99% while the bench was running. I've had a multimeter on the vcore headers on my mobo and it was identical to hwinfo's vcore reading so I know I'm good there. Other boards probably need to show vcore and vrout. 

Any issues with my method? 

I added the cpuz summary screen to the shot after the benchmark, thats why the current vcore doesn't match the current vcore value of hwinfo. 

This isn't my final number I literally just put in a value and tried it and wanted to show my methodology. 










Now to start getting the real numbers


----------



## Nikado7

Eh, even thats a little meh. The multi test of cpuz kinda locks hwinfo up in the process so I'm not so sure the values would be accurate. It unlocks after like 6 seconds but mehhh. I think a longer test like cinebench would give a more accurate result.

I tried that and yeah its definitely better. Look at the voltage.. tighter numbers, not a glitching hwinfo from cpuz toying with it. Updates every second like it should and shows the true values. I think thats what I would do... Run Cinebench and reset hwinfo right after it starts rendering and Printscreen it right before it stops.. Long enough to get an average and doesn't strip away all processing power from hwinfo to keep it from updating correctly.


----------



## Veii

Is this in the range of "validness" ?








If it was for me, i'd require an OCCT Extreme (1h) stability confirmation Or a y-cruncher all tests 4 loops (72min)

I do think that it is possible to make something out of it ~ but we shouldn't compare frequency numbers between generations and between manufactures
It would be optimal to set specific ranges for

VRM Output (~10 to ~20mV max)
SVI2 Range between idle & mid allcore load (specify a valid tool to run mid capture, be it just AVX2 Cinebench R23)
VID to SVI2 deviation peaks (2% maybe)
Especially the last part together with Curve Optimizer plays a big role on AMD. VID & CO ~ vs input current (also in OC_Mode for allcore loads, FIT is still active to some extend)
We shouldn't enforce loadlines, but only keep a valid min-max range of what is allowed & let users stabilize their setup within that range

The topic is long, but i do feel OP has a good idea
Yet it should not be frequency but results numbers & energy efficiency focused
Multi Thread Ratio, sounds like an easy idea ~ but this will be a mess to keep consistent data out of it. Especially because of ramping up timing and thermal equilibirum

I am for Windows software, when current expectations rather try to be a suicide run bench
But it would diminish possibility for cheating, if the request to capture it is mid an AVX or AVX2 run
Post will get too long, but it certainly is possible making something out of this competition


----------



## MadGoat

Nikado7 said:


> Eh, even thats a little meh. The multi test of cpuz kinda locks hwinfo up in the process so I'm not so sure the values would be accurate. It unlocks after like 6 seconds but mehhh. I think a longer test like cinebench would give a more accurate result.
> 
> I tried that and yeah its definitely better. Look at the voltage.. tighter numbers, not a glitching hwinfo from cpuz toying with it. Updates every second like it should and shows the true values. I think thats what I would do... Run Cinebench and reset hwinfo right after it starts rendering and Printscreen it right before it stops.. Long enough to get an average and doesn't strip away all processing power from hwinfo to keep it from updating correctly.
> 
> View attachment 2526421


Interesting. A bit difficult on the timing I guess. I like the idea of this competition, just a little difficult to nail down a reproducible procedure.


----------



## Nikado7

Problem is I'm not about to spend 72 minutes on each setting when its something nobody is going to keep outside of this competition lol. We could split hairs further and further but we know it's just gonna prove that the newer something gets the lower the voltage that is needed. BUTTTTTT........it would be mighty interesting seeing just how it has progressed with a test like this. Will a 2600k do 3ghz? 4ghz? What will be the progression between even same gen series, such as a 7700k vs 7600k or 7350k.. Either way it's still a relatively pointless test and only valid for the interesting factor, but still not one to devote much time to. If there's a better method than I proposed then I'd be all for it but I think if it can manage passing 1 cinebench then its doing good enough to call it good for this particular research. Like I said, it's a test with settings nobody will keep and merely just an interest factor so more than an hour or 2 on it is a little much. 

I'm very interested in seeing the differences though so I'll press on doing my part to get my results with the cinebench method. Anyone finds a better way, post it up


----------



## Veii

Nikado7 said:


> Problem is I'm not about to spend 72 minutes on each setting when its something nobody is going to keep outside of this competition lol. We could split hairs further and further but we know it's just gonna prove that the newer something gets the lower the voltage that is needed.


I needed for my screenshot 20 attempts to stabilize 4.35
Anything lower was too easy - but that's not competitive enough

For my public RAM OC screenshots i need 6 hours, and could redo them 3-4 times, at the very end when OCCT Extreme starts to crash
1h tests should be common sense - hence thermal equilibrium takes 40-45min to be reached
Up to test bench, and room size. 1 hour should be common sense ~ for memory tests and for CPU tests, which is shown by trown errors later

Overclocking requires patience,
Thought this also should be common sense
But as you phrased it ~ current thread requirements are rather looking like a suicide-run HWBot competition 


Nikado7 said:


> I'm very interested in seeing the differences though so I'll press on doing my part to get my results with the cinebench method. Anyone finds a better way, post it up


cinebench mid run, just people will fail AVX512 then ~ as alone AVX2 has a fixed voltage droop + loadline droop

I stand here then with OCCT Extreme (1h the demo) or y-cruncher 4 loops all tests (2min * 9 tests, 4 loops . Forget y-cruncher, that thing will also run AVX512, if the cpu supports it. OCCT Extreme AVX2 or AVX - up to us 
That's common in the 24/7 stability threads here , at least it finally got through for AMD. I think for intel too hopefully 
Agreed-Stability is a complicated topic 

EDIT:
Would never call above, anywhere near stable at this voltage
Since AVX2 on small FFT sizes just droops to strongly
But hopefully submitted up to competition requirements ~ unsure.
At least i manage to make it survive the AVX2 stresstest of CPU-Z after many attempts
But at the end, its just a "bad" bronze/silver sample


----------



## storm-chaser

Veii said:


> Yet it should not be frequency but results numbers & energy efficiency focused
> Multi Thread Ratio,


We can do both. In other words, two separate categories, one with a focus on clock speed and the other one based on your performance results from the CPUz benchmark itself. You will be able to compete in both.
You mentioned multi-thread ratio, can you please clarify, I've never done the reading on that specific data, what exactly does it measure and can we integrate in to the comp to make it more competitive?



MadGoat said:


> Interesting. A bit difficult on the timing I guess. I like the idea of this competition, just a little difficult to nail down a reproducible procedure.


I thank you guys for all the suggestions. I do like the idea of a shorter benchmark here, as in general this could be considered a "fringe" type benchmark competition anyway. Therefore, the focus here will more be on
very quick benchmarks. We may still just do the CPUz benchmark to keep the rules as simple as possible.
I'm going to sleep on it tonight and get back to you guys with revised instructions, I particularly like the idea of including hwinfo64 sensor showing min/max/current voltage with your CPUz screenshot. This would be done on the honor system. In other words, please don't manipulate your results to make it appear legit. Just do it properly. Because I may come back later and ask you to confirm your result if it doesn't seem right.


----------



## Nikado7

Best I can do without spending too much more time on it or playing with bclk. 4.7 was an instant no go lol.


----------



## storm-chaser

Nikado7 said:


> Best I can do without spending too much more time on it or playing with bclk. 4.7 was an instant no go lol.
> 
> View attachment 2526434


@Nikado7 
Your submission looks good. That's more or less going to be the exact format we will use...
How does everyone feel about more extensive benchmarking than just the CPUz test? The reason I am kind of against it is because it will had some complexity to the competition and might deter some people from entering for this reason. In the sense, they will have to download cinebench as well. With CPU-z almost everyone here already has it, so for convenience sake it seems like the easy choice. 

We can continue our discussion in this thread but once we have everything nailed down, I will create a new thread for the actual competition, since we are a couple pages deep now. So we will start from a clean slate.


----------



## kairi_zeroblade

Nerds are in..


----------



## storm-chaser

Lets not forget about hwmonitor, we could also use this to confirm the OC/voltage is accurate.


----------



## Nikado7

You have to realize that loaded vcore is different than idle vcore. Simply opening cpuz and looking at vcore is just an idle voltage. I was at 1.045v at idle, but under cinebench load you can see it averaged 1.000v on hwinfo. That is why I started cinebench, reset hwinfo right after and got a screenshot right before cinebench was done, that way hwinfo only shows info for when the cpu was under a load. You can do it whatever way you want but you have to find a way to show loaded voltage and make sure the voltage program is actually updating during the run. cpuz would lock hwinfo up during it's benchmark run. Simply looking at cpuz after the benchmark is only going to show idle voltage.


----------



## Marios145

Pro tip:
Use lower RAM clocks or IMC/Cache/IF clocks(maybe voltages too), that could help get 100MHz higher.


----------



## Chickenman

4100 with a 9900kf, could probably get some more via bclk but... meh.


----------



## Arctucas

CPU-Z reports VID on my board not VCore, but...


----------



## ShrimpBrime

12400F 1.00v 4400mhz (110x40) 
Asus ROG Strix B660-G 
Patriot C36 series 5200mhz @ 4840mhz

Approach - 
Disabled XMP
V-core set manually 1.01000v in bios (yes that many characters actually).
Load Line Calibration (LLC) set to Lvl 4 ""Recommended for OC""
Resulted in a fixed 1.00300v - Min 0.96800v and a max of 1.00300v and an average of 1.00000v at time of benchmark. 
Reduced Cache Multiplier to x30 to help reduce power consumption. (This helped quite a bit actually).

Hopefully this format is informational for people, I actually like low volt challenges


----------



## storm-chaser

ShrimpBrime said:


> 12400F 1.00v 4400mhz (110x40)
> Asus ROG Strix B660-G
> Patriot C36 series 5200mhz @ 4840mhz
> 
> Approach -
> Disabled XMP
> V-core set manually 1.01000v in bios (yes that many characters actually).
> Load Line Calibration (LLC) set to Lvl 4 ""Recommended for OC""
> Resulted in a fixed 1.00300v - Min 0.96800v and a max of 1.00300v and an average of 1.00000v at time of benchmark.
> Reduced Cache Multiplier to x30 to help reduce power consumption. (This helped quite a bit actually).
> 
> Hopefully this format is informational for people, I actually like low volt challenges
> 
> View attachment 2568706


Excellent result, shrimp. Thanks for resurrecting this thread, perhaps with your result we can get better interest this time around. 

I'm going to start on a new leaderboard. *FYI people use shrimps layout above, it's ideal for what we are trying to do here because it will measure min/max voltage. 

*


----------



## Avacado

Arctucas said:


> CPU-Z reports VID on my board not VCore, but...


Is CPUz running in XOC mode by chance?


----------



## storm-chaser

New Leaderboard is up!


----------



## domdtxdissar

5950x with all 16cores 32threads enabled
1.006v idle, 1v under load
Static OC: CCD1 @ 4505mhz, CCD2 @ 4355mhz
630 ST and 12.9k MT in CPU-Z bench with hwinfo open while running









_edit_


storm-chaser said:


> New Leaderboard is up!
> 
> View attachment 2568868


Where are some of the other results coming from ? Can find no results from Nikado7 running CPU-Z bench @ 4600mhz 1volt (?)
Arctucus also no CPU-Z bench?


----------



## storm-chaser

domdtxdissar said:


> 5950x with all 16cores 32threads enabled
> 1.006v idle, 1v under load
> Static OC: CCD1 @ 4505mhz, CCD2 @ 4355mhz
> 630 ST and 12.9k MT in CPU-Z bench with hwinfo open while running
> View attachment 2568942
> 
> 
> _edit_
> 
> Where are some of the other results coming from ? Can find no results from Nikado7 running CPU-Z bench @ 4600mhz 1volt (?)
> Arctucus also no CPU-Z bench?


First off, great result!

Okay, just checked and you are correct there is no CPU-z bench for arctucus or Nikado7. I will remove those results until they can update their results with the same layout as shrimpbrime. I think I had them added to the old leaderboard for some reason and they just got transferred over without double checking.

@Nikado7
@Arctucas
Please re-run your submissions and use updated format from shrimps / domdtxdissar's post. Basically, HWInfo64 open displaying min/max voltage and CPUz benchmark, please. Thanks!


----------



## storm-chaser

domdtxdissar said:


> 5950x with all 16cores 32threads enabled
> Static OC: CCD1 @ 4505mhz, CCD2 @ 4355mhz


Should I just average CCD1 and CCD2 to come up with your net effective clock?


----------



## domdtxdissar

storm-chaser said:


> Should I just average CCD1 and CCD2 to come up with your net effective clock?


One CCD is its own separate die with its 8 cores.

With 5900x and 5950x the first CCD is pretty much always binned higher then the second one.
Single and low threaded workloads is always put on first CCD and only spill over to the second CCD when the first one is starting to fill up, in that way its kinda acting like Intel's big/little with P and E cores in what cores that get priority..

How will you handle this with AlderLake ? Do you plan to average clocks between P cores and E cores ?

In my opinion first CCD's 4505mhz is the correct number to rank it by, same way AlderLake should be ranked by its P cores 
(i was only maxing out second CCD to get a highest possible CPU-Z score)


----------



## storm-chaser

domdtxdissar said:


> One CCD is its own separate die with its 8 cores.
> 
> With 5900x and 5950x the first CCD is pretty much always binned higher then the second one.
> Single and low threaded workloads is always put on first CCD and only spill over to the seconds CCD when the first one is starting to fill up, in that way its kinda acting like Intel's big/little with P and E cores in what cores that get priority..
> 
> How will do you to handle this with AlderLake ? Do you plan to average clocks between P cores and E cores ?
> 
> In my opinion first CCD's 4505mhz is the correct number to rank it by, same way AlderLake should be ranked by its P cores
> (i was only maxing out second CCD to get a highest possible CPU-Z score)


Okay makes sense now. So we will do as you suggested and rank those chips by CCD1 clock speed and do the same (more or less) with AlderLake P cores only.


----------



## storm-chaser

Update


----------



## shrimpbrime_6466

domdtxdissar said:


> One CCD is its own separate die with its 8 cores.
> 
> With 5900x and 5950x the first CCD is pretty much always binned higher then the second one.
> Single and low threaded workloads is always put on first CCD and only spill over to the second CCD when the first one is starting to fill up, in that way its kinda acting like Intel's big/little with P and E cores in what cores that get priority..
> 
> How will you handle this with AlderLake ? Do you plan to average clocks between P cores and E cores ?
> 
> In my opinion first CCD's 4505mhz is the correct number to rank it by, same way AlderLake should be ranked by its P cores
> (i was only maxing out second CCD to get a highest possible CPU-Z score)


It's a good opinion, but it's still a singular cpu, single socket. I would believe you should have all cores the same speed, but I think I read core reduction is allowed also.

So on that note, either my next try I will reduce multiplier on all but core 0 for my submission, because that's what cpuz reports unless told otherwise.

Maybe the rules need a tad fine tunning?


----------



## storm-chaser

shrimpbrime_6466 said:


> Maybe the rules need a tad fine tunning?


Yes we've been trying to fine tune everything but keep running into new problems lol

Since the dies on CCD1 and CCD2 are identical (unlike a 12900K with two distinctly different dies) we will have to average your results across all 16 cores.
@domdtxdissar

@ShrimpBrime 
@shrimpbrime_6466 

We did discuss dropping cores earlier in the thread, but I think for now we should just go with all cores activated. You can try it, and post it here, it just wont count for the actual competition.


----------

