# EDC = 1, PBO TURBO BOOST



## gerardfraser

It is magic voodoo and it works good.AMD Ryzen 3800X well the tweak is real

Video:Highest normal Boost is still 4650Mhz. With 4600Mhz average boost

Light Gaming load BIOSHOCK


Spoiler











Recorded 1 hour of RDR2 and sustained CPU clocks were up to 4600Mhz with and average around 4525Mhz-4550Mhz.
Video RDR2


Spoiler












Screen shots 

Light gaming loads all core boost up to 4625Mhz Outlast 2 


Spoiler



Outlast 2 Screenshot by gerard fraser, on Flickr



Normal to heavy gaming loads all core boost 4575Mhz Red Dead Redemption 2


Spoiler



Red Dead Redemption 2 by gerard fraser, on Flickr



Normal to heavy gaming loads all core boost BF5 4550Mhz 


Spoiler



Battlefield V by gerard fraser, on Flickr


----------



## Synoxia

How to make SC not throttle on a 3700x? C-states? 10 EDC still lower r15 SC score compared to stock


----------



## YoSmokinMAN

^Yes disable c-states. But then the cores do not "sleep" in ryzen master nearly as often they mostly stay awake. Also my 3600x hangs around 1v at idle now. Without edc 1 it's around .5v. This is on an asus b350 prime plus 1.0.0.4.

Otherwise, I got a good 100mhz sc and mc doing this and benchmarks reflect it.. ***?


----------



## makkara

So this breaks FIT and runs all core loads at dangerous voltage.

Mine with PBO on runs all core ~4.1GHz @~1.34V and even that might be too high vcore for it.


----------



## marcelo19941

makkara said:


> So this breaks FIT and runs all core loads at dangerous voltage.


My 3950x runs at the same voltages, no changes there


----------



## oreonutz

marcelo19941 said:


> My 3950x runs at the same voltages, no changes there


Same on my 3950x for my first test. About to finally test again. I recommend saving a profile of how you have your BIOS setup now to USB, then loading Optomized Settings in the Bios, then dial in the PBO Settings. I am about to try that here in about 20 mins, will report back with my findings.


----------



## Ipak

Confirm it is working like a charm with 3900x and x470Prime Pro. For me single thread loads are somewhat fixed with Ryzen High perfomance plan selected, but will have to dial in some vrm and voltage settings for better results.


----------



## marcelo19941

marcelo19941 said:


> My 3950x runs at the same voltages, no changes there


About 1,13V so no harm


----------



## Nighthog

I've got a weak 3800X that wants lots of voltage. It's no issue for my sample. 

The voltage and degradation scare is out off hand at this moment I've seen. Though it's still early to tell how this will effect the cpu:s in the long run. 

This *PBO TURBO BOOST* is real and allows better clocks than manual OC without crashes, it will clock down if it detects "unsuitable" loads. We get to keep the Auto boosting algorithm to our advantage and circumvent some restrictions on it's implementation. 
This is how I envisioned PBO to actually work like! Not the gimped AMD restricted PBO with 100-110A EDC Limits.

Though I do have to note there are other restrictions still present even if we go around the first limit being the EDC Limit for AVX as the most obvious example. I still encounter some current or power limit present as the "next" other controll kicking in to keep AVX loads in controll. It's not completly unlocked.

For example I can get better Cinebench 20R scores if I undervolt with EDC 10 & 10x scalar but will loose on the max available boosting for other loads at the top for max boosting. 
If you raise voltage you might get lower scores in R20 as it faster hits the limit that is next in line for the algorithm. But in turn games and low loads will take the extra voltage to give you extra headroom at the max boost available.

Just a example for regular application boosting 4.500Ghz in multi-thread load testing for memory errors. [TestMem5 with 1usmus profile]


----------



## Delphi

Anyone try this on a Gigabyte board? Mine didn't work, it freaked out but went in some sort of protection mode. ST only hit 4ghz, multicore was 3.5ghz.


----------



## Nighthog

Delphi said:


> Anyone try this on a Gigabyte board? Mine didn't work, it freaked out but went in some sort of protection mode. ST only hit 4ghz, multicore was 3.5ghz.


I'm sitting on a X570 Gigabyte Xtreme. F12a BIOS.

Be sure to use a Agesa 1.0.0.4B bios. I don't know how this works in earlier versions. You might need to try different EDC and scalar values. 
Some chips just maybe aren't stable with the extra boost.

1x scalar gives less voltage where 10X gives most voltage for multi-core load.


----------



## MikeS3000

Delphi said:


> Anyone try this on a Gigabyte board? Mine didn't work, it freaked out but went in some sort of protection mode. ST only hit 4ghz, multicore was 3.5ghz.


I have a Gigabyte board. To get around the restrictions you need to disable global c-states.


----------



## Nighthog

MikeS3000 said:


> I have a Gigabyte board. To get around the restrictions you need to disable global c-states.


It isn't entirely a necessity but it makes it easier to manage and quicker to set. 

If you want C-states & boost + single-thread you need to play around quite a bit to find something that works for you sample cpu. Will require work. [I'm doing it]


----------



## Ipak

hmm better ST score then stock 9900k and kf 

https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/1074643


----------



## Nighthog

Here is a ~balanced setting~ for my 3800X sample for Cinebench R20.

EDC 10
scalar 10x
LLC LOW
cpu voltage offset -0.03125V

Single thread is still throttling but it's not horrible like EDC set to 1. 
EDC 11 could be better for single thread but I've not managed to get as good multi with my sample yet.

Multi-thread scores are about equal to manual 4.400Ghz OC.


----------



## MikeS3000

x570 Aorus Pro Wifi. 3900x

EDC 10
scalar 10x
LLC auto
Vcore: Normal/Auto

I am definitely getting not only amazing boost on all of my cores but the benchmarks to back them up. My findings are that if I use negative vcore offset up to about -0.04 then single core boost scores increase even a bit more, but multi-core suffers. When I apply positive offset up to 0.05 then multi-core keeps increasing but single core suffers a bit.


----------



## MikeS3000

Just for fun here is a CPU-Z single thread only bench mark with all of the same settings except a -0.04375 offset. Over 560!


----------



## Nighthog

@MikeS3000

I could recommend you use LLC and negative offset. 

Seems multi-core wants more voltage when single core doesn't. It will increase the overall voltage minimums but not reach up and beyond the 1.500V limit.

You will have too see which LLC setting is best at each voltage offset.


----------



## Yuke

wow, even my trash 3800x is godlike now lol

good find.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Delphi said:


> Anyone try this on a Gigabyte board? Mine didn't work, it freaked out but went in some sort of protection mode. ST only hit 4ghz, multicore was 3.5ghz.


Tried and got similar issues with a 3800x on Aorus Master, BIOS version F11.
No Windows boot at EDC=1, multicore 4.4 but only first CCD, 2nd at 3.5. ST hits at 4.4 GHz.
In general terrible performance.

I got protection mode with shutdown and BIOS corruption once I disabled Turbo mode.


----------



## Yuke

ManniX-ITA said:


> Tried and got similar issues with a 3800x on Aorus Master, BIOS version F11.
> No Windows boot at EDC=1, multicore 4.4 but only first CCD, 2nd at 3.5. ST hits at 4.4 GHz.
> In general terrible performance.
> 
> I got protection mode with shutdown and BIOS corruption once I disabled Turbo mode.



I had performance issues too but it runs perfectly after i deactivated AMD cool & quiet. Also 3800x Aorus Master.


----------



## MikeS3000

ManniX-ITA said:


> Tried and got similar issues with a 3800x on Aorus Master, BIOS version F11.
> No Windows boot at EDC=1, multicore 4.4 but only first CCD, 2nd at 3.5. ST hits at 4.4 GHz.
> In general terrible performance.
> 
> I got protection mode with shutdown and BIOS corruption once I disabled Turbo mode.


Did you disable global c-states and try to boot with vcore on auto or normal? I got the windows corruption notice the first time I tried this tweak because I forgot that I had a -0.1 offset programmed for vcore. It's been fine ever since on auto voltage.


----------



## gerardfraser

@Nighthog
I see you are saying single thread scores are low with the tweak in Cinbench20 at EDC1. Did you actually try a different Windows 10 powerplan. 

I suggest Ultimate Power plan vs using (which is a great power plan)1usmus power plan or power saver plans.

My 3800x just setting EDC 1 in BIOS and scaler 10x and nothing else Cinebench20 still 530 score with Ultimate power plan but power saver plans I have seen 478.Try it out if you want or anyone.I suggest back to back runs.


----------



## Cidious

Works like a charm on my Unify with 3800X. Similar multicore performance as manual OC and same nice low temps with a slight offset. Single core also better than before. Great find!


----------



## Awsan

Oh my I can't wait for my 3950x to arrive


----------



## Yuke

Nighthog said:


> Here is a ~balanced setting~ for my 3800X sample for Cinebench R20.
> 
> EDC 10
> scalar 10x
> LLC LOW
> cpu voltage offset -0.03125V
> 
> Single thread is still throttling but it's not horrible like EDC set to 1.
> EDC 11 could be better for single thread but I've not managed to get as good multi with my sample yet.
> 
> Multi-thread scores are about equal to manual 4.400Ghz OC.



My 3800x was also throttling. Just deactivate AMD cool and quiet and it should have better performance in single and multicore loads. At least thats how i fixed my broken single scores in geekbench/userbench. Had 1313 geekbench single score before this tweak...750 with the tweak and AMD C&Q still active...and now almost 1400 with C&Q deactivated! No Offset changes, no LLC changes, nothing...just skalar to 10 and lets goooo!


----------



## Nighthog

gerardfraser said:


> @Nighthog
> I see you are saying single thread scores are low with the tweak in Cinbench20 at EDC1. Did you actually try a different Windows 10 powerplan.
> 
> I suggest Ultimate Power plan vs using (which is a great power plan)1usmus power plan or power saver plans.
> 
> My 3800x just setting EDC 1 in BIOS and scaler 10x and nothing else Cinebench20 still 530 score with Ultimate power plan but power saver plans I have seen 478.Try it out if you want or anyone.I suggest back to back runs.


Thanks for the tip about the *Windows Ultimate power plan*

I had forgotten that thing existed, it wasn't available for me so I had to go and add it back into the settings.

*AMD Ryzen Balanced* & *AMD Ryzen High Performance* didn't work optimal with their throttling issues. Ultimate fixes it!

If you don't have the *Ultimate power plan*

Run this command in CMD with administrator settings to add it to your options.


Code:


powercfg -duplicatescheme e9a42b02-d5df-448d-aa00-03f14749eb61


----------



## Awsan

How does pbo alloy the boost is it multi based or clock based? If we change the bclk to 110 can that add 10% clocks if pbo changes the multi only?


----------



## Nighthog

Awsan said:


> How does pbo alloy the boost is it multi based or clock based? If we change the bclk to 110 can that add 10% clocks if pbo changes the multi only?


BCLK is added on-top but the X570 chipset has issues with BCLK. SATA drop out ~101BCLK on Gigabyte Xtreme. Also USB etc can get issues but can be fixed eventually with higher voltages for SoC. 

For BCLK I prefer X470 as you can at least have SATA still available with BCLK OC. But I've myself not tested my Ryzen 3000 on the X470 board I have to see how it fares. 

If only using .M2 drives BCLK can be useful on X570. They don't drop out as easily.


----------



## Awsan

Nighthog said:


> BCLK is added on-top but the X570 chipset has issues with BCLK. SATA drop out ~101BCLK on Gigabyte Xtreme. Also USB etc can get issues but can be fixed eventually with higher voltages for SoC.
> 
> For BCLK I prefer X470 as you can at least have SATA still available with BCLK OC. But I've myself not tested my Ryzen 3000 on the X470 board I have to see how it fares.
> 
> If only using .M2 drives BCLK can be useful on X570. They don't drop out as easily.


I see, thanks for the info.

My rig will have a couple of pcie drives ,no sata
So I was wondering if I disable smt try this trick + ~10mhz oc on the bclk do you think it will hit 5ghz?


----------



## ManniX-ITA

MikeS3000 said:


> Did you disable global c-states and try to boot with vcore on auto or normal? I got the windows corruption notice the first time I tried this tweak because I forgot that I had a -0.1 offset programmed for vcore. It's been fine ever since on auto voltage.


Disabled C&Q, C-States, set vCore auto. Nothing really helped.
With Turbo from Auto to Disabled got the BIOS corruption and protection.
Is anyone using it with version F11?


----------



## Nighthog

ManniX-ITA said:


> Disabled C&Q, C-States, set vCore auto. Nothing really helped.
> With Turbo from Auto to Disabled got the BIOS corruption and protection.
> Is anyone using it with version F11?


You might need more than stock voltage, it's up to you to try but I can't guarantee anything. 

Some cup's just might not be stable with this extra boosting after all.


----------



## jfrob75

My experience with this unorthodox approach to PBO OC.


Well, I was trying various EDC values maintaining my PPT/TDC at a setting of 255. Was getting pretty interesting all core clocks of around 4300MHz with a max CBR20 score of 10050. Then I started looking at single thread behavior. With my EDC setting at 5 my initial CBR20 ST score was around 228, even though my single core frequency averaged over 4.6GHz. So I raised the EDC value to 8 and that resulted in a score in the 270's. Again the observed average core clock, thru HWinfo64 was greater than 4.6GHz. This was not making any sense. Tried disabling C-States with no effect. Eventually went back to check all core performance and that is when I noticed my all core frequencies for 16 of 32 threads was running at around 4.3GHz and the remaining 16 threads were running under 4GHz.


Set the EDC back to it's original value and all core clocking returned to normal. 



Will reset bios back to default values and start from the beginning at some point in the near future. Did not have a chance to try the Ultimate Performance power plan on ST performance.


Edit: I wonder if this weird behavior may have something to do with my CPU being a 3950X vs. 3800X, i.e. 2 CCD's vs 1.
Edit: I was able to get my all core frequencies to behave as expected. I had to apply an LLC of 3, anything less resulted in some cores on the 2nd CCD from not clocking the same as the CCD1 cores.


----------



## gerardfraser

Nighthog said:


> Thanks for the tip about the *Windows Ultimate power plan*
> 
> If you don't have the *Ultimate power plan*
> 
> Run this command in CMD with administrator settings to add it to your options.
> 
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> powercfg -duplicatescheme e9a42b02-d5df-448d-aa00-03f14749eb61


Awesome thanks for checking.


----------



## Nighthog

I have to regret to inform that Ultimate performance profile doesn't fix it 100%. After a few more tries I noticed it would not score like normal PBO/auto PB ~520~525 every time. at times it would regress and get ~500 single score. 
But it's better then the balanced or high power profiles. Those could go much lower to like 450-470 range too often.

Ultimate power plan at least stays minimum ~500 and often still reaches normal score around ~527 for me more often.

EDC 10 is still better than EDC 1 for myself. Your samples may vary with required settings. I have kept c-states enabled through all my tests.

Some might want to enable/disable QnC. it alters the way it boosts. You have to see yourself which works best for you.
I think CnQ disabled should give you more consistent results.


----------



## gerardfraser

Nighthog said:


> I have to regret to inform that Ultimate performance profile doesn't fix it 100%. After a few more tries I noticed it would not score like normal PBO/auto PB ~520~525 every time. at times it would regress and get ~500 single score.
> But it's better then the balanced or high power profiles. Those could go much lower to like 450-470 range too often.
> 
> Ultimate power plan at least stays minimum ~500 and often still reaches normal score around ~527 for me more often.
> 
> EDC 10 is still better than EDC 1 for myself. Your samples may vary with required settings. I have kept c-states enabled through all my tests.
> 
> Some might want to enable/disable QnC. it alters the way it boosts. You have to see yourself which works best for you.
> I think CnQ disabled should give you more consistent results.


That is OK I do not mind setting EDC from 1 to 10 and being wrong about the powerplan is ok,more information the better.


----------



## Nighthog

gerardfraser said:


> That is OK I do not mind setting EDC from 1 to 10 and being wrong about the powerplan is ok,more information the better.


Just THANKS! Your tip improved results!


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Nighthog said:


> You might need more than stock voltage, it's up to you to try but I can't guarantee anything.
> 
> Some cup's just might not be stable with this extra boosting after all.


Managed to make it work. The issue was the LLC at Medium instead of Low.
Disappointing performances so far; trying with EDC=1 and Scalar=10x right now.

With CB20 multicore the score is 5000-5100; about 4.30-4.35 GHz at 1,37 VID.
Core 4 at 4.1 GHz and 5 at 4.2 GHz; they are the weakest.

With single core I get 520 with a clocks at 4.4 GHz average, quick bursts at 4.5 GHz.

The MP ratio is very often at x45-45.5 and up to x46.5 for Core 0 and 3, the golden ones.
But the real clock, the effective, is almost always 100-150 MHz lower.

In comparison normal PBO with EDC=0 the CB20 scores are 525/5150 but much more steady.
Running CB20 multicore, core 4 and 5 are running at 4,250-4275 MHz like all the others, average 1.4v.
There's no almost no difference from the others; maybe 25-50 MHz but no more.

With EDC=1 also the single core thread load is messed up; the workload is assigned to cores from 4 to 7 instead of 0 and 3.


----------



## Nighthog

ManniX-ITA said:


> Managed to make it work. The issue was the LLC at Medium instead of Low.
> Disappointing performances so far; trying with EDC=1 and Scalar=10x right now.
> 
> With CB20 multicore the score is 5000-5100; about 4.30-4.35 GHz at 1,37 VID.
> Core 4 at 4.1 GHz and 5 at 4.2 GHz; they are the weakest.
> 
> With single core I get 520 with a clocks at 4.4 GHz average, quick bursts at 4.5 GHz.
> 
> The MP ratio is very often at x45-45.5 and up to x46.5 for Core 0 and 3, the golden ones.
> But the real clock, the effective, is almost always 100-150 MHz lower.
> 
> In comparison normal PBO with EDC=0 the CB20 scores are 525/5150 but much more steady.
> Running CB20 multicore, core 4 and 5 are running at 4,250-4275 MHz like all the others, average 1.4v.
> There's no almost no difference from the others; maybe 25-50 MHz but no more.
> 
> With EDC=1 also the single core thread load is messed up; the workload is assigned to cores from 4 to 7 instead of 0 and 3.


If you don't have great cooling and reaching ~70C in Cinebench R20 it will start to boost less to maintain thermals. We haven't unlocked thermal limits after all.
If it's 70C you can try normal LLC or LOW. and then set a negative offset to lower thermals to get better R20 multi scores. Though I have to note any less voltage and you single and top-boost gets lower which each decrease in voltage.
You have to decide which is more important Cinebench R20 & AVX load or single-thread & light loads and non-AVX applications. More voltage will increase your top speeds but they might be unstable as the algorithm tries to boost too much above the chips capabilities. 
I've seen any LLC is negative to most degree in combination off using PBO. They are useful on negative voltage offsets if you want to go that way but normal voltage or above it's usually bad with PBO.


----------



## dansi

I tried this EDC = 1 and EDC = 10.
Both shows a higher core clocks in hwinfo. From 4.1ghz to 4.25ghz in MT and 4.7ghz to 4.75ghz in ST
But performance is degraded for ST and MT.
Also Hwinfo edc draw still show around 100A, which is lesser than stock values
I get a 1050% in Edc drawn lol

F11 bios gigabyte reporting in!


----------



## gerardfraser

Tested the tweak and thought I would drop this here foranyone interested.

BF5 2560x1440 Ultra settings
Default BIOS setting @60 FPS Cap- CPU Frequency Range 4350Mhz - 4425Mhz - Avg 4400Mhz
BIOS boost EDC set to 1A @60 FPS Cap- CPU Frequency Range 4475Mhz - 4550Mhz - Avg 4525Mhz
BIOS boost EDC set to 10A @60 FPS Cap- CPU Frequency Range 4500Mhz - 4575Mhz - Avg 4525Mhz
BIOS boost EDC set to 1A @120 FPS Cap- CPU Frequency Range 4450Mhz - 4525Mhz - Avg 4475Mhz

Video BF5


Spoiler


----------



## Giuseppe Io

good


----------



## makkara

What is your Vcore in all core load after doing this? (Not VID)
Needs to be checked while CB R20 is running.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Nighthog said:


> If you don't have great cooling and reaching ~70C in Cinebench R20 it will start to boost less to maintain thermals. We haven't unlocked thermal limits after all.
> If it's 70C you can try normal LLC or LOW. and then set a negative offset to lower thermals to get better R20 multi scores. Though I have to note any less voltage and you single and top-boost gets lower which each decrease in voltage.
> You have to decide which is more important Cinebench R20 & AVX load or single-thread & light loads and non-AVX applications. More voltage will increase your top speeds but they might be unstable as the algorithm tries to boost too much above the chips capabilities.
> I've seen any LLC is negative to most degree in combination off using PBO. They are useful on negative voltage offsets if you want to go that way but normal voltage or above it's usually bad with PBO.


Indeed I'm using a Dark Rock Pro 4 and CB20 tops 70 degrees 
LLC is already at Low, wasn't able to boot otherwise.
I can go down to -0.03 from Normal and get a slight bump in core VIDs but doesn't really change much.
I noticed too raising LLC with PBO is harmful, more vdroops.

I'll test keeping the CPU fans at full speed just to check if I can see better boosts.
Just wondering if it's normal with my thermals that these high MP ratios almost never are aligned with the effective clocks.
I see almost all cores going up to 45/45.5 but never really going over 4.4 GHz which is more or less the same with PBO w/EDC=0.
BTW much more interested in single-thread and light loads perfs.


----------



## Veii

Nighthog said:


> I've got a weak 3800X that wants lots of voltage. It's no issue for my sample.
> 
> The voltage and degradation scare is out off hand at this moment I've seen. Though it's still early to tell how this will effect the cpu:s in the long run.
> 
> This *PBO TURBO BOOST* is real and allows better clocks than manual OC without crashes, it will clock down if it detects "unsuitable" loads. We get to keep the Auto boosting algorithm to our advantage and circumvent some restrictions on it's implementation.
> This is how I envisioned PBO to actually work like! Not the gimped AMD restricted PBO with 100-110A EDC Limits.
> 
> Though I do have to note there are other restrictions still present even if we go around the first limit being the EDC Limit for AVX as the most obvious example. I still encounter some current or power limit present as the "next" other controll kicking in to keep AVX loads in controll. It's not completly unlocked.
> 
> For example I can get better Cinebench 20R scores if I undervolt with EDC 10 & 10x scalar but will loose on the max available boosting for other loads at the top for max boosting.
> If you raise voltage you might get lower scores in R20 as it faster hits the limit that is next in line for the algorithm. But in turn games and low loads will take the extra voltage to give you extra headroom at the max boost available.
> 
> Just a example for regular application boosting 4.500Ghz in multi-thread load testing for memory errors. [TestMem5 with 1usmus profile]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nighthog said:
> 
> 
> 
> @MikeS3000
> 
> I could recommend you use LLC and negative offset.
> 
> Seems multi-core wants more voltage when single core doesn't. It will increase the overall voltage minimums but not reach up and beyond the 1.500V limit.
> 
> You will have too see which LLC setting is best at each voltage offset.
Click to expand...

I just want to warn you guys, that there are two save voltages for ryzen 3rd gen
1.48~ is not Allcore Voltage
It's refreshable in an interval of 5-10ms applied voltage towards specific cores onto jumping CCX
This is NOT an allcore voltage you should run
And it will be an allcore voltage by abusing this bug to disable the FIT savety-net

This method can work well, IF you noted beforehand your rated sillicon allcore voltage ~ again this is unique per chip, and no recommended allcore voltage is correct
(it's around 1.27-1.3ish between silicon for 7nm)
Just the recommended maximum voltage only includes PB way of handling - disabling that and enforcing costant high boost at PB voltage, means there is no way to prevent degradation
Please re-read this post:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/ejgc6p/1325v_is_not_safe_for_zen_2/


makkara said:


> What is your Vcore in all core load after doing this? (Not VID)
> Needs to be checked while CB R20 is running.


Thank you for mentioning it twice :thumb:

This method may work by increasing VDDG IO Voltage and so it's corresponding CLD0_VDDG voltage
Allowing you to use save voltages while keeping this harsh allcore-boost up ~ without choking the cpu by not enough voltage
But again, keep in mind ~ there are 2 save voltages for ryzen 3rd gen
Boosting voltage is not a constant load voltage


----------



## Shiftstealth

Veii said:


> I just want to warn you guys, that there are two save voltages for ryzen 3rd gen
> 1.48~ is not Allcore Voltage
> It's refreshable in an interval of 5-10ms applied voltage towards specific cores onto jumping CCX
> This is NOT an allcore voltage you should run
> And it will be an allcore voltage by abusing this bug to disable the FIT savety-net
> 
> This method can work well, IF you noted beforehand your rated sillicon allcore voltage ~ again this is unique per chip, and no recommended allcore voltage is correct
> (it's around 1.27-1.3ish between silicon for 7nm)
> Just the recommended maximum voltage only includes PB way of handling - disabling that and enforcing costant high boost at PB voltage, means there is no way to prevent degradation
> Please re-read this post:
> https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/ejgc6p/1325v_is_not_safe_for_zen_2/
> 
> Thank you for mentioning it twice :thumb:
> 
> This method may work by increasing VDDG IO Voltage and so it's corresponding CLD0_VDDG voltage
> Allowing you to use save voltages while keeping this harsh allcore-boost up ~ without choking the cpu by not enough voltage
> But again, keep in mind ~ there are 2 save voltages for ryzen 3rd gen
> Boosting voltage is not a constant load voltage


I've been stalking this thread, and wondering when someone would bring this up. However I was curious if we'd see any degredation before that.


----------



## maxrealliti

and someone tried the profile data and settings for the 300 and 400 series?


----------



## Veii

Shiftstealth said:


> I've been stalking this thread, and wondering when someone would bring this up. However I was curious if we'd see any degredation before that.


There are couple of users already with degraded ryzens and couple of more by degraded by launch as to buggy PBO from the bioses 
Increasing voltage beyond recommendable level ~ only where FIT's safety net takes over, over 1.5v 
A bit more evidence that this is clearly not safe, is The Stilts currently unusable Ryzen starting from around this post

This method can work, to what i see letting a 3600(x) boost towards around 4.5 instead it's 4.2 programmed lock
But it has to be enjoyed with quite some skepticism, because there is nothing preventing you from overvolting your ryzen with current implementation of PBO

It reminds me of the AMD CBS OC 03-04 options
PBO OC03 did overdrive it exactly the same way while keeping FIT in mind 
(2nd gen had it too, while 3rd gen one can only prevent degredation on a smaller node by the refresh and shuffle cycles)
Meanwhile where PBO OC profile 04 did exactly this same thing
Taking max boost and letting it as allcore, while shoving the boost voltage into an allcore to keep it stable
* well stable, but surely with degredation  
Example of PBO Profile 03


Spoiler














It used 1.48v for boosting but dropped to save voltages for AVX & AVX2 specific loads ~ which is how it should normaly behave

Please keep that in mind:
The finding is a good thing, but you have to know your sillicon allcore voltage rated by FIT before doing this 
Else you overvolt your ryzen too much


> Hi The Stilt, if I may ask seen that I only overclock manually. Would you say that 1.28vcore would be safe. Power draw during IBT with Linpack maxes out at 198watt and temps around 78 to 79C max. I have the option of running it at 4.29Ghz about 25mhz less but only using 1.25vcore. - By VPII
> 
> 
> 
> Probably, but ultimately it depends on the silicon characteristics.
> You can check how high voltage FIT allows by increasing PPT, TDC and EDC to the maximum and running a worst-case workload. - By The Stilt
Click to expand...

IMO it can run 5ghz too with high voltage, but that's not the point here :ninja:
* opening PBO means using 254 - 254 - 254
255 or up to board 256 can be accepted as HEX instead of decimal, breaking PBO on 1004B,
soo 1-2 under max is still open PBO and is the same way usable for finding out your own sillicon save allcore-voltage


----------



## dansi

To see if fit has been bypassed, can you share your allcore load temps.

Fit will drop multipliers, temps and vcore at specific intervals. If you are seeing high multipers, and high temps, then this bug is very much closer to manual over clocking without fit safety.


----------



## MikeS3000

Testing PBO at "Normal" voltage in bios with EDC set to 0 (140 A max stock reporting in Ryzen Master). Scalar 10x. I ran CB20 and my all-core voltage is 1.32 to 1.33. When I run the same benchmark with EDC set to 10 the all-core vcore is 1.33 to 1.34. Single core stuff is similar in the high 1.4v range but under 1.5 with EDC 0 or 10. The conclusion is there is a small bump in all-core vcore but nothing crazy. I guess run at your own risk.


----------



## Nighthog

That reddit thread is just what I mean out-of-control scare.

~1.400V for all-core AVX some go down to 1.350V.

Need to tweak more.


----------



## Veii

MikeS3000 said:


> Testing PBO at "Normal" voltage in bios with EDC set to 0 (140 A max stock reporting in Ryzen Master). Scalar 10x. I ran CB20 and my all-core voltage is 1.32 to 1.33. When I run the same benchmark with EDC set to 10 the all-core vcore is 1.33 to 1.34. Single core stuff is similar in the high 1.4v range but under 1.5 with EDC 0 or 10. The conclusion is there is a small bump in all-core vcore but nothing crazy. I guess run at your own risk.


EDC 0 is still broken in AGESA 1004B 
Make the same test with open PBO of 254-254-254 and note down your allcore voltage under your worst allcore-load test 
Scalar X1 , no auto OC, no specific boost changing options from the bios
Haven't seen one cpu which's allcore voltage exceeds 1.32v SVI 2


----------



## Veii

Nighthog said:


> That reddit thread is just what I mean out-of-control scare.
> 
> ~1.400V for all-core AVX some go down to 1.350V.
> 
> Need to tweak more.


The thread on it's own did suggest nothing, unlike some other fud threads on reddit - there is nothing to make people "scare" about
It mentioned briefly why there is no known allcore voltage and mentioned the early telephone-effect of the spread 1.325v is clearly wrong 
Reading hopefully though my post and the linked quotes + links ~ should mention, that every sillicon has it's own for it's unique silicon rated maximum voltage in rated FIT silicon tolerance threshold ~ unless you want to doubt The Stilts research, which is fine too i guess 

I don't know how else to explain it so it's understandable for everyone 
After all, everyone should know it's limits ~ some like to run 5.3ghz under Sub-Zero conditions, some like to test ram with 1.92v shortly or only for benchmarks
And some want to take care of their ryzen, without replacing it with the next gen 
Please consider to read the post instead of fully denying the half readed posting and linked threads (incl OCN ones)


----------



## MikeS3000

Veii said:


> EDC 0 is still broken in AGESA 1004B
> Make the same test with open PBO of 254-254-254 and note down your allcore voltage under your worst allcore-load test
> Scalar X1 , no auto OC, no specific boost changing options from the bios
> Haven't seen one cpu which's allcore voltage exceeds 1.32v SVI 2


You're right. I didn't run the test as you described, but instead i set scalar x1 and ran EDC 10 and normal voltages. SVI 2 hits 1.287 under cb20 load. Funny thing is that I am retaining most of my single core boost and benchmarks are slightly lower than x10 scalar with a lot less voltage and temperature.


----------



## Nighthog

I read your posts entirely.

I've been using this several months of testing at 1.450-1.500V range without adverse effect. 
Though I didn't use that voltage to test AVX. Manual OC in that regard would overheat. About 1.400V is around the Limit what you can do without overheating in manual mode for AVX loads. (Custom water)

This EDC bug I'm surprised actually reaches all the manual limits I had found in manual testing and does it automatically without the hassle. Even picks "reasonable" voltages" for the trouble AVX and boosts nonAVX to full tilt temperatures allowing. Being reasonable and stable with the clocks it tries for AVX and outperforming nonAVX.

This is really GOLD.

EDIT:
If you look at a longer test in Y-cruncher you see it still behaves well for PBO. Not doing anything overly extreme. It clocks down and boosts depending on the load and has different voltage ranges for the tests. Temperatures are within reason for my cooling.


----------



## Veii

MikeS3000 said:


> You're right. I didn't run the test as you described, but instead i set scalar x1 and ran EDC 10 and normal voltages. SVI 2 hits 1.287 under cb20 load. Funny thing is that I am retaining most of my single core boost and benchmarks are slightly lower than x10 scalar with a lot less voltage and temperature.


This is kinda known, but i have to find all threads associated with it
Polkfan from the X370 Taichi thread discovered this EDC 0 & 1 Bug couple of months ago - i think people from the CH6 thread got some weeks later and it spread up to the CH8 thread as much as i can tell

I would love to know if we can combine both methods together
EDC 1-10 with throttled PBO:
Tutorial findable here:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/e8nne7/play_with_pbo_settings_dont_just_set_them_all_to/
Tho i'm to this point not entirely sure, if EDC needs to be "limiting" too, letting the PBO "limit" the cpu, soo you get higher single core boost, resulting overall in more sustained allcore boost
Up to his quotes, his current "limiting PBO" way of OC, does result in nearly identical perf to a fixed allcore - just with more safe voltages where PB actually works
As the EDC 1 way of handling things resulted in more perf, but at way higher voltages and made his IMC unstable ~ compared to the "limiting PBO" way of OC


Nighthog said:


> I read your posts entirely.
> 
> I've been using this several months of testing at 1.450-1.500V range without adverse effect.
> Though I didn't use that voltage to test AVX. Manual OC in that regard would overheat. About 1.400V is around the Limit what you can do without overheating in manual mode for AVX loads. (Custom water)
> 
> This EDC bug I'm surprised actually reaches all the manual limits I had found in manual testing and does it automatically without the hassle. Even picks "reasonable" voltages" for the trouble AVX and boosts nonAVX to full tilt temperatures allowing. Being reasonable and stable with the clocks it tries for AVX and outperforming nonAVX.
> 
> This is really GOLD.


mm~
We haven't had a chance to try non AVX allcore loads
Actually if you have time, you can try Linpack Xtreme version 1.1.1 ?
I don't know many high-load render tests which aren't using AVX to replicate which voltage FIT detects as healthy for specific user silicon
The AVX2 load stays around 1.27-1.32 (rare case) for well boosting cpu's without any 3rd affecting sources

FIT on it's own doesn't only depend on temperature to throttle on worst case scenarios
But to my findings (reading, not own source) PBO is pretty much ignored for AVX2 tests, where CineR20 is AVX2
It's interesting
On one hand it's bypassed by FIT to prevent people frying their chips, on the other hand limiting PBO does work - while increasing has no effect for this specific kind of loads
And triggering the bug does work too :thinking: 

Yes if you have time, may you guys try to combine both methods together 
See if limiting PBO while abusing this bug (without going with the scalar over x5, x1 prefered) would still work, exceeding normal boosting behavior 
If we get the PBO to work the same way as it did on 2nd gen - to boost to absolute max, and then just limiting TDC, PPT to tame this boost 
It should result in controllable and safe voltages for AVX/AVX2 sustained allcore loads ~ making it actually a boost extending feature, instead working similar to an allcore with PB scaling down = being less dangerous


----------



## Yuke

Nighthog said:


> That reddit thread is just what I mean out-of-control scare.
> 
> ~1.400V for all-core AVX some go down to 1.350V.
> 
> Need to tweak more.



wow, how did you improve it to get 4.65Ghz boost clocks? I can hit 4.625Ghz only in extremely low load scenarios..CB20 single core run caps out at 4.6ghz.


----------



## Nighthog

Veii said:


> mm~
> We haven't had a chance to try non AVX allcore loads
> Actually if you have time, you can try Linpack Xtreme version 1.1.1 ?
> I don't know many high-load render tests which aren't using AVX to replicate which voltage FIT detects as healthy for specific user silicon
> The AVX2 load stays around 1.27-1.32 (rare case) for well boosting cpu's without any 3rd affecting sources


Linpack Xtreme 1.1.2 will do? Happened to be the one the download was...

Benchmark and a begun stress-test. It will take longer to complete but we can see the general performance already. 
You want to look to the right side with the 5 peaks of boost for the benchmark results [5x]

EDIT: stress test only made 5rounds before a fault. I think I might know why and will apply changes & retest. (memory related)


----------



## dansi

MikeS3000 said:


> Testing PBO at "Normal" voltage in bios with EDC set to 0 (140 A max stock reporting in Ryzen Master). Scalar 10x. I ran CB20 and my all-core voltage is 1.32 to 1.33. When I run the same benchmark with EDC set to 10 the all-core vcore is 1.33 to 1.34. Single core stuff is similar in the high 1.4v range but under 1.5 with EDC 0 or 10. The conclusion is there is a small bump in all-core vcore but nothing crazy. I guess run at your own risk.


The bump is coming from scalar values. 

Scalar afaik just adds higher vcore when loading the cores.
Think of the 'X' as how many times the additional load voltage is being multiplied. Say your stock vid is 1.1v, you start a certain load and the VF curve will call for stock vid of 1.2v, with opportunistic precision boost turned on, it may call for 1.215v, and with manual scalar at 10x, the additional 0.015v becomes 0.15v, so now your total vid on this load becomes 1.25v (1.1 + 0.15).


----------



## Veii

Nighthog said:


> Linpack Xtreme 1.1.2 will do? Happened to be the one the download was...
> 
> Benchmark and a begun stress-test. It will take longer to complete but we can see the general performance already.
> You want to look to the right side with the 5 peaks of boost for the benchmark results [5x]
> 
> EDIT: stress test only made 5rounds before a fault. I think I might know why and will apply changes & retest. (memory related)


On both let at least 10 rounds to run, they should be short from a 3rd gen 
I mentioned 1.1.1 as 1.1.2 has the Intel GCC fix, that won't take "Genuine Intel" cpus into account and actually use AVX2 for the CPU
1 CCD ryzens won't fail on this test, but 2 CCD ones have some strange multi CCD AVX accelrated issue where some fail, others don't
I'm onto this issue since some time and collecting data why they crash 

But 1.1.1 for finding out FIT allcore voltage with open PBO @ X1 scalar
1.1.2 didn't seem to drop much, near 1.35~ but the screenshots where not taken mid run, soo boosting behaviour and current load voltage are gimped
It was good to see tho, that PB does indeed work on single threaded AVX2 loads and boosts high (with 1.1.2)
Interestingly your FCLK doesn't scale down and keeps constant 1900Mhz 
Normaly that shouldn't make 1.1.2 fail then (yep it's very memory intensive, but 1.1.1 is more harsh to the system) 
Techpowerup should have both versions for download ~ saddly can't recommend 1.1.2 as something with ryzen 3rd gen and AVX2 is bugged out, tho not for everyone 

Yep, focus only on the stresstest side of things with all-core and single-core loads selected - for 16gb systems rather select 10GB instead of 14
for 32GB i think 28 was the value to select or 24, as 30 is too high
I'm just worried as you seem to run the PBO OC04 way, full no throttle all-core at PB max known boost, and so also with the PB max voltages 
It's too high, i'd focus on finding out FIT for each corresponding load and if it remains the same one, try to use this method to extend boosting behavior
If that voltage is kept for such harsh loads (cine is not one), (y-cruncher is debatable about the loadtype)
Don't want that you end up in the same scenario as The Stilt and many other people who overvolted 

Well you may be only sae if the voltage + frequency does indeed shuffle in it's 5-10ms, to prevent degredation
But that's barely trackable, let's see
HWInfo effective clock should show some signs if you reset it on a test of 10 runs 
Either it will show your 4.5 or it could scale down to near 4.3 range (if PB still works)
* at the end you could an offset of +350-400mV more and run 4.8 with this cpu too - but i see this as too much, knowing how OC04 
(nearly identical way, works on 2nd gen)
** without voltage fluctuation, this voltage will for sure do harm under intensive loads :ninja:


----------



## Yuke

CB20 run with a 3800x and EDC = 10 + voltage offset +0.00625 (first value).


----------



## Nighthog

Veii said:


> On both let at least 10 rounds to run, they should be short from a 3rd gen
> I mentioned 1.1.1 as 1.1.2 has the Intel GCC fix, that won't take "Genuine Intel" cpus into account and actually use AVX2 for the CPU
> 1 CCD ryzens won't fail on this test, but 2 CCD ones have some strange multi CCD AVX accelrated issue where some fail, others don't
> I'm onto this issue since some time and collecting data why they crash
> 
> But 1.1.1 for finding out FIT allcore voltage with open PBO @ X1 scalar
> 1.1.2 didn't seem to drop much, near 1.35~ but the screenshots where not taken mid run, soo boosting behaviour and current load voltage are gimped
> It was good to see tho, that PB does indeed work on single threaded AVX2 loads and boosts high (with 1.1.2)
> Interestingly your FCLK doesn't scale down and keeps constant 1900Mhz
> Normaly that shouldn't make 1.1.2 fail then (yep it's very memory intensive, but 1.1.1 is more harsh to the system)
> Techpowerup should have both versions for download ~ saddly can't recommend 1.1.2 as something with ryzen 3rd gen and AVX2 is bugged out, tho not for everyone
> 
> Yep, focus only on the stresstest side of things with all-core and single-core loads selected - for 16gb systems rather select 10GB instead of 14
> for 32GB i think 28 was the value to select or 24, as 30 is too high


FCLK can be set to be all the time max speed rather than let it downclock. It's a setting in BIOS. [*SoC/Uncore OC Mode*]

I had too little voltage for VDDG_IOD, I've run them quite low [0.850v]. AVX usually indicate when they are too little in extended usage, hadn't done a proper check for the voltage I was using. Added a little and it seems good now [0.875v].

Will test 1.1.1 version next it's non-AVX I presume for Ryzen?

Result for 1.1.2 10x 10Gb attached:


----------



## dansi

Something is off with your PPT.
The whole cpu is using only 100w at 4.45Ghz at 1.46v? 
Did the bug exploit screw up the readings?
Is it scores as expected at this core clocks?


----------



## Veii

Nighthog said:


> FCLK can be set to be all the time max speed rather than let it downclock. It's a setting in BIOS. [*SoC/Uncore OC Mode*]
> 
> I had too little voltage for VDDG_IOD, I've run them quite low [0.850v]. AVX usually indicate when they are too little in extended usage, hadn't done a proper check for the voltage I was using. Added a little and it seems good now [0.875v].
> 
> Will test 1.1.1 version next it's non-AVX I presume for Ryzen?
> 
> Result for 1.1.2 10x 10Gb attached:
> 
> 
> Spoiler


DRAM 1.72 
Are these new Micron-E dies, or which nm are they ? 
or some kind of exotic Samsung-C/D dies which are dualranked ? (looking at tRFC) 

Yep 1.1.1 falls back to SSE instruction sets, but is very harsh towards the cpu
i use it at the end of testing OC, as it does heat up the chip quite well and so the IMC crashes easier / which linpack's work is to detect 

I wonder too , if you use a 20-40mv negative offset, if your score wouldn't improve
These tiny tiny fluctuation bumps on voltage and frequency are interesting
it doesn't let you exceed 1.5v VID, at least shouldn't under normal conditions but SVI 2 seems requests 1.52v
You may try after an offset, if you still can hold the same boosting behavior under this test or it goes down by 25mhz
Normaly 1.48v is around safest mark for boost, 1.5 can overshoot randomly ~ and you didn't seem like throttled yet
Soo some other check is still in place to deny constant frequency under this load


----------



## Veii

Scores for comparison by him 3700X limiting PBO boosting around 4.4 with 3800MT/s 14-17-10-32-42


Spoiler














You are close @Nighthog
But something seems off for 200mhz difference
Either his timings are quite harsh compared to yours - or this 200mhz are just clock streching , oor you throttle :thinking:


----------



## Nighthog

dansi said:


> Something is off with your PPT.
> The whole cpu is using only 100w at 4.45Ghz at 1.46v?
> Did the bug exploit screw up the readings?
> Is it scores as expected at this core clocks?


It looks ok it's just these loads don't seem to use that many Amps. 
I do have a +0.0250V offset in use right now might skew the value but I think it was calculated correctly for offset, was some time back I checked. Anyway Iv'e reached ~150W in Y-cruncher so depends on load. 
Temperatures are in line with the wattage.



Veii said:


> DRAM 1.72
> Are these new Micron-E dies, or which nm are they ?
> or some kind of exotic Samsung-C/D dies which are dualranked ? (looking at tRFC)
> 
> Yep 1.1.1 falls back to SSE instruction sets, but is very harsh towards the cpu
> i use it at the end of testing OC, as it does heat up the chip quite well and so the IMC crashes easier / which linpack's work is to detect
> 
> I wonder too , if you use a 20-40mv negative offset, if your score wouldn't improve
> These tiny tiny fluctuation bumps on voltage and frequency are interesting
> it doesn't let you exceed 1.5v VID, at least shouldn't under normal conditions but SVI 2 seems requests 1.52v
> You may try after an offset, if you still can hold the same boosting behavior under this test or it goes down by 25mhz
> Normaly 1.48v is around safest mark for boost, 1.5 can overshoot randomly ~ and you didn't seem like throttled yet
> Soo some other check is still in place to deny constant frequency under this load


Micron rev.E 16nm bought in beginnings of 2018 [*1803*-week 3 2018], before anyone knew they existed. Newer rev.E are better for timings, but these can clock quite high frequencies. Gotten 4333Mhz from these in 4x8GB configuration, though a hassle to use with that.

Linpack 1.1.1 Xtreme is failing at the moment so I have to do some troubleshooting to see what might be the issue.

using +0.0250V offset at the moment to get better boost but AVX usually likes around -0.03125V for best results in benchmarks. (max boost vs benchmark scores)


----------



## Nighthog

Veii said:


> Scores for comparison by him 3700X limiting PBO boosting around 4.4 with 3800MT/s 14-17-10-32-42
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are close @Nighthog
> But something seems off for 200mhz difference
> Either his timings are quite harsh compared to yours - or this 200mhz are just clock streching , oor you throttle :thinking:


I have worse memory speed with my timings and this is a "memory intensive" load.

And 4.450-4.475 was the ~usual~ sustained clock for the test for me.


----------



## Cidious

Played around with the bug a bit. VERY interesting behavior! 


I tried EDC 1-10 with 10 being the best result so far. 

Tried offset range from -25mv -50mv -75mv -100mv for scarlar x10

But currently on Scalar x1 since x10 would run CBR20 on 1.356v-1.375v at about 69 degrees looping. x1 run at 1.331v-1.356v CBR20 looping @ about 66 degrees looping.


What I'm wondering is why 1 core is gimped... As you can see in the screenshot core 2 is gimped compared to the others. raising the offset negatively more will gimp these cores even more compared to the others.. What's going on? Any one got an idea?


----------



## Veii

Nighthog said:


> I have worse memory speed with my timings and this is a "memory intensive" load.
> 
> And 4.450-4.475 was the ~usual~ sustained clock for the test for me.


It's more both 
AVX2 speed makes it higher - and clock makes a difference
Looked on the screenshot like both run 1900FLCK 
But it can be high tRFC which makes the difference
4.45 i see 
Hard to compare results by two quite different systems 
But i expected you to overshoot this score by quite some bit with the current OC , compared to stock with limiting PBO under low voltage 

It can be just the instability reason ~ you shouldn't rly fail 10 rounds of 1.1.1 , 20 for long term temp stability 
Hmm we can actually compare ram performance with SiSoftware Sandra Multi-Core Efficiency test
Comparing Intercore-Bandwith and Inter-core Latency, soo comparing actual IPC that way ~ if that made the difference or something else is not right so far

I've used quite some tight timings before, but they resulted always in worse Inter-Core Perf, compared to in sync timings 
Low tRFC didn't do that much to it, but 3GB/s bandwith difference was quite noticable - before while having fun with the 1700X


----------



## mongoled

When i type 0 it defaults to 'Auto',

this is on the rig in my sig.

Changing EDC to 1 and disabling C-states results in a reboot even before I reach the desktop.

Im running the latest BIOS with 1.0.0.4B

*shrug*


----------



## Axaion

Gives me BSoD's with the usual "less or equal" error


----------



## Soeski

mongoled said:


> When i type 0 it defaults to 'Auto',
> 
> this is on the rig in my sig.
> 
> Changing EDC to 1 and disabling C-states results in a reboot even before I reach the desktop.
> 
> Im running the latest BIOS with 1.0.0.4B
> 
> *shrug*


Had this too, but setting VCORE LLC to LOW and CPU Voltage to Auto (or Normal with 0 offset / positive offset) gave me a stable booting Windows.


----------



## Nighthog

@Veii

Linpack Xtreme 1.1.1 has some issue.

It fails no matter what. even stock defaults. Some incompatibility with it and my system. Can't use 1.1.1 version. Nothing I do makes any difference.


----------



## mrsteelx

Axaion said:


> Gives me BSoD's with the usual "less or equal" error


just turn up soc volts and memory cldo vddp 1000 and cldo vddg 1050. memory llc to high

test again.


----------



## Krisztias

So, I tried it out too with auto-auto-10 and with scalar 1x, than 2x. LLC lvl 1, [email protected]
I get with scalar 1x 75MHz better all core, with scalar 2x 100MHz. Every core over 4500MHz, better scores with CB15/CB20/GB3, Aida looks promising too but... with the Passmark memory test I get waaay to low scores!
Before the tweak I was getting 3403 points with latency 28, with scalar 1x 3096/28 and with scalar 2x 3060/27.
Ühm...what?!


----------



## Nighthog

Krisztias said:


> So, I tried it out too with auto-auto-10 and with scalar 1x, than 2x. LLC lvl 1, [email protected]
> I get with scalar 1x 75MHz better all core, with scalar 2x 100MHz. Every core over 4500MHz, better scores with CB15/CB20/GB3, Aida looks promising too but... with the Passmark memory test I get waaay to low scores!
> Before the tweak I was getting 3403 points with latency 28, with scalar 1x 3096/28 and with scalar 2x 3060/27.
> Ühm...what?!


Passmark memory test is single threaded. You are experiencing the single thread throttle issue.

Some mitigations are [Ultimate power plan] & [enable/*disable*]*CnQ*
Some have tried disabling c-states but I haven't wanted to do that found the other things worked within reason.

Another solution is to have something else running in the background to keep the power levels above the 10A limit when you bench.


----------



## Veii

Nighthog said:


> @Veii
> 
> Linpack Xtreme 1.1.1 has some issue.
> 
> It fails no matter what. even stock defaults. Some incompatibility with it and my system. Can't use 1.1.1 version. Nothing I do makes any difference.


Can you pass 20 rounds of TM5 with 1usmus_v3 preset ?
Let's hope at first that there's nothing, except an incompatibility with your OS
And let's hope you pass TM5 without an issue, soo it's just something else ~ tho i'd focus now on several tests, as LinX doesn't fail out of nothing

After TM5 passes / should take you about 1 hour for 16gb, or 1:30h on 1st and 2nd gen systems
Try afterwards OCCT Medium Chunks Auto for 30min, and AVX2 focused for 30min also medium Dataset
If both pass , it has something to do with 3rd gens AVX2 implementation (would normaly be my answer)
But knowing that LinX killed many of my OCs till i got them stable, would mean ~ there's actually some issue on your side and not just random incompatibility *
* as it doesn't use any AVX instruction set whatsoever 

I've attached TM5 preconfigured for you:
~ but you can also grab it from 1usmus's official post and change the testing period to 20 rounds instead of 3 
* be sure to launch it with admin permissions, as else UAC will make issues


----------



## Nighthog

Veii said:


> Can you pass 20 rounds of TM5 with 1usmus_v3 preset ?
> Let's hope at first that there's nothing, except an incompatibility with your OS
> And let's hope you pass TM5 without an issue, soo it's just something else ~ tho i'd focus now on several tests, as LinX doesn't fail out of nothing
> 
> After TM5 passes / should take you about 1 hour for 16gb, or 1:30h on 1st and 2nd gen systems
> Try afterwards OCCT Medium Chunks Auto for 30min, and AVX2 focused for 30min also medium Dataset
> If both pass , it has something to do with 3rd gens AVX2 implementation (would normaly be my answer)
> But knowing that LinX killed many of my OCs till i got them stable, would mean ~ there's actually some issue on your side and not just random incompatibility *
> * as it doesn't use any AVX instruction set whatsoever
> 
> I've attached TM5 preconfigured for you:
> ~ but you can also grab it from 1usmus's official post and change the testing period to 20 rounds instead of 3
> * be sure to launch it with admin permissions, as else UAC will make issues


Asking a little much now I would say. TM5 I have but don't recall which 1usmus version it was, the one with 5 rounds. I've run that back to back many times to verify stability within reason. 
Linpack 1.1.2 just showed I was a little off on the VDDG voltage which I knew was problematic. 

Y-cruncher is Heavy AVX... same league as Prime95. I'm constantly surprised it's passing as it is now. Manual OC it's a headache to keep it in check. Good to test Memory OC and IMC when TM5 passes. Usually indicates voltage issues that otherwise aren't detected.
I've about tested as much as I'm myself satisfied with for now.

I've found MemTest more useful to show errors but it takes longer than TM5. You have to leave the system for hours on end not able to use it satisfactory. (usually I use for IMC & SoC issues)

-------------------
IntelBurnTest AVX is incompatible with Ryzen 3000, I presume Linpack Xtreme 1.1.1 has the same incompatibility.


----------



## Krisztias

Nighthog said:


> Passmark memory test is single threaded. You are experiencing the single thread throttle issue.
> 
> Some mitigations are [Ultimate power plan] & [enable/*disable*]*CnQ*
> Some have tried disabling c-states but I haven't wanted to do that found the other things worked within reason.
> 
> Another solution is to have something else running in the background to keep the power levels above the 10A limit when you bench.


I have the "Community Plan" active from some German forum, it looks like something similar to "Ultimate Performance" in windows, what we should do trough CMD.

Geekbench 3 gaves me better single core score (5679 vs. 5731 vs. 5744) but it can be throttling, like You say. BUT!:

I tried with TM5 to verify the stability of my RAM OC, and after ~14 mins the program crashed...  Dropped the frequency to 3733MHz to see what happends.


----------



## Veii

Nighthog said:


> IntelBurnTest AVX is incompatible with Ryzen 3000, I presume Linpack Xtreme 1.1.1 has the same incompatibility.


Yea likely build on the same Intel MKL compiler, quoted here:


Veii said:


> I got some progress about the LinX issue
> version 1.1.2 doesn't relay on SSE instruction sets (as apparently it does use the intel MKL compiler) and forces AVX2 on supported ryzens
> uses "MKL_DEBUG_CPU_TYPE=5" to overwrite the GenuineIntel verification check, allowing every processor to run AVX2
> It can be, that this breaks on dual CCDs - and also the reason why the test is not soo heavy for you
> When you can spare the time - try 1.1.1 and check how heatoutput + stability is now
> We hopefully should have soon enough reports about dual CCDs breaking it's AVX2 test :thumb:


Normaly 1.1.2 "could potencialy" be incompatible because of that issue - but then also BurnTest should work with "MKL_DEBUG_CPU_TYPE=5"
It's what 1.1.2 tried to detect and use, to be a viable benchmark - same for mathlab
But i've collected couple of samples now from 2 CCD ryzens, failing to pass 1.1.2 fully, as something is strange with it's AVX2 instruction set, something fails
Tho there are some 12-16 cores who did pass it ~ soo it's yet an uncertanty if there are some defective ryzens (shipping with 2 different stamps - UF/UG)
Or something else is the main issue 
it was around the time where these ryzens used 1.2v SOC on close to every sample, tho it still fails today on some rare samples :thinking:

Failing 1.1.1 can't have the same issue as InterBurnTest , as it doesn't rely on any AVX instruction sets
Please retest with the same tests - TM5 is attached hopefully 
And OCCT Beta is easy to get
You'd need to look up what's causing this, because only 1.1.2 fails on 2CCD ryzens ~ not on 1 CCD ones :ninja:


----------



## Krisztias

Krisztias said:


> So, I tried it out too with auto-auto-10 and with scalar 1x, than 2x. LLC lvl 1, [email protected]
> I get with scalar 1x 75MHz better all core, with scalar 2x 100MHz. Every core over 4500MHz, better scores with CB15/CB20/GB3, Aida looks promising too but... with the Passmark memory test I get waaay to low scores!
> Before the tweak I was getting 3403 points with latency 28, with scalar 1x 3096/28 and with scalar 2x 3060/27.
> Ühm...what?!





Krisztias said:


> I have the "Community Plan" active from some German forum, it looks like something similar to "Ultimate Performance" in windows, what we should do trough CMD.
> 
> Geekbench 3 gaves me better single core score (5679 vs. 5731 vs. 5744) but it can be throttling, like You say. BUT!:
> 
> I tried with TM5 to verify the stability of my RAM OC, and after ~14 mins the program crashed...  Dropped the frequency to 3733MHz to see what happends.


I doesn't worked  I tried with EDC 12 but cloks went down, problem persists.

Anybody any idea, why my RAM OC is unstable with the EDC tweak?
Can be the CPU core voltage? I left it on auto, should I gave + offset to the CPU?


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Veii said:


> Failing 1.1.1 can't have the same issue as InterBurnTest , as it doesn't rely on any AVX instruction sets
> Please retest with the same tests - TM5 is attached hopefully
> And OCCT Beta is easy to get
> You'd need to look up what's causing this, because only 1.1.2 fails on 2CCD ryzens ~ not on 1 CCD ones :ninja:


I tried too 1.1.1 and it fails within a minute. With any settings, always fails
Didn't test TM5 but I can pass 4 hours with OCCT w/AVX and 7000% Karhu RAM Test.
Quick 30 mins wPrime run and 5 mins also with the old LinX.

I'm more inclined to think there's something wrong with version 1.1.1.


----------



## Veii

ManniX-ITA said:


> I tried too 1.1.1 and it fails within a minute. With any settings, always fails
> Didn't test TM5 but I can pass 4 hours with OCCT w/AVX and 7000% Karhu RAM Test.
> Quick 30 mins wPrime run and 5 mins also with the old LinX.
> 
> I'm more inclined to think there's something wrong with version 1.1.1.


Can you pass 1.1.2 tho ?
It can be the new batch of ryzens, but it never had issues with 1 CCD ryzens 
Let's see, if you can pass 1.1.2 it may be 1.1.1 related, tho it makes no sense to fail unless it's an hardware issue
As it just uses SSE instruction sets 

We know 1.1.2 is passable, i'll request from the passing guy also a 1.1.1 bench 
If he can pass it - it may be another issue or rly batch related :thinking:


----------



## thomasck

Can anyone with a 3900X and using EDC=1 post some CB15/20 scores?


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Veii said:


> Can you pass 1.1.2 tho ?
> It can be the new batch of ryzens, but it never had issues with 1 CCD ryzens
> Let's see, if you can pass 1.1.2 it may be 1.1.1 related, tho it makes no sense to fail unless it's an hardware issue
> As it just uses SSE instruction sets
> 
> We know 1.1.2 is passable, i'll request from the passing guy also a 1.1.1 bench
> If he can pass it - it may be another issue or rly batch related :thinking:


Don't know if I can pass, it's kinda hard to do anything else while running it 
I just ran it for a bit more than 5 minutes and didn't stop.

How many runs would enough? Eight?


----------



## Giuseppe Io

makkara said:


> What is your Vcore in all core load after doing this? (Not VID)
> Needs to be checked while CB R20 is running.







Cinebench single core




Cinebench multi core


----------



## Nighthog

Veii said:


> Failing 1.1.1 can't have the same issue as InterBurnTest , as it doesn't rely on any AVX instruction sets


There is a special AMD version with AVX support on these forums for IBT [*IBT AVX*]. This version works on Ryzen 1000 & 2000 series but doesn't even run on Ryzen 3000. Uses Linpack as far as I know.

The regular IBT still works but it doesn't load the cpu the same as the AVX version available. 

I reckon the Linpack version used in Linpack Xtreme 1.1.1 has the same incompatibility in it. It's old builds way before Ryzen cpu's were around. They were used on AM2+ & AM3 days. 
All I can think of is there is a incompatibility with the code in Linpack toward Ryzen 3000. It's built for Intel to begin with.

1.1.1 doesn't even execute the benchmark. It just goes like it's already done it before it's even begun.


----------



## Yuke

To those guys with throttle problems...did you try deactivating AMD Cool and Quiet in BIOS?


This fixed all issues in my case.


Pretty sure this method is safe...even in games with 60-70% cpu/thread load i get less all core speeds 4450-4500Mhz instead of 4500+ like in Games that are easy on the CPU. Pretty nice scaling.


Kinda sad that my SKU is not that good. I think golden chips would boost like crazy...for comparison: It was impossible to dial in a 4.4ghz OC on my 3800x, even with 1.45V.


----------



## dansi

After trying with a mid-load test, looping time spy, windowed 1080p

IMO this edc bug does not improve boost clocks/performance. 
It is a readout/display/clock stretching issue in hwinfo.
While using 1-10 edc, my hwinfo does show additional ~1ghz boost. The reality is not.

The higher scores you get are from the 10X scalar settings when you have enough ambient temp to spare, say in 21C room.
Ryzen 3000 base temp is 50C, and will downclock 50-75mhz for every 10C rise.
PBO Scalar, as we know, is just adding voltage during boost, sort of like Intel adaptive voltage. More voltage = more performance, so long you mitigate the 10C rise.

For those with 'success' using this edc bug (ie. temps to spare). To further test
-use your 'successful' edc bug setting, and open up window task manager cpu. Compare that with normal edc setting. The clocks will be lower at 1-10 edc settings. This is in contrast with hwinfo readings
-Also use your edc bug settings but set edc to say 150(above stock). You noticed hwinfo will now show lower core clocks. But performance should improve. Window task cpu manager, will show higher clocks instead!

Basically, PBO scalar is the one giving higher scores.
While 1-10 edc values seems to confused some monitoring software.


----------



## anthonykh92

I tried this on a Gigabyte Aorus Master x570 on F11 bios and it appeared to work, with some quirks. My all core boost under load from CB20 was much higher, almost 4.3ghz across all core. However my CB20 score was a lot lower compared to default PBO... I don't know why. I also disable quiet n cool, but after doing that, my computer would blue screen constantly. Not sure why... Kinda scared me. I didn't like how much voltage it was pulling in though, so I limited PPT to 170 to keep the overall CPU power below 150watts... I'm really confused why my CB20 scores were lower even though the all core ghz was much higher. Anyone have that issue?


----------



## dansi

anthonykh92 said:


> I tried this on a Gigabyte Aorus Master x570 on F11 bios and it appeared to work, with some quirks. My all core boost under load from CB20 was much higher, almost 4.3ghz across all core. However my CB20 score was a lot lower compared to default PBO... I don't know why. I also disable quiet n cool, but after doing that, my computer would blue screen constantly. Not sure why... Kinda scared me. I didn't like how much voltage it was pulling in though, so I limited PPT to 170 to keep the overall CPU power below 150watts... I'm really confused why my CB20 scores were lower even though the all core ghz was much higher. Anyone have that issue?


As my findings previous page.
This exploit is likely readout error of sort.

To put in other words

If using this bug give you allcore boost of 4.4ghz in hwinfo.
I bet if you manual oc to 4.3ghz , the manual oc will beat the 4.4ghz edc one.


----------



## anthonykh92

dansi said:


> As my findings previous page.
> This exploit is likely readout error of sort.
> 
> To put in other words
> 
> If using this bug give you allcore boost of 4.4ghz in hwinfo.
> I bet if you manual oc to 4.3ghz , the manual oc will beat the 4.4ghz edc one.


Yeah, that's true. My manual OC of 4.3ghz gets over 10000 in CB20. This PBO Turbo method gives me 9100... The default PBO is 9400.


----------



## Cidious

dansi said:


> After trying with a mid-load test, looping time spy, windowed 1080p
> 
> IMO this edc bug does not improve boost clocks/performance.
> It is a readout/display/clock stretching issue in hwinfo.
> While using 1-10 edc, my hwinfo does show additional ~1ghz boost. The reality is not.
> 
> The higher scores you get are from the 10X scalar settings when you have enough ambient temp to spare, say in 21C room.
> Ryzen 3000 base temp is 50C, and will downclock 50-75mhz for every 10C rise.
> PBO Scalar, as we know, is just adding voltage during boost, sort of like Intel adaptive voltage. More voltage = more performance, so long you mitigate the 10C rise.
> 
> For those with 'success' using this edc bug (ie. temps to spare). To further test
> -use your 'successful' edc bug setting, and open up window task manager cpu. Compare that with normal edc setting. The clocks will be lower at 1-10 edc settings. This is in contrast with hwinfo readings
> -Also use your edc bug settings but set edc to say 150(above stock). You noticed hwinfo will now show lower core clocks. But performance should improve. Window task cpu manager, will show higher clocks instead!
> 
> Basically, PBO scalar is the one giving higher scores.
> While 1-10 edc values seems to confused some monitoring software.



Maybe it doesn't work for your motherboard and processor but for me it's a day and night difference. 

Without it my single core won't effectively boost over 4350. and my multicore load gets stuck at 4250-4275Mhz. Enabling PBO changes nothing. Setting the EDC to 10 and the Multiplier to x1 instantly raises multicore load clocks to 4350 on all cores. Including the jump in Cinebench scores while boost clocks are way higher too. Single core load goes to 4500 Mhz (EFFECTIVELY) instead of 4350 Mhz. Then when I set the multiplier to x10 it will increase multicore load to 4400Mhz flat out. And CB scores are EXACTLY like a manual OC at 4400Mhz. During gaming my CPU boosts to 4500-4600 easily now. Where before it was 4350-4450Mhz. Can't find an improvement in FPS yet because I play games at 1440p ultrawide at a 2070 Super where my CPU is not bottlenecking at all so for gaming it might not bring huge improvements until I upgrade my videocard when Ampere comes out. 

Running PBO with the exact same settings without EDC=10 doesn't yield the same results. Then PBO seems to do literally NOTHING at all.

Maybe it doesn't work for you and your CPU and motherboard but here it's 100% legit. I've been testing a whole night switching settings, benchmarking and comparing. Using different software for readout and benchmarking. It's legit! Sorry you're not getting the same results.

Quick difference comparison is visible in CPU-Z screenshots below. Cinebench Went from 5050 to 5250 multi and 517 to 520 single which compares nicely to the CPU-Z screenshots.

EDIT: Included 6 Cinebench runs. EDC=Auto, EDC=10, Manual OC [email protected] (which wasn't OCCT and Prime stable, 1.3375 was which is equal to what PBO sets it). Conclusion is that this method allows me to get the EXACT same multicore performance, temperatures and voltages as I would with an Allcore OC to 4.4Ghz but without the single core boost clock nerf. The Single core clocks are actually the advertised 4.5Ghz effectively now.

EDIT: Added 2 more screenshot it effectively improving clockspeeds for single core boosting. All Ryzen Master, HWINFO and Taskmanager confirming. 

Conclusion. Your findings are not true for everyone. Maybe it doesn't work well with Gigabyte boards but my MSI is loving it.


----------



## dansi

Interesting.
Can you try set edc from auto to 140 and also 150?
It seems like auto is pushing too much edc that i see your average ppt Watts and edc amp are higher.

Also can you look at your task manager core clocks?
Try running a med load task also

This bug seem to work on asus and msi so far.

Either they have something amd missed out or they are not using correct edc, ie pushing too much A causing lower performance, and you got to work around it


----------



## Cidious

dansi said:


> Interesting.
> Can you try set edc from auto to 140 and also 150?
> It seems like auto is pushing too much edc that i see your average ppt Watts and edc amp are higher.
> 
> Also can you look at your task manager core clocks?
> Try running a med load task also
> 
> This bug seem to work on asus and msi so far.
> 
> Either they have something amd missed out or they are not using correct edc, ie pushing too much A causing lower performance, and you got to work around it


I have been using a Gigabyte Pro Wifi before this. Got the same (low) results with stock and PBO enabled. this is not just an MSI Gigabyte Asus thing. It's an Agesa 1.0.0.4AB thing. That it doesn't work well on your gigabyte also doesn't mean it doesn't work for others. My friend has a Master and is seeing the same results as I have with his 3800X. But he had to do some more workarounds like disabling CnQ etc. I have a feeling you're doing something wrong or you're just unlucky with your silicon if you can't reproduce this.


Added 140A EDC. Inmediately clocks go down again. Multicore clocks 4250 and Single core 4400 instead of 4350 and 4500. Benchmark scores went down equally.


----------



## boldenc

Cidious said:


> Maybe it doesn't work for your motherboard and processor but for me it's a day and night difference.
> 
> Without it my single core won't effectively boost over 4350. and my multicore load gets stuck at 4250-4275Mhz. Enabling PBO changes nothing. Setting the EDC to 10 and the Multiplier to x1 instantly raises multicore load clocks to 4350 on all cores. Including the jump in Cinebench scores while boost clocks are way higher too. Single core load goes to 4500 Mhz (EFFECTIVELY) instead of 4350 Mhz. Then when I set the multiplier to x10 it will increase multicore load to 4400Mhz flat out. And CB scores are EXACTLY like a manual OC at 4400Mhz. During gaming my CPU boosts to 4500-4600 easily now. Where before it was 4350-4450Mhz. Can't find an improvement in FPS yet because I play games at 1440p ultrawide at a 2070 Super where my CPU is not bottlenecking at all so for gaming it might not bring huge improvements until I upgrade my videocard when Ampere comes out.
> 
> Running PBO with the exact same settings without EDC=10 doesn't yield the same results. Then PBO seems to do literally NOTHING at all.
> 
> Maybe it doesn't work for you and your CPU and motherboard but here it's 100% legit. I've been testing a whole night switching settings, benchmarking and comparing. Using different software for readout and benchmarking. It's legit! Sorry you're not getting the same results.
> 
> Quick difference comparison is visible in CPU-Z screenshots below. Cinebench Went from 5050 to 5250 multi and 517 to 520 single which compares nicely to the CPU-Z screenshots.
> 
> EDIT: Included 6 Cinebench runs. EDC=Auto, EDC=10, Manual OC [email protected] (which wasn't OCCT and Prime stable, 1.3375 was which is equal to what PBO sets it). Conclusion is that this method allows me to get the EXACT same multicore performance, temperatures and voltages as I would with an Allcore OC to 4.4Ghz but without the single core boost clock nerf. The Single core clocks are actually the advertised 4.5Ghz effectively now.
> 
> EDIT: Added 2 more screenshot it effectively improving clockspeeds for single core boosting. All Ryzen Master, HWINFO and Taskmanager confirming.
> 
> Conclusion. Your findings are not true for everyone. Maybe it doesn't work well with Gigabyte boards but my MSI is loving it.


My single core performance increased but still my manual OC is better for multi threaded performance.
In CB20 my vcore would go to 1.200v under loaded and max boost allcore is 4.1ghz which is same with pbo but single core will go up to 4.61 and score on par with you so not sure why it is not going well for multithread. tried EDC1 and EDC10 and disables Cstates.
temp is not a problem, it will max to 68c under load.
So I am trying to find what is holding my multi core performance.


----------



## Nighthog

+rep @Cidious for doing great confirmation it works!
@dansi I have a Gigabyte board. Cidious showed about exact confirmation with my experience. The multi-thread load for Cinbench R20 equals a 4.4Ghz clock if you get the same boost. 

It's not clock-stretching. 

I will have to note CnQ enabled versus disabled has vastly different boosting behaviour. I'm suspecting CnQ is using the older p-states for method to boost while disabled we have the better more quick and granular PB we should with Ryzen 3000. PB is more 'quick to boost' and might return some issues some complained about in the beginning about it always staying close to max voltage. You can at least choose which method you prefer. 

As seen stability can differ between the methods. We are seeing not all samples are stable with just EDC 10. scalar 10x isn't probably optimal for all samples. More efficient samples might want to use a lower setting for better behaviour. My sample actually wants higher than 10x setting. Basically minimum viable setting for myself as lower just perform so much worse usually. 
If you use offset voltage you might want to alter the scalar anyway to see how it behaves. All CPU samples have differing quality liking different voltages & speeds.


----------



## Nighthog

boldenc said:


> My single core performance increased but still my manual OC is better for multi threaded performance.
> In CB20 my vcore would go to 1.200v under loaded and max boost allcore is 4.1ghz which is same with pbo but single core will go up to 4.61 and score on par with you so not sure why it is not going well for multithread. tried EDC1 and EDC10 and disables Cstates.


What is your temperature for Cinebench R20, is it reaching 70C? 
Scalar setting used?
Power plan used?

Test with c-states enabled
CnQ disabled
Try different scalar settings. It alters multi-core voltage after all. (to lower temps to see if it helps running lower than 10x, alternative is negative offset if you are stable and doesn't BSOD)


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Cidious said:


> I have been using a Gigabyte Pro Wifi before this. Got the same (low) results with stock and PBO enabled. this is not just an MSI Gigabyte Asus thing. It's an Agesa 1.0.0.4AB thing. That it doesn't work well on your gigabyte also doesn't mean it doesn't work for others. My friend has a Master and is seeing the same results as I have with his 3800X. But he had to do some more workarounds like disabling CnQ etc. I have a feeling you're doing something wrong or you're just unlucky with your silicon if you can't reproduce this.
> 
> 
> Added 140A EDC. Inmediately clocks go down again. Multicore clocks 4250 and Single core 4400 instead of 4350 and 4500. Benchmark scores went down equally.


My guess is the actual result is a mix of CPU binning, board type and bios revision, cooling solution.

With my setup I can only achieve 5/50 points more on CB20 ST/MT.

This comes at the expense of a much higher vCore, lower VIDs and 8-10 degrees more on CCD1.
Definitely not worth it; the vCore jumps up to over 1.5 volts with light loads!
With a very well balanced PBO EDC=0 the vCore sits below 1.4 volts and VIDs all-core at 1.4 volts steady.

I guess the "wrong" feeling comes out from the erratic MP ratios.
The max MP ratio for my cores are almost all 45.5 instead of 44/44.5.
This means nothing because at the end the effective clock is never going above 4.4 GHz, hence the almost identical score results.
Similar behavior for the golden cores, 0 and 3 for me; they hit 46.5 MP ratio but they never go above 4.55 GHz, which is 25-50 MHz higher than EDC=0.


----------



## boldenc

Nighthog said:


> What is your temperature for Cinebench R20, is it reaching 70C?
> Scalar setting used?
> Power plan used?
> 
> Test with c-states enabled
> CnQ disabled
> Try different scalar settings. It alters multi-core voltage after all. (to lower temps to see if it helps running lower than 10x, alternative is negative offset if you are stable and doesn't BSOD)


tried scaler auto, 1x and 10x. all gives same vcore under load boosting to 4.1 ghz 1.220v on every setting.
cb20 around 7200. temps 68c
at manually oc @ 4.4 I get around 7800.


----------



## Nighthog

boldenc said:


> tried scaler auto, 1x and 10x. all gives same vcore under load boosting to 4.1 ghz 1.220v on every setting.
> cb20 around 7200. temps 68c
> at manually oc @ 4.4 I get around 7800.


Ok, you have a 3900X I see. I haven't seen anyone with a dual CCD CPU test this yet. Your hitting some kind of limit I think with the PBO algorithm. Could you share a screenshot of hwinfo64 when you run some AVX load? Cinebench r20 or Prime95, Y-cruncher . Linpack Xtreme 1.1.2. pick some I want to look at power draw values and all for this to see what it might be. Might not help you but might get us a hint why it's not working as well for you as 1CCD samples.


----------



## Cidious

The different results are all very intriguing. 

I'm currently running Scalar x1 because x10 raised voltage and temps quite a bit for only 50Mhz higher multicore boost clocks. While I lowered the scalar to x1 I could remove the voltage offset completely it. It now completely acts as stock voltage with auto settings and no PBO. Multicore load drops to 1.3375v which is the same as I would run completely on auto. Mind you I am not using any LLC but I have found my board adjusts this at auto and it's fairly aggressive on auto already. I've just had great results on auto but for a better understanding of what's going on here I might need to set it to a fixed value to remove this variable from the equation. I might do some more testing tonight. 

So far I'm pretty stoket. I litterally got my processor boosting to 4350Mhz stable multicore which is 100Mhz more than before and single clock boost also raised 100Mhz from 4400Mhz to 4500Mhz. Who said we couldn't overclock our Ryzen 3000 haha. it's a 100Mhz bump overall and resulting in a pretty decent speedbump benchmark score wise. I'll have another run with scalar at 10x and see what it does.


----------



## boldenc

Nighthog said:


> Ok, you have a 3900X I see. I haven't seen anyone with a dual CCD CPU test this yet. Your hitting some kind of limit I think with the PBO algorithm. Could you share a screenshot of hwinfo64 when you run some AVX load? Cinebench r20 or Prime95, Y-cruncher . Linpack Xtreme 1.1.2. pick some I want to look at power draw values and all for this to see what it might be. Might not help you but might get us a hint why it's not working as well for you as 1CCD samples.


...


----------



## Nighthog

@boldenc have you altered you TDP, CPP/PPT values? I see they hit the stock 140Watt limit? Same TDC is stock 95A and your already at 91A.

Your hitting your PPT maximum.


----------



## Cidious

I just tested scalar at x10 again with the same settings. It raises vcore under multicore load from 1.3375 to 1.3750 adding 5 degrees of heat and 30Mhz more boost speed during multicore load. Same CB multi score. For my setup this is a big NO-NO. 


I'm currently hitting the sweetspot with this:

PBO Advanced
EDC 10
Scalar x1
Frequency override 150Mhz (200 has a negative effect)
Voltage Auto

EDC 1 and 5 lower performance. EDC 11 didn't do much for me. 10 seems to be the sweet spot.

Bios settings shared. Might be helpful to some.


----------



## dansi

The thing with edc/tdc/ppt in pbo, these only raise the amount the motherboard pump out to the cpu. The cpu(FiT) itself determine how much it wants to take in from that supply. Pbo is controls of the motherboard.

Scalar raises the turbo voltage in multi terms. 10x = 10 times boost voltage (difference between non pb and pb voltages.) Hence pbo has overdrive appended to precision boost

Only when you switch from auto to manual core multiper , the FIT becomes disabled. And CPU will take as much voltage you supply it. 

Thats why imo, the changes you see is more down to motherboard than silicon quality.

Im going try disable cnq and see results.


----------



## anthonykh92

I get better CB20 scores for single thread, and I do notice a higher overall clocks per core. In my first screen shot, you can see the it auto boost to 4.7ghz+ and 4.4ghz for rest. 
But again, my scores for all core load on CB20 is very low with this edc set low... I've done exactly as everyone mentioned except I use PPT=155 and TDC=130 to keep voltages limited. I also leave scaler at 1x because 10x feels like too much voltage boost. These are the same values I use for PBO and my all core CB20 is much higher. I also left AMD Cool and C states on because I want to keep the energy savings modes.


----------



## Cidious

anthonykh92 said:


> I get better CB20 scores for single thread, and I do notice a higher overall clocks per core. In my first screen shot, you can see the it auto boost to 4.7ghz+ and 4.4ghz for rest.
> But again, my scores for all core load on CB20 is very low with this edc set low... I've done exactly as everyone mentioned except I use PPT=155 and TDC=130 to keep voltages limited. I also leave scaler at 1x because 10x feels like too much voltage boost. These are the same values I use for PBO and my all core CB20 is much higher. I also left AMD Cool and C states on because I want to keep the energy savings modes.


Setting PPT and TDC manually is your error. Try setting them on auto and try again. You fiddling and trying to manipulate voltage in that way throttles everything again.


----------



## anthonykh92

Cidious said:


> Setting PPT and TDC manually is your error. Try setting them on auto and try again. You fiddling and trying to manipulate voltage in that way throttles everything again.


I set PPT and TDC to 0, which is auto for me... Threaded CB20 got even lower.. I only raised PPT and TDC because those values I found a good balance for PBO without it going too high on voltage while giving me good scores on CB20. Maybe for this PBO Turbo mode I need higher settings though since the auto values are too low.


----------



## Nighthog

anthonykh92 said:


> I get better CB20 scores for single thread, and I do notice a higher overall clocks per core. In my first screen shot, you can see the it auto boost to 4.7ghz+ and 4.4ghz for rest.
> But again, my scores for all core load on CB20 is very low with this edc set low... I've done exactly as everyone mentioned except I use PPT=155 and TDC=130 to keep voltages limited. I also leave scaler at 1x because 10x feels like too much voltage boost. These are the same values I use for PBO and my all core CB20 is much higher. I also left AMD Cool and C states on because I want to keep the energy savings modes.



155Watt PPT is low for a 3950X. I can use 150watts with a 3800X. You need to increase it if you want better Multi-thread scores. Though Cinebench r20 hasn't used more than ~130Watts for my 3800X yet whit this EDC boost. Your wattage limited like the other user above with a 3900X.

3900X & 3950X should use 200+ watt limits. But only as high as your thermals allow. You don't want to reach above 90C in any usual cases.


----------



## Cidious

I can confirm with Nighthog his findings. My 3800X responds superb to this tweak (possible bug abuse). I used to use an offset to lower temperatures and allow higher boost clocks but with this tweak it became completely unneeded. I run auto voltage now and temperatures are sweet as honey. I have tried all methods to get more performance out of my 3800X but this has done it. Raising clocks without raising voltages and heat. Works as intended now.. 4350 multicore load and 4500 single core load. REAL LOAD. Not those ghost numbers in HWINFO. Mine go up to 4625Mhz now and I've hit 4600Mhz in games but that's practically without a load. But when I now load a single core up it allows me to do 4500Mhz on that core steadily.


----------



## anthonykh92

Nighthog said:


> 155Watt PPT is low for a 3950X. I can use 150watts with a 3800X. You need to increase it if you want better Multi-thread scores. Though Cinebench r20 hasn't used more than ~130Watts for my 3800X yet whit this EDC boost. Your wattage limited like the other user above with a 3900X.
> 
> 3900X & 3950X should use 200+ watt limits. But only as high as your thermals allow. You don't want to reach above 90C in any usual cases.


I was able to use 155 PPT for default PBO with CB20 scores of 9400+. I just tried setting it to 200 and ran it again. My CB20 scores did not increase (around 9000), but my temperatures went much higher 10c+. 

Could it be I'm still on F11 bios and they behave differently?


----------



## Nighthog

anthonykh92 said:


> I was able to use 155 PPT for default PBO with CB20 scores of 9400+. I just tried setting it to 200 and ran it again. My CB20 scores did not increase (around 9000), but my temperatures went much higher 10c+.
> 
> Could it be I'm still on F11 bios and they behave differently?


There is a cTDP & Core Package Power limit under AMD_CBS. these might be using AUTO /fused limit 140W. change to manual and increase them. I'm not sure if they work but make a try.

Otherwise it's thermals. It tries to use more voltage to boost higher but temps increase resulting in same frequency. You could try a lower scalar or negative offset voltage to help thermals.


----------



## MikeS3000

Gigabyte x570 board and 3900x here. I did quite a bit of testing yesterday and here are my findings. I first must disable c-states and enable cool 'n quiet. Cool 'n quite disabled produces a hard cap of 4400 mhz running cpu-z single core bench. c-states enabled causes the single core throttling issue and that became really annoying to mitigate with having to put a load on the cpu prior to benching single core. I have settled on maxing out my mobo's PPT (900w) and TDC (480A) and using a 10A limit on EDC. I use scalar x2 because x1 will not reach maximum single core boost for me. Anything above x2 just produces too much additional voltage and heat with very small gains in performance. CPU auto-overclock can be set anywhere from 0 to 200 and it makes no difference as my single core boost will never exceed 4650 (the programmed default of the cpu). I leave vcore on auto as well. Attached are my CB20 and CPU-Z runs at these settings as well as what HWINFO64 displayed.


----------



## Krisztias

Cidious said:


> I can confirm with Nighthog his findings. My 3800X responds superb to this tweak (possible bug abuse). I used to use an offset to lower temperatures and allow higher boost clocks but with this tweak it became completely unneeded. I run auto voltage now and temperatures are sweet as honey. I have tried all methods to get more performance out of my 3800X but this has done it. Raising clocks without raising voltages and heat. Works as intended now.. 4350 multicore load and 4500 single core load. REAL LOAD. Not those ghost numbers in HWINFO. Mine go up to 4625Mhz now and I've hit 4600Mhz in games but that's practically without a load. But when I now load a single core up it allows me to do 4500Mhz on that core steadily.


I have success to, more frequency & more CB points, but RAM OC instability. Do You have any idea what can cause this?


----------



## Nighthog

Krisztias said:


> I have success to, more frequency & more CB points, but RAM OC instability. Do You hav any idea what can cause this?


Increased SoC voltage, tried different VDDG, VDDP voltages? VDDG_IOD & VDDG_CCD? Just tried diffrent procODT. RZQ-values? Timings? There is so much to RAM OC/tweak it's it's own world. There are easy solutions and hard solutions.

Easy = lower frequency. 
Do a quick check with the voltages and if that doesn't do it go to the RAM OC threads for help if they can help. It will take too much attention in this thread to probably find the issue with your unstable RAM.


----------



## Yuke

Nighthog said:


> Increased SoC voltage, tried different VDDG, VDDP voltages? VDDG_IOD & VDDG_CCD? Just tried diffrent procODT. RZQ-values? Timings? There is so much to RAM OC/tweak it's it's own world. There are easy solutions and hard solutions.
> 
> Easy = lower frequency.
> Do a quick check with the voltages and if that doesn't do it go to the RAM OC threads for help if they can help. It will take too much attention in this thread to probably find the issue with your unstable RAM.



Are the values you use for EDC etc from the first page still up to date?


What do you use rightnow if i may ask?


----------



## Nighthog

@Yuke

EDC 10 
10x scalar

CnQ disabled
Ultimate power plan [not required but helps with single thread throttling issues]

voltage offset is your preference. negative* [-0.0250V]~[-0.03750V] *can be usefull though for best AVX performance.
Your preference on TDC & PPT values as well. I've updated target suggestions on first page.

Some like c-states disabled, I keep mine enabled. [the CnQ & Ultimate power plan combination work good enough for me]

LLC LOW has worked allright for me. Will depend on your motherboard how it handles LLC. AUTO is probably prefered for most users. PBO usually has negative effects with high LLC and not something you want to use.


----------



## Yuke

Hmm. Its funny. Everything is the same for me as long as i have EDC between 1 and 10. Maybe because of my +0.00625V offset. 10x skalar, +75Mhz boost give the best low load results with 2 cores hitting 4625 and another two hitting 4600mhz.


----------



## Nighthog

I used some *+0.03125V* for these results attached. LLC LOW.

As I said above and earlier. Negative is best for AVX multi-thread. Positive is for max boost and all other applications. AVX multi isn't bad but it's not the best you can get when using a positive offset.

And I mention this: *Don't play around with above 1.500V voltages if you don't want to risk a dead CPU.*
Remember the talk about some refer below 1.300V as safe only. [I don't bother with that]

*4.550Ghz Cinebench r20 single-core.*


----------



## Krisztias

Nighthog said:


> Increased SoC voltage, tried different VDDG, VDDP voltages? VDDG_IOD & VDDG_CCD? Just tried diffrent procODT. RZQ-values? Timings? There is so much to RAM OC/tweak it's it's own world. There are easy solutions and hard solutions.
> 
> Easy = lower frequency.
> Do a quick check with the voltages and if that doesn't do it go to the RAM OC threads for help if they can help. It will take too much attention in this thread to probably find the issue with your unstable RAM.


I tried every RAM related settings, tried another (lower) frequencies, even at 2400MHz all auto ist the memory unstable! But it's happening only with this EDC tweak. I'm fully stable with all-core OC, with or without PBO, this is why I tought that my problem is related to this thread and can be interesting to people who eventually experiencing the same issue. I hoped that somebody have an idea what can cause this.

I suggest to everyone to test memory after the succesfully applied EDC tweak. TM5 crashed by me and I get in Passmark very low points.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Nighthog said:


> I used some *+0.03125V* for these results attached. LLC LOW.
> 
> As I said above and earlier. Negative is best for AVX multi-thread. Positive is for max boost and all other applications. AVX multi isn't bad but it's not the best you can get when using a positive offset.
> 
> And I mention this: *Don't play around with above 1.500V voltages if you don't want to risk a dead CPU.*
> Remember the talk about some refer below 1.300V as safe only. [I don't bother with that]
> 
> *4.550Ghz Cinebench r20 single-core.*


Seems you have the same bad behavior as mine.
You vCore max up to 1.525v and the CCD1 temp goes up to 76 degrees.
All for an additional 75MHz of effective clock which is in CB20 less than 5 points ST and 50 in MT.
While running OCCT with AVX load this means your worst core runs at 3.6 GHz instead of 3.8 GHz.

The bump up is so subtle and the added stress so big, wouldn't keep it as it is.


----------



## mrsteelx

Krisztias said:


> I tried every RAM related settings, tried another (lower) frequencies, even at 2400MHz all auto ist the memory unstable! But it's happening only with this EDC tweak. I'm fully stable with all-core OC, with or without PBO, this is why I tought that my problem is related to this thread and can be interesting to people who eventually experiencing the same issue. I hoped that somebody have an idea what can cause this.
> 
> I suggest to everyone to test memory after the succesfully applied EDC tweak. TM5 crashed by me and I get in Passmark very low points.


up soc to like 1.15 volts, set vvdp 1000 vvdg 1050, set south bridge 1.02 or 1.04 volts, and dram stock xmp 1.35 to 1.37


----------



## Nighthog

ManniX-ITA said:


> Seems you have the same bad behavior as mine.
> You vCore max up to 1.525v and the CCD1 temp goes up to 76 degrees.
> All for an additional 75MHz of effective clock which is in CB20 less than 5 points ST and 50 in MT.
> While running OCCT with AVX load this means your worst core runs at 3.6 GHz instead of 3.8 GHz.
> 
> The bump up is so subtle and the added stress so big, wouldn't keep it as it is.


With this I get ~4.350Ghz Cinebench R20 multi.. It's possible to reach 4.4Ghz with more optimized settings for that specifically but it's just for AVX... Everything I do on the computer isn't AVX. Games+ all else none use AVX loads. They get better benefits from trying to maximize boost with more voltage. 

OCCT AVX only 3.6Ghz? I've not seen a load go below 4.225Ghz under load [Prime95 AVX2 small FFTs maximum heat 150+watts]
3.600Ghz is the idle no load clock.


----------



## anthonykh92

Nighthog said:


> There is a cTDP & Core Package Power limit under AMD_CBS. these might be using AUTO /fused limit 140W. change to manual and increase them. I'm not sure if they work but make a try.
> 
> Otherwise it's thermals. It tries to use more voltage to boost higher but temps increase resulting in same frequency. You could try a lower scalar or negative offset voltage to help thermals.


I don't think it's a voltage issue. The amount of voltage it's putting into the CPU on CB20 load is very high in my screenshot here. With this type of voltage, default PBO easily scored higher on multicore bench. With the PBO turbo, the score is strangely low even though the clock speeds are higher and voltages are higher. I'm really stumped on why this would be the case.

My screenshot shows all the values when under a full load. As you can see, the voltages are pretty high for the CPU already. It's not thermal throttling yet either because it's running near 4.3ghz all core speeds. I set ppt to 175 on this one, which is higher than the default of 145, but it still scores lower than default PBO with ppt of 150w. The clock speeds are definitely higher than normal pbo though, just only the CB20 scores are lower... Scratching my head here.


----------



## mrsteelx

anthonykh92 said:


> I don't think it's a voltage issue. The amount of voltage it's putting into the CPU on CB20 load is very high in my screenshot here. With this type of voltage, default PBO easily scored higher on multicore bench. With the PBO turbo, the score is strangely low even though the clock speeds are higher and voltages are higher. I'm really stumped on why this would be the case.
> 
> My screenshot shows all the values when under a full load. As you can see, the voltages are pretty high for the CPU already. It's not thermal throttling yet either because it's running near 4.3ghz all core speeds. I set ppt to 175 on this one, which is higher than the default of 145, but it still scores lower than default PBO with ppt of 150w. The clock speeds are definitely higher than normal pbo though, just only the CB20 scores are lower... Scratching my head here.


try memory issue, with this trick memory becomes more unstable that needs more volts to fix. that is why it has a lower score.

also, Amazon is going to hurt my wallet today. Just bought 3800x for $339 receiving same day today.


----------



## anthonykh92

mrsteelx said:


> try memory issue, with this trick memory becomes more unstable that needs more volts to fix. that is why it has a lower score.
> 
> also, Amazon is going to hurt my wallet today. Just bought 3800x for $339 receiving same day today.


Wow, 339? That's a great price on sale!

I've tried lowering my memory OC too, from 3800mhz down to 3600 while leaving the same voltage. No change in bench. I don't think I'm getting any memory errors right now. I can say my single thread bench improved by almost 30. Usually I average 500 with normal PBO. 530 is the highest I've seen it go. I have decent single thread core boosts... almost reach 4.8


----------



## mrsteelx

anthonykh92 said:


> Wow, 339? That's a great price on sale!
> 
> I've tried lowering my memory OC too, from 3800mhz down to 3600 while leaving the same voltage. No change in bench. I don't think I'm getting any memory errors right now. I can say my single thread bench improved by almost 30. Usually I average 500 with normal PBO. 530 is the highest I've seen it go. I have decent single thread core boosts... almost reach 4.8


just up soc for testing to 1.15 volts and dram a tad more.

it was screaming buy me.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Nighthog said:


> With this I get ~4.350Ghz Cinebench R20 multi.. It's possible to reach 4.4Ghz with more optimized settings for that specifically but it's just for AVX... Everything I do on the computer isn't AVX. Games+ all else none use AVX loads. They get better benefits from trying to maximize boost with more voltage.
> 
> OCCT AVX only 3.6Ghz? I've not seen a load go below 4.225Ghz under load [Prime95 AVX2 small FFTs maximum heat 150+watts]
> 3.600Ghz is the idle no load clock.


Did you check the effective clocks? That's what really matters.

OCCT AVX and any other load considered heavy as such will bring down the effective clocks to 4.1GHz.
The perf clocks will stay at 4.2 GHz but that's not the actual running clock.
On mine the Core 4 which is the worst will go down to 3.8 GHz, sometimes the Core 5 to 4.0 GHz.

I don't usually run any AVX load too (maybe some encoding) but that's what will happen under stress.
Still have to find something that isn't quick on this CPU


----------



## anthonykh92

mrsteelx said:


> just up soc for testing to 1.15 volts and dram a tad more.
> 
> it was screaming buy me.


Bumped it up to 1.15 but same results. I wonder if something else is throttling it. Ah maybe I will wait to see if other ppl have my issues lol. I do see tangible improvements on single thread bench for sure though. Gaming benches like Time Spy, no real changes for CPU test.


----------



## boldenc

Krisztias said:


> I have success to, more frequency & more CB points, but RAM OC instability. Do You have any idea what can cause this?


Are you using 1900 FCLK?
After using EDC1 I can't run 1900 FCLK with stability, it will crash with windows reboot. I had to reduce the FCLK to 1800 with EDC1
It was stable with manual OC @ 4.4.


----------



## boldenc

anthonykh92 said:


> I don't think it's a voltage issue. The amount of voltage it's putting into the CPU on CB20 load is very high in my screenshot here. With this type of voltage, default PBO easily scored higher on multicore bench. With the PBO turbo, the score is strangely low even though the clock speeds are higher and voltages are higher. I'm really stumped on why this would be the case.
> 
> My screenshot shows all the values when under a full load. As you can see, the voltages are pretty high for the CPU already. It's not thermal throttling yet either because it's running near 4.3ghz all core speeds. I set ppt to 175 on this one, which is higher than the default of 145, but it still scores lower than default PBO with ppt of 150w. The clock speeds are definitely higher than normal pbo though, just only the CB20 scores are lower... Scratching my head here.


are you using offset negative for vcore?
I get lower multi core scores if I set negative offset even if the GHz reported by hwinfo are higher.


----------



## MoDeNa

I tried with my 3950x with scalar 10x and + 200 Mhz and I got 4,8 Ghz of boost. With CBR20 all cores were at 4.325 Mhz - 4.350 Mhz. At first sight seems to be 100% stable but until we have more info I leave it at stock.


----------



## anthonykh92

boldenc said:


> are you using offset negative for vcore?
> I get lower multi core scores if I set negative offset even if the GHz reported by hwinfo are higher.


No negative offset, and no stability issues with fclk at 1900. My chip has a pretty good fclk overclock abililty. It can go higher than that in my other tests but my ram cooling isn't good enough so I left it at 1900.


----------



## Yuke

Does anyone have an idea why my baseclocks went down to 3600Mhz? It was 3800-3875Mhz before and i cant seem to prevent it from happening.


----------



## Nighthog

I've found that specific cores can be more or less unstable if they boost in single-core too high. 

I have found 1 core that causes trouble when I run [Super PI / mod1.5 XS]. 

A specific core doesn't like boost around 4.600Ghz. Will return errors in Super PI if it does. To mitigate the issue I only need to do a small negative -0.006125V offset from stock settings and it's ok. More voltage makes boost go higher and this particular core is kinda weak. The lower voltage lowers the boost clock enough for it to be then ok. I've not seen any other instances of issues with my CPU sample yet. 

It only came in this particular instance running a single-thread non-AVX load on a particular core. 

A little bummer with this as I was getting decent gains on the other cores with a slight bump on voltage. I tried some other things but the lower clock only seemed to fix it.


----------



## VPII

Well I tried EDC 1 and even though clock speeds were up to 4200 to 4250 while running CB20 the score was much much lower, then I looked at effective clock speed in Hwinfo and it was 3600 to 3700mhz. Not sure if I'm doing something wrong. I do use a negative vcore offset of -0.100 v.


----------



## mrsteelx

VPII said:


> Well I tried EDC 1 and even though clock speeds were up to 4200 to 4250 while running CB20 the score was much much lower, then I looked at effective clock speed in Hwinfo and it was 3600 to 3700mhz. Not sure if I'm doing something wrong. I do use a negative vcore offset of -0.100 v.


set it to auto or normal with no offset


----------



## VPII

mrsteelx said:


> set it to auto or normal with no offset


Okay, I'll give it a shot tonight


----------



## dansi

Ok after some more testing. 

I found
cool and quiet settings have no impact. 
scalar have the same impact as 'normal' pbo settings. This bug will work even if you disable scalar.
you can set in cbs/xfr or amd overclocking, either will work as long you leave the other on default. 
however amd overclocking have the autoOC menu, need to set that to 200mhz

It seem 3950X, you need to set the edc to 25 to get it working. I guess 2 ccx needs a higher value? At 26, things get shakey. At >27 or less than 25, EDC seems to work as intended, aka reduced performance
I had to undo vcore offset undervolt to normal. I left scalar as disabled.
So now, cpuz is showing the same 560 ST scores and 11400 MT scores 
Boom! 4.75Ghz running ST R15!









Victory? No. The final R15 ST scores is lower. Lower than my previous undervolt PBO (UV) below.

Likewise EDC = 25, the MT scores in CPuz is about the same as PBO UV, but R15 and R20 is slower and hotter than PBO UV! Because EDC=25, UV will reduce performance. I can turn on scalar + UV, but the end result is same, UV = reduce voltage, scalar = add turbo voltage.
I tested other program like timespy, ycruncher, aida64, x264. 
PBO UV produces better scores and lower heat than EDC=25.
Only CPUZ shows high ST and MT scores with EDC = 25. 

EDC=25 shows higher all core clocks. I believe is down to no UV and the FIT detecting lower EDC/TDC values.
But I see clock stretching in more complex programs.

While using this bug, look closely, you will see EDC = TDC
My theory is the current agesa EDC:
0 = defualt, 140/90 for 105W/65W cpu
1 to 25(since 3950X is final level) = depending on your cpu, follows TDC values set
26 to 200 (i have tested up to 200) = follows EDC values set
A value more than 200 to max board limit, EDC will fall back to default 140/90

So exploiting this bug, your motherboard is just giving TDC values somewhat.

In other words, the current edc in agesa 1.0.4 have a hole/bug, that causes your settings to not reflect correctly. 
How high you go still depends on your ambient/cooling.
I believe you better off undervolting after finding the correct PBO values. 
See here : https://www.overclock.net/forum/10-...should-undervolt-your-ryzen-3000-part-ii.html

Some one need to email this to AMD, Gamernexus, Anandtech to get a better explanation.
Like when and how will the cpu FIT choose to use EDC or TDC? 
Can this be improved in future bios?


----------



## Cidious

dansi said:


> Ok after some more testing.
> 
> I found
> cool and quiet settings have no impact.
> scalar have the same impact as 'normal' pbo settings. This bug will work even if you disable scalar.
> you can set in cbs/xfr or amd overclocking, either will work as long you leave the other on default.
> however amd overclocking have the autoOC menu, need to set that to 200mhz
> 
> It seem 3950X, you need to set the edc to 25 to get it working. I guess 2 ccx needs a higher value? At 26, things get shakey. At >27 or less than 25, EDC seems to work as intended, aka reduced performance
> I had to undo vcore offset undervolt to normal. I left scalar as disabled.
> So now, cpuz is showing the same 560 ST scores and 11400 MT scores
> Boom! 4.75Ghz running ST R15!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Victory? No. The final R15 ST scores is lower. Lower than my previous undervolt PBO (UV) below.
> 
> Likewise EDC = 25, the MT scores in CPuz is about the same as PBO UV, but R15 and R20 is slower and hotter than PBO UV! Because EDC=25, UV will reduce performance. I can turn on scalar + UV, but the end result is same, UV = reduce voltage, scalar = add turbo voltage.
> I tested other program like timespy, ycruncher, aida64, x264.
> PBO UV produces better scores and lower heat than EDC=25.
> Only CPUZ shows high ST and MT scores with EDC = 25.
> 
> EDC=25 shows higher all core clocks. I believe is down to no UV and the FIT detecting lower EDC/TDC values.
> But I see clock stretching in more complex programs.
> 
> While using this bug, look closely, you will see EDC = TDC
> My theory is the current agesa EDC:
> 0 = defualt, 140/90 for 105W/65W cpu
> 1 to 25(since 3950X is final level) = depending on your cpu, follows TDC values set
> 26 to 200 (i have tested up to 200) = follows EDC values set
> A value more than 200 to max board limit, EDC will fall back to default 140/90
> 
> So exploiting this bug, your motherboard is just giving TDC values somewhat.
> 
> In other words, the current edc in agesa 1.0.4 have a hole/bug, that causes your settings to not reflect correctly.
> How high you go still depends on your ambient/cooling.
> I believe you better off undervolting after finding the correct PBO values.
> See here : https://www.overclock.net/forum/10-...should-undervolt-your-ryzen-3000-part-ii.html
> 
> Some one need to email this to AMD, Gamernexus, Anandtech to get a better explanation.
> Like when and how will the cpu FIT choose to use EDC or TDC?
> Can this be improved in future bios?


Why don't you email it haha. Why someone? I'd say you are quite capable of putting it all into good words from a technical point of view to get these guys up to speed quickly.

And I've decided to still give my CPU a slight -25mv offset. It lower performance slightly on the clocks but not by much and lowers multicore voltage CBR20 from 1.337v to 1.325v which and peak voltage from 1.5v to 1.475v. Just because we haven't figured out yet whats safe and whats not long term. CBR20 went down from 5250 to 5200 and single core still going strong. I think this is it for 24/7. Temps are 65 degrees under max load CBR20, unpacking games, encoding video files (realistic loads). I don't bother with Prime95. People that like to run this for hours at their manual OC are just asking for trouble with degratdation etc. Might do an OCCT run without AVX though for an hour or so.

Medium loads go to 1.350v-1.375v on average.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

VPII said:


> Okay, I'll give it a shot tonight


Yes it's probably the negative offset, I use -0.1 normally but can't go below -0.06 with this trick.
So far found the best is usually between the 1st/3rd value below.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Cidious said:


> Why don't you email it haha. Why someone? I'd say you are quite capable of putting it all into good words from a technical point of view to get these guys up to speed quickly.
> 
> And I've decided to still give my CPU a slight -25mv offset. It lower performance slightly on the clocks but not by much and lowers multicore voltage CBR20 from 1.337v to 1.325v which and peak voltage from 1.5v to 1.475v. Just because we haven't figured out yet whats safe and whats not long term. CBR20 went down from 5250 to 5200 and single core still going strong. I think this is it for 24/7. Temps are 65 degrees under max load CBR20, unpacking games, encoding video files (realistic loads). I don't bother with Prime95. People that like to run this for hours at their manual OC are just asking for trouble with degratdation etc. Might do an OCCT run without AVX though for an hour or so.
> 
> Medium loads go to 1.350v-1.375v on average.


Your new MSI Unify seems definitely better than the AORUS Master 
Similar configs to yours with watercooling have worst clocks and voltages.
Good choice!

I'd run OCCT w/AVX at least 1 hour and without for 4 hours.
Since it's not manual OC the voltages are quite low during all-core load, no risks.


----------



## Nighthog

After further testing I've found *CnQ enabled gives better results*. 

In particular Cinbench R20 multi-thread scores much easier above 5200points. If disabled it's much more hassle to get above 5200points and usually wants to stay just below. I also previously got my best results with it enabled in this thread near 5270+ score.

Y-cruncher is reporting 25~50Mhz average better boost as well with *CnQ enabled*

And if you guys find to have instabilities with boost behaviour it might be wise to test setting AutoOC setting lower. +200Mhz might not be best. As I mentioned earlier one particular core I have exhibits problems around 4.600Ghz for sustained single core load. By using the AutoOC setting you can limit the max boost to keep this in check. For example setting a lower +25~50Mhz setting prevents it to go any higher than that. Though you will also limit any better cores to peak higher if you have such good cores. 

Your particular samples varies in quality for max boost and your samples capabilities to use FIT and keep boost in check.


----------



## anthonykh92

dansi said:


> Ok after some more testing.
> 
> I found
> cool and quiet settings have no impact.
> scalar have the same impact as 'normal' pbo settings. This bug will work even if you disable scalar.
> you can set in cbs/xfr or amd overclocking, either will work as long you leave the other on default.
> however amd overclocking have the autoOC menu, need to set that to 200mhz
> 
> It seem 3950X, you need to set the edc to 25 to get it working. I guess 2 ccx needs a higher value? At 26, things get shakey. At >27 or less than 25, EDC seems to work as intended, aka reduced performance
> I had to undo vcore offset undervolt to normal. I left scalar as disabled.
> So now, cpuz is showing the same 560 ST scores and 11400 MT scores
> Boom! 4.75Ghz running ST R15!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Victory? No. The final R15 ST scores is lower. Lower than my previous undervolt PBO (UV) below.
> 
> Likewise EDC = 25, the MT scores in CPuz is about the same as PBO UV, but R15 and R20 is slower and hotter than PBO UV! Because EDC=25, UV will reduce performance. I can turn on scalar + UV, but the end result is same, UV = reduce voltage, scalar = add turbo voltage.
> I tested other program like timespy, ycruncher, aida64, x264.
> PBO UV produces better scores and lower heat than EDC=25.
> Only CPUZ shows high ST and MT scores with EDC = 25.
> 
> EDC=25 shows higher all core clocks. I believe is down to no UV and the FIT detecting lower EDC/TDC values.
> But I see clock stretching in more complex programs.
> 
> While using this bug, look closely, you will see EDC = TDC
> My theory is the current agesa EDC:
> 0 = defualt, 140/90 for 105W/65W cpu
> 1 to 25(since 3950X is final level) = depending on your cpu, follows TDC values set
> 26 to 200 (i have tested up to 200) = follows EDC values set
> A value more than 200 to max board limit, EDC will fall back to default 140/90
> 
> So exploiting this bug, your motherboard is just giving TDC values somewhat.
> 
> In other words, the current edc in agesa 1.0.4 have a hole/bug, that causes your settings to not reflect correctly.
> How high you go still depends on your ambient/cooling.
> I believe you better off undervolting after finding the correct PBO values.
> See here : https://www.overclock.net/forum/10-...should-undervolt-your-ryzen-3000-part-ii.html
> 
> Some one need to email this to AMD, Gamernexus, Anandtech to get a better explanation.
> Like when and how will the cpu FIT choose to use EDC or TDC?
> Can this be improved in future bios?


EDC = 25 did the trick! Thanks for that. Now I'm able to hit my PBO scores. I use PPT of 170w and TDC of 115a to restrict voltage on high load and it keeps my chip pretty cool without excess voltage. I have tried pushing up to near 200 ppt and it causes PBO to give unnecessary amounts of voltage for the cpu, much more than necessary if I were to manual OC.


----------



## Krisztias

boldenc said:


> Are you using 1900 FCLK?
> After using EDC1 I can't run 1900 FCLK with stability, it will crash with windows reboot. I had to reduce the FCLK to 1800 with EDC1
> It was stable with manual OC @ 4.4.


Yes, but it's unstable all the way down to 2400MHz :S


----------



## dansi

anthonykh92 said:


> EDC = 25 did the trick! Thanks for that. Now I'm able to hit my PBO scores. I use PPT of 170w and TDC of 115a to restrict voltage on high load and it keeps my chip pretty cool without excess voltage. I have tried pushing up to near 200 ppt and it causes PBO to give unnecessary amounts of voltage for the cpu, much more than necessary if I were to manual OC.


Nice! But i like you to consider using PBO + undervolt.

You can start with 
230 PPT 
150 TDC
165 EDC
(in my usage, i have not seen any programs exceeding these values, I put a +20% allowance. EDC seems to take in as many as i set up to 200A)
Scalar disabled or 1X
Vcore = normal
Vcore offset = -0.05v
CPU LLC = normal
In amd overclocking
AutoOC +200
Advanced motherboard

The goal is to use as low voltage as possible, to reduce your thermals to 70C and keep the boost sustained. You will lose some ST performance, but again, sustained over time should be better.
In a cooler ambient room, you can UV less, and get higher ST perf. 

I got this scores using PBO UV instead of EDC = 25. 
Doing so the core clocks are lower by 200Mhz (EDC = 25 gave me 4.28ghz) but the scores are better and i am on only 3666Mhz ram.
My vcore load hover around 1.23v and temps around 72C in a 28C ambient.


----------



## hardwarelimits

I've tried to use this "bug" on a 3900x still no good results as with this settings I'm using. Not sure if it's my B450 Tomahawk Max. 
Gaming it will stay constant 4.3ghz bellow 1.4 volts. 

PPT 160
TDC 105
EDC 160

AutoOc +200
Scalar x10

Vcore offset -0.085
LLC level 7 (basicly on all core less voltage, single thread more voltage)


----------



## dansi

You can try ppt 200 and tdc 140. Scalar 1x
R20 does use up to 180w ppt and tdc 115A from my experience.

This may give a little more sustainable boost.

But your r20 score is pretty higher than stock. 5% more from what i see around. So pbo is working as it and edc 'bug' won't give more imo


----------



## Giustaf

are there any differences in these settings between 3900x and 3950x?


----------



## Miiksu

Giustaf said:


> are there any differences in these settings between 3900x and 3950x?


Not for me atleast. EDC 1, everything else auto or use mobo settings give best performance.


----------



## Nighthog

hardwarelimits said:


> I've tried to use this "bug" on a 3900x still no good results as with this settings I'm using. Not sure if it's my B450 Tomahawk Max.
> Gaming it will stay constant 4.3ghz bellow 1.4 volts.
> 
> PPT 160
> TDC 105
> EDC 160
> 
> AutoOc +200
> Scalar x10
> 
> Vcore offset -0.085
> LLC level 7 (basicly on all core less voltage, single thread more voltage)


?? What you are reporting isn't using the EDC bug* with turbo boost.

Your just using regular PBO. It shows you are EDC gimped at 160A with those settings, + cinebench is using it's *restricted* EDC levels if you use regular PBO settings. 

You need to set a low EDC. Try values between [10] & [25]. We haven't verified which value works for a 3900X yet. Begin @ 25 and work you way down if it's still to high.
You need a bios with Agesa 1.0.0.4B for this to work as far as I know.


----------



## gbm31

I own a 3900x and am currently running:

EDC=1A
PPT=395W (mainboard max.)
TDC=255A (mainboard max.)
PBO Scalar 1x (no need for more, 10x should already be dangerous), 
C-States disabled, 
E-plan default AMD Ryzen balanced.

CB20 AC raised from 7300 to 7500, SC is stable 530 and Ryzen Master shows the best core in CCD1 running at 4580MHz, changing for cooling purposes to the 2nd best in CCD1, which runs at 4560MHz.


----------



## Giustaf

what are the maximum amphere and Watt (for PPT and TDC) of the ASUS Crosshair VIII x570?


----------



## bluechris

Guys anyone tried it with a simple 3600 and gigabyte x570 board? I cannot in the life of me make single core performance to be good. 
C&Q is disabled and i tried scalar x1 or x10. Also i get strange behavior if i touch the voltage, if i set it manual to 1.32 i get in CB 1volt in load. If i use offset again i get 1 to 1.1v with positive offset.
Llc is on turbo and i tried the other options too with no luck.


----------



## Nighthog

bluechris said:


> Guys anyone tried it with a simple 3600 and gigabyte x570 board? I cannot in the life of me make single core performance to be good.
> C&Q is disabled and i tried scalar x1 or x10. Also i get strange behavior if i touch the voltage, if i set it manual to 1.32 i get in CB 1volt in load. If i use offset again i get 1 to 1.1v with positive offset.
> Llc is on turbo and i tried the other options too with no luck.


CnQ enabled.
voltage -> auto
LLC -> Normal

Which EDC setting are you using? 

3600 might be better with a lower value than 10 for EDC. We saw the 2CCD 3950X likes a higher value than a 3800X. Maybe a 3600 might be better in the 6-9 range.

If you disable c-states it doesn't matter which EDC 1-12 it is as it will stay top speed whole time. (no throttling but no c-states so no downclock either)


----------



## anthonykh92

dansi said:


> Nice! But i like you to consider using PBO + undervolt.
> 
> You can start with
> 230 PPT
> 150 TDC
> 165 EDC
> (in my usage, i have not seen any programs exceeding these values, I put a +20% allowance. EDC seems to take in as many as i set up to 200A)
> Scalar disabled or 1X
> Vcore = normal
> Vcore offset = -0.05v
> CPU LLC = normal
> In amd overclocking
> AutoOC +200
> Advanced motherboard
> 
> The goal is to use as low voltage as possible, to reduce your thermals to 70C and keep the boost sustained. You will lose some ST performance, but again, sustained over time should be better.
> In a cooler ambient room, you can UV less, and get higher ST perf.
> 
> I got this scores using PBO UV instead of EDC = 25.
> Doing so the core clocks are lower by 200Mhz (EDC = 25 gave me 4.28ghz) but the scores are better and i am on only 3666Mhz ram.
> My vcore load hover around 1.23v and temps around 72C in a 28C ambient.


Cool, playing with PBO UV did give me better all core benchmark. ST suffered a tiny bit, 10-15 less points than before. Temps are very good, 70c.


----------



## VPII

Nope still no luck with this gimmick. Below is the run with EDC at 1 and the result above it was with EDC at 25. The two results below is using normal PBO setting EDC to over 200 on showing temps and the last showing clocks that it was with PBO.. Look at the temp difference.


----------



## Nighthog

You guys about PBO UV. You will lose clock-speed in everything. Clocks want voltage as long as it's not constrained by power limits & heat.

What is important Cinebench or everything else? PBO UV doesn't unlock your restrictions on it's own. Your just trying to keep it below the restrictions that are given to you by AMD as they want it. To be given the 3900X & 3950X seem to have a higher EDC limit for AVX but there is a limit there. Your undervolts is just trying to keep yourself below that limit.

This thread was about *unlocking* your processor capabilities not lets chill and underclock. Counterproductive to the intentions I wanted to take up here. I wanted to see people share results if they succeed to *unlock* the capabilities these processors are capable off. 

I was most interested to see how 3900X & 3950X would fare with the EDC tweak, I'm glad you guys found that EDC 25 was most optimal for 3950X but your not going full out allowing the processors to stretch their legs as I've seen it. Seeing results being limited by PPT & TDC limits and not wanting to test proper stresses to see how they fare with no restrictions. Going on and on about PBO UV. Great if you want to underclock go ahead with that but I wanted to see *OC* results. 

I've gone out on a leg to share various scenarios for full-load on my 3800X sample and I've seen overall great results with it. Makes manual OC not needed as multi-thread loads reach much higher than you can manually get. Even the problematic AVX loads aren't that far off any Manual OC results one can achieve. Sure a small undervolt will help it perform with that but it's just for that, you loose clock-speed everywhere else as a consequence. 

Games and other applications want that voltage to get the best boost your processor can give.
Just a regular application that gains a lot with EDC tweak for example I shared previously. Lets take TM5 with 1usmus profile. Regular PBO it gives ~4.300Ghz all-core multi-thread load when checking your memory for errors. PBO 10 on my 3800X sample with all the tweaks together now runs 4.525Ghz sustained! That's a 225Mhz boost! If I try to undervolt and reach a better cinebench score I lose quite a bit depending on how aggressive I want to be to try reach best Cinebench results. I might lose 100Mhz or more from that result negating much if not all the gains this tweak allowed me to see. Games with a higher utilization might see no better results in the end if you go too aggressive with your undervolt. Just to chase benchmark score limited to a single application.

Just make a consideration on the direction I want to see this focus on.


----------



## Yuke

The lower the load the higher the benefit. This is basically the holy grail to close the gap a little bit in gaming performance...i hit 120 avg fps today in borderlands3 1080p badass benchmark. Pretty neat...hopefully im still rockstable. Karhu test passed at least...


----------



## anthonykh92

Nighthog said:


> You guys about PBO UV. You will lose clock-speed in everything. Clocks want voltage as long as it's not constrained by power limits & heat.
> 
> What is important Cinebench or everything else? PBO UV doesn't unlock your restrictions on it's own. Your just trying to keep it below the restrictions that are given to you by AMD as they want it. To be given the 3900X & 3950X seem to have a higher EDC limit for AVX but there is a limit there. Your undervolts is just trying to keep yourself below that limit.
> 
> This thread was about *unlocking* your processor capabilities not lets chill and underclock. Counterproductive to the intentions I wanted to take up here. I wanted to see people share results if they succeed to *unlock* the capabilities these processors are capable off.
> 
> I was most interested to see how 3900X & 3950X would fare with the EDC tweak, I'm glad you guys found that EDC 25 was most optimal for 3950X but your not going full out allowing the processors to stretch their legs as I've seen it. Seeing results being limited by PPT & TDC limits and not wanting to test proper stresses to see how they fare with no restrictions. Going on and on about PBO UV. Great if you want to underclock go ahead with that but I wanted to see *OC* results.
> 
> I've gone out on a leg to share various scenarios for full-load on my 3800X sample and I've seen overall great results with it. Makes manual OC not needed as multi-thread loads reach much higher than you can manually get. Even the problematic AVX loads aren't that far off any Manual OC results one can achieve. Sure a small undervolt will help it perform with that but it's just for that, you loose clock-speed everywhere else as a consequence.
> 
> Games and other applications want that voltage to get the best boost your processor can give.
> Just a regular application that gains a lot with EDC tweak for example I shared previously. Lets take TM5 with 1usmus profile. Regular PBO it gives ~4.300Ghz all-core multi-thread load when checking your memory for errors. PBO 10 on my 3800X sample with all the tweaks together now runs 4.525Ghz sustained! That's a 225Mhz boost! If I try to undervolt and reach a better cinebench score I lose quite a bit depending on how aggressive I want to be to try reach best Cinebench results. I might lose 100Mhz or more from that result negating much if not all the gains this tweak allowed me to see. Games with a higher utilization might see no better results in the end if you go too aggressive with your undervolt. Just to chase benchmark score limited to a single application.
> 
> Just make a consideration on the direction I want to see this focus on.


I totally understand that direction. I think from the patterns I'm seeing, 3900x and 3950x have 2 CCDs. One fast, and the other is usually not as fast, but decent. Even with manual overclocking, my best all core is 4.3ghz. I can do 4.4, but with much higher voltages than I'd like. With this PBO turbo, I nearly reach 4.3ghz on all core loads. It doesn't optimistically OC one ccd higher than the other one, which I'm able to do manually and pull CB20 scores of 10000+ easily. 

I have been testing the PBO turbo again and again, with higher TDC and PPT limits but all core performance at best reaches my original PBO limits on benches. Again, I think that's due to the boosting algorithms... It won't do unbalanced CCD overclocking under PBO. I've tested both unconstrained PPT/TDC combo and that gave me worse scores than manually tweaking PBO turbo. I also know how much volts my cpu needs due to all the manual OC benches I've ran so I'd like to keep PBO from using less volts and less heat than my higher manual OC.... 
So far, my findings with PBO turbo is that in all core load, it will give higher all core clock speeds by about 200-250mhz over my regular PBO. The CB20 scores are nearly identical though, which suggests to me the clock speeds might not reflect actual performance. 4.3ghz OC manual easily hit 10000 CB20 for me. 

PBO Turbo gives me the best single thread performance I've seen on CB20 personally. It's only in multi-thead where it doesn't seem to perform right. These are my findings so far of this tweak.


----------



## Nighthog

@anthonykh92

Great! just the kind of info I was after right there! We want to explore the limitations if there are such. So 2CCD CPU will seem to clock with the worst CCD in mind when boosting and settings clock for all-core? Valid? 
As far as I know I don't know of asynchronous boost clocks is possible but when doing single cores per ccx? Valid? 
Presumably per CCX diffrent clocks could work but I don't know how well it handles such in different situations. Games could be a good source to see.

This might mean we are hitting limits of the PB & PBO algorithm here, not allowing different clocks on all the cores? It wants to keep them in line. If it would boost according to the top CCD we would have serious stability issues.

So anyone wanna try some loads that only load 1 CCD on 2CCD cpu? 3900x & 3950X? To see how the top bins in these do.


----------



## jfrob75

Here are some more results with a 3950X using the EDC "feature". One thing that I seem to have to do for my CPU is have LLC set to 3 in order for the all core effective clock rate to be the "same" for all cores/threads. My highest MT CBR20 using this EDC "feature" is 10107 earlier this morning, that was with an EDC value of 5, which gives very poor ST performance.


Spoiler


----------



## anthonykh92

Nighthog said:


> @anthonykh92
> 
> Great! just the kind of info I was after right there! We want to explore the limitations if there are such. So 2CCD CPU will seem to clock with the worst CCD in mind when boosting and settings clock for all-core? Valid?
> As far as I know I don't know of asynchronous boost clocks is possible but when doing single cores per ccx? Valid?
> Presumably per CCX diffrent clocks could work but I don't know how well it handles such in different situations. Games could be a good source to see.
> 
> This might mean we are hitting limits of the PB & PBO algorithm here, not allowing different clocks on all the cores? It wants to keep them in line. If it would boost according to the top CCD we would have serious stability issues.
> 
> So anyone wanna try some loads that only load 1 CCD on 2CCD cpu? 3900x & 3950X? To see how the top bins in these do.


Yeah, very curious to see if anyone seen PBO boost per ccd better for all core loads. If amd tweaks that in the future... that would be really cool. 

So here are my results with 1 CCD only. 4996 all core and 539 single thread.
My boost clocks are all above 4.7ghz, and 2 cores reached 4.8+. 
PPT=200, TDC=150, EDC=10, scaler = 5x.


----------



## Delphi

@Nighthog

Do you have any logs showing your effective clocks? They are very different than the reported clocks.


----------



## Nighthog

anthonykh92 said:


> Yeah, very curious to see if anyone seen PBO boost per ccd better for all core loads. If amd tweaks that in the future... that would be really cool.
> 
> So here are my results with 1 CCD only. 4996 all core and 539 single thread.
> My boost clocks are all above 4.7ghz, and 2 cores reached 4.8+.
> PPT=200, TDC=150, EDC=10, scaler = 5x.


I see you disabled a CCD for that. Curious.
I'm a little wondering why it didn't perform better. I'm reaching above 5200points quite consistent. Below 5000 points is kinda suboptimal. Also considering it's a better binned chiplet boosting 4.700-4.800Ghz single-core it should do much better. I would of thought a 3950X even with half cores disabled wouldn't have so drastically different behaviour to the normal 8-cores.
Does it clock low for the multi like this? I would presume it's in the 4.200Ghz range?


----------



## Nighthog

Delphi said:


> Do you have any logs showing your effective clocks? They are very different than the reported clocks.


No saved data other than the screenshots with the graphs. The TM5 image has a effective clock graph in the bottom one. It's basically above 4.500Ghz the whole time on load. Other stuff usually gives similar clocks on similar wattage. 

I've limited myself to a 4.600Ghz ceiling. Because a core had issues above and around it. It was rare to go get but just made it go away altogether with this basically.


----------



## anthonykh92

Nighthog said:


> I see you disabled a CCD for that. Curious.
> I'm a little wondering why it didn't perform better. I'm reaching above 5200points quite consistent. Below 5000 points is kinda suboptimal. Also considering it's a better binned chiplet boosting 4.700-4.800Ghz single-core it should do much better. I would of thought a 3950X even with half cores disabled wouldn't have so drastically different behaviour to the normal 8-cores.
> Does it clock low for the multi like this? I would presume it's in the 4.200Ghz range?


In multi, it's clocking nearly up to 4.4ghz. The clocks look high, but the scores say otherwise... Might need some tweaks to get it to work right.


----------



## Ha-Nocri

With EDC=10 this 'feature' doesn't work for me. Both MT and ST are significantly lower. With EDC=9 MT score increases over stock. But ST is still low. It seems it's not going to work on my mother board


----------



## mrsteelx

anthonykh92 said:


> In multi, it's clocking nearly up to 4.4ghz. The clocks look high, but the scores say otherwise... Might need some tweaks to get it to work right.


set edc to 25. set scalar auto. test that. if not great, add positive offset voltage like .03. test again.


----------



## dansi

Another way to verify is to use a power meter.
Is this edc thing drawing more power than not. Hwinfo reading are not showing an increase. 

More readers need to email gamer nexus to test, they have the samples, the equipment and time to do bigger analysis.


----------



## mirkendargen

I played around with this on my 3960x. I have a serious watercooling setup and heat isn't an issue.

I tried EDC 1, 10, and 25 (based on reading through the thread). It's definitely better than default PBO settings, that would boost up to 4.2Ghz all core, and almost never engage the single core boost to 4.5Ghz just due to normal background processes.

With EDC 1, 10, and 25 and PPT set to 600 (I was hitting the default 280 before maxing it) I boost to 4.3Ghz all core and have no problem with a few cores boosting up to 4.4-4.5Ghz under light load.

But...

Prior to this I'd been running a per-CCX overclock (4.35, 4.25, 4.25, 4.25, 4.4, 4.4, 4.35, 4.25 1.3v drooping to 1.27v) and that is 0.5-1% faster multicore and identical single core, while using less voltage, cooler, etc.

So....I think I'll stick with the manual overclock.


----------



## mrsteelx

mirkendargen said:


> I played around with this on my 3960x. I have a serious watercooling setup and heat isn't an issue.
> 
> I tried EDC 1, 10, and 25 (based on reading through the thread). It's definitely better than default PBO settings, that would boost up to 4.2Ghz all core, and almost never engage the single core boost to 4.5Ghz just due to normal background processes.
> 
> With EDC 1, 10, and 25 and PPT set to 600 (I was hitting the default 280 before maxing it) I boost to 4.3Ghz all core and have no problem with a few cores boosting up to 4.4-4.5Ghz under light load.
> 
> But...
> 
> Prior to this I'd been running a per-CCX overclock (4.35, 4.25, 4.25, 4.25, 4.4, 4.4, 4.35, 4.25 1.3v drooping to 1.27v) and that is 0.5-1% faster multicore and identical single core, while using less voltage, cooler, etc.
> 
> So....I think I'll stick with the manual overclock.


i'm ballparking it but you should try edc 40 and ppt around 350. setting ppt too high will also stop this bug from working right.


----------



## mirkendargen

mrsteelx said:


> i'm ballparking it but you should try edc 40 and ppt around 350. setting ppt too high will also stop this bug from working right.


40 was too much, it actually honored it and ran every core at 1.6Ghz, heh.

30 worked, but performance was no different than 1, 10, or 25. PPT 350 is pretty much spot on (for the 4.3Ghz all core it does with EDC at 1-30).


----------



## mrsteelx

mirkendargen said:


> 40 was too much, it actually honored it and ran every core at 1.6Ghz, heh.
> 
> 30 worked, but performance was no different than 1, 10, or 25. PPT 350 is pretty much spot on (for the 4.3Ghz all core it does with EDC at 1-30).


slowly increase ppt till it stops helping. then you can start trying offset voltage to see if it can be pushed higher.

I believe we are doing this because this allows us to gain a better all core oc while still gaining the single core boost with using pbo.


----------



## mirkendargen

mrsteelx said:


> slowly increase ppt till it stops helping. then you can start trying offset voltage to see if it can be pushed higher.
> 
> I believe we are doing this because this allows us to gain a better all core oc while still gaining the single core boost with using pbo.


No difference. Like I said, it's absolutely better than default PBO for me. It just isn't as good as my dialed in per-CCX overclock because I can get very close to my single core boost on a CCX that way as well.


----------



## Nighthog

Ha-Nocri said:


> With EDC=10 this 'feature' doesn't work for me. Both MT and ST are significantly lower. With EDC=9 MT score increases over stock. But ST is still low. It seems it's not going to work on my mother board


You have a 3600. We haven't tested or found if EDC 10 is best for these yet. You could need a lower setting like 6-8 for best results.

Though you could try c-states disabled if you didn't then EDC setting doesn't need to be completely right and should not throttle if that was the issue.


----------



## Nighthog

mirkendargen said:


> 40 was too much, it actually honored it and ran every core at 1.6Ghz, heh.
> 
> 30 worked, but performance was no different than 1, 10, or 25. PPT 350 is pretty much spot on (for the 4.3Ghz all core it does with EDC at 1-30).


For best results there are some other settings to consider when using this.

CnQ enabled.
LLC auto/normal. or disabled.
Voltage Auto/normal

These are just a few examples of things that give better results than trying to mess around with things too much.

C-states disabled stops the throttling issue but you no longer have c6 state used so cores don't sleep etc for a higher idle voltage & power draw etc.
If you have c-states enabled I've had least throttling issues using the Windows Ultimate power plan, but it's still not as good as just disabling c-states.

LLC has a negative effect on the boost clocks you attain. The only good result I've had with LLC is if you want to undervolt with negative offsets. like -0.3750V for example. This usually helps with temperatures to keep the AVX & cinebench to clock higher and to restrain the voltage to droop too low to be unstable under these higher loads. Higher LLC the more aggressive undervolt one can usually do. 
LLC has negative effect on boost clock elsewhere though meaning you gain much less maximum single core boost or low-load all core boost. Though good if you want to maximize Cinebench and similar application loads. Not good for games and other applications.

This EDC tweak* is more targeted for the other application uses and games etc while still not having too much of a loss in the AVX department. 
Makes is easier to attain better results for those with less time not wanting to do manual or CCX OC. Just maximizing PBO for what I wanted from it to begin with. 

AMD dropped the ball as I see it with PBO in it's regular implementation. Too many restrictions and too few options to tweak it making it no better than mostly stock usage. PB really works so much better if we could have better control on it's limits.


----------



## Yuke

I find it so weird that many people seem to have problem setting this up...i have such a bad 3800x and basically just set the limits to 0 0 1 activate PBO and its done (well also have to deactivate CnQ)...Goes into C-states as usual and has perfect scaling...


- cb20 scores are the same as the 4350Mhz all core OC i had before
- cb20 single score increased by two points
- boost clocks under desktop use is 4625 on two cores and 4600 on two other cores

- gaming clocks are around 4500Mhz on average
- P95 small fft clocks as always between 4100 and 4150Mhz


Maybe something else is limiting here and not the quality of your cpu silicon.


----------



## Giustaf

do you change the "cpu current capability", "max cpu boost clock override" and "thermal throttle" values?

I have read that you only modify: 
LLC
PPT limit 
TDC limit
EDC limit
precision boost overdrive scalar


----------



## Nighthog

Giustaf said:


> do you change the "cpu current capability", "max cpu boost clock override" and "thermal throttle" values?
> 
> I have read that you only modify:
> LLC
> PPT limit
> TDC limit
> EDC limit
> precision boost overdrive scalar


Those are per user definable how you would like them. The main point is the Low EDC value to trigger the EDC bug so we exceed it for the better boost behaviour from PBO.

There are then other tweaks one can do do more or less improve the results from it afterwards. 

AutoOC is "max cpu boost clock override" I presume. Different wording. can be set between +0.00Mhz to 200Mhz in 25Mhz increments. 
The max boost I would prefer people set lower if they encounter stability issue with this. Just to make sure if the PB algorithm is being to opportunistic and generous with the clocks causing issues.
Just a way to troubleshoot if one has issues, otherwise the +200Mhz setting should be used if one doesn't find any trouble for best capabilities.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Yuke said:


> I find it so weird that many people seem to have problem setting this up...i have such a bad 3800x and basically just set the limits to 0 0 1 activate PBO and its done (well also have to deactivate CnQ)...Goes into C-states as usual and has perfect scaling...
> 
> 
> - cb20 scores are the same as the 4350Mhz all core OC i had before
> - cb20 single score increased by two points
> - boost clocks under desktop use is 4625 on two cores and 4600 on two other cores
> 
> - gaming clocks are around 4500Mhz on average
> - P95 small fft clocks as always between 4100 and 4150Mhz
> 
> 
> Maybe something else is limiting here and not the quality of your cpu silicon.


Well maybe you should work a bit on the profile 
Ideally you should get at least 5 points more on CB20 single thread score.
With my EDC=0 profile now I can get 5150, same as the bug.
Still IMHO not worth the small bump for the increase of voltage and temperature, I'm on air cooler.

Honestly I don't recommend at all to use CB20 to verify your profile.
I know it has been recommended by AMD and well... for me it's a very strong reason to not use it 
It's nice to quickly compare with others but it's not a good workload to tune for daily, gaming usage.

CPU-z bench it's a nice quick test but it's a heavy workload too.

If you really want to see which speed you can go with single and all-core workload I recommend 7-zip benchmark.

Take some reference screenshots with HWinfo sensors with perf and effective clocks in the background to compare your new settings.
Capture the screenshot when core usage is at 100% for at least 1-2 seconds to get the perf clock.
You can easily change the affinity with Task manager.

I use this configuration with my 3800x:
- All core: 64MB/32 threads (64MB to fit 16GB total RAM, double the core count)
- Per ccx (0-3,4-7): 64MB/16 threads
- Per single core: 128MB/1 thread

It's a much more reliable and quick way to understand the performances of the new settings.
My 3800x with both CB20 and CPU-z can only top 4.3 Ghz all-core while on 7-zip it does 4.4 GHz steady.

Also take care that at the same perf and effective clock you can get very different results.
The clocks are reported by the CPU and while usually the effective clock is linear to performance it's not always true.
Especially with this turbo boost bug I've seen some settings keeping the same 4.6 GHz effective clock but having 10% less performance.

On my setup Q&C brings down the all-core clocks to 3.8 GHz and more messy things.
I had to setup PWM to manual max, AutoOC to 200 and scalar 10x for best performances.
Found also LLC Low is needed to keep all core CB20 to 4.3/4.2 otherwise the bad cores drops to 3.9/4.1.


----------



## Nighthog

@ManniX-ITA

I don't know if it's the cooling but as I see it you are 100points low on Cinebench multi-thread. 

Regular PBO 5100-5150 was absolute top scores I could get with maximum tweak. This made 5200 effortless minimum and 4280 attainable if I go all-out to tune it. (just a few points short from Manual 4.4Ghz)
The effortless settings give a 4.350Ghz clock at average in cinebench as the other user above mentioned. 

I gave a best case recipe above for settings. 

If you can BCLK you have even more potential.


----------



## Giuseppe Io

my settings are

asus crosshair VI
3950x

CPU LOAD CALIBRAZIONE LEVEL 3

VDDSOC LOADLINE AUTO

PPT LIMIT 175
TDC 130
EDC 1
SCALAR X10

SOC/UNCORE ENABLE
GLOBAL C STATE DISABLE
PACKAGE POWER LIMIT 200

POWER PLANE RYZEN BALANCE 

MINIMUM PROCESSOR LEVEL 87% (3025 MHZ) 
LEVEL MAX 100%

MINIMUM NUMBER STOP CORE PROCESSOR PERFORMANCE 43% 



NOW I WILL TEST WITH OTHER SETTINGS

PS SORRY MY ENGLISH I USE A TRANSLATOR. I'M ITALIAN


----------



## mirkendargen

Nighthog said:


> For best results there are some other settings to consider when using this.
> 
> CnQ enabled.
> LLC auto/normal. or disabled.
> Voltage Auto/normal
> 
> These are just a few examples of things that give better results than trying to mess around with things too much.
> 
> C-states disabled stops the throttling issue but you no longer have c6 state used so cores don't sleep etc for a higher idle voltage & power draw etc.
> If you have c-states enabled I've had least throttling issues using the Windows Ultimate power plan, but it's still not as good as just disabling c-states.
> 
> LLC has a negative effect on the boost clocks you attain. The only good result I've had with LLC is if you want to undervolt with negative offsets. like -0.3750V for example. This usually helps with temperatures to keep the AVX & cinebench to clock higher and to restrain the voltage to droop too low to be unstable under these higher loads. Higher LLC the more aggressive undervolt one can usually do.
> LLC has negative effect on boost clock elsewhere though meaning you gain much less maximum single core boost or low-load all core boost. Though good if you want to maximize Cinebench and similar application loads. Not good for games and other applications.
> 
> This EDC tweak* is more targeted for the other application uses and games etc while still not having too much of a loss in the AVX department.
> Makes is easier to attain better results for those with less time not wanting to do manual or CCX OC. Just maximizing PBO for what I wanted from it to begin with.
> 
> AMD dropped the ball as I see it with PBO in it's regular implementation. Too many restrictions and too few options to tweak it making it no better than mostly stock usage. PB really works so much better if we could have better control on it's limits.


CnQ isn't a thing on Threadripper, LLC was auto, voltage was auto (I tried a -0.03V offset too). I do agree that this is a simple set and forget method and how it should work by default, but with my 3960X at least, I got slightly better performance 5C cooler with 2 hours of CCX testing.


----------



## Yuke

ManniX-ITA said:


> Well maybe you should work a bit on the profile
> Ideally you should get at least 5 points more on CB20 single thread score.
> With my EDC=0 profile now I can get 5150, same as the bug.
> Still IMHO not worth the small bump for the increase of voltage and temperature, I'm on air cooler.
> 
> Honestly I don't recommend at all to use CB20 to verify your profile.
> I know it has been recommended by AMD and well... for me it's a very strong reason to not use it
> It's nice to quickly compare with others but it's not a good workload to tune for daily, gaming usage.
> 
> CPU-z bench it's a nice quick test but it's a heavy workload too.
> 
> If you really want to see which speed you can go with single and all-core workload I recommend 7-zip benchmark.
> 
> Take some reference screenshots with HWinfo sensors with perf and effective clocks in the background to compare your new settings.
> Capture the screenshot when core usage is at 100% for at least 1-2 seconds to get the perf clock.
> You can easily change the affinity with Task manager.
> 
> I use this configuration with my 3800x:
> - All core: 64MB/32 threads (64MB to fit 16GB total RAM, double the core count)
> - Per ccx (0-3,4-7): 64MB/16 threads
> - Per single core: 128MB/1 thread
> 
> It's a much more reliable and quick way to understand the performances of the new settings.
> My 3800x with both CB20 and CPU-z can only top 4.3 Ghz all-core while on 7-zip it does 4.4 GHz steady.
> 
> Also take care that at the same perf and effective clock you can get very different results.
> The clocks are reported by the CPU and while usually the effective clock is linear to performance it's not always true.
> Especially with this turbo boost bug I've seen some settings keeping the same 4.6 GHz effective clock but having 10% less performance.
> 
> On my setup Q&C brings down the all-core clocks to 3.8 GHz and more messy things.
> I had to setup PWM to manual max, AutoOC to 200 and scalar 10x for best performances.
> Found also LLC Low is needed to keep all core CB20 to 4.3/4.2 otherwise the bad cores drops to 3.9/4.1.



Im good man, i achieved scores i could only dream of in the past. Everything besides the gaming performance isnt that important to me anyway.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1GhSn1h8vmd2qdEm2yQ2iL9ruaJ4RYo2F

https://valid.x86.fr/pypy3e


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Nighthog said:


> @ManniX-ITA
> 
> I don't know if it's the cooling but as I see it you are 100points low on Cinebench multi-thread.
> 
> Regular PBO 5100-5150 was absolute top scores I could get with maximum tweak. This made 5200 effortless minimum and 4280 attainable if I go all-out to tune it. (just a few points short from Manual 4.4Ghz)
> The effortless settings give a 4.350Ghz clock at average in cinebench as the other user above mentioned.
> 
> I gave a best case recipe above for settings.
> 
> If you can BCLK you have even more potential.


Oops, you are right I was distracted 
My best score with EDC0 is 5157 while with the turbo bug 5211.

I did follow all your advice but whatever I do it's hitting thermal limits; I go over 75 degrees up to 80 and the throttling hits hard.
Perks and cons of having a very very quiet air cooler!

I'm waiting for the IceGiant’s ProSiphon Elite CPU to come out 

I don't want to touch the BCLK, I started having crazy behavior, memory corruption etc with just 0.5 more.
I do like more a reliable setup and on Ryzen even testing for 24 hours doesn't make you safe.
A catastrophic BSOD could come after a week!


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Yuke said:


> Im good man, i achieved scores i could only dream of in the past. Everything besides the gaming performance isnt that important to me anyway.
> 
> https://drive.google.com/open?id=1GhSn1h8vmd2qdEm2yQ2iL9ruaJ4RYo2F
> 
> https://valid.x86.fr/pypy3e


These are excellent scores!
You should share your profile


----------



## Synoxia

Have someone been able to improve SC scores on a C7H hero? I get absurd MC scores but trash SC.


----------



## Synoxia

Nighthog said:


> @Yuke
> 
> EDC 10
> 10x scalar
> 
> CnQ disabled
> Ultimate power plan [not required but helps with single thread throttling issues]
> 
> voltage offset is your preference. negative* [-0.0250V]~[-0.03750V] *can be usefull though for best AVX performance.
> Your preference on TDC & PPT values as well. I've updated target suggestions on first page.
> 
> Some like c-states disabled, I keep mine enabled. [the CnQ & Ultimate power plan combination work good enough for me]
> 
> LLC LOW has worked allright for me. Will depend on your motherboard how it handles LLC. AUTO is probably prefered for most users. PBO usually has negative effects with high LLC and not something you want to use.


What about process lasso's own Bitsum Power plan which is based upon Ultimate power plan? And what do you think about asus boards UV (these usually OVERvolt ryzen at stock, so at stock edc -0.00625 undervolt usually boosts like crazy)

EDIT ok, 3700x user report: i use cb15 as cb20 serve no use apart from bein slower tester.
Multicore score immediately went stellar around 2220 from the beginning, seems like i've finally fixed my throttlin issue on c7h by doing the following:

Windows
Power plan Ultimate performance
Bios
C-states disabled
112 ppt
68 tdc
9 EDC
25 mhz max autoOC
Everything stock except usual Dram calc and fclk/mem tweaks, 140% current, spread spectrum disabled plus CCPC options enabled
This led me to 208 r15 SC score where previously i had 205. (tho i went up to 213 with BCLK with 4625 peak frequency)
I am suspicious that i am not rock solid on these settings because sometimes when i open ryzen master i have some mouse microstutter, i will investigate and try some slight LLC, maybe level 2. 
Overvolt is not a possibility, in fact, i'd like to undervolt this by -0.00625 to put it back at AMD spec as Asus overvolts zen 3k.


----------



## Nighthog

Synoxia said:


> Have someone been able to improve SC scores on a C7H hero? I get absurd MC scores but trash SC.


Did you try different power plans? They have an effect on it. Some do worse than others.

The easy way is to do disabled c-states for single core throttling issues, in this case power plan doesn't matter that much.

I've moved to use *1usmus power plan* from the others. I've found it usually works alright. With c-states enabled.

Cinebench R15 results:


----------



## rissie

Just can't seem to get this going without seeing Vcore being high on my 3900x. Best settings were -0.05 V offset, 500,500,10 for PBO with 10x scaler. But Vcore gets to 1.35 at CB20 load which seems high. Per ccx works better for me unfortunately. That said, that disabling of global c-states really help with the throttling and it allows me to run my PBO (500, 500, 0) at -0.156V offset without gimping single core performance! So this exercise gave me that at least.


----------



## jfrob75

Nice cool ambient temps this morning so ran CBR20 MT and ST. Saw the highest ST effective clocks so far and my MT score has been pretty consistent when starting with cool ambient/water temps (16.5 C).


Spoiler













Just realized I crop'd the CB scores out of the screen shot. The MT/ST score are 10170/512.


----------



## Giustaf

rissie said:


> Just can't seem to get this going without seeing Vcore being high on my 3900x. Best settings were -0.05 V offset, 500,500,10 for PBO with 10x scaler. But Vcore gets to 1.35 at CB20 load which seems high. Per ccx works better for me unfortunately. That said, that disabling of global c-states really help with the throttling and it allows me to run my PBO (500, 500, 0) at -0.156V offset without gimping single core performance! So this exercise gave me that at least.


1,35v? with my 3900x (LLC level 3, PPT 0 TDC 0 EDC 1) I have max 1,28v during cinebanch20. By default, however, I have a voltage that varies between 1.26v and 1.27v under cinebech20

all cores reach 4250mhz, instead default i have 4150/4160mhz


----------



## rissie

Giustaf said:


> 1,35v? with my 3900x (LLC level 3, PPT 0 TDC 0 EDC 1) I have max 1,28v during cinebanch20. By default, however, I have a voltage that varies between 1.26v and 1.27v
> 
> all cores reach 4250mhz, instead default i have 4150/4160mhz


Yeah. With Vcore set as normal the Vcore goes all the way up to 1.5V. With an offset higher than -0.05V there is just clock stretching. Are you setting Vcore as just 1.28V?


----------



## Giustaf

rissie said:


> Yeah. With Vcore set as normal the Vcore goes all the way up to 1.5V. With an offset higher than -0.05V there is just clock stretching. Are you setting Vcore as just 1.28V?


no, my vcore is AUTO, only LLC set to level 3


----------



## rissie

Giustaf said:


> no, my vcore is AUTO, only LLC set to level 3


I think it's down to board differences. The Aorus Master at normal goes from 0.5V to 1.5V depending on load etc. I'll find sometime to try Auto next.


----------



## Blameless

This is a pretty neat trick, but if I had the cooling required to be comfortable with the sort of clocks, voltages, and current my 3900X is pulling in a quick test, I'd just be running a 4.4-4.5GHz all-core manual OC with lower volts.

Seems to be mostly good for mixed workload benchmarking.


----------



## Synoxia

Nighthog said:


> Did you try different power plans? They have an effect on it. Some do worse than others.
> 
> The easy way is to do disabled c-states for single core throttling issues, in this case power plan doesn't matter that much.
> 
> I've moved to use *1usmus power plan* from the others. I've found it usually works alright. With c-states enabled.
> 
> Cinebench R15 results:


I will try that, but seems like i can't run without c-states disabled or i will have throttle


----------



## mrsteelx

Synoxia said:


> I will try that, but seems like i can't run without c-states disabled or i will have throttle


try setting a small positive voltage offset like .03 sometimes it wants more volts to work.


----------



## Synoxia

mrsteelx said:


> try setting a small positive voltage offset like .03 sometimes it wants more volts to work.


why, i mean i already consistently hit 4450 with 0.00625 undervolt, and sometimes hit 4475 with stock (asus overvolt) lol


----------



## mrsteelx

Synoxia said:


> why, i mean i already consistently hit 4450 with 0.00625 undervolt, and sometimes hit 4475 with stock (asus overvolt) lol


open hwinfo look at core clock perf. that tells windows what clock the processor is using. now look at core effective clock while benching something. that is the actual clock speed it is running at.


----------



## Visceral

rissie said:


> I think it's down to board differences. The Aorus Master at normal goes from 0.5V to 1.5V depending on load etc. I'll find sometime to try Auto next.


My Aorus Elite goes the same thing. Vanilla, it hits max, 1.448. With EDC=0 it sometimes touches 1.5

Of course, these are all just momentary, not sustained.


----------



## kamechi

hi, please help with my setting, i have a 3700x with Gigabyte x570 pro wifi.

i tried this edc bug with edc 1,5,7,9,10 and my CB20 score is much much lower (3992~4200+) but i can see all cores are higher (4.2) in hwinfo compared to before. what is wrong?


----------



## VPII

kamechi said:


> hi, please help with my setting, i have a 3700x with Gigabyte x570 pro wifi.
> 
> i tried this edc bug with edc 1,5,7,9,10 and my CB20 score is much much lower (3992~4200+) but i can see all cores are higher (4.2) in hwinfo compared to before. what is wrong?


Check what is the effective clocks while running the benchmark. I mean with my 3950X it also sits at 4.2ghz but the effective clocks are actually 3300 to 3600.


----------



## dansi

Thanks to this thread, i further tweak my pbo(edc/tdc/ppt). I found my 3950x response better to a lower 155 edc and abit of 2x scalar. Previously was at 180, disable scalar. Still with same PBO UV.

The load allcore temp are slightly higher with scalar 2x, but not enough to throttle and ST is 2% higher. Core clocks are a bit higher, by about 50-75. Nothing extreme unlike when using edc bug, but perf increase seem inline. Unlike edc bug with high clocks lowered load perf

I observed perf increase happens with higher tdc utilisation. 
Some how the magic happens if you are able to make zen2 uses tdc values

Pbo as we know is more about motherboard limits.
Ppt = power limit
Tdc =current with respect to thermal limit of vrm
Edc = max current limit of vrm

Sadly review sites asked what is pbo but never go in depth HOW pbo works in which order etc


----------



## rissie

Visceral said:


> My Aorus Elite goes the same thing. Vanilla, it hits max, 1.448. With EDC=0 it sometimes touches 1.5
> 
> Of course, these are all just momentary, not sustained.


Yeah, but sustained hwinfo is showing 1.35V at CB20 workload at 4.2GHz. With normal PBO (EDC=0) and -0.156V offset, I'm at ~1.25V at load and 4.175 with scores higher than with the bug - so I don't see the benefit of seeing higher clockspeeds but lower performance at the moment. I'll try to auto setting when I find some time to confirm this, though.

I'm also able to go per ccx of 4.45; 4.45; 4.3; 4.3 at ~1.28V at load for much higher scores also.


----------



## dansi

Imo the bug will introduce clock stretching. My theory.
It seems to just disable edc and supply the cpu with tdc. 
I guess you can try a higher tdc values?
Somehow tdc is needed to gain higher perf?
I don't think even amd knows how pbo is implemented in x570.


----------



## kamechi

VPII said:


> Check what is the effective clocks while running the benchmark. I mean with my 3950X it also sits at 4.2ghz but the effective clocks are actually 3300 to 3600.


you're right its showing 3.6~3.9. so does that mean this edc bug does not applicable for me?


----------



## gerardfraser

My effective clock with the BIOS tweak AMD 3800X 4400Mhz+
4400-Cinbench20 by gerard fraser, on Flickr


----------



## VPII

kamechi said:


> you're right its showing 3.6~3.9. so does that mean this edc bug does not applicable for me?


In all honesty I tried everything stated here with people explaining what I should and should not do but my results were the same so I have to say it does not work for me. I mean 8600 to 8800 in CB20 using this vs 9600 using PBO as normal speaks volumes.


----------



## mrsteelx

VPII said:


> In all honesty I tried everything stated here with people explaining what I should and should not do but my results were the same so I have to say it does not work for me. I mean 8600 to 8800 in CB20 using this vs 9600 using PBO as normal speaks volumes.


have you tried upping voltage offset.


----------



## VPII

mrsteelx said:


> have you tried upping voltage offset.


Why would I do that.... seriously I get better clocks with manual overclock and a much lower voltage. I am sorry but this "trick" does not work with my setup.


----------



## mrsteelx

VPII said:


> Why would I do that.... seriously I get better clocks with manual overclock and a much lower voltage. I am sorry but this "trick" does not work with my setup.


the point of this bug allows to get a higher multcore oc while also still getting single core boosting.


----------



## VPII

mrsteelx said:


> the point of this bug allows to get a higher multcore oc while also still getting single core boosting.


I get it but will it give me 9600 to 9700 in CB20 which is what I get using PBO normal.


----------



## Aioras

gerardfraser said:


> My effective clock with the BIOS tweak AMD 3800X 4400Mhz+
> 4400-Cinbench20 by gerard fraser, on Flickr


Could you share your mobo settings for it please? Good run!


----------



## gvansly1

*EDC = 10 results*

Hey all, thanks for the info see attached for results:

Gigabyte X570 Master
3900X
PBO [AMD Overclocking] = Advanced | Auto | Auto| 200 MHZ | Auto
PBO [AMD CBS] = Manual | 300 | 150 | 10 (EDC) | Scalar 10X
DRAM @ 1900
CBR20 = 7609

Looks good I think?


----------



## Giustaf

good but why Scalar 10X? is it safe?


----------



## gerardfraser

Aioras said:


> Could you share your mobo settings for it please? Good run!


Settings change but the screenshot settings were,same as all the others
EDC-1
Scalar-10X
CPU Offset -0.0625
BCLK 101


Ram Timings in Ryzen Master.


Spoiler



Ram Time by gerard fraser, on Flickr



♦ Mobo - MSI X470 - Gaming Plus(E7B79AMS.AAG-AMD ComboPI1.0.0.4b) BIOS settings ,Added CPU offset voltage for sustained boost.


Spoiler



PBO settings
CPUConfig by gerard fraser, on Flickr

Voltages
CPUConfig_00 by gerard fraser, on Flickr

CPU Features
CPUConfig_01 by gerard fraser, on Flickr



Light gaming loads all core boost up to 4625Mhz Outlast 2 


Spoiler



Outlast 2 Screenshot by gerard fraser, on Flickr



Normal to heavy gaming loads all core boost 4575Mhz Red Dead Redemption 2


Spoiler



Red Dead Redemption 2 by gerard fraser, on Flickr



BF5 4550Mhz 


Spoiler



Battlefield V by gerard fraser, on Flickr



Then there is BCLK overclocking which PBO Override on can boost higher doing nothing like this.Does not translate in real world test always.


Spoiler



3800x Boost by gerard fraser, on Flickr


----------



## nangu

I was doing a lot of testing on my 3900X + Aorus Master F10 Bios revision.

The best balance between ST and MT performance for my setup and cooling solution is:

PPT =150
TDC = 105
EDC = 16
Scalar x10
Auto OC = 25Mhz
vCore Normal -0.0125 offset
vCore LLC Low
Cool & Quiet disabled
C6 State disabled
Maximum performance plan on Windows 10 Pro.

All core loads I have vCore at 1.3v, ST or low core loads vCore is ~1.42/1.45v, and temps are 10ºC higher than regular PBO (80ºC CBr20, 60ºC gaming)

With this setup, I had my all time highest scores in ST/MT by using PBO on CB20, CB15 and cpu-z, and got an increase of 75/100 Mhz sustained in gaming. Of course, manual or CCX OC I have better MT scores and performance, but my low core loads suffers a lot because my particular cpu is not good silicon.

This EDC bug exploit is a very good all rounder, this is the way I expected PBO to perform from stock. I think I can get better performance by increasing a bit PPT and TDC, but I'm restricted by cooling trying to dissipate more than 155 watts package power.

System seems to be stable, at least on a two hour gaming session I tested with this setup. On top if that, I have IF=1900, memory 3800 MT/s CL 16, vSoC 1.1v

From bench to bench, sometimes my weakest core seems to sustain 3.9 Ghz only, from 4.2 all the other cores can sustain, but CB scores are higher than regular PBO anyway.

In order to eliminate clock stretching, I needed to disable C6 State in BIOS and use the Ultimate Performace power plan in Windows. Other than that, I have clock stretching in ST benches.

I have my doubts if the higher voltages supplied to the CPU would degrade the silicon long term tough.

This settings seems to eliminate the 70ºC sustained clocks wall my chip hits with regular PBO at all core loads, and boosts at 4400 sustained in games (4300 max with regular PBO)


----------



## ManniX-ITA

kamechi said:


> you're right its showing 3.6~3.9. so does that mean this edc bug does not applicable for me?


It's probably the CPU LLC setting, you have to raise it a notch or two.
If it's still dropping try to raise the PWM.


----------



## boldenc

My finding so far
SC is all about scalar, 10x for highest SC/gaming boost.
MC I found the key to balance heat/voltage/boost is to adjust the PPT. For me PPT150 worked best.
Playing with offset will make things worse for SC/MC, I had to keep the vcore at Auto.
Disable C-States is a must to keep it stable and to not get fluctuate results.
Used EDC11, LLC2 and 1usmus power plan.


----------



## rissie

nangu said:


> I was doing a lot of testing on my 3900X + Aorus Master F10 Bios revision.
> 
> The best balance between ST and MT performance for my setup and cooling solution is:
> 
> PPT =150
> TDC = 105
> EDC = 16
> Scalar x10
> Auto OC = 25Mhz
> vCore Normal -0.0125 offset
> vCore LLC Low
> Cool & Quiet disabled
> C6 State disabled
> Maximum performance plan on Windows 10 Pro.
> 
> All core loads I have vCore at 1.3v, ST or low core loads vCore is ~1.42/1.45v, and temps are 10ºC higher than regular PBO (80ºC CBr20, 60ºC gaming)
> 
> With this setup, I had my all time highest scores in ST/MT by using PBO on CB20, CB15 and cpu-z, and got an increase of 75/100 Mhz sustained in gaming. Of course, manual or CCX OC I have better MT scores and performance, but my low core loads suffers a lot because my particular cpu is not good silicon.
> 
> This EDC bug exploit is a very good all rounder, this is the way I expected PBO to perform from stock. I think I can get better performance by increasing a bit PPT and TDC, but I'm restricted by cooling trying to dissipate more than 155 watts package power.
> 
> System seems to be stable, at least on a two hour gaming session I tested with this setup. On top if that, I have IF=1900, memory 3800 MT/s CL 16, vSoC 1.1v
> 
> From bench to bench, sometimes my weakest core seems to sustain 3.9 Ghz only, from 4.2 all the other cores can sustain, but CB scores are higher than regular PBO anyway.
> 
> In order to eliminate clock stretching, I needed to disable C6 State in BIOS and use the Ultimate Performace power plan in Windows. Other than that, I have clock stretching in ST benches.
> 
> I have my doubts if the higher voltages supplied to the CPU would degrade the silicon long term tough.
> 
> This settings seems to eliminate the 70ºC sustained clocks wall my chip hits with regular PBO at all core loads, and boosts at 4400 sustained in games (4300 max with regular PBO)


Thanks for sharing this, I will try this out over the weekend and decide between this and my perCCX setup.


----------



## Delphi

I am finding the 1usmus Power Plan has far less chance of core performance issues. By that I mean the cpu tries to stay under the EDC Limit. I only ran into that problem with the Ultimate Plan. So if anyone is having those problems give that shot.


----------



## Synoxia

Call me when AMD fixes PBO/You guys find a consistent way to consistently increase both SC and multithread. 
I am out.
Too many headaches, i'll just use 3700x at stock atleast i am sure i am not losing performance LOL


----------



## nangu

Synoxia said:


> Call me when AMD fixes PBO/You guys find a consistent way to consistently increase both SC and multithread.
> I am out.
> Too many headaches, i'll just use 3700x at stock atleast i am sure i am not losing performance LOL



I agree with you to some degree, but thinkering with Zen is fun, to some extent tough 

AMD will not fix PBO I'm affraid. I would love if AMD would allow us to play with temperature limits inside FIT, because temps are the main limiting factor with the boost algorithm, but It will never happen :-((


----------



## Nighthog

Delphi said:


> I am finding the 1usmus Power Plan has far less chance of core performance issues. By that I mean the cpu tries to stay under the EDC Limit. I only ran into that problem with the Ultimate Plan. So if anyone is having those problems give that shot.


I found that out about the *1usmus Ryzen Power Plan*, single thread scores usually are normal with it and not giving the throttling issues. Seems it's the best compatible power plan to use with this bug tweak. 

I've used it for a couple days now and can't complain. I've added it to the first page as a suggestion.


----------



## Nighthog

nangu said:


> I was doing a lot of testing on my 3900X + Aorus Master F10 Bios revision.
> 
> The best balance between ST and MT performance for my setup and cooling solution is:
> 
> PPT =150
> TDC = 105
> EDC = 16
> Scalar x10
> Auto OC = 25Mhz
> vCore Normal -0.0125 offset
> vCore LLC Low
> Cool & Quiet disabled
> C6 State disabled
> Maximum performance plan on Windows 10 Pro.


I've added the *EDC 16* suggestion for the *3900x* on the first page.

All I really need is the best value for a 3600. I've seen no result report for these users. I would consider it to be between 5-8 in the end. 10 seems to have been too high for the 6-core.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Can anyone try a benchmark with Metro 2003 the original version?
It has a benchmarking tool in its directory.

I made a profile EDC at 10 which gives me better results than EDC at 0 on CineBench, CPU-z, 7-zip.
Finally I started benching some gaming workload.
Slight less FPS in 3DMark but slightly better CPU Score.
Some points better Resident Evil 6.

Then I ran the Metro 2003 benchmark and the FPS drops after few seconds or up to 40-45 seconds top. Depends on settings.
If I switch to EDC at 0 all the runs are almost identical; starts at 166, doesn't go below 158 and finishes at 200 for a steady 171 fps average.
With EDC at 1 the first it starts at 166, goes down to 120 until it drops massively. It does finish at 166 for a 150 fps average.
The next runs will start at 120 fps and drops down to 50 for an average of 95 fps. Until reboots.

I'd like to know if happens only to me.


----------



## Delphi

ManniX-ITA said:


> Can anyone try a benchmark with Metro 2003 the original version?
> It has a benchmarking tool in its directory.
> 
> I made a profile EDC at 10 which gives me better results than EDC at 0 on CineBench, CPU-z, 7-zip.
> Finally I started benching some gaming workload.
> Slight less FPS in 3DMark but slightly better CPU Score.
> Some points better Resident Evil 6.
> 
> Then I ran the Metro 2003 benchmark and the FPS drops after few seconds or up to 40-45 seconds top. Depends on settings.
> If I switch to EDC at 0 all the runs are almost identical; starts at 166, doesn't go below 158 and finishes at 200 for a steady 171 fps average.
> With EDC at 1 the first it starts at 166, goes down to 120 until it drops massively. It does finish at 166 for a 150 fps average.
> The next runs will start at 120 fps and drops down to 50 for an average of 95 fps. Until reboots.
> 
> I'd like to know if happens only to me.



What power plan are you on? I literally had this problem with the ultimate plan. Going to the 1usmus plan fixed it.


----------



## rastaviper

Is this thread only about 3800-39xx cpus?

Will I see any benefit for my 3600x if I try any of these settings?
In comparison to my manual OCing which allows me to run most of the benchmarks at 4.4Ghz and some of them at 4450mhz?


----------



## Delphi

rastaviper said:


> Is this thread only about 3800-39xx cpus?
> 
> Will I see any benefit for my 3600x if I try any of these settings?
> In comparison to my manual OCing which allows me to run most of the benchmarks at 4.4Ghz and some of them at 4450mhz?


Start experimenting with your 3600x so we can post up the data for others! I played a bit with my wifes 3600x on my old b350F. I did 0ppt, 0tdc, and 8 edc as a starting place. 10x scalar, 200mhz oc. It picked up a bit of performance just simply doing that, but didn't continue to see what else it could do.


----------



## rastaviper

Delphi said:


> Start experimenting with your 3600x so we can post up the data for others! I played a bit with my wifes 3600x on my old b350F. I did 0ppt, 0tdc, and 8 edc as a starting place. 10x scalar, 200mhz oc. It picked up a bit of performance just simply doing that, but didn't continue to see what else it could do.


So far all the information are about different CPUs.
If I could help with trying a few settings I wouldn't mind doing it, but I need a base to start working with.
I have no clue what all these settings do, as I have tried the first days with PBO at my x570 Aorus elite and never saw any good results. So since then I am only using a manual OC.

So any recommendations of what to try?

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


----------



## gerardfraser

ManniX-ITA said:


> I'd like to know if happens only to me.


I somehow doubt it only happens to you,you may be just have memory timings or something not correct.All the AMD CPU 's at the settings you have set should perform the same as all other AMD CPU's.

I tested your settings on AMD 3800X with two different powerplans , looks the same to me.


----------



## Giuseppe Io

Giuseppe Io said:


> my settings are
> 
> asus crosshair VI
> 3950x
> 
> CPU LOAD CALIBRAZIONE LEVEL 3
> 
> VDDSOC LOADLINE AUTO
> 
> PPT LIMIT 175
> TDC 130
> EDC 1
> SCALAR X10
> 
> SOC/UNCORE ENABLE
> GLOBAL C STATE DISABLE
> PACKAGE POWER LIMIT 200
> 
> POWER PLANE RYZEN BALANCE
> 
> MINIMUM PROCESSOR LEVEL 87% (3025 MHZ)
> LEVEL MAX 100%
> 
> MINIMUM NUMBER STOP CORE PROCESSOR PERFORMANCE 43%
> 
> 
> 
> NOW I WILL TEST WITH OTHER SETTINGS
> 
> PS SORRY MY ENGLISH I USE A TRANSLATOR. I'M ITALIAN





I have tried EDC 25 but it is not good for my 3950x.


----------



## Delphi

rastaviper said:


> So far all the information are about different CPUs.
> If I could help with trying a few settings I wouldn't mind doing it, but I need a base to start working with.
> I have no clue what all these settings do, as I have tried the first days with PBO at my x570 Aorus elite and never saw any good results. So since then I am only using a manual OC.
> 
> So any recommendations of what to try?
> 
> Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


Start with the settings I posted that I used on that 3600x. 

The rest of the settings should be the same across the board.

Then move the EDC number up and down and see if performance moves with it (I usually run a bench 3x and average the numbers)


----------



## Nighthog

Giuseppe Io said:


> I have tried EDC 25 but it is not good for my 3950x.


Did you actually look at your results?


EDC 25 is clearly too much! Test 20 and report back, if that's no good test 18... 

Your clocking down to 25A total keeping EDC at target, not exceeding it as we want it to do. 
Sample variance what settings work for each cpu.


----------



## Unoid

CPU-Z and cinebench 16Thread is boosting to 4.35+ghz on all cores at 1.42+V!!! temps around 76-78c loaded

Stock it would do mainly 4.225ghz at 1.35-1.38V, temps 69-70C loaded.

my scores def went up. I'm too scared to run these settings having 1.4V full all core load.

asrock x370 FPG (taichi) 
3800x
Corsair AIO 240mm

PPT 150
TDC 95
EDC 10
PBO x10
+25mhz auto OC


----------



## Visceral

So a question, if when using HWInfo64 we are testing these settings out and during our test runs, the average voltage column is reflecting 1.4+ plus for the duration of a benchmark....this cannot be a good thing, correct?


----------



## Alpi

Wow and many-many Wow's !! Coolest thing I've heard nowadays ! Finally brings the dreamed way of working to my 3800X !! Really big thank to You guys !


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Delphi said:


> What power plan are you on? I literally had this problem with the ultimate plan. Going to the 1usmus plan fixed it.


Ouch didn't try, I think I'm using the ultimate 

Hardly be the RAM settings, same for EDC at 0.


----------



## oberon89

hi, thank the guys who shared this pbo "bug". I currently set up my 3700x like this:
Pe: default
Ppt: 105
TdC: 60
EoC: 10
Scalar: x1
Auto Llc
I noticed a slight drop in vcore 0.025, the oscillation of the voltages is equal to p auto but with a + 50mhz 100mhz
Bf V 4275-4325mhz. Black desert 4325mhz-4375mhz.
I noticed a bug if I set the window or ryzen balanced profile, in practice I have the frequency stuck at minimum. Using the 1usmus Power Plan profile with the recommended bios settings is perfect


----------



## bluechris

I need some help, if someone know.
Great in windows you can control the power plan and you direct see the result of this thread but i have in my box esxi. I boot in a windows partition and i see in windows with the correct power plan that this feature/bug is working but in esxi where this pc works normally the only setting that exist is the power plan where you need to have it for performance because esxi doesn't support x570 and so the only setting that works is the above.
How in esxi i can see the cpu speeds or anything and in specific if i really gain something by implementing this solution that is described here?
Anyone?


----------



## Unoid

Unoid said:


> CPU-Z and cinebench 16Thread is boosting to 4.35+ghz on all cores at 1.42+V!!! temps around 76-78c loaded
> 
> Stock it would do mainly 4.225ghz at 1.35-1.38V, temps 69-70C loaded.
> 
> my scores def went up. I'm too scared to run these settings having 1.4V full all core load.
> 
> asrock x370 FPG (taichi)
> 3800x
> Corsair AIO 240mm
> 
> PPT 150
> TDC 95
> EDC 10
> PBO x10
> +25mhz auto OC


anyone else concerned that full load vcore is very unsafe doing this?

I just ran cinebench again with EDC 85A, and it would do 4.275 at 1.42V, so perhaps it's not that bad


----------



## Nighthog

Unoid said:


> anyone else concerned that full load vcore is very unsafe doing this?
> 
> I just ran cinebench again with EDC 85A, and it would do 4.275 at 1.42V, so perhaps it's not that bad


I would not be concerned. Only worry if your temps reach above 90C. Then perhaps you should look to get better cooling instead.


----------



## Alpi

Did it just such easy and works pretty good.


----------



## highdude702

Have read through the entire thread, thank you to whoever discovered this! I have been testing with my spare time since thursday night. I finally worked my way up through all the scaler settings. Found that EDC 15-16 is what works best for my 3900x. 360mm rad push/pull EK velocity block. I am going to attach some screenshots I took along the way. My seemingly best scores in R20 were with PPT 0 TDC 0 EDC 16 6x scaler. C-state/CNQ off. My voltage never changes from stock 0/0/0 with C-state/CNQ enabled. I have yet to add an offset to it to see if I can raise scores. After this post I'm going to go back to 6x and play with PPT and voltage offset to see if I can get anything better. Then after I'm satisfied with R20 MC/SC scores I will continue onto Timespy and Firestrike tests. Then on to P95 smallest FFT testing to see where my absolute maximum temps will be. Might even throw some StressAppTest from google into it. Seriously guys if you haven't used that tool to stress cpu and memory youre missing out. If anyone has any other settings I can try to maybe improve let me know. I'm still trying to figure out why my voltages never moved. At stock and with the bug they were Single core: 1.450 -1.469 Multi core: 1.28-1.29(motherboard optimized settings no XMP) Once enabling XMP Multi core voltage dropped to 1.23 - 1.25. I thought that was odd myself, but I'm not a motherboard manufacturer. I upgraded to bios 1201 on Crosshair 8 Hero motherboard to get to 1.0.0.4B agesa, it originally killed my performance so I went back to 1105.

I am hoping the forum preserves file names cause it has all the information you need per run in them. I am off to try to manipulate voltages since I have cooling headroom. 66c was my highest temp on any multi core test.

Also I tried LLC up to Level 3 and it made absolutely zero difference, if anything LLC3 performed worse than no LLC. Also x8 and x10 scaler setting seemed to also kill peak performance.

Enjoy, hopefully I help somebody. Hopefully I find a way to pump more performance into it with a little extra or less voltage.


----------



## highdude702

It seems that nothing I do changes my voltages. Setting PPT 150-200 did nothing and setting TDC 130 also did nothing. Is anybody else having the same results?


----------



## Visceral

Just tried your EDC 16 and 6 Scalar. So much better volt and temp wise than just EDC 1 and 10 Scalar. Thanks for that!


----------



## -BoneZ-

I've tried several different versions of settings in this thread, and while I'm getting excellent boost clocks and lower temps, my CB20 scores are horrible. I'm talking around 4100 for multi and 400 for single. I've tried EDC 10, 8, 5, 1, and Scalar 10x, 8x, 5x, 1x. Nothing seems to improve my CB scores. Then I reset the BIOS back to defaults. At stock I'm getting


- 507 single
- 4793 multi


That's the highest scores I've ever seen with my 3700x. At stock plus just PBO enabled, I'm getting:


- 497 single
- 4923 multi


So, with just PBO enabled, I'm getting slightly less single, but more multi. That is all with CnQ disabled, Windows Ultimate power plan. It does seem like the higher clocks with the tweaked PBO settings mentioned throughout this thread are clock stretching since it's much higher clocks, but lower temps and lower scores. I'd love to be able to do the tricks in this thread and get even higher scores, but I'm skeptical.


----------



## dansi

Yes i believe those seeing 4.5-4.6ghz all cores at MT load or gaming, are clock stretching.
allcores 4.5ghz with 3800mhz ram, ryzen2 should be around 4.8ghz coffee lake in gaming. 

At least until more detailed tests are done. 
More people need to email gamernexus. I already did, and they havent done much. 

It seems Asus users are more affected, another theory is Asus default pbo is not working as intended.
My Master x570 boosting works just fine without using this bug.

R20 ST should net around 530 for 4.5Ghz.

Also, dont just turn on pbo, you need to adjust some values.
Afaik, edc above certain values will also stuck it to default values. So don't just go maximum. If you do, please look at hwinfor for the edc readings, if it is 142A, you need to adjust edc.


----------



## -BoneZ-

dansi said:


> Also, dont just turn on pbo, you need to adjust some values.



As I stated, I already tried EDC 0, 1, 5, 8, 10, 150 (with PPT and the other set to 250). Same with Scalar 1x, 5x, 8x, 10x. OC boost 200Mhz, 150Mhz. Negative offset of -.01 (which caused IRQ errors). I just can't get any of those settings to give me close to or better scores in CB20 than what I'm getting right now with stock settings, or stock plus only PBO enabled. Unless I'm doing something wrong lol.


----------



## nangu

dansi said:


> Yes i believe those seeing 4.5-4.6ghz all cores at MT load or gaming, are clock stretching.
> allcores 4.5ghz with 3800mhz ram, ryzen2 should be around 4.8ghz coffee lake in gaming.
> 
> At least until more detailed tests are done.
> More people need to email gamernexus. I already did, and they havent done much.
> 
> It seems Asus users are more affected, another theory is Asus default pbo is not working as intended.
> My Master x570 boosting works just fine without using this bug.
> 
> R20 ST should net around 530 for 4.5Ghz.
> 
> Also, dont just turn on pbo, you need to adjust some values.
> Afaik, edc above certain values will also stuck it to default values. So don't just go maximum. If you do, please look at hwinfor for the edc readings, if it is 142A, you need to adjust edc.



Indeed, there are clock stretching and even the cpu sometimes get stuck on a lower pstate from run to run, but when you nail the right combination between EDC, Scalar and power plan, sustained clocks and scores are the best I've seen on my system, both MT and ST.

I also noted that if I disable Cool & Quiet, Windows treat all cores as equal, as if the preferred cores are not passed to Windows, so my config now is C&Q enabled and Global C-State disabled, Windows Ultimate power plan. That is the only combination which this "bug" shows great performance. With any other power plan, or C-States enabled, I get clock stretching and/or get stuck on a lower pstate. Sometimes I get great ST and MT CPU-z scores, but horrible CB scores with the same settings.

I don't know what this bug does to the SMU, but it shows a lot of erratic behaviour on my system, plus the voltage and heat are pretty high for my liking. But, when it works, wow!!


----------



## Nighthog

@-BoneZ-

c-states? enabled? disabled?

I'm thinking it's throttling more than usual for you. Have you tested *1usmus Ryzen Power Plan*? I've had the least problems with it if using CnQ enabled & c-states enabled. Seems to be more responsive to a load than the other power plans. 
Did you still have issues with c-states disabled?

I think the *Scalar* is CPU /sample dependent. People will find a better one for their own samples if they test it around. As usual, higher value increases voltage for multi-thread loads. I actually would like a larger than 10x setting to test with my sample. Bottom bin 3800X.


----------



## mrsteelx

Nighthog said:


> @-BoneZ-
> 
> c-states? enabled? disabled?
> 
> I'm thinking it's throttling more than usual for you. Have you tested *1usmus Ryzen Power Plan*? I've had the least problems with it if using CnQ enabled & c-states enabled. Seems to be more responsive to a load than the other power plans.
> Did you still have issues with c-states disabled?
> 
> I think the *Scalar* is CPU /sample dependent. People will find a better one for their own samples if they test it around. As usual, higher value increases voltage for multi-thread loads. I actually would like a larger than 10x setting to test with my sample. Bottom bin 3800X.


trust me, your 3800x is not bottom bin. lt's on the low side. My 3800x is bottom bin. I have to use positive offset to not have clock stretching.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

ManniX-ITA said:


> Ouch didn't try, I think I'm using the ultimate
> 
> Hardly be the RAM settings, same for EDC at 0.


Not the power plan; I get better results with the Ultimate anyway.

The problem was the EDC level. For me, Metro goes crazy with EDC at 6 and up.
Started testing at 5 and below and no more fps issues, most stable ended up being at 1.

I did select 10 before for the better scores in CPU-z, CB20, 7-zip.
Now I'm testing to find the most balanced settings.

I have to bench 4-5 times with CPU-z otherwise RE6 and 3DMark have issues at 480p.
Guess it's a problem all mine, it does it with all bios versions with all settings.
Now I don't have brilliant CB20 score but a good 555/5944 on CPU-z.

I switched to to BIOS F12a and to FCLK1900, hope I can get some bits more.


----------



## highdude702

-BoneZ- said:


> I've tried several different versions of settings in this thread, and while I'm getting excellent boost clocks and lower temps, my CB20 scores are horrible. I'm talking around 4100 for multi and 400 for single. I've tried EDC 10, 8, 5, 1, and Scalar 10x, 8x, 5x, 1x. Nothing seems to improve my CB scores. Then I reset the BIOS back to defaults. At stock I'm getting
> 
> 
> - 507 single
> - 4793 multi
> 
> 
> That's the highest scores I've ever seen with my 3700x. At stock plus just PBO enabled, I'm getting:
> 
> 
> - 497 single
> - 4923 multi
> 
> 
> So, with just PBO enabled, I'm getting slightly less single, but more multi. That is all with CnQ disabled, Windows Ultimate power plan. It does seem like the higher clocks with the tweaked PBO settings mentioned throughout this thread are clock stretching since it's much higher clocks, but lower temps and lower scores. I'd love to be able to do the tricks in this thread and get even higher scores, but I'm skeptical.



https://www.techpowerup.com/download/1usmus-custom-power-plan-ryzen-3000-zen-2/ <--- Go install that. Try EDC 10 PPT 0 TDC 0. then go shut off cool n quiet then go set a negative offset on your voltage. one maybe 2 ticks so -.00650 to -.01250

make sure you got that power plan selected and be sure to use the correct one. if youre on windows 1909 you need to use 1usmus ryzen universal.


----------



## highdude702

nangu said:


> Indeed, there are clock stretching and even the cpu sometimes get stuck on a lower pstate from run to run, but when you nail the right combination between EDC, Scalar and power plan, sustained clocks and scores are the best I've seen on my system, both MT and ST.
> 
> I also noted that if I disable Cool & Quiet, Windows treat all cores as equal, as if the preferred cores are not passed to Windows, so my config now is C&Q enabled and Global C-State disabled, Windows Ultimate power plan. That is the only combination which this "bug" shows great performance. With any other power plan, or C-States enabled, I get clock stretching and/or get stuck on a lower pstate. Sometimes I get great ST and MT CPU-z scores, but horrible CB scores with the same settings.
> 
> I don't know what this bug does to the SMU, but it shows a lot of erratic behaviour on my system, plus the voltage and heat are pretty high for my liking. But, when it works, wow!!


Ok so I noticed that but didnt think much of it. I just now went and manually set CPPB + whatever the other setting right under it referring to preferred core to enable and now my CB R20 single core test is just bouncing between core 3/4. So the fix to that is to force them on in AMD CBS/NBIO options.


----------



## therealdadbeard

Okay setting EDC to 10 lets me see 4.4ghz+ in single thread on ALL cores for the first time ever with the same voltages or even a little bit lower. Amazing. Gotta try to tweak it even more.

Usually my max single core boost under LOAD was 4.35ghz.


----------



## rastaviper

therealdadbeard said:


> Okay setting EDC to 10 lets me see 4.4ghz+ in single thread on ALL cores for the first time ever with the same voltages or even a little bit lower. Amazing. Gotta try to tweak it even more.
> 
> 
> 
> Usually my max single core boost under LOAD was 4.35ghz.


Which cpu?

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


----------



## therealdadbeard

rastaviper said:


> Which cpu?
> 
> Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


Oh sorry 3700x. This are my settings:

PPT: 150
TDC: 100
EDC: 10
10x
100mhz

Singlecore is 4.425-50 on load now and multicore 4.200 locked in r20. I can't get it to boost higher in allcore. R20 score is 4987 for me. Singlecore 510 just had a run now

1usmus Universal with his recommended settings for the power plan. Tomahawk B450 non max latest bios.


----------



## MikeS3000

So I tested this tweak quite a bit this past weekend. I got to the point where I gave up on it because it was causing instability. I let my son play a lot of Fortnite and for the first time ever he complained that Fortnite crashed about 5 times and closed out to desktop. Also, while playing the frequencies regressed and wouldn't go higher than about 1 to 1.5 ghz and he noticed massive framerate drops. My hunch is that is that if I run something like Prime95 Small FFT that this tweak will cause worker failures. Anybody tested this with Prime95? That's usually a pretty fast way for me to find instabilities.


----------



## mrsteelx

MikeS3000 said:


> So I tested this tweak quite a bit this past weekend. I got to the point where I gave up on it because it was causing instability. I let my son play a lot of Fortnite and for the first time ever he complained that Fortnite crashed about 5 times and closed out to desktop. Also, while playing the frequencies regressed and wouldn't go higher than about 1 to 1.5 ghz and he noticed massive framerate drops. My hunch is that is that if I run something like Prime95 Small FFT that this tweak will cause worker failures. Anybody tested this with Prime95? That's usually a pretty fast way for me to find instabilities.


it's just the edc was set too high for the bug to work. too high means it was respecting your setting and limited power use.


----------



## MikeS3000

mrsteelx said:


> it's just the edc was set too high for the bug to work. too high means it was respecting your setting and limited power use.


I didn't notice a huge performance difference on my 3900x at EDC 1, 10 and 16. Someone on here suggested 16 so that was the setting I used for most of my testing. I guess I could test EDC 1 and see if that changes anything.


----------



## boldenc

I didn't like the idle temps when I disabled the c-state and after I disabled c-states my single score in CB20/Geekbench lowered under 500.
So today I played with EDC settings.
To get the best EDC setting with C-States enabled, I used geekbench 4.4 benchmark. Increased the EDC one by one till I got the normal score when c-states was disabled.
For me it was EDC 19


----------



## highdude702

MikeS3000 said:


> I didn't notice a huge performance difference on my 3900x at EDC 1, 10 and 16. Someone on here suggested 16 so that was the setting I used for most of my testing. I guess I could test EDC 1 and see if that changes anything.


Make sure you turn C-States off, and I evven turned DF-Cstates off. and forced CPPC and CPPC preferred cores on cause I noticed it was spreading the single core load around all the cores and my best cores were only being utilized 1/6 of the time. I also am running PPT 0 TDC 0 EDC 16, Then I have scaler set to x6(seems to work best for my 3900x x2 also works decently.) Then I also set platform thermal throttle limit to 200 while setting the max boost clock to 200mhz. If you go to the end of page 25 you can see all the screen shots I took. And my actual clocks are the ones I was paying attention to. not just clock speed. You will notice them right underneath my reported clocks in HWINFO64. I am on an Asus C8H with 1201 for the bios version.


----------



## VPII

I seriously don't understand this bug talked about in this thread. I tried every possible setting mentioned in here for EDC doing no vcore off-set or doing a small vcore off-set without much difference. On my 3950X my cb scores would hover between 8700 and 8900 which is lower than running stock. What I noticed is that the effective clocks while running CB20 would be 4200 to 4250 for core 0 to core 7, but core 8 to core 15 would be 3300 to 3600mhz and this is what would happen no matter which setting I use. If I run normal PBO with EDC set to 200 my CB20 score would be between 9500 and 9650 and effective clocks on all cores would hover between 4075 and 4125mhz.

My motherboard is MSI Meg X570 Ace.


----------



## mrsteelx

VPII said:


> I seriously don't understand this bug talked about in this thread. I tried every possible setting mentioned in here for EDC doing no vcore off-set or doing a small vcore off-set without much difference. On my 3950X my cb scores would hover between 8700 and 8900 which is lower than running stock. What I noticed is that the effective clocks while running CB20 would be 4200 to 4250 for core 0 to core 7, but core 8 to core 15 would be 3300 to 3600mhz and this is what would happen no matter which setting I use. If I run normal PBO with EDC set to 200 my CB20 score would be between 9500 and 9650 and effective clocks on all cores would hover between 4075 and 4125mhz.
> 
> My motherboard is MSI Meg X570 Ace.


of everything you tried. you did not try positive offset.


----------



## VPII

mrsteelx said:


> of everything you tried. you did not try positive offset.


No I did not and I really don't see the point of it if it will only raise temps. I will however try and see if it does make a difference to the clocks on core 8 to core 15, if it does, then my CB score if all core around 4.2ghz would be around 9800 even more maybe.


----------



## mrsteelx

VPII said:


> No I did not and I really don't see the point of it if it will only raise temps. I will however try and see if it does make a difference to the clocks on core 8 to core 15, if it does, then my CB score if all core around 4.2ghz would be around 9800 even more maybe.


this bug also remove the temp limit as well. That will fix the clock stretching.


----------



## VPII

mrsteelx said:


> this bug also remove the temp limit as well. That will fix the clock stretching.


I hear you and as I said I will try the positive vcore off-set. I do however like to keep my processor as cool as possible and I prefer a manual overclock. Yup I lose in single core performance, but that does not bother me all that much.


----------



## therealdadbeard

-BoneZ- said:


> As I stated, I already tried EDC 0, 1, 5, 8, 10, 150 (with PPT and the other set to 250). Same with Scalar 1x, 5x, 8x, 10x. OC boost 200Mhz, 150Mhz. Negative offset of -.01 (which caused IRQ errors). I just can't get any of those settings to give me close to or better scores in CB20 than what I'm getting right now with stock settings, or stock plus only PBO enabled. Unless I'm doing something wrong lol.


I'm using this:

PPT: 150
TDC: 100
EDC: 10
Scaler 5x
OC 100mhz
Vcore Offset: -0.05

Then the 1usmus profile with his recommended settings.

GPU-Z SC 542.5 MC 5702.1
R20 4994 MC

You could try those and see if it helps.


----------



## Cidious

therealdadbeard said:


> I'm using this:
> 
> PPT: 150
> TDC: 100
> EDC: 10
> Scaler 5x
> OC 100mhz
> Vcore Offset: -0.05
> 
> Then the 1usmus profile with his recommended settings.
> 
> GPU-Z SC 542.5 MC 5702.1
> R20 4994 MC
> 
> You could try those and see if it helps.


Why try those settings? your contradicting yourself with the settings and it shows in your low CBR20 score. even a 3700X should reach 5050-5100 with the EDC bug setup correctly. What you are doing is working against each other. I'll explain why. First you're setting a salar of 5x which increases the voltage under load then you use an offset to tame that and then you further limit yourself with the TDC and PPT... Why use the bug in the first place? to achieve this you could have just used plain PBO.

My advice is to set the Scalar to x1 and use a smaller offset or no offset which is completely fine. it will just use auto settings and since you use scalar x1 you won't put anymore voltage on the chip during multicore load but still benefit from the removed current limits of EDC=10. Leave PPT and TDC at auto. I assure you that performance will be a notch better than what you're trying to do here. Less is more sometimes. You're trying to do too much at the same time contradicting your own settings.


----------



## CoreyL4

tried it tonight. saw my boosts go up significantly on a 3600. will dive in more to tweak.

i saw my vcore get really high (1.4+)... that normal with this?


----------



## therealdadbeard

Cidious said:


> Why try those settings? your contradicting yourself with the settings and it shows in your low CBR20 score. even a 3700X should reach 5050-5100 with the EDC bug setup correctly. What you are doing is working against each other. I'll explain why. First you're setting a salar of 5x which increases the voltage under load then you use an offset to tame that and then you further limit yourself with the TDC and PPT... Why use the bug in the first place? to achieve this you could have just used plain PBO.
> 
> My advice is to set the Scalar to x1 and use a smaller offset or no offset which is completely fine. it will just use auto settings and since you use scalar x1 you won't put anymore voltage on the chip during multicore load but still benefit from the removed current limits of EDC=10. Leave PPT and TDC at auto. I assure you that performance will be a notch better than what you're trying to do here. Less is more sometimes. You're trying to do too much at the same time contradicting your own settings.


Clearly you don't know too what you're talking about too as with a 1x scalar my scores are even lower and only setting EDC to 10 and leaving the rest on auto gives nets me only 4ghz on multicore load. So much for your wisdom. 

Some people...more thinking before spitting everywhere

I could set everything on 1000 sans EDC and it WILL NOT GO OVER 4.25ghz on allcore load on my Tomahawk. It will even clock lower and setting PPT/TDC on Auto will set it to defaults. "You should" ah yes of course!


----------



## Cidious

therealdadbeard said:


> Clearly you don't know too what you're talking about too as with a 1x scalar my scores are even lower and only setting EDC to 10 and leaving the rest on auto gives nets me only 4ghz on multicore load. So much for your wisdom.
> 
> Some people...more thinking before spitting everywhere
> 
> I could set everything on 1000 sans EDC and it WILL NOT GO OVER 4.25ghz on allcore load on my Tomahawk. It will even clock lower and setting PPT/TDC on Auto will set it to defaults. "You should" ah yes of course!


Alright bud you keep crippling your 3700X as you please. 3700X can do better than you are able to do. Surely it's the poor silicon. LOL 

I said auto not 1000... you don't read.

Or blame the board. I own a Mortar and Mortar Max too next to my Unify. Of course it's MSI crippling your scores... not you..

If you want to be silly with your settings making a mess out of it be my guest but don't offer others the same dumb advice.. because clearly you don't understand the individual settings on it's own


----------



## therealdadbeard

Cidious said:


> Alright bud you keep crippling your 3700X as you please. 3700X can do better than you are able to do. Surely it's the poor silicon. LOL
> 
> I said auto not 1000... you don't read.
> 
> Or blame the board. I own a Mortar and Mortar Max too next to my Unify. Of course it's MSI crippling your scores... not you..
> 
> If you want to be silly with your settings making a mess out of it be my guest but don't offer others the same dumb advice.. because clearly you don't understand the individual settings on it's own


AUTO LOCKS IT TO DEFAULT SETTINGS AS IF THERE IS NO PBO ON AT ALL LIMITING THE CPU TO 4GHZ CAN'T YOU READ WHAT I SAID.

Forget it I put you on ignore. Are you some kind of Sora clone? Geez pls don't talk to me ever again. I hate people like you it's so annoying. I did what you suggest and guess what? IT MADE EVERYTHING WORSE STOP BEHAVING AS IF YOU KNOW EVERYTHING MY GOD PLEASE


----------



## Cidious

therealdadbeard said:


> AUTO LOCKS IT TO DEFAULT SETTINGS AS IF THERE IS NO PBO ON AT ALL LIMITING THE CPU TO 4GHZ CAN'T YOU READ WHAT I SAID.
> 
> Forget it I put you on ignore. Are you some kind of Sora clone? Geez pls don't talk to me ever again.


OK bud. you keep promoting your dreadful results as magic here. In the mean time the people that actually have success with these settings can advise others here. Come back when you have figured it out ok.


----------



## Nighthog

@therealdadbeard

What about CnQ & c-states? LLC? All have and effect on the end results. 

I see many are trying CnQ disabled. I first thought it gave better performance but scores where worse. I found enabled worked better in the end to give more consistency.


----------



## nangu

VPII said:


> I seriously don't understand this bug talked about in this thread. I tried every possible setting mentioned in here for EDC doing no vcore off-set or doing a small vcore off-set without much difference. On my 3950X my cb scores would hover between 8700 and 8900 which is lower than running stock. What I noticed is that the effective clocks while running CB20 would be 4200 to 4250 for core 0 to core 7, but core 8 to core 15 would be 3300 to 3600mhz and this is what would happen no matter which setting I use. If I run normal PBO with EDC set to 200 my CB20 score would be between 9500 and 9650 and effective clocks on all cores would hover between 4075 and 4125mhz.
> 
> My motherboard is MSI Meg X570 Ace.



Hi,

I had also the second CCD on my 3900X going 3600Mhz when first testing this "EDC feature". I think the performance loss I experience with certain settings is due to one or several cores (or even a complete CCD) get stuck on a lower pstate for a limited time. Sometimes they get stuck until I change to a different Windows power plan, so to me it's not only clock stretching the problem here.

Did you try disabling C-Sates with C&Q enabled? On my system, the only combination to be able to exploit this bug successfully is the afformentioned C-States and C&Q settings, plus a Windows power plan with min and max processor at 100% both. Too much negative vCore offset do not help also.


----------



## therealdadbeard

Nighthog said:


> @therealdadbeard
> 
> What about CnQ & c-states? LLC? All have and effect on the end results.
> 
> I see many are trying CnQ disabled. I first thought it gave better performance but scores where worse. I found enabled worked better in the end to give more consistency.


Yes tried all of that too. Any combination of all of the options it will not boost higher than 4250mhz. I mean the bug helped me out a bunch as my highest would be 4075-4100mhz under 100% load and I now hit 5000points in R20 and have positive results in gaming but it will not go further at all.

Jut did a run 5011points and the CPU is at about 68°C with a max of 4250. I'm happy with that.

Looking at effective clocks and they are about the same. This is on a 3700x


----------



## mindyoursoul

Hey there!
I just found this thread earlier today aand I've been testing/playing with this EDC "bug" all day. First of all, you guys are amazing sharing and the person that figured this deserves a nice dinner haha. 


Anyway, at first I went head first with what gave me the best results without even bother with FIT and other stuff, as long as I did not overstep 1.50V or getting crazy temps! Then I thought that Id better do this "proper" so I set the PPT/TDC/EDC to auto in PBO settings and ran Small FFT in p95 to figure out my FIT, dont really know if I did it correctly but it gave me a max of 1.281 V (SV12 FN) but stayed around 1.275 most of the time. 

After that I went back into BIOS and played around with the settings until I found one that gave me good SC and MC scores in CB20 as well as an all-core load voltage below 1.281 V (SVI2 FN) in when running CB20 but a long p95 test and a Aida64 "CPU Stability Test". _Should I be worried if my SV12 FN goes above this when gaming as well?_

*My system:*
-Ryzen 3900X
-ASUS ROG Strix X570-I Gaming (ITX as Im running SFF)
-Kraken X62 280mm AIO (2 x Noctua fans set to intake) + 2 bottom fans set to exhaust
-Patriot Viper Steel 16GB RAM 3600 CL18 @ 3733 MHz CL-18 (FCLK 1866)

*Settings:*

"OC Setting 3" (First "main page" in BIOS*, where you can set the BCLK/FCLK/Memory Speed etc)
Vcore: Auto
PPT: 115 (when setting this higher my voltage goes above 1.281V and the temps rises)
TDC: 105
EDC: 16  
LLC: Level 1
Scalar: 1x
OC: 100 MHz
_
*Im going to try to add screenshot of my BIOS settings and upload them, hopefully it is/becomes useful for someone
_
PowerPlan: 1usmus Ryzen (all settings enabled as per this PP)


*Results: 
*
*Boosts:*
Max boosts over 2 cores: 4,691 MHz _(see screenshot for more cores)_
All-core boosts during games: 4,300-4,400 GHz (previously a lot lower)

*CB20: *

MC 7431 - temp: just below 69C @ 1500 RPM fanspeed + 2300 RPM Pumpspeed
SC 533 - temp: 55C (same as above) - _EDC set to 10 gave me 536 SC but then my all-core voltage went up too much - see screenshot)_

_[Since this is "worst case scenario" - I have a custom fan curve set in CAM Software which gives me good temps with minimal noise which I use when Im not benchmarking]_




Overall Im very happy and this have yeilded me good performance both SC and MC! However, I encountered what probably is/was a BIOS bug where no matter what I tweaked in the PBO settings, my SC went way down, below 380 SC in CB20 at one point so I decided to just "Load Defaults" - Save + Reboot then I re-entered all my settings and it worked like a charm. I now have it saved as a profile it something happens in the future haha.

I'd love if someone can tell me if I should worry about my all-core load voltage that is higher than 1.281 V when I game and/or I even did the right thing when I tried to find out what my CPU's FIT is in the first place.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Cidious said:


> Why try those settings? your contradicting yourself with the settings and it shows in your low CBR20 score. even a 3700X should reach 5050-5100 with the EDC bug setup correctly. What you are doing is working against each other. I'll explain why. First you're setting a salar of 5x which increases the voltage under load then you use an offset to tame that and then you further limit yourself with the TDC and PPT... Why use the bug in the first place? to achieve this you could have just used plain PBO.
> 
> My advice is to set the Scalar to x1 and use a smaller offset or no offset which is completely fine. it will just use auto settings and since you use scalar x1 you won't put anymore voltage on the chip during multicore load but still benefit from the removed current limits of EDC=10. Leave PPT and TDC at auto. I assure you that performance will be a notch better than what you're trying to do here. Less is more sometimes. You're trying to do too much at the same time contradicting your own settings.


In my experience with my setup, I found the offset and limiting PPT and TDC beneficial.
For sure the AORUS Master and/or the CPU binning combined with the Dark Rock Pro 4 cooling they all are factors.

If you have trouble finding a good profile, try to follow my steps.
With my current profile I can get 561/5948 in CPU-z, CB20 530/5216, Geekebench 1369/10089, 3DMark TimeSpy CPU Score 11168.
Most important the system is more stable and smooth than ever.

If you check the Metro 2003 benchmarks, the framerate is more stable with less up and downs: the line representing framerate is thinner.
This is visible during the benchmark; the framerate while at EDC 0 was dropping down to 120 wouldn't go below 150 at the beginning of the sequence at EDC 1.

You should prepare at least: Metro 2003 (the demo should be enough), Resident Evil 6 benchmark tool (Steam), 3DMark Timespy, CPU-z, Geekbench 5, Cinebench R20

Make a run of all the benchmarks with your current profile as reference.
Start with CPU-z at windows boot and check the start value, the progression, the drops, at which speed stabilizes.
The second run is always very difficult but how deep down goes and if recovers is important too.

Initially I went for a higher EDC at 10 due to the high MT scores relatively easy to achieve.
But I kept suffering some framerate drops, sometimes only enough to reset the Logitech G13 display, others more severe slowing down the USB stick and lagging Windows.
Thanks to the Metro 2003 benchmark, for my setup the issues went away at or below EDC at 5. Being 1 the most stable EDC for me.

Now that my profile with EDC at 1 is optimized I can score as much with multi threading that I could with EDC at 10.
I'd say go for the lowest and try to take the best out of it. I think setting EDC above 1 can be a limiting factor.

While checking the drop with Metro 2033 I could see clearly EDC at 8-10 enforcing a boost bucket of 35-40 seconds, going higher reducing it to few seconds.
I think only at EDC at 1 all the filters are down; I focused on getting the best of out it.

I made the assumption that with EDC at 1 the best starting settings would be the best with EDC at 0.
Starting from a default profile, set your PPT/TDC and EDC at 0.

I found the following settings to start with, yours can differ:
- Clock auto, Spread Spectrum disabled - Seems more stable than 100 MHz fixed
- vCore LLC at Medium - Higher LLC better performances, at least Low
- vCore SOC LLC at Low - more stable results
- vCore SOC at Auto - Later will be changed to 1.168V
- PBO Scalar at 1x - Starting point
- PBO max boost at 200 MHz - If you don't get a boost from 150 MHz something can be better
- Dynamic vCore at -0.05v - Starting point
- PPT 130 and TDC at 90
- Disable C-state - Drops in single thread

My 3800x works best with -0.1v offset with EDC at 0; I suggest you check as well and apply half the offset or none with EDC at 1.

Keep checking with CPU-z and find how higher you can go with the Scalar.
I found 6 was most stable while 8 and 10 not as much.

Now check if you can go to a higher scalar going down and up the offset.
Best offset I found for me is -0.0.4375V. 
Keep checking with CPU-z every change, run sporadically Geekbench.

With these settings at this point a notch up or down anywhere had clearly a negative effect.
Now some settings to raise stability:
- vCore SOC at 1.168v - Not really more stable but more stable results
- CPU VDD18 at 1.840v - Seems more stable, did drop sometimes below 1.8v under load for me

Now start checking for the best PPT and TDC. 
Setting both at 0 gave me bad and unreliable CPU-z scores and USB issues under load.
I tried setting PPT at 135 with similar results; the first value to find is the TDC.
Went back to PPT at 0 and started testing TDC from 90 and it had an immediate good effect.
I did test lower and higher values and the best for me is 80.
Look for the best PPT now; I did test higher and lower values, best for me 135.
Similar but not the same values which works best with EDC at 0.

At this point the stability and performance for me where better than anything else before.
I started testing going up with the Scalar and found that now at 10x I could get better results with same stability at 6x before.

Resident Evil 6 is a very good bench to detect the CPU performance; set everything to low and run it at 480p in a Window.
For me if the speed was above 500 fps at the beginning the settings were good, otherwise bad.

Overall I'm quite pleased now.
Yes much more heat but the power consumption is not much higher and the performances are way better. 
Have to say, best bug ever.


----------



## CoreyL4

on my 3600 in cb20, it still downclocks to 3975 to 4000

is that normal with this?


----------



## Delphi

ManniX-ITA said:


> In my experience with my setup, I found the offset and limiting PPT and TDC beneficial.
> For sure the AORUS Master and/or the CPU binning combined with the Dark Rock Pro 4 cooling they all are factors.
> 
> If you have trouble finding a good profile, try to follow my steps.
> With my current profile I can get 561/5948 in CPU-z, CB20 530/5216, Geekebench 1369/10089, 3DMark TimeSpy CPU Score 11168.
> Most important the system is more stable and smooth than ever.
> 
> If you check the Metro 2003 benchmarks, the framerate is more stable with less up and downs: the line representing framerate is thinner.
> This is visible during the benchmark; the framerate while at EDC 0 was dropping down to 120 wouldn't go below 150 at the beginning of the sequence at EDC 1.
> 
> You should prepare at least: Metro 2003 (the demo should be enough), Resident Evil 6 benchmark tool (Steam), 3DMark Timespy, CPU-z, Geekbench 5, Cinebench R20
> 
> Make a run of all the benchmarks with your current profile as reference.
> Start with CPU-z at windows boot and check the start value, the progression, the drops, at which speed stabilizes.
> The second run is always very difficult but how deep down goes and if recovers is important too.
> 
> Initially I went for a higher EDC at 10 due to the high MT scores relatively easy to achieve.
> But I kept suffering some framerate drops, sometimes only enough to reset the Logitech G13 display, others more severe slowing down the USB stick and lagging Windows.
> Thanks to the Metro 2003 benchmark, for my setup the issues went away at or below EDC at 5. Being 1 the most stable EDC for me.
> 
> Now that my profile with EDC at 1 is optimized I can score as much with multi threading that I could with EDC at 10.
> I'd say go for the lowest and try to take the best out of it. I think setting EDC above 1 can be a limiting factor.
> 
> While checking the drop with Metro 2003 I could see clearly EDC at 8-10 enforcing a boost bucket of 35-40 seconds, going higher reducing it to few seconds.
> I think only at EDC at 1 all the filters are down; I focused on getting the best of out it.
> 
> I made the assumption that with EDC at 1 the best starting settings would be the best with EDC at 0.
> Starting from a default profile, set your PPT/TDC and EDC at 0.
> 
> I found the following settings to start with, yours can differ:
> - Clock auto, Spread Spectrum disabled - Seems more stable than 100 MHz fixed
> - vCore LLC at Medium - Higher LLC better performances, at least Low
> - vCore SOC LLC at Low - more stable results
> - vCore SOC at Auto - Later will be changed to 1.168V
> - PBO Scalar at 1x - Starting point
> - PBO max boost at 200 MHz - If you don't get a boost from 150 MHz something can be better
> - Dynamic vCore at -0.05v - Starting point
> - PPT 130 and TDC at 90
> - Disable C-state - Drops in single thread
> 
> My 3800x works best with -0.1v offset with EDC at 0; I suggest you check as well and apply half the offset or none with EDC at 1.
> 
> Keep checking with CPU-z and find how higher you can go with the Scalar.
> I found 6 was most stable while 8 and 10 not as much.
> 
> Now check if you can go to a higher scalar going down and up the offset.
> Best offset I found for me is -0.0.4375V.
> Keep checking with CPU-z every change, run sporadically Geekbench.
> 
> With these settings at this point a notch up or down anywhere had clearly a negative effect.
> Now some settings to raise stability:
> - vCore SOC at 1.168v - Not really more stable but more stable results
> - CPU VDD18 at 1.840v - Seems more stable, did drop sometimes below 1.8v under load for me
> 
> Now start checking for the best PPT and TDC.
> Setting both at 0 gave me bad and unreliable CPU-z scores and USB issues under load.
> I tried setting PPT at 135 with similar results; the first value to find is the TDC.
> Went back to PPT at 0 and started testing TDC from 90 and it had an immediate good effect.
> I did test lower and higher values and the best for me is 80.
> Look for the best PPT now; I did test higher and lower values, best for me 135.
> Similar but not the same values which works best with EDC at 0.
> 
> At this point the stability and performance for me where better than anything else before.
> I started testing going up with the Scalar and found that now at 10x I could get better results with same stability at 6x before.
> 
> Resident Evil 6 is a very good bench to detect the CPU performance; set everything to low and run it at 480p in a Window.
> For me if the speed was above 500 fps at the beginning the settings were good, otherwise bad.
> 
> Overall I'm quite pleased now.
> Yes much more heat but the power consumption is not much higher and the performances are way better.
> Have to say, best bug ever.



This needs to be on the front page of the thread.

Going to try this on my setup with my 3800x and Aorus Elite. I have it quite dialed right now but you're a decent ways ahead of me.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

CoreyL4 said:


> on my 3600 in cb20, it still downclocks to 3975 to 4000
> 
> is that normal with this?


On my 3800x the core 4 and 5 doownclocks to 4.1-4.2 while all the others stay at 4.3 GHz.
If the downclock is 3.9-4.1 there's something wrong.
How fast it can go it's different by unit, I don't know the acceptable range for a 3600.


----------



## therealdadbeard

ManniX-ITA said:


> If you check the Metro 2003 benchmarks


Not to nitpick but you mean 2033 right? I was somehow confused as this one doesn't exist xD

Did you try 1usmus profile to see if it helps with boosting? I have CnQ/C-States ON and have no issues at all in Windows or games to get cores to boost. No stutters or hitching or weird behavior.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

therealdadbeard said:


> Not to nitpick but you mean 2033 right? I was somehow confused as this one doesn't exist xD


LoL you are right, yes it's 2033 the good old one


----------



## CoreyL4

ManniX-ITA said:


> On my 3800x the core 4 and 5 doownclocks to 4.1-4.2 while all the others stay at 4.3 GHz.
> If the downclock is 3.9-4.1 there's something wrong.
> How fast it can go it's different by unit, I don't know the acceptable range for a 3600.


4.2 is what max is stock. during gaming itll hit the 4.2, but during heavy benchmarks - cpuz, cinebench, it downclocks to 3975 - 4000


----------



## therealdadbeard

ManniX-ITA said:


> LoL you are right, yes it's 2033 the good old one


Okay good, I added something else to my comment to but you already replied before my edit.

Tested it on my Pc and it runs smooth with 1usmus and recommended settings. Right now my 3700x runs with this. FYI setting PPT/TDC higher than what I have now does not change a thing for my 3700x. I just had the experience in the past that my CPU will boost more intense and longer if it is near limits. Keep in mind that this CPU has a way lower TDP than a 3800x so don't compare them. The highest I got on an allcore load with R20/CPU-Z is 4250mhz with any combination of settings. I can get an manual OC of 4300mhz but with PBO it will never boost that high.

PPT: 115W
TDC: 70W
EDC: 10A (works the best, maybe 9 is fine too)
Scaler: 1x
OC: 100mhz
Vcore offset: -0.05 (this one helps the most somehow, lowers temps from 74 to 70 and gives me more oompf)

This is what I use and I tried many combinations. My 3700x is one of the first ones so maybe the silicone ain't that good but I'm happy with the added 125mhz with PBO @ same temps etc. This is on a Tomahawk. RAM is oced to 3800mhzcl16


----------



## ManniX-ITA

therealdadbeard said:


> Okay good, I added something else to my comment to but you already replied before my edit.
> 
> Tested it on my Pc and it runs smooth with 1usmus and recommended settings. Right now my 3700x runs with this. FYI setting PPT/TDC higher than what I have now does not change a thing for my 3700x. I just had the experience in the past that my CPU will boost more intense and longer if it is near limits. Keep in mind that this CPU has a way lower TDP than a 3800x so don't compare them. The highest I got on an allcore load with R20/CPU-Z is 4250mhz with any combination of settings. I can get an manual OC of 4300mhz but with PBO it will never boost that high.
> 
> PPT: 115W
> TDC: 70W
> EDC: 10A (works the best, maybe 9 is fine too)
> Scaler: 1x
> OC: 100mhz
> Vcore offset: -0.05 (this one helps the most somehow, lowers temps from 74 to 70 and gives me more oompf)
> 
> This is what I use and I tried many combinations. My 3700x is one of the first ones so maybe the silicone ain't that good but I'm happy with the added 125mhz with PBO @ same temps etc. This is on a Tomahawk. RAM is oced to 3800mhzcl16


Yes I tried the 1usmus profile but I get better scores with the Ultimate.

What is your CPU LLC? Set it at least to Low or Medium, 2 o 3 I think on MSI.
This usually fixes the low clocks during Cinebench.

I'd rather try to find a good EDC at 1 configuration.
Set the OC at 200 and play with the TDC and PPT.
Last try to max the scalar if not already at 10.


----------



## therealdadbeard

ManniX-ITA said:


> Yes I tried the 1usmus profile but I get better scores with the Ultimate.
> 
> What is your CPU LLC? Set it at least to Low or Medium, 2 o 3 I think on MSI.
> This usually fixes the low clocks during Cinebench.
> 
> I'd rather try to find a good EDC at 1 configuration.
> Set the OC at 200 and play with the TDC and PPT.
> Last try to max the scalar if not already at 10.


Tried EDC @1 but any combinations I tried were not better. LLC is on Auto and I think it sets it then to Level3. On MSI the lower the level the more it fights vdroop. Tried that but it wont budge. OC 200 no change even worse. Upping the scalar makes everything hotter and then I have lower clocks. You see, 3700x and 3800x seem WAY different.

I really would need someone with a 3700x and a Tomahawk non max to test this out.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

therealdadbeard said:


> Tried EDC @1 but any combinations I tried were not better. LLC is on Auto and I think it sets it then to Level3. On MSI the lower the level the more it fights vdroop. Tried that but it wont budge. OC 200 no change even worse. Upping the scalar makes everything hotter and then I have lower clocks. You see, 3700x and 3800x seem WAY different.


If you voltage drops the LLC is a notch below where it should be; set it to Manual to the next level you think Auto was enforcing to

Yes the CPU is way different and the board too.
But I was exactly at your place and thought the same thing.
Instead I started fresh with EDC at 0 and found a way better config at 1 than 10.
I'd give it a try.


----------



## therealdadbeard

ManniX-ITA said:


> If you voltage drops the LLC is a notch below where it should be; set it to Manual to the next level you think Auto was enforcing to
> 
> Yes the CPU is way different and the board too.
> But I was exactly at your place and thought the same thing.
> Instead I started fresh with EDC at 0 and found a way better config at 1 than 10.
> I'd give it a try.


I did and 1 is worse for me like I said. If I put anything to 0 it changes to Auto which means default. I can't set anything to 0. 

Nothing other than a manual OC will get my cpu to 4.3ghz. Anyone with a 3700x and a Tomahawk can chime in.


----------



## highdude702

Cidious said:


> OK bud. you keep promoting your dreadful results as magic here. In the mean time the people that actually have success with these settings can advise others here. Come back when you have figured it out ok.


I agree with you. Any time I ****ed with PPT or TDC my scores dropped. My voltage didn't change hardly at all from scaler 1x to scaler 10x, 6x seemed to give the best results. It however was not a quick process to get it right, and I'm still mildly tweaking it as I go through different work loads to see what gives me best all around.



nangu said:


> Hi,
> 
> I had also the second CCD on my 3900X going 3600Mhz when first testing this "EDC feature". I think the performance loss I experience with certain settings is due to one or several cores (or even a complete CCD) get stuck on a lower pstate for a limited time. Sometimes they get stuck until I change to a different Windows power plan, so to me it's not only clock stretching the problem here.
> 
> Did you try disabling C-Sates with C&Q enabled? On my system, the only combination to be able to exploit this bug successfully is the afformentioned C-States and C&Q settings, plus a Windows power plan with min and max processor at 100% both. Too much negative vCore offset do not help also.


I have been using the 1usmus custom power plan v1.1 and since I'm on 1909 using the universal plan and it has worked better than the others. I also noticed my cpu sometimes gets stuck at a lower pstate. sometimes when I start a workload it will stick all cores at 900mhz .



VPII said:


> I seriously don't understand this bug talked about in this thread. I tried every possible setting mentioned in here for EDC doing no vcore off-set or doing a small vcore off-set without much difference. On my 3950X my cb scores would hover between 8700 and 8900 which is lower than running stock. What I noticed is that the effective clocks while running CB20 would be 4200 to 4250 for core 0 to core 7, but core 8 to core 15 would be 3300 to 3600mhz and this is what would happen no matter which setting I use. If I run normal PBO with EDC set to 200 my CB20 score would be between 9500 and 9650 and effective clocks on all cores would hover between 4075 and 4125mhz.
> 
> My motherboard is MSI Meg X570 Ace.


What bios version? Have you made sure that the bios is AGESA 1.0.0.4B I dont know if it works with 1.0.0.4BA or whatever the updated one is. I'm on the Crosshair 8 Hero 1201 and it works great, have never seen this much performance from this cpu.


----------



## VPII

highdude702 said:


> I agree with you. Any time I ****ed with PPT or TDC my scores dropped. My voltage didn't change hardly at all from scaler 1x to scaler 10x, 6x seemed to give the best results. It however was not a quick process to get it right, and I'm still mildly tweaking it as I go through different work loads to see what gives me best all around.
> 
> 
> 
> I have been using the 1usmus custom power plan v1.1 and since I'm on 1909 using the universal plan and it has worked better than the others. I also noticed my cpu sometimes gets stuck at a lower pstate. sometimes when I start a workload it will stick all cores at 900mhz .
> 
> 
> 
> What bios version? Have you made sure that the bios is AGESA 1.0.0.4B I dont know if it works with 1.0.0.4BA or whatever the updated one is. I'm on the Crosshair 8 Hero 1201 and it works great, have never seen this much performance from this cpu.


The bios is the latest one from MSI v170 which from what I can see it 1.0.0.4B


----------



## therealdadbeard

highdude702 said:


> I agree with you. Any time I ****ed with PPT or TDC my scores dropped. My voltage didn't change hardly at all from scaler 1x to scaler 10x, 6x seemed to give the best results. It however was not a quick process to get it right, and I'm still mildly tweaking it as I go through different work loads to see what gives me best all around.


My CPU goes to up to PPT 115 and TDC 70 and never beyond that even if I set both of those to 1000 to have room or any high number. I get better results with tight PPT/TDC settings near where my CPU maxes out.

Why is it so different for everyone?


----------



## Nighthog

Anyone have *SOC/Uncore OC* enabled. It's the one that sets your FLKC & MCLK to maximum speed at all times, prevents it from downclocking.
I've used it in OC mode the whole time. 

Could have an effect.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Nighthog said:


> Anyone have *SOC/Uncore OC* enabled. It's the one that sets your FLKC & MCLK to maximum speed at all times, prevents it from downclocking.
> I've used it in OC mode the whole time.
> 
> Could have an effect.


I have it enabled but I'm not sure if it has a positive effect or not. I just feel safer 
Anyway useful to spot issues, if the IB clock goes down something is wrong.


----------



## Streetdragon

3900x x570 master bios 11.
Voltages auto. edc 1
More ompf in singe and multi BUT the cores wont go into sleep anymore, because i had to disable c-stats


----------



## Delphi

Streetdragon said:


> 3900x x570 master bios 11.
> Voltages auto. edc 1
> More ompf in singe and multi BUT the cores wont go into sleep anymore, because i had to disable c-stats


Have you tried leaving them enabled, going 15% over ppt and tdc and setting edc to 16-18?


----------



## Streetdragon

than i have no single core boost/speed anymore


----------



## lowtide100

*Possible IMC concern*

Ryzen 3600 | MSI x470 Gaming Pro Carbon with 7B78v2B BIOS and AGESA 1003 ABB, (1003 ABBA and 1004b cause blue screens @ stock settings). 
EDC=1 | Scalar 10X with everything else set to 'AUTO' except RAM which is set to 3466 16-18-18-38

This definitely works for my CPU that's never had a single core boost over 4150mhz. I'm seeing a max boost of 4275 for 1 core and the rest can get up to 4225-4250. I've seen improved scores in Cinebench R20 with temps never exceeding 75C. Voltage seems to be normal as well.

My only issue is when I run Prime95 Large FFT test (stresses memory controller and RAM) it starts failing immediately and I have no idea how to fix it. At stock settings with my RAM OC, I have no problems running that test all day. 

Any suggestions?


----------



## mrsteelx

lowtide100 said:


> Ryzen 3600 | MSI x470 Gaming Pro Carbon with 7B78v2B BIOS and AGESA 1003 ABB, (1003 ABBA and 1004b cause blue screens @ stock settings).
> EDC=1 | Scalar 10X with everything else set to 'AUTO' except RAM which is set to 3466 16-18-18-38
> 
> This definitely works for my CPU that's never had a single core boost over 4150mhz. I'm seeing a max boost of 4275 for 1 core and the rest can get up to 4225-4250. I've seen improved scores in Cinebench R20 with temps never exceeding 75C. Voltage seems to be normal as well.
> 
> My only issue is when I run Prime95 Large FFT test (stresses memory controller and RAM) it starts failing immediately and I have no idea how to fix it. At stock settings with my RAM OC, I have no problems running that test all day.
> 
> Any suggestions?


you up soc a bit and set vddp to say 900 or 950 and vddg to 1000 on both (there are 2 vddg volts settings). it's a start.


----------



## rastaviper

So anyone with a *3600x* here who can compare the results of this method vs manual OC?


----------



## lowtide100

mrsteelx said:


> you up soc a bit and set vddp to say 900 or 950 and vddg to 1000 on both (there are 2 vddg volts settings). it's a start.


I appreciate the suggestion, but that didn't work.

I've tried LLC modes 1-4, lowering fclk, PPT 100, TDC 100. Nothing seems to work. I'm thinking that I may be paying the early adopter's tax since I can't even use this CPU with newer AGESA versions even on other mobos.


----------



## Nighthog

lowtide100 said:


> I appreciate the suggestion, but that didn't work.
> 
> I've tried LLC modes 1-4, lowering fclk, PPT 100, TDC 100. Nothing seems to work. I'm thinking that I may be paying the early adopter's tax since I can't even use this CPU with newer AGESA versions even on other mobos.


Have you contacted AMD about maybe a faulty CPU, RMA? 

These CPU's should not be unstable @ stock.


----------



## lowtide100

Nighthog said:


> Have you contacted AMD about maybe a faulty CPU, RMA?
> 
> These CPU's should not be unstable @ stock.


Yea I'm gonna have to RMA. Just filled out the request. It was cool seeing my CPU boost up to 4275Mhz when before it could barely make 4150. 

Thanks for this discovery. Can't wait to try again on another sample. This also sheds some light on why I could see 4200 with AGESA 1.0.0.3abba and 1.0.0.4b but not have the stability to match. It was like my RAM was bad but it's really the IMC.


----------



## Cidious

lowtide100 said:


> Nighthog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you contacted AMD about maybe a faulty CPU, RMA?
> 
> These CPU's should not be unstable @ stock.
> 
> 
> 
> Yea I'm gonna have to RMA. Just filled out the request. It was cool seeing my CPU boost up to 4275Mhz when before it could barely make 4150.
> 
> Thanks for this discovery. Can't wait to try again on another sample. This also sheds some light on why I could see 4200 with AGESA 1.0.0.3abba and 1.0.0.4b but not have the stability to match. It was like my RAM was bad but it's really the IMC.
Click to expand...

You're going to RMA because it won't let you abuse the EDC bug ? Or am I understanding you wrong? You have a 3600. Which is supposed to boost about 4100 under multicore load and 4200 single core. Mine did. You used the EDC bug and it crashes under load but on stock settings it works fine?

If I am understanding it right this is nowhere any reason to RMA. Product works as intended. You can't expect to abuse a bug and demand it to work. It's not how it works.. 

Correct me if I'm wrong and don't understand your situation well but this is how you described it.


----------



## lowtide100

Cidious said:


> You're going to RMA because it won't let you abuse the EDC bug ? Or am I understanding you wrong? You have a 3600. Which is supposed to boost about 4100 under multicore load and 4200 single core. Mine did. You used the EDC bug and it crashes under load but on stock settings it works fine?
> 
> If I am understanding it right this is nowhere any reason to RMA. Product works as intended. You can't expect to abuse a bug and demand it to work. It's not how it works..
> 
> Correct me if I'm wrong and don't understand your situation well but this is how you described it.


It has never boosted beyond 4175 single core or 3900 multicore from the start. Stock settings across multiple mobos, RAM kits, and Windows installs yielded the same outcome. There was always something wrong with this chip, I'm only just figuring it out now. AGESA 1.0.0.3ABBA and the latest version were supposed to fix the boosting problem but only made my system unstable. I tried this tweak to possibly get the advertised boost clock but my CPU fails P95 Large FFT. There was never a crash or anything noticeably wrong outside this one p95 test. Stock settings I pass the test 24hrs easily. But I could never get 4.2Ghz single core on even the lightest loads.


----------



## mindyoursoul

Alright, this is really weird... I found some settings that yielded some good results (see first screenshot), and then I went on with my day until now when I start playing around with it again and wanted to lower my SV12 voltage just to be on the safe side so I swapped from LLC2 to LLC3 and I just saw this spike when I loaded up HWiNFO (second screenshot)... Haven't tried benching it yet as I captured it and came here....


What is going on?

Edit: Clock stretching on the SC, only yielded 318 in CB20 but the MC is good. Going back to LLC 2 and setting a small offset


----------



## gerardfraser

lowtide100 said:


> It has never boosted beyond 4175 single core or 3900 multicore from the start. Stock settings across multiple mobos, RAM kits, and Windows installs yielded the same outcome. There was always something wrong with this chip, I'm only just figuring it out now. AGESA 1.0.0.3ABBA and the latest version were supposed to fix the boosting problem but only made my system unstable. I tried this tweak to possibly get the advertised boost clock but my CPU fails P95 Large FFT. There was never a crash or anything noticeably wrong outside this one p95 test. Stock settings I pass the test 24hrs easily. But I could never get 4.2Ghz single core on even the lightest loads.


Mother Board


----------



## polkfan

funny to see this used when i first discovered it back in november i was quick to avoid it as at the time i had stability issues. 

Setting EDC to 10 and the rest to max with AUTO OC to 100mhz(200mhz is worse always was) allows multiple cores to hit 4425mhz quite often on my chip and allows all core turbo to reach 4175-4200mhz in R15 up from 4075-4100mhz with PBO. 

This does disable the FIT limits of your chip but i'm sure this is more safe then setting 1.325V+ manual on this chip. X1 scalar for me still uses 1.344V on all cores under load in R20 but everything else is fine and within spec. 

I did just about everything to my chip to tweak it out at stock settings my chip refuses to hit 4400mhz and i have it cooled pretty darn well too. 

Even with AGESA 1.0.0.4B it seems all of are chips have that issue getting the last 25-50mhz of the rated turbo. And ALL of these chips hit 4.0-4.25Ghz on all cores under load even if its a 3600x or 3950x. 

It's safe to say at this point Amd is never going to fix the EDC bug so this is really all we got for tweaking the core itself. 


Manual overclocking is a FOR SURE a no go on my chip even 4250mhz isn't stable with 4200mhz being the limit and temps reach a crazy 88-92C easily under big encodes. Using this trick keeps temps down and frequency's up with just slightly too much voltage. 


If you are PURELY gaming or doing other light loads i would honestly say this is pretty safe for you just make sure to run benchmarks and compare scores to make sure its NOT just clock stretching.


----------



## lowtide100

gerardfraser said:


> Mother Board


CPU


----------



## Visceral

I think it's very much safe than a base overlock with set voltage. I'm just not overly certain yet it's really *that* safe. Time will tell I guess.


----------



## Cidious

I run it with great results but I do use a slight -25mv offset to ease the mind on safety. Wondering if it would just be safe to run this without offset. The voltage seems to behave the same with the EDC bug on auto voltage settings as without EDC bug abuse. Temps are the same for me too. I don't prime 95 because that's just asking to wreck your chip tinkering with it. If it doesn't crash during encoding and unpacking large files I consider it stable. I did run an few seperste hours of OCCT no AVX when I was testing the bug to make sure.

Like you said my voltage would also do 1.344 during CB multicore load which I found slightly high so I went to the slight -25mv offset which brings it further down but also decreases frequency by about 25-50mhz. 

There is still a huge difference in clockspeeds noticable between 16 degrees ambient in the room and 23 ambient. When it's 16 degrees it wants to boost higher but the die temps will roughly stay the same in both situations. Which still makes clear the that boosting algorithm is still bottlenecked by temperatures. Abusing this bug does not remove the temperature limits. So we shouldn't worry about that I guess. For example CPU-Z MC at 23 ambient will give roughly 5700-5800 points and when I open the window to cool it down further to as low as 16 ambient then I can break 6000 points at the same settings without offset. Which is intriguing to say the least how sensitive the algorithm is to temperature while the die temps are always under 70 degrees with my custom loop dedicated to only the CPU.

Other than that So far no issues with it running since this post was made. 

Just wonder if I could safely remove the offset or not.


----------



## polkfan

Cidious said:


> I run it with great results but I do use a slight -25mv offset to ease the mind on safety. Wondering if it would just be safe to run this without offset. The voltage seems to behave the same with the EDC bug on auto voltage settings as without EDC bug abuse. Temps are the same for me too. I don't prime 95 because that's just asking to wreck your chip tinkering with it. If it doesn't crash during encoding and unpacking large files I consider it stable. I did run an few seperste hours of OCCT no AVX when I was testing the bug to make sure.
> 
> Like you said my voltage would also do 1.344 during CB multicore load which I found slightly high so I went to the slight -25mv offset which brings it further down but also decreases frequency by about 25-50mhz.
> 
> There is still a huge difference in clockspeeds noticable between 16 degrees ambient in the room and 23 ambient. When it's 16 degrees it wants to boost higher but the die temps will roughly stay the same in both situations. Which still makes clear the that boosting algorithm is still bottlenecked by temperatures. Abusing this bug does not remove the temperature limits. So we shouldn't worry about that I guess. For example CPU-Z MC at 23 ambient will give roughly 5700-5800 points and when I open the window to cool it down further to as low as 16 ambient then I can break 6000 points at the same settings without offset. Which is intriguing to say the least how sensitive the algorithm is to temperature while the die temps are always under 70 degrees with my custom loop dedicated to only the CPU.
> 
> Other than that So far no issues with it running since this post was made.
> 
> Just wonder if I could safely remove the offset or not.


I feel it will be just fine for most users but people who hammer their CPU(NO JUDGING people have different use cases) will probably degrade it within 3 years easily with this tweak its crazy how sensitive these chips are i fear that overclocking CPU's is basically a dead thing moving forward from Intel and Amd.......Nvidia too. 

If one mainly uses their PC for encodes and heavy usage 50% of the time its probably best to just run a all core OC with 1.275V-1.3V anyways or PBO with 1X scalar. 

However i know us here at overclock.net haha most of us replace our CPU's very quickly anyways and a lot of us just benchmark and play games and i really think this tweak is neat for that. 

If you are somewhat lucky and can have improved ST and MT performance from this tweak and be stable enough for your use case with a off-set then hey why not? 

Me on the other hand i just do it to run some tweaks and it also shows me what my chip can do and in this case 4425mhz is it but under stock it never touches 4400mhz often and i mean maybe once every 3 days or so and i always have hwmonitor on. 

My chip is a dud i only ever got 2 CPU's from Amd where i got great overclocking results a Athlon II X4 620 and a Phenom II X6 1100T every other chip i got was a poor overclocker. Bad luck i guess i suppose being able to run my FCLK at 1900mhz is nice. 

I hear that the newer batch of chips are much better.


----------



## polkfan

lowtide100 said:


> CPU


Not sure how one can tell if its the CPU or board i would also have to say that i expect its probably the CPU but hardware unbox at launch when the boost issue was a bigger thing noticed that some boards do actually allow the CPU to boost higher in ST.


----------



## bluechris

My 3600 never passed 4200mhz in single core and 4050 in multi core so i need to rma it? Nope i don't think so because that's the speed of this cheapo cpu that i bought and i know it. Even if i RMA it and i get a better silicon and maybe i will gain 50-100mhz more so what?
3600 ryzen for me is the best thing anyone can buy except if he does all day long encoding where he needs a bigger thing.
Its like my young days where all saying our cars hp's... Myne is 100... The other said myne is 105 i kick you loooool.


----------



## polkfan

bluechris said:


> My 3600 never passed 4200mhz in single core and 4050 in multi core so i need to rma it? Nope i don't think so because that's the speed of this cheapo cpu that i bought and i know it. Even if i RMA it and i get a better silicon and maybe i will gain 50-100mhz more so what?
> 3600 ryzen for me is the best thing anyone can buy except if he does all day long encoding where he needs a bigger thing.
> Its like my young days where all saying our cars hp's... Myne is 100... The other said myne is 105 i kick you loooool.


I agree with ya man we don't always win the silicon lottery, when i want to win it though i make sure to $$$$$ the money lol i spent SO much on my memory cause i wanted to keep it for every gen of Ryzen on AM4 happy i did it was worth the money just for the fun of tweaking it alone


----------



## boldenc

mindyoursoul said:


> Alright, this is really weird... I found some settings that yielded some good results (see first screenshot), and then I went on with my day until now when I start playing around with it again and wanted to lower my SV12 voltage just to be on the safe side so I swapped from LLC2 to LLC3 and I just saw this spike when I loaded up HWiNFO (second screenshot)... Haven't tried benching it yet as I captured it and came here....
> 
> 
> What is going on?
> 
> Edit: Clock stretching on the SC, only yielded 318 in CB20 but the MC is good. Going back to LLC 2 and setting a small offset


You need to disable C-States to get normal SC score.


----------



## lowtide100

polkfan said:


> Not sure how one can tell if its the CPU or board i would also have to say that i expect its probably the CPU but hardware unbox at launch when the boost issue was a bigger thing noticed that some boards do actually allow the CPU to boost higher in ST.





bluechris said:


> My 3600 never passed 4200mhz in single core and 4050 in multi core so i need to rma it? Nope i don't think so because that's the speed of this cheapo cpu that i bought and i know it. Even if i RMA it and i get a better silicon and maybe i will gain 50-100mhz more so what?
> 3600 ryzen for me is the best thing anyone can buy except if he does all day long encoding where he needs a bigger thing.
> Its like my young days where all saying our cars hp's... Myne is 100... The other said myne is 105 i kick you loooool.





polkfan said:


> I agree with ya man we don't always win the silicon lottery, when i want to win it though i make sure to $$$$$ the money lol i spent SO much on my memory cause i wanted to keep it for every gen of Ryzen on AM4 happy i did it was worth the money just for the fun of tweaking it alone


As I stated in a previous post, I've tested this CPU on multiple motherboards, multiple RAM kits and multiple Windows installs. I cannot use AGESAs 1.0.0.3abba and 1.0.0.4b because my system would BSOD over and over. My CPU is not stable with AMD's fix for the boosting problem.


----------



## smigatron

I havent had a huge test, but i recently had a little play around and Cinebench 20 scored 525 and 7400 with a 3900x, no OC, just 3600ram setup with 4x8gb B-die, slightly better than safe settings and a bit of EDC bug settings. (Air cooling DH-15)

The craziest **** i noticed though is this HWINFO64 thats been running for 10 hours???? 4.675ghz MAX on all 12 cores??? I have never seen the second die go 4.5 or beyond??? Lately, I normally see cores 1-2 4.675, 3-4 4.65, 5-6 4.6, cores 7-12 4.4-4.475 with the latest bios and EDC Bug(normally 4.15-4.2 all core, lowest 4.125 in testing).

I am beginning to think after seeing this, is that maybe both of the 3900x CPU dies are actually 4.65ghz capable, (and probably 3950x) but AMD needs to keep the power under control as they are already faster than the intel cpus per clock, OR it could be just bad software reading by HWINFO????


----------



## Nighthog

@smigatron 

Could be possible. Though rare. As time goes on and yields improve we might see it more often with more better cores all around. 

I would love a 3950X with 2 perfect CCD's. AMD could actually make some extra money to make these and sell for more money like *3950X Platinum* or something.


----------



## vanilla-ape

smigatron said:


> I havent had a huge test, but i recently had a little play around and Cinebench 20 scored 525 and 7400 with a 3900x, no OC, just 3600ram setup with 4x8gb B-die, slightly better than safe settings and a bit of EDC bug settings. (Air cooling DH-15)
> 
> The craziest **** i noticed though is this HWINFO64 thats been running for 10 hours???? 4.675ghz MAX on all 12 cores??? I have never seen the second die go 4.5 or beyond??? Lately, I normally see cores 1-2 4.675, 3-4 4.65, 5-6 4.6, cores 7-12 4.4-4.475 with the latest bios and EDC Bug(normally 4.15-4.2 all core, lowest 4.125 in testing).
> 
> I am beginning to think after seeing this, is that maybe both of the 3900x CPU dies are actually 4.65ghz capable, (and probably 3950x) but AMD needs to keep the power under control as they are already faster than the intel cpus per clock, OR it could be just bad software reading by HWINFO????


Which mobo? Would you care to share your bios settings?


----------



## mindyoursoul

That fixed it so thanks!


----------



## polkfan

lowtide100 said:


> As I stated in a previous post, I've tested this CPU on multiple motherboards, multiple RAM kits and multiple Windows installs. I cannot use AGESAs 1.0.0.3abba and 1.0.0.4b because my system would BSOD over and over. My CPU is not stable with AMD's fix for the boosting problem.


Sorry my bad is it at least stable at a static voltage something like 4.0Ghz at 1.275V? That should work and be safe.


----------



## Delphi

smigatron said:


> I havent had a huge test, but i recently had a little play around and Cinebench 20 scored 525 and 7400 with a 3900x, no OC, just 3600ram setup with 4x8gb B-die, slightly better than safe settings and a bit of EDC bug settings. (Air cooling DH-15)
> 
> The craziest **** i noticed though is this HWINFO64 thats been running for 10 hours???? 4.675ghz MAX on all 12 cores??? I have never seen the second die go 4.5 or beyond??? Lately, I normally see cores 1-2 4.675, 3-4 4.65, 5-6 4.6, cores 7-12 4.4-4.475 with the latest bios and EDC Bug(normally 4.15-4.2 all core, lowest 4.125 in testing).
> 
> I am beginning to think after seeing this, is that maybe both of the 3900x CPU dies are actually 4.65ghz capable, (and probably 3950x) but AMD needs to keep the power under control as they are already faster than the intel cpus per clock, OR it could be just bad software reading by HWINFO????


That is not your effective clock that the cpu actually used.


----------



## deepor

polkfan said:


> Sorry my bad is it at least stable at a static voltage something like 4.0Ghz at 1.275V? That should work and be safe.



These type of tweaks would be kind of pointless to test. Would you really keep a CPU that only works with a manual overclock and can't use the default settings? I'd definitely send it back to AMD, this CPU is just broken and they need to replace it. Trying to keep it and get it to work with tweaks is a mistake, not just because it feels bad, but also because a correctly working CPU you can sell in a few years but this weird one you can't.


----------



## Cidious

Delphi said:


> smigatron said:
> 
> 
> 
> I havent had a huge test, but i recently had a little play around and Cinebench 20 scored 525 and 7400 with a 3900x, no OC, just 3600ram setup with 4x8gb B-die, slightly better than safe settings and a bit of EDC bug settings. (Air cooling DH-15)
> 
> The craziest **** i noticed though is this HWINFO64 thats been running for 10 hours???? 4.675ghz MAX on all 12 cores??? I have never seen the second die go 4.5 or beyond??? Lately, I normally see cores 1-2 4.675, 3-4 4.65, 5-6 4.6, cores 7-12 4.4-4.475 with the latest bios and EDC Bug(normally 4.15-4.2 all core, lowest 4.125 in testing).
> 
> I am beginning to think after seeing this, is that maybe both of the 3900x CPU dies are actually 4.65ghz capable, (and probably 3950x) but AMD needs to keep the power under control as they are already faster than the intel cpus per clock, OR it could be just bad software reading by HWINFO????
> 
> 
> 
> That is not your effective clock that the cpu actually used.
Click to expand...

This. Look at effective clocks. The reported clocks are clock stretching. My reported clocks also say 4.6ghz + but can only do work at 4.5ghz single core and 4.35ghz multi.


----------



## mongoled

OK so I gave this a go again and although the results are very positive i have been unable to get the thing stable in stress tests.

The settings that i have been able to dial in that can run C20 and CPUZ tests are

EDC: 5
TDC: Auto
PPT: Auto
CPU LLC: 3
CPU Scaler: 4X
C-States: Disabled
CnQ: Disabled
CPU Offset: +0.0500v
BCLK: 100.725 mhz

This gives me 

C20 score of 3927 
CPUZ scores of 538x/544

With these settings C20 runs all core frequency of 4280-4300 mhz
With these settings CPUZ runs all core frequency of 4290-4310 mhz
With these settings TM5 runs all core frequency of 4410-4440 mhz 

However, ive tried countless combinations of LLC, EDC, voltage offsets, BCLK to get it stable under various stress tests such as TM5, Membench, Prime95 etc but no luck.

When not using the EDC bug the setup in my sig is rock stable, however using exactly the same settings just changing EDC/LLC/C-states/CnQ stability is far far away ........


----------



## savagebunny

I gave this a shot. CB20 was roughly ~7300 or lower before I got a new board. PPT 400 TDC 400 EDC 15

https://i.imgur.com/hBi7Vxt.jpg

Noctua NH-D15 18-19c ambients. Effective clocks 4300Mhz all-core

Disabled Cool n Quiet, now hitting 4.6Ghz easily all day with +200Mhz override. How odd


----------



## ManniX-ITA

mongoled said:


> OK so I gave this a go again and although the results are very positive i have been unable to get the thing stable in stress tests.
> 
> The settings that i have been able to dial in that can run C20 and CPUZ tests are
> 
> EDC: 5
> TDC: Auto
> PPT: Auto
> CPU LLC: 3
> CPU Scaler: 4X
> C-States: Disabled
> CnQ: Disabled
> CPU Offset: +0.0500v
> BCLK: 100.725 mhz
> 
> This gives me
> 
> C20 score of 3927
> CPUZ scores of 538x/544
> 
> With these settings C20 runs all core frequency of 4280-4300 mhz
> With these settings CPUZ runs all core frequency of 4290-4310 mhz
> With these settings TM5 runs all core frequency of 4410-4440 mhz
> 
> However, ive tried countless combinations of LLC, EDC, voltage offsets, BCLK to get it stable under various stress tests such as TM5, Membench, Prime95 etc but no luck.
> 
> When not using the EDC bug the setup in my sig is rock stable, however using exactly the same settings just changing EDC/LLC/C-states/CnQ stability is far far away ........


I'd try first to stabilize with BCLK at 100.0

My advice: first try to find a good voltage/scalar ratio.
Set QnC on, EDC and scalar at 1.
Find the lowest cpu vcore offset you can go without dropping score in CPU-z, can be low as -0.05 and more.

Now raise the scalar up to when it starts decreasing, ideally at 10 for best single thread boost.
Then test the PPT/TDC settings, ideally set it at 0 or manually, I have it at 135/80 on my 3800x otherwise there are drops.

If you still have stability issues try to raise the SOC vCore, like 1.15-1.17 fixed, or raise the SOC LLC level.

Last try again to raise the BCLK; I had random resets even at 100.60, now I'm at 100.50.
Still not sure it's stable. It's messy playing with the BCLK.


----------



## mongoled

ManniX-ITA said:


> I'd try first to stabilize with BCLK at 100.0
> 
> My advice: first try to find a good voltage/scalar ratio.
> Set QnC on, EDC and scalar at 1.
> Find the lowest cpu vcore offset you can go without dropping score in CPU-z, can be low as -0.05 and more.
> 
> Now raise the scalar up to when it starts decreasing, ideally at 10 for best single thread boost.
> Then test the PPT/TDC settings, ideally set it at 0 or manually, I have it at 135/80 on my 3800x otherwise there are drops.
> 
> If you still have stability issues try to raise the SOC vCore, like 1.15-1.17 fixed, or raise the SOC LLC level.
> 
> Last try again to raise the BCLK; I had random resets even at 100.60, now I'm at 100.50.
> Still not sure it's stable. It's messy playing with the BCLK.


Hi!

I already tried with BCLK @100 mhz, the instability is still present.

Im using a similar testing methodology for finding settings, just something that you wrote is going against my understanding of how PBO works.

My understanding was that CPU Scaler is for maximising boost period for ALL core boost loads, which the scaler does via increasing volts to the CPU while at the same time making sure the silicon stays between certain thresholds defined by the scaler option chosen.

Where as you are saying that the scaler effects single core boost loads which is something that I was not aware of and had not seen this is my testing.

The issue I have when settings CPU vcore to a negative offset is that I am met with blue screen booting issues when attempting this, I get also get blue screen booting issues when setting the offset to '0' i.e. auto voltage.

For the sakes of it, I will follow through with your advice, although im pretty sure I started using '0' offset and working my way up from that point, only giving a positive offset resolved the blue screen booting issues.

Regards SOC voltage, are you saying that even though im stable with 1.1v when not using the EDC bug, that when we use the EDC bug, we may require more SOC voltage to be stable ?


----------



## ManniX-ITA

mongoled said:


> Hi!
> 
> I already tried with BCLK @100 mhz, the instability is still present.
> 
> Im using a similar testing methodology for finding settings, just something that you wrote is going against my understanding of how PBO works.
> 
> My understanding was that CPU Scaler is for maximising boost period for ALL core boost loads, which the scaler does via increasing volts to the CPU while at the same time making sure the silicon stays between certain thresholds defined by the scaler option chosen.
> 
> Where as you are saying that the scaler effects single core boost loads which is something that I was not aware of and had not seen this is my testing.
> 
> The issue I have when settings CPU vcore to a negative offset is that I am met with blue screen booting issues when attempting this, I get also get blue screen booting issues when setting the offset to '0' i.e. auto voltage.
> 
> For the sakes of it, I will follow through with your advice, although im pretty sure I started using '0' offset and working my way up from that point, only giving a positive offset resolved the blue screen booting issues.
> 
> Regards SOC voltage, are you saying that even though im stable with 1.1v when not using the EDC bug, that when we use the EDC bug, we may require more SOC voltage to be stable ?


The SOC voltage and LLC can help a lot with stability and repeatability of CPU-z.
More stable is the CPU-z bench and better real world all around performance you get.
It did work for me.

The offset is very specific to the board and CPU. 
You have to find the best offset with almost all auto and EDC and scalar at 1.
It can be at zero or positive for you, doesn't matter, just find the best starting point.
It wouldn't be necessarily the highest score, the highest without huge drops.
Find the highest scalar and then look for the best other settings, which are very specific again.
Again this worked for me, not necessarily works for you.

Yes the scalar adds voltage during high load and this is good for the single thread boost, over 1.4v.
But for the all core workload isn't necessarily good because they need to run at a lower voltage, below 1.4v.
The higher scalar could trip them into an over voltage scenario and the worst cores will drop clock speed.
You can see the scalar effect between 1 and 10 with CPU-z bench for single and multi threaded.

If I remember correctly someone said the ratio is scalar x 0.15mV.
This way PBO can push the vCore with additional 150mv on top for boosting.


----------



## mongoled

ManniX-ITA said:


> The SOC voltage and LLC can help a lot with stability and repeatability of CPU-z.
> More stable is the CPU-z bench and better real world all around performance you get.
> It did work for me.
> 
> The offset is very specific to the board and CPU.
> You have to find the best offset with almost all auto and EDC and scalar at 1.
> It can be at zero or positive for you, doesn't matter, just find the best starting point.
> It wouldn't be necessarily the highest score, the highest without huge drops.
> Find the highest scalar and then look for the best other settings, which are very specific again.
> Again this worked for me, not necessarily works for you.
> 
> Yes the scalar adds voltage during high load and this is good for the single thread boost, over 1.4v.
> But for the all core workload isn't necessarily good because they need to run at a lower voltage, below 1.4v.
> The higher scalar could trip them into an over voltage scenario and the worst cores will drop clock speed.
> You can see the scalar effect between 1 and 10 with CPU-z bench for single and multi threaded.
> 
> If I remember correctly someone said the ratio is scalar x 0.15mV.
> This way PBO can push the vCore with additional 150mv on top for boosting.


OK,

so I am using CB20 crash or not crash as a baseline.

CPU Scaler:1X, EDC 1A up to 4A LLC 4/5 - CB20 will not run, either it will close while running, or throw error
CPU Scaler:1X, EDC 1A up to 4A LLC 3 - CB20 will run one loop, sometimes... it either will close while running, or throw error, or blue screen PC
CPU Scaler:1X, EDC 5A LLC 3 - CB20 will run without crashing and will run consecutive times, so I am using the settings below as a baseline

CPU Vcore: Auto (load CB20, 1.362v-1.382v)
CPU SOC: Auto (load CB20, 1.087v-1.094v)
CPU Scaler:1X
EDC: 5A
LLC: 3 (1 is no droop, 8 is lots of droop)
BCLK: 100 MHz
CnQ: Enabled
C-States: Disabled 

CB20 - 587x (4235mhz-4252mhz)
CPUZ - 436x / 538 (4255mhz-4260mhz)
TM5 - 1.400v - 1.425v (4320mhz-4350mhz)

Will report back when I have more findings …...

** EDIT **
CPU Offset: -0.0125v

CB20 - 588x (4235mhz-4252mhz) - Increase in Score
CPUZ - 434x / 538 (4240mhz-4246mhz) - Decrease in Score
TM5 - 1.381v - 1.406v (4316mhz-4323mhz)


----------



## Nighthog

@mongoled

The cores are not all the same and you might have a particularly weak single core. If it boosts too high it gets unstable. You can use the AutoOC setting, the 0 to +25->200Mhz max boost setting to limit max boost.
I had a particular core not wanting speeds above 4600Mhz. So used the setting to maximum 4600Mhz boost overall on the cpu. Meaning a +50Mhz setting for a 3800X. It curtained the issue.

It just limits the absolute maximum single core boost, but it can be useful if cores are weak at those speeds.

It's normal for people to just maximize the setting @ 200Mhz but it might not be the best option.


----------



## mongoled

Nighthog said:


> @mongoled
> 
> The cores are not all the same and you might have a particularly weak single core. If it boosts too high it gets unstable. You can use the AutoOC setting, the 0 to +25->200Mhz max boost setting to limit max boost.
> I had a particular core not wanting speeds above 4600Mhz. So used the setting to maximum 4600Mhz boost overall on the cpu. Meaning a +50Mhz setting for a 3800X. It curtained the issue.
> 
> It just limits the absolute maximum single core boost, but it can be useful if cores are weak at those speeds.
> 
> It's normal for people to just maximize the setting @ 200Mhz but it might not be the best option.


Yes, this seems to be the case and its something I had already considered to be the bottleneck in getting a stable system using the EDC bug.

I have already tried settings the CPU max boost to 25mhz (lowest value available) but this did not make any difference to system stability.

Will now play around with CPU SOC to see if I can see a change in stability using different values ……...


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Yes the AutoOC value will stabilize the scores but not system stability.
I'd rather look at various LLC, PWM, SOC options etc.

I'd say if it's more unstable with EDC at 1 it's probably because it could do more if stable.
At least for me was like that, I was fine with EDC at 10. No bright results in benchmarks.
But the Metro 2003 did show issues and the system was not really much snappier than EDC at 0.
If you can find a way with EDC at 1 it could be more rewarding at the end, if you are lucky.

Other 2 big stabilizers for me:
- Different VDDP and VDDGP
- CPU VDD18 at 1.840v


----------



## mindyoursoul

New test just fresh off the computer

CPU: 3900X
Mobo: ASUS ROG STRIX X570-I GAMING (mITX)


Performance Mode: 3
Vcore: Auto + offset of -0.0125V
LLC: Auto
Scalar: 10
Overclock: 100 MHz
PPT: 200 (had it set to a lower value which always hit the 100%)
TDC: 120
EDC: 16
VRAM Settings to "Extreme"


Best results so far:

MC: 7556
SC: 534


----------



## gerardfraser

To the guys having crash problems,I suggest you test your max CPU Boost per CCX/Core and go from there.

Simple tool for generating loads that should trigger maximum CPU boost clocks

Github source
https://github.com/jedi95/BoostTester

For those that can not use the Github files here boosttester.exe
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ETV-ZXgI6qB2LXzLNr13e90PXQ87jplg/view?usp=sharing


----------



## polkfan

So guys i tested this using several profiles

Stock

Stock+AUTO OC 100mhz

PBO+Auto OC 100mhz

EDC 10 bug

I get 50-75mhz more in ST with this bug and its also in the effective clock (This is tested using Boostester for 15min on each run)


----------



## mindyoursoul

polkfan said:


> So guys i tested this using several profiles
> 
> Stock
> 
> Stock+AUTO OC 100mhz
> 
> PBO+Auto OC 100mhz
> 
> EDC 10 bug
> 
> I get 50-75mhz more in ST with this bug and its also in the effective clock (This is tested using Boostester for 15min on each run)



I also get the effective clocks to be the same when using the Boosttester but not when running CB20 or any other benchmark, which is kind of weird but whatever, Im still very happy with it and now my highest CB MC is 7500 so Im good.


----------



## MrPhilo

I'm baffled how my temps are lower using 0 0 16 for edc. Using benchmarks as a guide I get lower temps than with it at default but better score and performance. Is there any reason?


----------



## gerardfraser

Not sure why everyone loves Cinebench20 testing and judging how your CPU is working,but here is one from me for effective clocks 3800X 4400Mhz
4400-Cinbench20 by gerard fraser, on Flickr


----------



## neikosr0x

mindyoursoul said:


> New test just fresh off the computer
> 
> CPU: 3900X
> Mobo: ASUS ROG STRIX X570-I GAMING (mITX)
> 
> 
> Performance Mode: 3
> Vcore: Auto + offset of -0.0125V
> LLC: Auto
> Scalar: 10
> Overclock: 100 MHz
> PPT: 200 (had it set to a lower value which always hit the 100%)
> TDC: 120
> EDC: 16
> VRAM Settings to "Extreme"
> 
> 
> Best results so far:
> 
> MC: 7556
> SC: 534


 Nice what bios version are you using? how you manage to get over 140w on that cpu lol?


----------



## mongoled

gerardfraser said:


> To the guys having crash problems,I suggest you test your max CPU Boost per CCX/Core and go from there.
> 
> Simple tool for generating loads that should trigger maximum CPU boost clocks
> 
> Github source
> https://github.com/jedi95/BoostTester
> 
> For those that can not use the Github files here boosttester.exe
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ETV-ZXgI6qB2LXzLNr13e90PXQ87jplg/view?usp=sharing


Hi,

thanks for bringing this tool to my attention!

Very useful, though it has not helped me stabalise my system when using EDC bug, it has allowed me to consistently check max boost speeds for each core.

:thumb:


----------



## Schmuckley

That auto-stuff doesn't work for me, crashes all the time!

Just redid everything with a manual all-voltage all the time overclock.

That's what seems stable.


----------



## boldenc

MrPhilo said:


> I'm baffled how my temps are lower using 0 0 16 for edc. Using benchmarks as a guide I get lower temps than with it at default but better score and performance. Is there any reason?


0 0 will limit the PPT/TDC to motherboard default settings.
If you set the PPT to higher value like 250 PPT temps will increase but you may get slower performance and higher temps.
It is better to play with PPT/TDC to get the best possible combination, it mostly affects multicore performance and all cores boost.


----------



## mindyoursoul

neikosr0x said:


> Nice what bios version are you using? how you manage to get over 140w on that cpu lol?



Im using the official one on ASUS website, version 1405 that was released on the 25/11 which is the latest version. 



As for how I managed to get it over 140w, I dont really know tbh, maybe its because I enable "OC Setting 3" in BIOS? I have no clue, only thing is that it hit 100% according to HWiNFO when it was to like 160 in the BIOS. Maybe someone else with more knowledge/insight how the ASUS BIOS works can help out here?


----------



## darkling333

Hi,

I have a Ryzen 5 3600 on a Asus PRIME X470-PRO latest bios, latest AMD chipset and AMD Ryzen balanced plan. I have an Arctic Freezer 34 Esports Duo and using Stock settings with just RAM DOCP profile enabled for 3600Mhz i get a full load core frequency of 3.94 @ 1.35v and single core frequency of 4.160 @ 1.43v-1.45v both tested with CB15/20 single and multi cpu tests. Temps max are 69-70c.

When i load optimized defaults the CPU VCore reading in the Bios is quite high showing 1.44v-1.45v and that is usually the voltage when loading into Windows, but it drops to 1.35v on full load tests so i am assuming it is normal. I have done various tests : stock, stock with - offset, PBO enabled, PBO+Auto OC enabled, Ryzen Master OC 4.2ghz all core with 1.35v, Bios OC 4.2ghz all core with 1.35v.

Best results of course were the last two OC with static voltage and all core boost to 4.2ghz, but this method doesn't let the CPU idle.

Are there any settings i can try to get the PBO boost a little higher or even get it to work? I tried enabling it in Bios but it doesn't change the boost behavior of the chip or the scores, all remain the same.

I am aiming at a 4.0ghz solid all core and 4.2ghz solid single core OC but with all the power savings enabled to let the CPU idle.


----------



## Cidious

https://www.reddit.com/r/overclocking/comments/f18cbc/reviewing_voltage_recommendations_for_zen_2/

Please have a decent read about voltages, degradation etc. Well put together and I think everyone should be aware of this basic info about his or her zen 2 chip. As far as we are aware of it's capabilities and limits up to date.


----------



## darkling333

Cidious said:


> https://www.reddit.com/r/overclocking/comments/f18cbc/reviewing_voltage_recommendations_for_zen_2/
> 
> Please have a decent read about voltages, degradation etc. Well put together and I think everyone should be aware of this basic info about his or her zen 2 chip. As far as we are aware of it's capabilities and limits up to date.


I see a lot of mentions about the "1.325V" as cpu core voltage. How am i going to deal with that on my PC though? Remember everything on stock latest bios the CPU VCore is 1.45v. Where is that value coming from, is it the VID of the chip itself or what the Bios is providing the CPU as stock Auto voltage?

I mean i do get 1.35v full core load and i am on "optimized defaults" from the bios, should I RMA the CPU or the board for reading or setting the VID so high? Or this isn't high at all?

p.s. i have tried using both offset method and my PC is bootable with -0.1v resulting in 1.35v and the benchmark results are horrible. i have also tried manually setting the cpu vcore to 1.3v and everything loads up perfectly fine but i am pretty sure that the voltage never drops even on idle and stays constantly at 1.3v.


----------



## gerardfraser

darkling333 said:


> I see a lot of mentions about the "1.325V" as cpu core voltage. How am i going to deal with that on my PC though? Remember everything on stock latest bios the CPU VCore is 1.45v. Where is that value coming from, is it the VID of the chip itself or what the Bios is providing the CPU as stock Auto voltage?
> 
> I mean i do get 1.35v full core load and i am on "optimized defaults" from the bios, should I RMA the CPU or the board for reading or setting the VID so high? Or this isn't high at all?
> 
> p.s. i have tried using both offset method and my PC is bootable with -0.1v resulting in 1.35v and the benchmark results are horrible. i have also tried manually setting the cpu vcore to 1.3v and everything loads up perfectly fine but i am pretty sure that the voltage never drops even on idle and stays constantly at 1.3v.


You could also read this from AMD.Me personally I will just go with AMD engineers and the AMD warranty and never worry about a CPU may or may not have voltages that are “safe” or “unsafe” .Electromigration damage overtime ETC

The final word on idle voltages for 3rd Gen ryzen
https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/commen..._medium=Search&utm_name=Bing&utm_content=PSR1


----------



## darkling333

Yes I have read that piece in reddit. And I wish I had normal setting on vcore but Asus only has auto. From my previous experience with gigabyte normal would set the CPU voltage lower than auto but I don't have that now. I'm guessing it is what it is, I think my CPU boosts decent I've seen worse examples online


----------



## darkling333

This is what i am seeing in CB15 multi core and single core at STOCK settings. Loaded optimized defaults and just set DOCP to 3600mhz. Are there voltages normal or high? The only way i can drop the voltages and still use the idle features is to apply an offset that lowers the performance by a lot. That's why i thought to use the EDC setting along with PBO and - offset maybe it balances out.


----------



## nangu

darkling333 said:


> This is what i am seeing in CB15 multi core and single core at STOCK settings. Loaded optimized defaults and just set DOCP to 3600mhz. Are there voltages normal or high? The only way i can drop the voltages and still use the idle features is to apply an offset that lowers the performance by a lot. That's why i thought to use the EDC setting along with PBO and - offset maybe it balances out.



Hi,

That voltage readings are the voltage the CPU are "requesting" to the board. To see the actual voltage your CPU is utilizing, you have to look at the SVI2 TFN sensor readings on HWinfo.


----------



## darkling333

nangu said:


> darkling333 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is what i am seeing in CB15 multi core and single core at STOCK settings. Loaded optimized defaults and just set DOCP to 3600mhz. Are there voltages normal or high? The only way i can drop the voltages and still use the idle features is to apply an offset that lowers the performance by a lot. That's why i thought to use the EDC setting along with PBO and - offset maybe it balances out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> That voltage readings are the voltage the CPU are "requesting" to the board. To see the actual voltage your CPU is utilizing, you have to look at the SVI2 TFN sensor readings on HWinfo.
Click to expand...

It's around the same numbers. I don't have the pic now. Lowest on full core load is 1.34 and highest on single load is 1.46. It idles instantly though so average volts are like 1.2v. I'm guessing both the scores the boost and the performance seems regular. I just wish I could operate a little lower on volts just like I've seen on other examples like 1.25 full cores and 1.35 single core


----------



## gerardfraser

darkling333 said:


> This is what i am seeing in CB15 multi core and single core at STOCK settings. Loaded optimized defaults and just set DOCP to 3600mhz. Are there voltages normal or high? The only way i can drop the voltages and still use the idle features is to apply an offset that lowers the performance by a lot. That's why i thought to use the EDC setting along with PBO and - offset maybe it balances out.


AMD CPU algorithm changes to keep the electrical, thermal, and/or utilization headroom under control and within safe parameters and will last for a long time out of the box.So voltage should not be a problem,it is just people are not use to the voltage on the Ryzen and always compare it with Intel.

Well everyone should set there voltages to they are comfortable ,I am sure the AMD engineers did not make Ryzens CPU's to overheat and have too high of a CPU voltage,here are my settings for 4400+Mhz while running cinebench20.

CPU volts is =SVI2 TFN
EDC-1
Scalar-10X
CPU Offset -0.0625
BCLK 101


Spoiler



4400-Cinbench20


----------



## Marucins

How is it exactly with these settings?

My board and processor and below the bios settings.
The result I get is at the very bottom.
/X570 Aorus Xtreme + 3950X

Advanced CPU Settings


XFR Enchancement
 

AMD Overclocking-> Presision Boost Overdrive


Score: 9529



What do I need to change to improve my score?
Should I enter 0/0/25 in XFR? Or change to 255/255/255 and leave PBO 0/0/25. Or maybe AUTO?

Gigabyte has too many options in different places.


----------



## Nighthog

Marucins said:


> How is it exactly with these settings?
> 
> My board and processor and below the bios settings.
> The result I get is at the very bottom.
> /X570 Aorus Xtreme + 3950X
> 
> *images
> 
> 
> What do I need to change to improve my score?
> Should I enter 0/0/25 in XFR? Or change to 255/255/255 and leave PBO 0/0/25. Or maybe AUTO?
> 
> Gigabyte has too many options in different places.


Go to the *AMD_OVERCLOCKING* submenu and set precision boost there to advanced and use 1000/1000/20~25 (AORUS XTREME has 1000A limits) Then only temperature should be the limit on what it uses.


----------



## rastaviper

darkling333 said:


> This is what i am seeing in CB15 multi core and single core at STOCK settings. Loaded optimized defaults and just set DOCP to 3600mhz. Are there voltages normal or high? The only way i can drop the voltages and still use the idle features is to apply an offset that lowers the performance by a lot. That's why i thought to use the EDC setting along with PBO and - offset maybe it balances out.


You are mixing vid voltage with actual CPU voltage and other OC ing questions that have nothing to do with this topic.
U should check other more relative topics and post there.

I have a 3600x and all I can tell u is to focus more on using the offset voltage properly.
In my case, my daily CPU voltage is between 0.x and 1.3v and works fine with max CPU freq at 4.3Ghz.
But my ocing is manual, so better to continue this talk somewhere else.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


----------



## Marucins

Nighthog said:


> Go to the *AMD_OVERCLOCKING* submenu and set precision boost there to advanced and use 1000/1000/20~25 (AORUS XTREME has 1000A limits) Then only temperature should be the limit on what it uses.


I understand.

I have two more questions.
1)
In "AMD Overclocking-> Precision Boost Overdrive"
Change the limits to 1000/1000 / 20-25
*Should I leave SCALAR on x10 or AUTO?*

2)
In "XFR Enchancement" menu
*Should I leave as it is now 255/255/255, or set to other values or AUTO?
Here is also SCALAR. Leave it at x10 or AUTO?*


----------



## darkling333

rastaviper said:


> You are mixing vid voltage with actual CPU voltage and other OC ing questions that have nothing to do with this topic.
> U should check other more relative topics and post there.
> 
> I have a 3600x and all I can tell u is to focus more on using the offset voltage properly.
> In my case, my daily CPU voltage is between 0.x and 1.3v and works fine with max CPU freq at 4.3Ghz.
> But my ocing is manual, so better to continue this talk somewhere else.
> 
> Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


I am actually asking if there are any EDC settings for 3600 to enable PBO just like the examples of other processors shown here, so i think i am on topic. I am not mixing any voltage i know exactly what voltage is required from the CPU at any given scenario and as a side question i am asking if these values that undoubtedly seem high are actually high or normal on stock-auto settings. As i said my CPU Vcore is auto on bios which results in around 1.35v for full core load and around 1.46v for single core loads.

So all that aside, i am looking specifically for settings that will allow PBO to kick in since just selecting "Enable" from the Bios doesn't seem to have any effect.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Marucins said:


> I understand.
> 
> I have two more questions.
> 1)
> In "AMD Overclocking-> Precision Boost Overdrive"
> Change the limits to 1000/1000 / 20-25
> *Should I leave SCALAR on x10 or AUTO?*
> 
> 2)
> In "XFR Enchancement" menu
> *Should I leave as it is now 255/255/255, or set to other values or AUTO?
> Here is also SCALAR. Leave it at x10 or AUTO?*


Ideally set the scalar to x10 for best single thread boost.
If it's too much you can try to lower it.

Leave all auto in XFR enhancement.


----------



## IXICALIBUR

darkling333 said:


> ...i know exactly what voltage is required from the CPU at any given scenario and as a side question i am asking if these values that undoubtedly seem high are actually high or normal on stock-auto settings...
> 
> So all that aside, i am looking specifically for settings that will allow PBO to kick in since just selecting "Enable" from the Bios doesn't seem to have any effect.


see this is confusing, first you say you know exactly what voltage is required for the CPU in any given scenario, and then IMMEDIATELY ask if these numbers are normal or high. don't you know? secondly, you're in a thread about PBO settings that helps to activate PBO, and you ask, in that thread, if there are settings to enable PBO to work. have ya read the thread?


----------



## Marucins

I do not know what's going on?
The clocks went up. As seen on HWINFO, but the result from CB 20 is worse.



Before: https://www.overclock.net/forum/13-amd-general/1741052-edc-1-pbo-turbo-boost-37.html#post28328668

/In "AMD Overclocking-> Precision Boost Overdrive"
Change the limits to 1000/1000 / 25 & SCALAR on x10
In "XFR Enchancement"
PBO & SCALAR set to AUTO

//edit

*Add CCL -> High*
And this os result CB 20:



9110 -> 9609


----------



## Greatli

For the love of me I either can't get this to work; or it is working and I just can't tell.




So far I've got: 3900X w/4 Cores @ 4650, 8 Cores @ 4450.


Vcore: Auto
LLC: 3
Scalar: 10
Overclock: 200 MHz
PPT: 0
TDC: 0
EDC: 16






Can anyone tell me if they think that this is how it is supposed to be working?


edIt: It seems to be the fCoreMax/MaxBoostOverride thats actually kicking up the Mhz, not anything to do with EDC





vCore are maxing out at 1.5v/ea which seems VERY excessive and unsafe.






I have an AsRock x570 Taichi; there is no option for CnQ, and there are at least 2 places to adjust EDC. I've tried using a -100mv vCore offset; but it doesn't seem to be doing anything at all.


----------



## IXICALIBUR

i have the same setup, 1.5v is fine for single threads. i remember a reddit post or yt vid that said CnQ is tied to pstates setting on some boards. my CCD0 cores each hit 4.6 if i open my window at night to lower ambiant (australia/summer) and CCD1 cores hit 4.4ghz. all core hits 4.2ghz solid now, gonna play with it more in the morning cos its 2:30 am rn

pics here so far
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1QJl87K7_p3YhX4N-Gpn2MZv2OB0ZJQtX


----------



## Greatli

IXICALIBUR said:


> i have the same setup, 1.5v is fine for single threads. i remember a reddit post or yt vid that said CnQ is tied to pstates setting on some boards. my CCD0 cores each hit 4.6 if i open my window at night to lower ambiant (australia/summer) and CCD1 cores hit 4.4ghz.



Thanks cuz; thats pretty :specool:






EDIT: DAAANG; I just realized that mine is doing the exact same as yours mate. I'm concerned about the voltage though =/








EDIT2: holy OC heaven; one hit 4.7 all by itself!! - -- ahh cores, they grow up so fast. Seems like I was teaching them to walk just yesterday


----------



## Giuseppe Io

boosttester

my set 

ppt 175
tdc 130
edc 25

scalar x8

max boost 200 mhz

llc 3 vcore



llc 3 vsoc


----------



## Greatli

My voltage is going APE - It wasn't like this before.


I turned on all-core OC earlier; ran some tests; then went back to our EDC feature here; and now HwInfo reports that voltage is going crazy - Like;* 1.5v ALL THE TIME *crazy- what the heck is going on? Am I going to die?


The heat output doesn't look like it is really @ 1.5v because its not even breaking 45c and RM reports 1.3v average instead of 1.5v? Is it just HWinfo giving me bs numbers err?


----------



## St0RM53

Greatli said:


> My voltage is going APE - It wasn't like this before.
> 
> 
> I turned on all-core OC earlier; ran some tests; then went back to our EDC feature here; and now HwInfo reports that voltage is going crazy - Like;* 1.5v ALL THE TIME *crazy- what the heck is going on? Am I going to die?
> 
> 
> The heat output doesn't look like it is really @ 1.5v because its not even breaking 45c and RM reports 1.3v average instead of 1.5v? Is it just HWinfo giving me bs numbers err?



i just tested EDC 999->25, PPT 999, TDC 999 on X570 Aorus Master F11 and 3950X, NH-D15, LLC High, Scalar 5X. I get CB20 from 9524->9872 Cpu-Z single 556.8->560.4 multi 10986->11467, P95 162-174W 80oC -> 200-220W 95oC. 



CnQ as C-states are enabled, i hit 4.7ghz in some cores. 



However it seems to keep the low load voltages that exceed the 25 EDC limit high (aka 1.45-1.5V) as well as the clocks of the cores which might not be safe for continuous use. Temps stay low because the cores don't do much work, but this is not the normal behavior. Only when a core sleeps it goes down to low voltage. But basically i think voltages just follow the boost multiplier set. So this way PBO basically breaks since it's over the limit and boosts the hell out of any load other than 0%/sleep.


----------



## gerardfraser

Greatli said:


> My voltage is going APE - It wasn't like this before.
> 
> 
> I turned on all-core OC earlier; ran some tests; then went back to our EDC feature here; and now HwInfo reports that voltage is going crazy - Like;* 1.5v ALL THE TIME *crazy- what the heck is going on? Am I going to die?
> 
> 
> The heat output doesn't look like it is really @ 1.5v because its not even breaking 45c and RM reports 1.3v average instead of 1.5v? Is it just HWinfo giving me bs numbers err?


The voltage that you showed is requesting that voltage.AMD CPU's almost think for themselves and change their operating parameters several (hundreds/thousands between 0.2v - 1.5v ) of times per second on default settings.It is almost impossible to get 100% accurate reading at a particular time with polling rates on third party software.

I would suggest for the most accurate temperature I would look at CPU (Tctl/Tdie)
I would suggest for the most accurate voltage I would look at CPU CPU Core Voltage (SVI2 TFN) and a lesser accurate vcore voltage.JMO


----------



## Greatli

gerardfraser said:


> The voltage that you showed is requesting that voltage.AMD CPU's almost think for themselves and change their operating parameters several (hundreds/thousands between 0.2v - 1.5v ) of times per second on default settings.It is almost impossible to get 100% accurate reading at a particular time with polling rates on third party software.
> 
> I would suggest for the most accurate temperature I would look at CPU (Tctl/Tdie)
> I would suggest for the most accurate voltage I would look at CPU CPU Core Voltage (SVI2 TFN) and a lesser accurate vcore voltage.JMO





thanks mate; good suggestions


----------



## hadonbg

Can anyone with 3600x share settings? I was trying EDC from 1 to 10 but my system randomly throttle. Both MC and SC.


----------



## MadSupra354

No matter what I do, PBO Advanced just makes my system unstable, and PBO disabled makes no difference compared to it enabled with stock settings.

My 3600 boosts all cores to 4.2GHz with PBO disabled, on moderate workloads but still. Hangs around 3.9-4.05GHz on heavy workloads. Then, after some tweaking [91 PPT, 57 TDC, 75 EDC 1X +100MHz] got an extra 18 pts on CB R20 - 3622>3640. Single core then went up - 484>499. Then even if I run Aida for 10 minutes, I'll BSOD when web browsing or doing something irrelevant.

Should I just leave PBO alone?


----------



## savagebunny

Users struggling with SC in CB15/20 Geekbench once you set EDC of 0/1/10/16 varying CPU or whatever you do. 

I was able to repeat this with CB15/CB20 so far. Makes sense with my other data which I'll post later looking into this "bug" whatever you wanna call it. 

Parameters: 420 ppt/tdc 16 edc 10x scalar, 7/8/9x react the same. Ambient 18-19c. Noctua D15, GB Ultra BIOS F12b. Cool'n'Quiet is DISABLED. Only way for my chip to boost to 4.6 in Window if CNQ is disabled. Linux isn't broken and I can keep is enabled, but gotta love Windows. Someone probably mentioned it but doesn't work on ABBA. 

cb15 211 / 3386 w/ ryzen master open v1472
190 RM closed
211 again RM open

cb20 477 / 7670 RM closed
521 / 7637 RM open

Geekbench5 responds the same way. low single score if Ryzen Master is closed. If I have Ryzen Master open, I gain score. I'm honestly confused. https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/compare/1244743?baseline=1244762

tl;dr Open Ryzen Master, HWiNFO. Have a program polling. Certain programs need this since it wont boost properly I'm assuming? Your SC scores should go up. YMMV.


My Build
GB Ultra F12b
3900x 
GSkill 3200C14 @ 3733CL16 tuned sub timings.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

MadSupra354 said:


> No matter what I do, PBO Advanced just makes my system unstable, and PBO disabled makes no difference compared to it enabled with stock settings.
> 
> My 3600 boosts all cores to 4.2GHz with PBO disabled, on moderate workloads but still. Hangs around 3.9-4.05GHz on heavy workloads. Then, after some tweaking [91 PPT, 57 TDC, 75 EDC 1X +100MHz] got an extra 18 pts on CB R20 - 3622>3640. Single core then went up - 484>499. Then even if I run Aida for 10 minutes, I'll BSOD when web browsing or doing something irrelevant.
> 
> Should I just leave PBO alone?


Did you try a lower EDC value to profit from the boost bug?
My 3800x too is unstable unless using EDC at 0.
I had to struggle a bit to find the right settings to run with EDC at 1.


----------



## Hwgeek




----------



## XibaD

I've set the exact half limits and 10x scalar (+100Mhz autoOC). Those are the best settings so far for my 3700x

PPT 150
TDC 115
EDC 120
Scalar 10x
AutoOC +100Mhz

No Voltage OFFSET, only -0.05v SoC (3533mhz memory / 1766IF).

MSI B450 Tomahawk NON MAX, bios 1D0 (AGESA 1004B)

Latest chipset drivers and 1usmus power plan.


----------



## Nighthog

savagebunny said:


> Users struggling with SC in CB15/20 Geekbench once you set EDC of 0/1/10/16 varying CPU or whatever you do.
> 
> I was able to repeat this with CB15/CB20 so far. Makes sense with my other data which I'll post later looking into this "bug" whatever you wanna call it.
> 
> Parameters: 420 ppt/tdc 16 edc 10x scalar, 7/8/9x react the same. Ambient 18-19c. Noctua D15, GB Ultra BIOS F12b. Cool'n'Quiet is DISABLED. Only way for my chip to boost to 4.6 in Window if CNQ is disabled. Linux isn't broken and I can keep is enabled, but gotta love Windows. Someone probably mentioned it but doesn't work on ABBA.
> 
> cb15 211 / 3386 w/ ryzen master open v1472
> 190 RM closed
> 211 again RM open
> 
> cb20 477 / 7670 RM closed
> 521 / 7637 RM open
> 
> Geekbench5 responds the same way. low single score if Ryzen Master is closed. If I have Ryzen Master open, I gain score. I'm honestly confused. https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/compare/1244743?baseline=1244762
> 
> tl;dr Open Ryzen Master, HWiNFO. Have a program polling. Certain programs need this since it wont boost properly I'm assuming? Your SC scores should go up. YMMV.
> 
> 
> My Build
> GB Ultra F12b
> 3900x
> GSkill 3200C14 @ 3733CL16 tuned sub timings.


The actual issue is when you idle the system will keep the EDC target. So low loads it throttles. You need to exceed it to some degree before it starts to boost and stops trying to throttle and limit the cpu to your EDC limit you have chosen. Having any load in the background will help it to prevent it to throttle down.

This is why c-states disabled helps so much. It keeps the power draw up on the CPU by such a degree preventing the cores to idle @ c6-states to always be above the EDC limit to much higher degree. And cores are faster to respond if they are not asleep. 
It's also why the *powerplan* plays a part. They apply the idle and boost behaviour in different ways. We want one that loads the cores more easily, keeping them from sleeping and that absolute low power draw.


----------



## jamie1073

I get best boost clock and single thread on my 3900X with my PPT at 500, TDC at 210, and EDC at 16. Scalar at 4x and Boost OD at 100Mhz on my MSI MEG X570 Ace. I found that if I set PPT and TDC at 0 then they went to the default settings of 140W and 95A and did not get over 4.0Ghz all core. Set this way I get 4.275Ghz all core on R20 and 4.65Ghz on 2 of my cores in CCD1 and all cores in CCD1 saying they get at least 4.6Ghz in HWInfo64. They never went over 4.50Ghz on any core before this and would run 4.125Ghz all core at 100%.


Edit: Getting consistant over 7400 in R20 Multi, high so far is 7442 and 516 Single Thread.


----------



## MadSupra354

ManniX-ITA said:


> Did you try a lower EDC value to profit from the boost bug? My 3800x too is unstable unless using EDC at 0.


 I put EDC down to 0 and kept the clocks at stock and it's been stable, I'm wondering if the extra 100MHz is what's causing the instability.


----------



## MNKyDeth

Just tested this on my setup.

I am using
500w
230A
25A
x4 Scaler
+200Mhz

On a MSI MEG ACE with a 3950x. Just did a 9923 in CR20. All cores were at 4400mhz. I am seeing boosting up to 4725 in HWInfo on two cores, another at 4650, the rest are at 4400. In normal use and programs boosting and high voltages seem to be normal like before. All core it seems to max the voltage around 1.3v
I am cooling my setup with a Swiftech SFK water block. I have an Alphacool Monsta 480 and a UT60 360mm rad push/pull on both. Max temp I saw was 71.3c according to HWInfo on CCD1 and CCD2 at 64c.

Really enjoyed this thread and info.


----------



## Marucins

MNKyDeth said:


> Just tested this on my setup.
> 
> I am using
> 500w
> 230A
> 25A
> x4 Scaler
> +200Mhz
> 
> On a MSI MEG ACE with a 3950x. Just did a 9923 in CR20. All cores were at 4400mhz. I am seeing boosting up to 4725 in HWInfo on two cores, another at 4650, the rest are at 4400. In normal use and programs boosting and high voltages seem to be normal like before. All core it seems to max the voltage around 1.3v
> I am cooling my setup with a Swiftech SFK water block. I have an Alphacool Monsta 480 and a UT60 360mm rad push/pull on both. Max temp I saw was 71.3c according to HWInfo on CCD1 and CCD2 at 64c.
> 
> Really enjoyed this thread and info.


Did you change set this limit on 
AMD CBS -> *XFR Enchancement*
or
AMD Overclocking -> *Presision Boost Overdrive*
??

Change CPU CCL (CPU Vcore Loadline Calibration)??


----------



## Kildar

On my C6H and 3900X I get the best stability and results from 0/0/16 10X 200Mhz.

However, when doing sustained loads my temps get up into the low 90's.

What could I do to get my temps down a little?


----------



## Delphi

Had pretty good success using Buildzoids information on the gigabyte boards. Setting PPT to 300 and TDC to 230 and scalar at 4x took me from 5158 cb20 to 5228 cb20. Previously I was at PPT 160 and TDC 130 and scalar at 10x. Single core remained the same


----------



## MNKyDeth

Marucins said:


> Did you change set this limit on
> AMD CBS -> *XFR Enchancement*
> or
> AMD Overclocking -> *Presision Boost Overdrive*
> ??
> 
> Change CPU CCL (CPU Vcore Loadline Calibration)??


AMD Overclocking -> Presision Boost Overdrive

I'm honestly perfectly happy with this chip in this situation. Good all core performance now. Where as before I would top out around 4150Mhz all core. I would hit around 4600-4700Mhz single core but I don't ever recall it going over 4725Mhz. Now it does.... On more then one core and a few others are near 4700 as well.


----------



## Muqeshem

MNKyDeth said:


> Just tested this on my setup.
> 
> I am using
> 500w
> 230A
> 25A
> x4 Scaler
> +200Mhz
> 
> On a MSI MEG ACE with a 3950x. Just did a 9923 in CR20. All cores were at 4400mhz. I am seeing boosting up to 4725 in HWInfo on two cores, another at 4650, the rest are at 4400. In normal use and programs boosting and high voltages seem to be normal like before. All core it seems to max the voltage around 1.3v
> I am cooling my setup with a Swiftech SFK water block. I have an Alphacool Monsta 480 and a UT60 360mm rad push/pull on both. Max temp I saw was 71.3c according to HWInfo on CCD1 and CCD2 at 64c.
> 
> Really enjoyed this thread and info.


Hi bro. I used the same settings and the result was 4200 to 4250mhz all core at CR20 and a constant frequency of 4350 mhz in gaming and sometimes it goes to 4375 to 4400mhz in gaming. Single core reaches 4725mhz. My cooling is not like yours so that might be the reason for the low 
all core frequency. Still it is much higher than stock that is for sure.

Could you please share your frequencies while gaming ??


----------



## MyUsername

MNKyDeth said:


> Just tested this on my setup.
> 
> I am using
> 500w
> 230A
> 25A
> x4 Scaler
> +200Mhz
> 
> On a MSI MEG ACE with a 3950x. Just did a 9923 in CR20. All cores were at 4400mhz. I am seeing boosting up to 4725 in HWInfo on two cores, another at 4650, the rest are at 4400. In normal use and programs boosting and high voltages seem to be normal like before. All core it seems to max the voltage around 1.3v
> I am cooling my setup with a Swiftech SFK water block. I have an Alphacool Monsta 480 and a UT60 360mm rad push/pull on both. Max temp I saw was 71.3c according to HWInfo on CCD1 and CCD2 at 64c.
> 
> Really enjoyed this thread and info.


Okay this doesn't make sense but it works. GB Master with 3900x, using same settings but EDC at 15 and I'm getting 4675 on 2 core, 4650 on 2 cores and 4600 on 2 cores, the rest are between 4425-4475. All core boost is 4200. HWINFO reckons EDC limit is 766.6% . My CR20 is 7533 almost on par.

Edit:This could be dangerous for the cpu, vcore is at 1.6v even with -0.1 offset.


----------



## gerardfraser

MyUsername said:


> Edit:This could be dangerous for the cpu, vcore is at 1.6v even with -0.1 offset.


You set the off set wrong


----------



## Kildar

Yeah his offset should be -0.01xxx.


----------



## MyUsername

gerardfraser said:


> You set the off set wrong





Kildar said:


> Yeah his offset should be -0.01xxx.


This doesn't make sense, it's too random. I gave up before and loaded my previous settings without saving. I then tried again with the mentioned offset -0.01v with same settings but every core was down 25MHz. I tried -0.1v as I know it's stable for the last few months then bam blue screen voltage too low and bios resets, set cpu core to auto and getting 4675 again at 1.475v single thread, 1.34 multi. I tried that before and it didn't do squat.


----------



## MNKyDeth

Muqeshem said:


> Hi bro. I used the same settings and the result was 4200 to 4250mhz all core at CR20 and a constant frequency of 4350 mhz in gaming and sometimes it goes to 4375 to 4400mhz in gaming. Single core reaches 4725mhz. My cooling is not like yours so that might be the reason for the low
> all core frequency. Still it is much higher than stock that is for sure.
> 
> Could you please share your frequencies while gaming ??


Picture of Grim Dawn attached. Some reason I couldn't get one of X4: Foundations. X4 was doing about the same although it would spike up around 4775Mhz on a couple of cores here and there.

I havn't tested with a bunch of games yet. Just those two. But it seems the clocks are getting up to where they are supposed to in low threaded workloads.


----------



## jcpq

PPT 0
TDC 0
EDC 1

Asus Rog x570-I
3600X


----------



## gerardfraser

jcpq said:


> PPT 0
> TDC 0
> EDC 1
> 
> Asus Rog x570-I
> 3600X


3600X can do 4525 Mhz in gaming with Enhanced mode without the tweak/bug.Just letting you know.What are you getting while gaming or light loads.

Now I am not trying to have a pissing contest with ya,I also was able to hit 4650Mhz with a BCLK overclock on 3600X without the Tweak/bug.I use the tweak bug on 3800X now which is great.


Spoiler


----------



## rastaviper

jcpq said:


> PPT 0
> 
> TDC 0
> 
> EDC 1
> 
> 
> 
> Asus Rog x570-I
> 
> 3600X


Bench performance?
Can u test CB R20 and maybe Geekbench 3,4 or 5?

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Any suggestions for 3700X? I want to increase single-core boost.


----------



## eliwankenobi

gerardfraser said:


> 3600X can do 4525 Mhz in gaming with Enhanced mode without the tweak/bug.Just letting you know.What are you getting while gaming or light loads.
> 
> 
> 
> Now I am not trying to have a pissing contest with ya,I also was able to hit 4650Mhz with a BCLK overclock on 3600X without the Tweak/bug.I use the tweak bug on 3800X now which is great.
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler




This is enhanced mode under PBO settings? All else is AUTO? Was your second 4.6 figure using both Enhanced Mode and the small BCLK OC?


----------



## VPII

What I have tried using this "trick"

500
200 

and EDC as follow

1, 10, 12, 20, Auto 

Vcore off-set negative -0.1, positive +0.05 or just plain Auto

Scalar I tried X 1 all the way up to X 10

With each and every try I would get my core speed going up to 4.27 to 4.28ghz but effective clocks will only be 4.27 to 4.28ghz for thread 0 to thread 15. Thread 16 to 31 would be stuck around 3.3 to 3.6ghz so I am sorry but this trick does not work on my setup. I do understand that there are several people with the same MSI Meg X570 Ace who gets really good clocks out of this trick, but as things stand my manual overclock of 4.258ghz using only 1.225vcore set in bios runs cooler and at least gives me 10K in CB20 and is perfectly stable even under Prime95 small fft.


----------



## gerardfraser

eliwankenobi said:


> This is enhanced mode under PBO settings? All else is AUTO? Was your second 4.6 figure using both Enhanced Mode and the small BCLK OC?


MSI motherboard enhanced mode 4 which in turn auto sets PBO override +300Mhz and scaler 10x and CPU voltage up to 1.54v for boost.Also the BCLK was set 102.8.


----------



## jcpq

For the 3600x owners
Sweet spot


----------



## polkfan

Something i noticed is that a 3600X really is a higher binned part and clocks higher then a 3700X seen way enough chips online where a 3700X hits a max limit at 4425mhz but seen 3600X's at 4550mhz even. 

Much better chiplet


----------



## ManniX-ITA

MadSupra354 said:


> I put EDC down to 0 and kept the clocks at stock and it's been stable, I'm wondering if the extra 100MHz is what's causing the instability.


With EDC at 0 you are not profiting from the turbo boost bug, you have to try values between 1 and 25.



Kildar said:


> On my C6H and 3900X I get the best stability and results from 0/0/16 10X 200Mhz.
> 
> However, when doing sustained loads my temps get up into the low 90's.
> 
> What could I do to get my temps down a little?


You should try a slight negative offset for CPU vCore voltage.


----------



## hadonbg

3600x here.
Setting EDC=1 give me Bsod irql_not_less_or_equal.


----------



## jcpq

hadonbg said:


> 3600x here.
> Setting EDC=1 give me Bsod irql_not_less_or_equal.


Test with my settings above.

What motherboard do you have?


----------



## Dino1989

Hello,


just tried this so called "bug" by many settings mentioned here but did not work for me (msi x570 meg ace + 3800x). Hwinfo shows clocks rumped up to 4.6 and more, but effective clocks stays way lower even compared to stock settings. Also after a while in idle, cpu voltage stucks at 0.9v and whole cpu is degraded. Tried offsets, various pbo settings. Seen here guy Cidious doing magic with this setup but i could not get even close to those numbers


----------



## rastaviper

jcpq said:


> For the 3600x owners
> 
> Sweet spot


Thanks for the tips, but it seems that I can get 200 more points at CB R20 with manual OC at 4.4Ghz all cores.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


----------



## jcpq

rastaviper said:


> Thanks for the tips, but it seems that I can get 200 more points at CB R20 with manual OC at 4.4Ghz all cores.
> 
> Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


Yeah, but most 3600x don't do 4.4Ghz all core.


----------



## hadonbg

jcpq said:


> Test with my settings above.
> 
> 
> 
> What motherboard do you have?


Mobo is x470 Taichi. Test with your settings but no luck. BSOD(it's actually green not blue  )


----------



## jcpq

How do I know the maximum ampere and Watt (for PPT and TDC) of the ASUS ROG Strix x570-I?


----------



## Delphi

ZealotKi11er said:


> Any suggestions for 3700X? I want to increase single-core boost.


I would start at 0,0,8. 200mhz, 10x scalar and work down from there.

Buildzoid has found that ppt300, tdc230 are the best values on gigabyte boards but it could be for all boards if it is driven by AMD on the agesa.


For my 3800x the best settings are 300,230,10,200mhz,4x scalar and a -0.012 voltage offset. Cinebench r20 runs at 4.350 ghz effective clock, cpuz single thread bench and cinebench r20 runs at 4.5ghz - 4.525ghz, and ram latency bench is 4.65ghz. AVX Load on custom prime 95 128k/128k small fft settings is 4.2ghz and an x264 stress test is also 4.350ghz.


----------



## rastaviper

jcpq said:


> Yeah, but most 3600x don't do 4.4Ghz all core.


Well my comment wasn't about how many 3600x can do 4.4ghz.
It was about the CB score. And it seems that the PBO ocing is underperforming in benchmarks, in comparison to manual all core ocing.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


----------



## hotripper

Have you all noticed windows notification center glitch when changing PBO settings? I am trying to narrow down why the glitch happens. It will only happen once the first time you click on the notification center icon in the bottom right hand corner in Win10, when it slides out it visually glitches. I've kinda been using that glitch as an *additional *way of knowing if my settings could be problematic.


Aside from that I have tried buildzoids settings, and 0,0,1 and also combined buildzoids with edc 1. I am still trying to find the best combo of settings but can confirm that edc 1 allows 3700x to boost between 4350 and 4400 in games (cemu and The Div2), whereas PBO enabled all auto will only get to 4250-4300. Runs hot in p95 so I am still trying to find a stable -offset.


----------



## jcpq

Small update.
Move LLC from LV3 to Auto.
And fix scalar in 4X


----------



## mongoled

How many of you peeps are actually stress testing ??

With that I mean TM5 (26 passes), Memtest, prime95, y-cruncher for a few hours etc etc.

CB20, CPU-Z, AIDA64 etc etc do not really count as they are very short tests.

Genuinely curious as I can get this to 'work' but have gotten nowhere near stable in tests that run for extended periods ......


----------



## jamie1073

mongoled said:


> How many of you peeps are actually stress testing ??
> 
> With that I mean TM5 (26 passes), Memtest, prime95, y-cruncher for a few hours etc etc.
> 
> CB20, CPU-Z, AIDA64 etc etc do not really count as they are very short tests.
> 
> Genuinely curious as I can get this to 'work' but have gotten nowhere near stable in tests that run for extended periods ......





All I notice is that I need a better AIO or Custom Water Loop on mine. After 30 minutes running P95 Smallest on my 3900X is that my temps are up in the 86-87 rsngr and coolant temp raises to the 36-37 range but the CPU stays at 4.15Ghz all core. Effective clocks between 4.151-4.154Ghz average.


----------



## mongoled

jamie1073 said:


> All I notice is that I need a better AIO or Custom Water Loop on mine. After 30 minutes running P95 Smallest on my 3900X is that my temps are up in the 86-87 rsngr and coolant temp raises to the 36-37 range but the CPU stays at 4.15Ghz all core. Effective clocks between 4.151-4.154Ghz average.


Through all the testing ive done my issues are not heat dependent and am yet to pin down what the issue is......

Are you dropping threads at 4.15Ghz ?


----------



## Delphi

What are all of your voltages using this during heavier tasks. Not crazy heavy but like realistic work loads.

Handbrake x265 encore of a 4k video down to 1080p has the cpu going at 4.35ish ghz and voltage at 1.356 pulling 69 amps(nice) and sitting at 70c. Should I be concerned. Just using this Bug, nothing else special.


----------



## gerardfraser

Delphi said:


> What are all of your voltages using this during heavier tasks. Not crazy heavy but like realistic work loads.
> 
> Handbrake x265 encore of a 4k video down to 1080p has the cpu going at 4.35ish ghz and voltage at 1.356 pulling 69 amps(nice) and sitting at 70c. Should I be concerned. Just using this Bug, nothing else special. Should I be concerned?


You have a warranty for 3 years,I do not see a problem.


----------



## jamie1073

mongoled said:


> Through all the testing ive done my issues are not heat dependent and am yet to pin down what the issue is......
> 
> Are you dropping threads at 4.15Ghz ?



No threads are dropping. I did have some before I upped my RAM voltage to 1.4v, I OC my 3600 to 3800 and run the IF at 1900 so mem is 1:1:1. When I left it at auto I would get around 2 threads dropping every time after like 5 minutes. Runs solid now.


----------



## jamie1073

Delphi said:


> What are all of your voltages using this during heavier tasks. Not crazy heavy but like realistic work loads.
> 
> Handbrake x265 encore of a 4k video down to 1080p has the cpu going at 4.35ish ghz and voltage at 1.356 pulling 69 amps(nice) and sitting at 70c. Should I be concerned. Just using this Bug, nothing else special. Should I be concerned?



Running P95 my core voltage was ~1.28V and ~133A at 82C and 4.175Ghz.


----------



## rastaviper

I am curious to try this method.
What settings would u recommend for a 3600x to hit 4.4Ghz or higher?

I can go till 4.550mhz with manual all core ocing, but I would like to check if 4.4 is stable with this.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


----------



## Delphi

rastaviper said:


> I am curious to try this method.
> What settings would u recommend for a 3600x to hit 4.4Ghz or higher?
> 
> I can go till 4.550mhz with manual all core ocing, but I would like to check if 4.4 is stable with this.
> 
> Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


300ppt,230tdc,6edc,200mhz+,scalar 4x would be a good start. 3600x may behave differently with the scalar, but 4x scalar on my gigabyte elite was the best performance on my 3800x.

LLC @ Normal as well.


----------



## jcpq

rastaviper said:


> I am curious to try this method.
> What settings would u recommend for a 3600x to hit 4.4Ghz or higher?
> 
> I can go till 4.550mhz with manual all core ocing, but I would like to check if 4.4 is stable with this.
> 
> Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


Vcore=Auto
LLC= Auto
EDC=1
Scalar=4
OC Target=200Mhz


----------



## rastaviper

Delphi said:


> 300ppt,230tdc,6edc,200mhz+,scalar 4x would be a good start. 3600x may behave differently with the scalar, but 4x scalar on my gigabyte elite was the best performance on my 3800x.
> 
> 
> 
> LLC @ Normal as well.


Thanks mate.
This worked, but the performance is really bad.
Cinebench R15 and R20 have really low scores and the cpu clocks till 4.267mhz, which is the same as with stock boost.

Is there something missing?

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


----------



## Delphi

rastaviper said:


> Thanks mate.
> This worked, but the performance is really bad.
> Cinebench R15 and R20 have really low scores and the cpu clocks till 4.267mhz, which is the same as with stock boost.
> 
> Is there something missing?
> 
> Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


Try moving edc around. EDC4 might fix it.

Also try disabling cool and quiet as a double check, same with pstates. I wouldn't run it with pstate disables 24/7 just cause of power and what not, but it will help rule out some stuff.


----------



## rastaviper

Delphi said:


> Try moving edc around. EDC4 might fix it.
> 
> 
> 
> Also try disabling cool and quiet as a double check, same with pstates. I wouldn't run it with pstate disables 24/7 just cause of power and what not, but it will help rule out some stuff.


Do u have 3600x too?
I wonder how your performance is.

Because it seems that in my case it's not so much about the clocks, but that this method is really slower then the manual oc of all cores.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


----------



## Delphi

rastaviper said:


> Do u have 3600x too?
> I wonder how your performance is.
> 
> Because it seems that in my case it's not so much about the clocks, but that this method is really slower then the manual oc of all cores.
> 
> Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


I do in my Wife's PC. She has my old B350-F Strix with a 3600x in it. I used the exact settings I posted the first time and it gets 4.35ghz all core and 4.45 single threaded. Eventually I want to work on the ram OC but she uses it everyday haha. Maybe I will tell her to go on shopping trip one of these weekends


----------



## rastaviper

Delphi said:


> I do in my Wife's PC. She has my old B350-F Strix with a 3600x in it. I used the exact settings I posted the first time and it gets 4.35ghz all core and 4.45 single threaded. Eventually I want to work on the ram OC but she uses it everyday haha. Maybe I will tell her to go on shopping trip one of these weekends


When you get the time, can you run a CB20 and geekbench 3?

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


----------



## jcpq

Delphi said:


> I do in my Wife's PC. She has my old B350-F Strix with a 3600x in it. I used the exact settings I posted the first time and it gets 4.35ghz all core and 4.45 single threaded. Eventually I want to work on the ram OC but she uses it everyday haha. Maybe I will tell her to go on shopping trip one of these weekends


could you share the link where you mentioned the settings you used?


----------



## jcpq

EDC=4


----------



## rastaviper

jcpq said:


> EDC=4


So this is I believe the difference with the manual OC.
All core OCing at 4.4Ghz with your Ram timings should bring u a score around 4000.


----------



## mongoled

rastaviper said:


> So this is I believe the difference with the manual OC.
> All core OCing at 4.4Ghz with your Ram timings should bring u a score around 4000.


Hi!

Im pretty sure that 4.4Ghz fixed CPU core frequencies are not going to equal '4.4Ghz' CB20 score achieved through PBO, even with the use of the EDC bug.

The EDC bug will raise the 'auto' all core frequency of the CPU, while at the same time providing higher single core boost speeds.

If you have work loads that use all you cores and are not bothered about the lower single core boost clocks then there is really no reason to be using the EDC PBO bug.

Now for those who dont mind slightly lower all core boost frequencies compared to static frequency overclock (EDC bug is definitely better compared to 'regular' PBO) but would like nice single core boost speeds this bug is great.

Though alot of work is needed to find a balance on achievable boost speeds as the cores all differ with regards to max frequencies .....

Myself personally, the highest ive hit in CB20 (using EDC bug) is 3927 and the all core frequency according to HWinfo64 was alternating between 4280-4300 mhz.

To confirm my theory, can you run a 4.3Ghz CB20 and post back you score.

Im guessing it will be more than the 3927 I achieved....


----------



## jcpq

mongoled said:


> Hi!
> 
> Im pretty sure that 4.4Ghz fixed CPU core frequencies are not going to equal '4.4Ghz' CB20 score achieved through PBO, even with the use of the EDC bug.
> 
> The EDC bug will raise the 'auto' all core frequency of the CPU, while at the same time providing higher single core boost speeds.
> 
> If you have work loads that use all you cores and are not bothered about the lower single core boost clocks then there is really no reason to be using the EDC PBO bug.
> 
> Now for those who dont mind slightly lower all core boost frequencies compared to static frequency overclock (EDC bug is definitely better compared to 'regular' PBO) but would like nice single core boost speeds this bug is great.
> 
> Though alot of work is needed to find a balance on achievable boost speeds as the cores all differ with regards to max frequencies .....
> 
> Myself personally, the highest ive hit in CB20 (using EDC bug) is 3927 and the all core frequency according to HWinfo64 was alternating between 4280-4300 mhz.
> 
> To confirm my theory, can you run a 4.3Ghz CB20 and post back you score.
> 
> Im guessing it will be more than the 3927 I achieved....


What settings do you use on your 3600x?


----------



## mongoled

jcpq said:


> What settings do you use on your 3600x?


Exact setting in my sig, which does NOT use EDC bug.

For EDC bug testing, I used.

EDC: 3 or 4
TDC: Auto
PPT: Auto
C-States: Disabled
CnQ: Disabled
Spread Spectrum: Disabled
CPU Scaler: 4x
CPU max frequency boost: 75 mhz (edit, had a missing 7, not 5 mhz)
CPU Offset: +0.0250
CPU LLC: 5
BCLK: 100 mhz

But I could not get this stable under intense and long duration stress tests !


----------



## jcpq

mongoled said:


> Exact setting in my sig, which does NOT use EDC bug.
> 
> For EDC bug testing, I used.
> 
> EDC: 3 or 4
> TDC: Auto
> PPT: Auto
> C-States: Disabled
> CnQ: Disabled
> Spread Spectrum: Disabled
> CPU Scaler: 4x
> CPU max frequency boost: 5 mhz
> CPU Offset: +0.0250
> CPU LLC: 5
> BCLK: 100 mhz
> 
> But I could not get this stable under intense and long duration stress tests !


Ok thanks


----------



## mongoled

jcpq said:


> Ok thanks


Also I run all test by changing CPU affinity for CB20 to realtime.

This make sure you get consistent scores without being effected by other processes.

It will look like it has frozen, but it has not


----------



## neikosr0x

*neikosr0x*



mongoled said:


> Exact setting in my sig, which does NOT use EDC bug.
> 
> For EDC bug testing, I used.
> 
> EDC: 3 or 4
> TDC: Auto
> PPT: Auto
> C-States: Disabled
> CnQ: Disabled
> Spread Spectrum: Disabled
> CPU Scaler: 4x
> CPU max frequency boost: 5 mhz
> CPU Offset: +0.0250
> CPU LLC: 5
> BCLK: 100 mhz
> 
> But I could not get this stable under intense and long duration stress tests !


With LLC 5 you are going to overshoot the CPU voltage.


----------



## mongoled

My motherboard LLC is from 1 to 8 with 8 being the most vdroop

So setting 5 with positive offset of 0.025v comes around even for multithread loads while giving single thread a little more umpth


----------



## Delphi

mongoled said:


> Also I run all test by changing CPU affinity for CB20 to realtime.
> 
> This make sure you get consistent scores without being effected by other processes.
> 
> It will look like it has frozen, but it has not


Also jacks up scores a lot haha. Ill go from 5200 to 5300+ in cb r20 when i do that


----------



## jcpq

What is the best power plan to use with the edc bug?


----------



## Delphi

jcpq said:


> What is the best power plan to use with the edc bug?


i use the 1usmus universal plan.


----------



## jamie1073

Delphi said:


> Also jacks up scores a lot haha. Ill go from 5200 to 5300+ in cb r20 when i do that



I got a 200pts boost on R20 just by setting the process priority to Realtime in task manager.


----------



## jcpq

Delphi said:


> i use the 1usmus universal plan.


c-states disabled?


----------



## mongoled

Ok, just did a run and posting with screenshot as reference for others with 3600x

Score: 3929

EDC: 3
TDC: Auto
PPT: Auto
C-States: Disabled
CnQ: Disabled
Spread Spectrum: Disabled
CPU Scaler: 8x
CPU max frequency boost: 75 mhz
CPU Offset: +0.0375
CPU LLC: 5
BCLK: 100 mhz

For some reason with the latest BIOS for my motherboard if I set a manual core overclock of anything that is over 3875 mhz the PC will not post (error code 44).

Going to earlier BIOS version (only tried .MM) and this bug is not present, so I cannot test a fixed 4.3 Ghz clock against the above score using EDC bug.

Forgot to say, I used boosttester to show you guys (see hwinfo64 screenshot) the max single boost speeds of my cores with the above settings


----------



## Dyngsur

I did some testing myself, i manuell clocked my cpu 4.4 on all cores. 1.3vcore, hwinfo reading 1.28 it was stable in occt test etc. did cr20 5250

tested boost algo etc, worst result even if it shows more Ghz it gave me less performance. I got good cooling and all but still dunno if this is like clockstretching or something else.


----------



## hadonbg

mongoled said:


> Ok, just did a run and posting with screenshot as reference for others with 3600x
> 
> 
> 
> Score: 3929
> 
> 
> 
> EDC: 3
> 
> TDC: Auto
> 
> PPT: Auto
> 
> C-States: Disabled
> 
> CnQ: Disabled
> 
> Spread Spectrum: Disabled
> 
> CPU Scaler: 8x
> 
> CPU max frequency boost: 75 mhz
> 
> CPU Offset: +0.0375
> 
> CPU LLC: 5
> 
> BCLK: 100 mhz
> 
> 
> 
> For some reason with the latest BIOS for my motherboard if I set a manual core overclock of anything that is over 3875 mhz the PC will not post (error code 44).
> 
> 
> 
> Going to earlier BIOS version (only tried .MM) and this bug is not present, so I cannot test a fixed 4.3 Ghz clock against the above score using EDC bug


Isn't Vcore too high with this settings?


----------



## mongoled

hadonbg said:


> Isn't Vcore too high with this settings?


Look at my sig re cooling,

also I have vdroop,

so yeah, the vcore boost a little more than defaults but I have adequate cooling ....


----------



## mongoled

Dyngsur said:


> I did some testing myself, i manuell clocked my cpu 4.4 on all cores. 1.3vcore, hwinfo reading 1.28 it was stable in occt test etc. did cr20 5250
> 
> tested boost algo etc, worst result even if it shows more Ghz it gave me less performance. I got good cooling and all but still dunno if this is like clockstretching or something else.


You need to play with the EDC value, LLC and vcore offsets


----------



## Delphi

mongoled said:


> Ok, just did a run and posting with screenshot as reference for others with 3600x
> 
> Score: 3929
> 
> EDC: 3
> TDC: Auto
> PPT: Auto
> C-States: Disabled
> CnQ: Disabled
> Spread Spectrum: Disabled
> CPU Scaler: 8x
> CPU max frequency boost: 75 mhz
> CPU Offset: +0.0375
> CPU LLC: 5
> BCLK: 100 mhz
> 
> For some reason with the latest BIOS for my motherboard if I set a manual core overclock of anything that is over 3875 mhz the PC will not post (error code 44).
> 
> Going to earlier BIOS version (only tried .MM) and this bug is not present, so I cannot test a fixed 4.3 Ghz clock against the above score using EDC bug.
> 
> Forgot to say, I used boosttester to show you guys (see hwinfo64 screenshot) the max single boost speeds of my cores with the above settings



My setup leaves all the power features enabled personally because losing c6 state sucks.

Where did you find that Boost Tester program?


----------



## gerardfraser

Delphi said:


> My setup leaves all the power features enabled personally because losing c6 state sucks.
> 
> Where did you find that Boost Tester program?


Here ya go,simple tool for generating loads that should trigger maximum CPU boost clocks

Github source
https://github.com/jedi95/BoostTester

For those that can not use the Github files here boosttester.exe
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ETV-ZXgI6qB2LXzLNr13e90PXQ87jplg/view?usp=sharing


----------



## bottlefedchaney

Dont know if it has been stated or not, but this "trick" works on my 2700X as well, with a Crosshair VI motherboard. I am currently using:

PPT Auto
TDC Auto
EDC 4

Everything else at auto currently. Voltage is -.11250 offset with llc auto.

I always get 4350 all core boost, sometimes draw bad and wind up with 4325. Loving the new life in this chip. 4347 on CB20 staying under 80c. I'm in love.


----------



## hansmuff

A big Thank You to the OP. Set my 3900X to EDC=16, PPT=160 and TDC=110 and it makes a huge difference in performance. A
All my 1st CCD cores now boost to AT LEAST 4600MHz, some go to 4625. 2nd CCD sees a 4400MHz up to 4475 maximum boost.
That's a very, very significant enhancement to my previous values.

Also, cb20 always putzed out early and I got cores going 4025 to 4050 MHz after a few seconds. Now they sustain 4125 to 4150 mid to end of the benchmark.

On a really quiet cooling setup (H115i low fan speeds) I get 7335 in cb20 multi, which is really damn nice given how quiet the machine is. I was lucky to see 7100 before that.

CPU-z benches at 553/8540 now, used to be 538/8250.

Really, really sweet. Thanks again, OP!


----------



## Dyngsur

mongoled said:


> You need to play with the EDC value, LLC and vcore offsets


Hello again! 

Well could you explain cause now i Got a 3800x that i see pure stock with hwinfo boost 4550mhz, bios stock!

After oc mem, 100% stable, then i start to tweak LLC, PBO Vcore offsets etc etc. 

I can see 4600+ on all primary cores, But the multi score in CR20 gets worse cause the active cores only doing 4300-4350 with the PBO bug. So the question is what can I do to improve? I am on a Gigabyte x570 Master with 360mm rad push/pull config and all. But is it CR20 a bad test for PBO bug? my score i got is around 5050-5100 with pbo bug, and around 515 single cpu.


----------



## kuutale

Hello

I have crosshair vi hero vi and 3950x

EDC 21 
PTT 150
TDC 105

CB20 4114mzh allcore 521 /9603
cpu-z 4228mzh allcore 551/11397
Games 4000mhz-4300mzh single core do 4500-4600mhz
C-state enable
scalar auto
+200mhz
LLC auto
vcore auto


FLCK 1900 RAM 3800mhz 1:1 CL16 

works like charm, but i dont now are voltages safe processor, can someone advice ? they are so many pages and cant find that. Thanks

Temps not problem, custom loop max temperature heavy load avarage is 60celsius.


----------



## Burno

Thanks everyone who posted their tests and settings here.
I was able to get my 3950X stable with EDC @ 25 on an X570 Taichi with LLC3 and +40mV offset on bios 2.70
4x Scalar
+200 mhz
C-State disabled

R20 score of 10,010 @ 79C

I was unable to get the EDC bug stable before reading through here looking at the settings to try out, so thanks again.


----------



## buddywh

Thanks for the tips... adding to the success stories with my 3700X, B450m Mortar

PPT=300
TDC=150
EDC=10
PBO Scalar - 10X

C States disabled, CnQ enabled
VCore = -0.0125, LLC 6 (pretty much a flat LL according to MSI)

CB R20 MT 5145-5155 (depending on thermal state), ST 510-511

That's an improvement of 90-100 pts (MT) from previous best, with BZ's suggestions! And more: only about 7 pts less than the best score it gets with an all-core overclock at what I consider a safe VCore (4.25Ghz/1275mV).

Maybe not much, but proof (IMO) that PBO can squeeze just about all you can safely get out of the CPU with the algorithm. Too bad it's hidden behind an AGESA bug.

EDIT: and oh yes... it's really cool watching as it's hitting 4.4Ghz in light loads on 6 cores...2 of them almost constantly.


----------



## VPII

In all honesty I have tried just about every setting which was mentioned in here for EDC as well as a positive instead of negative vcore off-set and I constantly get some cores not even reaching 4ghz and my CB20 result being just over 9000. If I were to set EDC at 220 and all the other settings the same all core would run over 4ghz and the CB20 score would be around 9600. My all core overclock of 4.258ghz at 1.225vcore runs cooler and the CB20 result is just over 10K. I really don't see the point in this. I did however see another guy with the same experience as me also using a MSI Meg X570 Ace mobo, so maybe it is the mobo.


----------



## mongoled

@VPII

Come on bud, i know you know that the point of this is to get excellent single core boosting along with higher all core frequencies.

Can feel your disappointment in not being able to do it.

I am in a similar boat as yourself (cant get it to work stable).

So can relate to the frustration in your post...

:thumb:


----------



## dansi

Ok all, try IBT 2.54. 

I found it is best app to test which EDC values gives highest gflops.

For mine, i put at 160 EDC. It gives my 185gflops on very high. Going higher EDC, will lose gflops even though HWInfo display higher clocks.

You can try if this EDC tweak is real without clock stretching.


----------



## dansi

VPII said:


> In all honesty I have tried just about every setting which was mentioned in here for EDC as well as a positive instead of negative vcore off-set and I constantly get some cores not even reaching 4ghz and my CB20 result being just over 9000. If I were to set EDC at 220 and all the other settings the same all core would run over 4ghz and the CB20 score would be around 9600. My all core overclock of 4.258ghz at 1.225vcore runs cooler and the CB20 result is just over 10K. I really don't see the point in this. I did however see another guy with the same experience as me also using a MSI Meg X570 Ace mobo, so maybe it is the mobo.


Dont worry i think this tweak is clock stretching. 
Try with IBT 2.54 too. See what is your gflops value with different EDC values.


----------



## 519408

What would be an "optimal" configuration for a 3700x and safe?


----------



## Streetdragon

For me it streches nothing.
Higher "clockreadings" and more performence in single and multicore


----------



## dansi

Interesting... have you tried the ibt2.54 test yet?
As a gigabyte master user, i found our bios is working as it should, without needing to engage the bug


----------



## ManniX-ITA

dansi said:


> Interesting... have you tried the ibt2.54 test yet?
> As a gigabyte master user, i found our bios is working as it should, without needing to engage the bug


There's for sure clock stretching but only if the settings are not optimal.
Instead of IBT (will check it) so far I used a mix of 7-zip benchmark, 3DMark, AOTS and RE:6 benchmarks.

First time I hear the Master doesn't have the EDC 0 bug... can you elaborate?


----------



## Awsan

I tried it on my unify and it will not boot with anything under 20 and if it's 20 it will have stupid performance


----------



## dansi

ManniX-ITA said:


> There's for sure clock stretching but only if the settings are not optimal.
> Instead of IBT (will check it) so far I used a mix of 7-zip benchmark, 3DMark, AOTS and RE:6 benchmarks.
> 
> First time I hear the Master doesn't have the EDC 0 bug... can you elaborate?


I have master and posted my findings here on the edc bug.

I found using the normal typical edc gave me best results.

Sure i could set edc to 25 iirc, and see higher all core boosts and high sc cpuz scores, but overall edc160 is best for me. I also use a few benchmarks. I just found ibt2.54 is good and fast to load all cores and get comparability between edc values

In my findings, temps are the ultimate boost determination if you use pbo. Keep them check and we get higher performance even though core clocks may not look as high


----------



## VPII

dansi said:


> Dont worry i think this tweak is clock stretching.
> Try with IBT 2.54 too. See what is your gflops value with different EDC values.


Thank you my friend.... Below is IBT ran only two instances, left it running while taking the screenshot to see the clocks. First one EDC 1, second EDC 16, third EDC 24 and the last EDC 220.... It is really obvious. Funny enough when you look at the loading in the screenshot, it seems as though the second thread on each core was not loaded, but I'm sure it was looking at the output. Anyway, I hope this clears things up a bit.


----------



## jamexman

Hi, quick question, is the C-STATES *disabled* setting in the OP necessary? I noticed with it disabled cores don't sleep, neither idle voltages go lower than 1.1v?


----------



## rares495

The best settings for me. (3700X + MSI X470 Gaming Pro)

PPT: 300W
TDC: 200A
EDC: 10A
Scalar: Manual - 10X
Max Boost Override: 500MHz

Vcore offset of -0.5V => ~1.44V/1.32V but still a toasty boy. My bottleneck is still the cooling.

Getting around 4200MHz in high current loads (CB R20) and 4425MHz in low current loads (CB R20 Single). Saw a max of 4350MHz in Subnautica: Below Zero.

Auto PBO was getting me 4050MHz in CB R20 and around 4200MHz in Subnautica. Pretty happy with my new settings.


----------



## rastaviper

dansi said:


> Dont worry i think this tweak is clock stretching.
> 
> Try with IBT 2.54 too. See what is your gflops value with different EDC values.


Link for 2.54?

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


----------



## Medizinmann

rastaviper said:


> Link for 2.54?
> 
> Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


https://www.techpowerup.com/download/intelburntest/


----------



## jamie1073

3900X
PPT=500
TDC=210
EDC=16
Scalar=4x
Boost Override=100
LLC=8


The PPT and TDC are what my motherboard goes to when I set PBO to motherboard defaults. The board would not boost with those at 0, it set the to AMD default values when set to 0 and when they hit 100% it was a wall. 



Stock values were under 7100 and around 500 on R20. With LLC at Auto they were 4350-4400 and 514-516 in R20. I tried LLC=7 and LLC=6 and the mutli core score dropped and I did not wait to see what the single core would do. CPU temps during R20 run dropped from 72-73C to 69C with the LLC at 8.


----------



## rastaviper

Medizinmann said:


> https://www.techpowerup.com/download/intelburntest/


Thanks mate!

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


----------



## buddywh

rares495 said:


> The best settings for me. (3700X + MSI X470 Gaming Pro)
> ....
> Vcore offset of -0.5V => ~1.44V/1.32V but still a toasty boy. My bottleneck is still the cooling.
> 
> Getting around 4200MHz in high current loads (CB R20) and 4425MHz in low current loads (CB R20 Single). Saw a max of 4350MHz in Subnautica: Below Zero.
> ....


Scores are what's important in CB R20, not clocks since clocks move around so much you can't track it. 

Besides, with a big enough negative offset (-500mV? really? is that possible or did you miss some decimals?) I'd be pretty confident you're seeing clock compression.


----------



## rares495

buddywh said:


> Scores are what's important in CB R20, not clocks since clocks move around so much you can't track it.
> 
> Besides, with a big enough negative offset (-500mV? really? is that possible or did you miss some decimals?) I'd be pretty confident you're seeing clock compression.


EDIT: I hate the metric system sometimes. I guess it is 50mV. I set it like that because PBO was pumping 1.38-1.39 during CB R20, which is not really safe, is it? I'm always worried about degradation with these 7nm chips. Plus temps were...bad.

Anyway, I'm currently on stock settings with PBO disabled. I'll try to find a sweetspot for my chip soon.


----------



## The Stilt

Had a look at this for the first time and sure enough, there is something funny going on.

Blanking the EDC altogether does provide the best all-core boost by a small margin, but at least in my case with a 3900X it causes other issues.
When EDC is set to a value that is less than a certain "internal limit", the frequency throttlers will kick in heavily in some scenarios (ST workloads in my case). With EDC set to 0 - 5A, I'm seeing around 110MHz higher
all-core frequencies, but heavy throttling during ST workloads (to 1.775GHz or so).

When EDC is set to a value, that is greater than this certain "internal limit", the all-core frequency is still around 100MHz higher than with stock configuration and the ST boost works as it should.
In my case, the EDC required to get above this internal limit is 21A, but I expect it to vary between the workloads (I myself used a FMA3 workload), the different SKUs and even the different specimens of the same SKUs. Finding the optimal value isn't very hard at all, just decrease the EDC
until your single threaded performance either tanks completely or reduces, and the increase it back up again and add few amps as a margin.

The weirdest part is that, there doesn't appear to be any obvious downsides in doing this.
As far as I can tell, this exploit doesn't prevent any of the protections from working as they should, or push the silicon any harder than its being pushed with the factory config.
In fact, I'm personally seeing lower voltages and FIT "consumption" (very marginally, but regardless) with EDC set to a lower value, than at stock. 

Obviously, since there is no free meal, I have to wonder if this is a bug or some sort of a compromise that has been intentionally made. 
Personally, I would have no concerns over the silicon reliability itself, but I would definitely double check that the CPU still executes flawlessly (esp. in MT workloads) when this EDC loophole is being exploited.


----------



## jamie1073

The Stilt said:


> Had a look at this for the first time and sure enough, there is something funny going on.
> 
> Blanking the EDC altogether does provide the best all-core boost by a small margin, but at least in my case with a 3900X it causes other issues.
> When EDC is set to a value that is less than a certain "internal limit", the frequency throttlers will kick in heavily in some scenarios (ST workloads in my case). With EDC set to 0 - 5A, I'm seeing around 110MHz higher
> all-core frequencies, but heavy throttling during ST workloads (to 1.775GHz or so).
> 
> When EDC is set to a value, that is greater than this certain "internal limit", the all-core frequency is still around 100MHz higher than with stock configuration and the ST boost works as it should.
> In my case, the EDC required to get above this internal limit is 21A, but I expect it to vary between the workloads (I myself used a FMA3 workload), the different SKUs and even the different specimens of the same SKUs. Finding the optimal value isn't very hard at all, just decrease the EDC
> until your single threaded performance either tanks completely or reduces, and the increase it back up again and add few amps as a margin.
> 
> The weirdest part is that, there doesn't appear to be any obvious downsides in doing this.
> As far as I can tell, this exploit doesn't prevent any of the protections from working as they should, or push the silicon any harder than its being pushed with the factory config.
> In fact, I'm personally seeing lower voltages and FIT "consumption" (very marginally, but regardless) with EDC set to a lower value, than at stock.
> 
> Obviously, since there is no free meal, I have to wonder if this is a bug or some sort of a compromise that has been intentionally made.
> Personally, I would have no concerns over the silicon reliability itself, but I would definitely double check that the CPU still executes flawlessly (esp. in MT workloads) when this EDC loophole is being exploited.



Try EDC at 16 for the 3900x. I did not try any others and went by what was suggested in the first post and got boosts in both MT and ST with R20, what I used to compare to see the gains. If you look up a few posts that is my latest Cinebench R20 scores and the gains I got from stock to the EDC trick and another tweak I did. I went from a stock ST score of 498-501 to a 528-529 that is repeatable. Along with the gain MT from ~7100 to 7400+.


----------



## dansi

Hei Stilt have you tried running with IBT? Exploiting this bug gave me lower scores than when using edc normally. My normal values for 3950x is 160A. Normal being like using PBO as it should.

My EDC bug value is 25A. 

Tested bug with CB20. It gave me the highest ST scores and highest MT clocks but the MT scores are lower. In Cpuz, the ST and MT scores are highest with bug.

In IBT bug does not work and gave terrible scores even though clocks are higher.

My theory seems to be this bug disable EDC monitoring and hands off the current to TDC. If you see Hwinfo with this bug, TDC = EDC. And TDC seems to also ignore bios settings.


----------



## The Stilt

jamie1073 said:


> Try EDC at 16 for the 3900x. I did not try any others and went by what was suggested in the first post and got boosts in both MT and ST with R20, what I used to compare to see the gains. If you look up a few posts that is my latest Cinebench R20 scores and the gains I got from stock to the EDC trick and another tweak I did. I went from a stock ST score of 498-501 to a 528-529 that is repeatable. Along with the gain MT from ~7100 to 7400+.


The EDC value itself makes very little difference.
Its either sufficient for the exploit to work properly, or it isn't.

Sure, lower you can go the better, but the difference between 15 and 16A (even if both would be sufficient) is couple MHz.


----------



## gerardfraser

EDIT :added Cinebench20 video 
Single Thread-530 score
Multi Thread -5260 score
Idle temperature CPU-28°C
Max temperature CPU-71°C
Max CPU Core Voltage (SVI2 TFN) reached-1.431v

Settings in BIOS
MCLK/UCLK/FCLK Synced 1:1:1 1933Mhz ,that's DDR4 3866Mhz for those who do not know.
PBO Manual
PPT= 0 actual 
TDC=0 actual 
EDC=1 actual 
Scaler 10X
PBO Override 500Mhz





Thought I would try Intel Burn Test Max Memory for 30+ minutes, looking for clock stretch.My machine looks fine to me.

Results for anyone interested for AMD Ryzen 3800X. 

Settings in BIOS
PPT= 0 actual max reached 95.5% 
TDC=0 actual max reached 86.7% 
EDC=1 actual max reached 8334.8% 

MCLK/UCLK/FCLK Synced 1:1:1 1933Mhz
Scaler 10X
PBO Override 500Mhz

Consistant GFLOPS Speed Intel Burn Test 110.3 and tossed in a AIDA panel and Ram test.

IBT Test by gerard fraser, on Flickr


----------



## dansi

This is mine IBT with 3950X running as a 16T, at only 3600Mhz ram, using 'normal' PBO settings


----------



## Nighthog

dansi said:


> This is mine IBT with 3950X running as a 16T, at only 3600Mhz ram, using 'normal' PBO settings


We have the half write bandwidth for the 3800X, 3700X, 3600etc. The 3900X & 3950X have the full write capability. You can't compare the results directly in IBT between these. 

For example I get ~104GFlops @ 3800Mhz MEM with my 3800X.


----------



## domdtxdissar

This is my Cinebench R20 score with "stock PBO" using buildzoid suggested power settings.

Single: 543 (have gotten 545 before)
Multi: 10014

Do you guys get higher scores with this EDC "feature" on a 3950x ?


----------



## dansi

Nope. Five digits 10k cb r20 on pbo is as good as it gets. Seems like 3950x is working as it should on pbo.

What's your ambient temps? You seem to get really good boost. I reckon its running at least 4.2ghz all cores pbo for r20


----------



## Nighthog

I can only say that it seems like the 3950X works better without the BUG in most cases.

I found a specific case where I got game crashes. GW2 would get trouble with the PBO bug used with 10X scalar. The issue went away with a lower setting. 2-4X didn't cause issues but boost behaviour would not be as strong as when I ran 10x. I did try various options with offsets and LLC but seems it was just boosting too aggressively with 10x scalar in that game. All other games I've played didn't have issues.

So consider adjusting if you run into stability issues with higher scalar settings used.


----------



## dansi

Imo you should try set pbo 'as it should'. Get the optimal value and im sure it will perform as well, if not better than using this bug. I never had a stability issue with pbo on, not in aida64 fp64 test or p95 stress.

This bug imo seems to messup the edc monitoring and also the high clocks on display is suspect


----------



## Nighthog

dansi said:


> Imo you should try set pbo 'as it should'. Get the optimal value and im sure it will perform as well, if not better than using this bug. I never had a stability issue with pbo on, not in aida64 fp64 test or p95 stress.
> 
> This bug imo seems to messup the edc monitoring and also the high clocks on display is suspect


I get better performance ALL cases with this bug compared to any regular PBO settings. Though you have to check for stability issues and adjust accordingly. More trouble but gets better results.


----------



## jamie1073

domdtxdissar said:


> This is my Cinebench R20 score with "stock PBO" using buildzoid suggested power settings.
> 
> Single: 443 (have gotten 445 before)
> Multi: 10014
> 
> Do you guys get higher scores with this EDC "feature" on a 3950x ?



Well with my 3900X I get 527-529 single core in R20. With the 3950X you should be getting at least 501-511.


----------



## domdtxdissar

jamie1073 said:


> Well with my 3900X I get 527-529 single core in R20. With the 3950X you should be getting at least 501-511.


My bad, it should say 543 singlethread as the screenshot shows


----------



## jamie1073

The Stilt said:


> The EDC value itself makes very little difference.
> Its either sufficient for the exploit to work properly, or it isn't.
> 
> Sure, lower you can go the better, but the difference between 15 and 16A (even if both would be sufficient) is couple MHz.



Well considering when I have it set to 16 the processor actually draws around 110A I would say 15 or 16 is far from sufficient to get max boost, that is in fact 700% over 16A. It is the EDC value that for some reason when set to 280A does not boost as well as set to 16A. Which is why it is a bug I guess. This thread would not exist if the chip boosted to where it should without this little value to trick it.


----------



## jamie1073

domdtxdissar said:


> My bad, it should say 543 singlethread as the screenshot shows



Hahaha I did not even notice it in the screen shot. My bad.


----------



## Medizinmann

jamie1073 said:


> Well considering when I have it set to 16 the processor actually draws around 110A I would say 15 or 16 is far from sufficient to get max boost, that is in fact 700% over 16A. It is the EDC value that for some reason when set to 280A does not boost as well as set to 16A. Which is why it is a bug I guess. This thread would not exist if the chip boosted to where it should without this little value to trick it.


I see even up to 120A when set to 16A - and 205W total power consumption…for my 3900x.

If I use the values suggested by buildzoid (PPT/TDC/EDC 300/230/230) - I see EDC go up tp 180A - but over all a little less perfromance, power draw up to 175W and a lot less boost.

With 1.0.0.3 ABBA EDC-Settings made more sense and I could see power consumption up to 230W - granted not much more performance - but higher settings for PPT/TDC/EDC meant better performance - with sufficient cooling of course.

The EDC-Bug is still plain annoying…

Greetings,
Medizinmann


----------



## jamie1073

Medizinmann said:


> I see even up to 120A when set to 16A - and 205W total power consumption…for my 3900x.
> 
> If I use the values suggested by buildzoid (PPT/TDC/EDC 300/230/230) - I see EDC go up tp 180A - but over all a little less perfromance, power draw up to 175W and a lot less boost.
> 
> With 1.0.0.3 ABBA EDC-Settings made more sense and I could see power consumption up to 230W - granted not much more performance - but higher settings for PPT/TDC/EDC meant better performance - with sufficient cooling of course.
> 
> The EDC-Bug is still plain annoying…
> 
> Greetings,
> Medizinmann



Yes it is. I would expect when spending $300+ on a board and $500 on the CPU I would not have to tweak any settings to 'trick' my setup into performing as it was designed to perform. But here we are. I tried my default board settings of 500,210, 280 for PPT, TDC, and EDC but it seems to boost better all around MT and ST with the 16 value and the other two at 500 and 210. Oh well. Maybe with the 4000 series they will get it right or even have the BIOS right by then. I am happy where it is now. I mean look at my cooling in this picture. -10,000 degrees C is awesome.


----------



## MyUsername

Medizinmann said:


> I see even up to 120A when set to 16A - and 205W total power consumption…for my 3900x.
> 
> If I use the values suggested by buildzoid (PPT/TDC/EDC 300/230/230) - I see EDC go up tp 180A - but over all a little less perfromance, power draw up to 175W and a lot less boost.
> 
> With 1.0.0.3 ABBA EDC-Settings made more sense and I could see power consumption up to 230W - granted not much more performance - but higher settings for PPT/TDC/EDC meant better performance - with sufficient cooling of course.
> 
> The EDC-Bug is still plain annoying…
> 
> Greetings,
> Medizinmann


Manipulating the EDC can be a right pain in the ass as I've spent hours trying to figure it out, but using these numbers(MNKyDeth post 390) seems to be for me the only way that works. CPU pulls 210watts on prime 95 and gets hot very quickly. With boosttester I get 4675 on 2 cores, 4650 on 2 cores and 4.6 on 2 cores, all core is 4.3 before the temp gets too high then drops to 4.2.

My settings
CPU auto or normal, sometimes I have to flick this as cold boot is a bit wobbly and keeps flashing F9 at me on the debug.
Soc 1.1v LLC Extreme
Memory and IF at desired speed, C-state disabled, everything else on auto

https://valid.x86.fr/7k890f 533/7640 on CB20, 155 on IBT. All higher than stock settings by quite a bit.


----------



## mongstradamus

gerardfraser said:


> EDIT :added Cinebench20 video
> Single Thread-530 score
> Multi Thread -5260 score
> Idle temperature CPU-28°C
> Max temperature CPU-71°C
> Max CPU Core Voltage (SVI2 TFN) reached-1.431v
> 
> Settings in BIOS
> MCLK/UCLK/FCLK Synced 1:1:1 1933Mhz ,that's DDR4 3866Mhz for those who do not know.
> PBO Manual
> PPT= 0 actual
> TDC=0 actual
> EDC=1 actual
> Scaler 10X
> PBO Override 500Mhz
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0VjJ7nfdOw
> 
> Thought I would try Intel Burn Test Max Memory for 30+ minutes, looking for clock stretch.My machine looks fine to me.
> 
> Results for anyone interested for AMD Ryzen 3800X.
> 
> Settings in BIOS
> PPT= 0 actual max reached 95.5%
> TDC=0 actual max reached 86.7%
> EDC=1 actual max reached 8334.8%
> 
> MCLK/UCLK/FCLK Synced 1:1:1 1933Mhz
> Scaler 10X
> PBO Override 500Mhz
> 
> Consistant GFLOPS Speed Intel Burn Test 110.3 and tossed in a AIDA panel and Ram test.
> 
> IBT Test by gerard fraser, on Flickr


I must be having bad luck with my 3800x. I have tried a variety of different edc combos 0/0/1, 300/230/1,0/0/10, 300/230/10 and 300/230/230 with different scalars and auto oc. The one that worked best for me in r20 and cpu-z was 0/0/1 with 4x scalar and +100 mhz. I didn't get anything near the numbers you got in r20 though. The best i was able to achieve was 532/5190, the numbers are also inconsistent. With same settings my r20 MC can drop down to 5150 with only difference being I rebooted. I have a feeling maybe i am reaching thermal limits temps in r20 can reach up to 78-79c , I don't know if its a limitation to my fairly cheap mother board thats causing the high temps. For what its worth my idle cpu temps are about 31c and water temps for my aio are around 23-24c 

The settings i eneded up with was pbo manual 0/0/1 scalar 4x auto + 100. Ram oc is 3733 cl 16 I can't go any higher than that or it just won't boot. Any suggestions would be appreciated.


----------



## polkfan

Hey guys test your EDC bug in GeekBench 4 and 5 both and see if you get weird ST scores its the only program i have that does it but its always weird with any EDC setting between 1-11 on my 3700x

Everything else is good but that i get inconsistent and low scores in geekbench


----------



## ManniX-ITA

polkfan said:


> Hey guys test your EDC bug in GeekBench 4 and 5 both and see if you get weird ST scores its the only program i have that does it but its always weird with any EDC setting between 1-11 on my 3700x
> 
> Everything else is good but that i get inconsistent and low scores in geekbench


I use it regularly to check the settings and, unless something is "not right", is very consistent.
But this is with a 3800x, I've read the 3700x does not respond so well to this bug.

I get 107.7 on IBT with 79 degrees on CCD1 temp, IF1800/3600 (on the main Windows install, bloated of running stuff, have to check with the clean install for benching).
Honestly I wouldn't use it as compass; the workload is very specific and well known.
Just like CPU-z and CB20, the CPU does have a very specific behavior once it detects the workload.

Geekbench doesn't seem to be detected as special workload but I still count much more on AOTS and other gaming workloads to check the real world performances.


----------



## gerardfraser

mongstradamus said:


> I must be having bad luck with my 3800x. I have tried a variety of different edc combos 0/0/1, 300/230/1,0/0/10, 300/230/10 and 300/230/230 with different scalars and auto oc. The one that worked best for me in r20 and cpu-z was 0/0/1 with 4x scalar and +100 mhz. I didn't get anything near the numbers you got in r20 though. The best i was able to achieve was 532/5190, the numbers are also inconsistent. With same settings my r20 MC can drop down to 5150 with only difference being I rebooted. I have a feeling maybe i am reaching thermal limits temps in r20 can reach up to 78-79c , I don't know if its a limitation to my fairly cheap mother board thats causing the high temps. For what its worth my idle cpu temps are about 31c and water temps for my aio are around 23-24c
> 
> The settings i eneded up with was pbo manual 0/0/1 scalar 4x auto + 100. Ram oc is 3733 cl 16 I can't go any higher than that or it just won't boot. Any suggestions would be appreciated.


Well I also have the cheapest X470 Motherboard and cheapest AIO 240mm,your scores seems fine to me.I personally do not think Cinebench is a good measure of how your Ryzen CPU works and small fluctuation is nothing to be concerned about. 

As far as suggestions ,you did not list your motherboard/ram so not much to go on there. How about changing up Windows power plan first.Here are some to try for more consistent Cinebench. I suggest Bitsum Highest Performance or Ultimate
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1c9oZjinbZ6xokabOTPM41yve3F9shAc9/view?usp=sharing

I can tell you this for sure.Higher (infinity fabric clock)FCLK and Higher Ram speed does not equal more performance. Your temperatures running Cinebench are normal.If you want lower CPU temperatures then use a CPU offset voltage to where you do not introduce clock stretching or weird behavior.

Your Ryzen system would serve you better if you tune/tighting ram timings ,instead of trying for higher numbers beyond AMD recommend speed.

Check out these video I done up and they are fully testable by any person with a Ryzen system,ya you may not get as high a FCLK as me but it just shows with lower Ram/FCLK clocks and tuned ram timings is all you need.Stop worrying about what other people get or higher numbers and get the best out of your system.

*VIDEO not ran with the tweak*
Tuned Ram AMD Ryzen Fabric Clock 1467Mhz (DDR4 2933Mhz) vs Fabric Clock 1933Mhz (DDR4 3866Mhz)RDR2 and sleeping dogs 1920x1080 and 2560x1440





AMD Ryzen Fabric Clock Vs Tuned Ram BF5 GTAV 1920x1080


----------



## mongstradamus

gerardfraser said:


> Well I also have the cheapest X470 Motherboard and cheapest AIO 240mm,your scores seems fine to me.I personally do not think Cinebench is a good measure of how your Ryzen CPU works and small fluctuation is nothing to be concerned about.
> 
> As far as suggestions ,you did not list your motherboard/ram so not much to go on there. How about changing up Windows power plan first.Here are some to try for more consistent Cinebench. I suggest Bitsum Highest Performance or Ultimate
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1c9oZjinbZ6xokabOTPM41yve3F9shAc9/view?usp=sharing
> 
> I can tell you this for sure.Higher (infinity fabric clock)FCLK and Higher Ram speed does not equal more performance. Your temperatures running Cinebench are normal.If you want lower CPU temperatures then use a CPU offset voltage to where you do not introduce clock stretching or weird behavior.
> 
> Your Ryzen system would serve you better if you tune/tighting ram timings ,instead of trying for higher numbers beyond AMD recommend speed.
> 
> Check out these video I done up and they are fully testable by any person with a Ryzen system,ya you may not get as high a FCLK as me but it just shows with lower Ram/FCLK clocks and tuned ram timings is all you need.Stop worrying about what other people get or higher numbers and get the best out of your system.
> 
> *VIDEO not ran with the tweak*
> Tuned Ram AMD Ryzen Fabric Clock 1467Mhz (DDR4 2933Mhz) vs Fabric Clock 1933Mhz (DDR4 3866Mhz)RDR2 and sleeping dogs 1920x1080 and 2560x1440
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zt-ui15zAZ8&t=0s
> 
> AMD Ryzen Fabric Clock Vs Tuned Ram BF5 GTAV 1920x1080
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cav4_-g6nfI&t=0s


I will try and add some more details to my setup. 3800x with a ab350pro 4 and lpx vengeance 3200 cl16. I was able to run my 3200 cl 16 ram up to 3733 cl 16 . I think thats as far as i can go with this particular ram kit i did a lot of testing with it. Its samsung e-die so not exactly the best ram in the world. Also reason i have a crappy b350 board its because it used to house a ryzen 1600. 

I have also tried most of the power options ultimate, high performance(Ryzen and windows), and balanced (ryzen and windows versions). 

The funny thing about testing with my r20 i have gotten higher numbers before but when I used the same settings i can't repeat and replicated those scores. Do you have any suggestion for benchmarks instead of r20 to compare between different pbo settings if i am getting an improvement IBT?


----------



## polkfan

ManniX-ITA said:


> I use it regularly to check the settings and, unless something is "not right", is very consistent.
> But this is with a 3800x, I've read the 3700x does not respond so well to this bug.
> 
> I get 107.7 on IBT with 79 degrees on CCD1 temp, IF1800/3600 (on the main Windows install, bloated of running stuff, have to check with the clean install for benching).
> Honestly I wouldn't use it as compass; the workload is very specific and well known.
> Just like CPU-z and CB20, the CPU does have a very specific behavior once it detects the workload.
> 
> Geekbench doesn't seem to be detected as special workload but I still count much more on AOTS and other gaming workloads to check the real world performances.


It's just everything else works that i test and i get 4425mhz quite often actually and my effective clock jumps 50mhz on each core. But for some darn reason anything other then 6 in the EDC setting sucks in geekbench and even then i got like 5860 in GeekBench 4 with that setting when i get 6050 in the ST with it normal. 

So odd to me


----------



## gerardfraser

mongstradamus said:


> I will try and add some more details to my setup. 3800x with a ab350pro 4 and lpx vengeance 3200 cl16. I was able to run my 3200 cl 16 ram up to 3733 cl 16 . I think thats as far as i can go with this particular ram kit i did a lot of testing with it. Its samsung e-die so not exactly the best ram in the world. Also reason i have a crappy b350 board its because it used to house a ryzen 1600.
> 
> I have also tried most of the power options ultimate, high performance(Ryzen and windows), and balanced (ryzen and windows versions).
> 
> The funny thing about testing with my r20 i have gotten higher numbers before but when I used the same settings i can't repeat and replicated those scores. Do you have any suggestion for benchmarks instead of r20 to compare between different pbo settings if i am getting an improvement IBT?


My advice would be just read my post again,your system seems normal and working fine. If you are just using your computer as a normal PC gaming computer and web browsing ,then you are good already ,your not missing anything. Your 3800X is working normal.

You say Cinebench is not consistent but you said you got 5190 and drops to 5150,that is less than 1% difference in score ,margin of error stuff and is the exact same score.See what I am saying,it is fine,that's about all I can say I guess.The numbers are all in your head and messing with ya.I am not trying to be an ass


----------



## mongstradamus

gerardfraser said:


> My advice would be just read my post again,your system seems normal and working fine. If you are just using your computer as a normal PC gaming computer and web browsing ,then you are good already ,your not missing anything. Your 3800X is working normal.
> 
> You say Cinebench is not consistent but you said you got 5190 and drops to 5150,that is less than 1% difference in score ,margin of error stuff and is the exact same score.See what I am saying,it is fine,that's about all I can say I guess.The numbers are all in your head and messing with ya.I am not trying to be an ass


Yes I understand what you are saying.


----------



## gerardfraser

Wish I had better advice,sorry man.


----------



## polkfan

Lol even ECO mode increases VID voltage and increases ST frequency with Eco mode ryzen master reports 60PPT, 45TDC, 65EDC, frequency jumps 25mhz on each core, 50mhz with the EDC bug with weird geekbench ST scores


----------



## ManniX-ITA

polkfan said:


> It's just everything else works that i test and i get 4425mhz quite often actually and my effective clock jumps 50mhz on each core. But for some darn reason anything other then 6 in the EDC setting sucks in geekbench and even then i got like 5860 in GeekBench 4 with that setting when i get 6050 in the ST with it normal.
> 
> So odd to me


My guess is you have a thermal or over voltage issue; try playing with the cpu vcore offset.
You'll see performance degradation starting at 60 degrees; between 70 and 75 clocks will go down hard and then crippled to keep it below 80 degrees.
You may also need to play with LLC, SoC voltage, VDDP/VDDG...
I had to spend almost 3 weeks to find the best settings, it's a very long and tedious process to profit from this bug 
On my setup I had to set SoC voltage to 1.16 fixed to get reliable and repeatable results.

My strategy to test new settings is cpu-z bench 4-5 times; if it's good CB20 ST; then Geekbench; then 7-zip, 3DMark, Resident Evil 6, Metro.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

mongstradamus said:


> I will try and add some more details to my setup. 3800x with a ab350pro 4 and lpx vengeance 3200 cl16. I was able to run my 3200 cl 16 ram up to 3733 cl 16 . I think thats as far as i can go with this particular ram kit i did a lot of testing with it. Its samsung e-die so not exactly the best ram in the world. Also reason i have a crappy b350 board its because it used to house a ryzen 1600.
> 
> I have also tried most of the power options ultimate, high performance(Ryzen and windows), and balanced (ryzen and windows versions).
> 
> The funny thing about testing with my r20 i have gotten higher numbers before but when I used the same settings i can't repeat and replicated those scores. Do you have any suggestion for benchmarks instead of r20 to compare between different pbo settings if i am getting an improvement IBT?


See my last message about benching strategy.

Most 3800x does not run error free with IF above 1800; you should decide if you need all that RAM bandwidth.
Unless you work with very specific scientific workloads you don't.

I can go up to 1900 but just for the sake of benching; long running benchmarks will suffer and you get lower scores.
Temps will increase up to 4-5 degrees both for the CPU and SoC which is a huge step in thermal throttling for PBO. 
The IF performance will start degrading quickly due to error correction on top of it.
Find the RAM lowest latency settings at 1800 and check; you should get better and more reliable results.

Yes, testing this bug is risky, probably very risky. Don't assume your CPU will be the same as before.
As an example: with all cores at 4450 MHz my cpu-z score is 6090.
I've tested with a small BCLK OC; +0.66 MHz and I got 575/6100.
Wow! Huge step up from 560/5950 without it.

Since the results were quite unreliable, I tried some different settings.
Every reboot the scores were going down and down till they were just a bit more than without BCLK OC.
I can put back the same settings now and I never get the same bench scores as the first time; around 565/5980, no more.
The CPU has learned its limits and it's not going again at the same speed.
I wonder if a better cooling will trigger a reset of this "silicon calibration" but I'm not very confident.

BTW couldn't get it running reliably above BCLK 100.33; anyway the performance diff now it's minimal with anything above.


----------



## Medizinmann

mongstradamus said:


> I must be having bad luck with my 3800x. I have tried a variety of different edc combos 0/0/1, 300/230/1,0/0/10, 300/230/10 and 300/230/230 with different scalars and auto oc. The one that worked best for me in r20 and cpu-z was 0/0/1 with 4x scalar and +100 mhz. I didn't get anything near the numbers you got in r20 though. The best i was able to achieve was 532/5190, the numbers are also inconsistent. With same settings my r20 MC can drop down to 5150 with only difference being I rebooted. I have a feeling maybe i am reaching thermal limits temps in r20 can reach up to 78-79c , I don't know if its a limitation to my fairly cheap mother board thats causing the high temps. For what its worth my idle cpu temps are about 31c and water temps for my aio are around 23-24c


Did you deactivate/kill all the Windows backround tasks before benching? Like Yourphone.exe(btw - uninstall this right away), Skype, Edge etc. whatever insn't needed? For me this makes up to 350 Points Difference for my 3900x like 7540 instead of 7190...backraound Task also make up for most of these "inconcictensies" 



> The settings i eneded up with was pbo manual 0/0/1 scalar 4x auto + 100. Ram oc is 3733 cl 16 I can't go any higher than that or it just won't boot. Any suggestions would be appreciated.


Problems booting can sometimes be addressed by lowering LLC(Load Line Calibration) for CPU and upping it a little for DRAM(naming here is inconsistent with Gigabtye it is called Vcore SOC Loadline Calibration) …

Greetings,
Medizinmann


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Medizinmann said:


> Did you deactivate/kill all the Windows backround tasks before benching? Like Yourphone.exe(btw - uninstall this right away), Skype, Edge etc. whatever insn't needed? For me this makes up to 350 Points Difference for my 3900x like 7540 instead of 7190...backraound Task also make up for most of these "inconcictensies"


Best is to create a USB stick with WinToUSB dedicated to benching, otherwise is pointless to compare scores.


----------



## mongstradamus

ManniX-ITA said:


> See my last message about benching strategy.
> 
> Most 3800x does not run error free with IF above 1800; you should decide if you need all that RAM bandwidth.
> Unless you work with very specific scientific workloads you don't.
> 
> I can go up to 1900 but just for the sake of benching; long running benchmarks will suffer and you get lower scores.
> Temps will increase up to 4-5 degrees both for the CPU and SoC which is a huge step in thermal throttling for PBO.
> The IF performance will start degrading quickly due to error correction on top of it.
> Find the RAM lowest latency settings at 1800 and check; you should get better and more reliable results.
> 
> Yes, testing this bug is risky, probably very risky. Don't assume your CPU will be the same as before.
> As an example: with all cores at 4450 MHz my cpu-z score is 6090.
> I've tested with a small BCLK OC; +0.66 MHz and I got 575/6100.
> Wow! Huge step up from 560/5950 without it.
> 
> Since the results were quite unreliable, I tried some different settings.
> Every reboot the scores were going down and down till they were just a bit more than without BCLK OC.
> I can put back the same settings now and I never get the same bench scores as the first time; around 565/5980, no more.
> The CPU has learned its limits and it's not going again at the same speed.
> I wonder if a better cooling will trigger a reset of this "silicon calibration" but I'm not very confident.
> 
> BTW couldn't get it running reliably above BCLK 100.33; anyway the performance diff now it's minimal with anything above.


I will look more into my ram oc setting, since I have a fairly cheap mother board I don't have all the nice features like LLC or offset voltages. So i am kind of stuck with just using PBO and whatever i get is what i get. 

I believe I did run tests with lower my overall ram oc to 3200 xmp with tighter timings 3600 as well with tighter timing maybe need to revisit that with lower voltages SOC and DRAM. 

I may have to look at safer pbo limit like 300/230/230 for long term.


----------



## mongstradamus

Medizinmann said:


> Did you deactivate/kill all the Windows backround tasks before benching? Like Yourphone.exe(btw - uninstall this right away), Skype, Edge etc. whatever insn't needed? For me this makes up to 350 Points Difference for my 3900x like 7540 instead of 7190...backraound Task also make up for most of these "inconcictensies"


Problems booting can sometimes be addressed by lowering LLC(Load Line Calibration) for CPU and upping it a little for DRAM(naming here is inconsistent with Gigabtye it is called Vcore SOC Loadline Calibration) …

Greetings,
Medizinmann[/QUOTE]

I have run benchmarks in both safe mode , and with r20 priority as realtime which i thought would counteract other things running in background , i may be wrong about that. I have a fairly cheap b350 board so no LLC or offset voltages for me unfortunately.


----------



## Medizinmann

ManniX-ITA said:


> Best is to create a USB stick with WinToUSB dedicated to benching, otherwise is pointless to compare scores.


Yeah, that would be the Optimum, but going in the task manager and killing all unnecessary processes helps a lot and nonetheless even with a WinToUSB you must check for unwanted stuff like Yourphone.exe, Skype and Edge running in the background as Windows usually/almost always starts these…

Greetings,
Medizinmann


----------



## Medizinmann

mongstradamus said:


> Problems booting can sometimes be addressed by lowering LLC(Load Line Calibration) for CPU and upping it a little for DRAM(naming here is inconsistent with Gigabtye it is called Vcore SOC Loadline Calibration) …
> 
> Greetings,
> Medizinmann
> 
> 
> 
> I have run benchmarks in both safe mode , and with r20 priority as realtime which i thought would counteract other things running in background , i may be wrong about that.
Click to expand...

Best way IMHO is to kill all unwanted processes in the backround by hand - like Edge, Skype, Yourphone(you should unistall this one anyway) etc.



> I have a fairly cheap b350 board so no LLC or offset voltages for me unfortunately.


Well then it also very well could be that your mobo isn't up for the task - like OCing a 3900x...running at stock okay, but an OC on a b350....:thinking:

One thing helps overall performance almost always - cooling - you could crank up airflow and help the CPU to boost longer - you might not see super high boosts, when the CPU can't utilize that much power, but it will stay longer at a higher speed with more efficient cooling.

So either waterloop of airflow, airflow, airflow….or both…:thumb:

Greetings,
Medizinmann


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Medizinmann said:


> Best way IMHO is to kill all unwanted processes in the backround by hand - like Edge, Skype, Yourphone(you should unistall this one anyway) etc.


Still I wouldn't bench using the main Windows install; you can kill all the background processes but there are very often services installed.
You should not only close the systray applications, kill the background processes but also stop the non microsoft services.
Hell, this would take at least 15 minutes on my install 

Even that will not give you back the same performance of a clean dedicated install; for benching this is a showstopper!
Much better to boot from the USB stick and remove all the apps, there are guides:

https://www.laptopmag.com/articles/uninstall-restore-windows-10-builtin-apps

I usually don't remove the Microsoft Store, could be needed.
Also you can just disable the non essential services for good.


----------



## Medizinmann

ManniX-ITA said:


> Still I wouldn't bench using the main Windows install; you can kill all the background processes but there are very often services installed.
> You should not only close the systray applications, kill the background processes but also stop the non microsoft services.
> Hell, this would take at least 15 minutes on my install


Yes, that's what I do...but It takes only a couple of minutes.



> Even that will not give you back the same performance of a clean dedicated install; for benching this is a showstopper!
> Much better to boot from the USB stick and remove all the apps, there are guides:
> 
> https://www.laptopmag.com/articles/uninstall-restore-windows-10-builtin-apps


Maybe - when I have some time on my hands I might make a dedicated install on a USB - for now I am fine with my "quick" and dirty way…
But I don't need it 100% accurate I only need tendencies…



> I usually don't remove the Microsoft Store, could be needed.
> Also you can just disable the non essential services for good.


I just kill the prozess - and it's there again after next reboot...

And yes I looked into some services that I disabled for good anyway…

Greetings,
Medizinmann


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Preview is caching previous posts... weird


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Medizinmann said:


> Yes, that's what I do...but It takes only a couple of minutes.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe - when I have some time on my hands I might make a dedicated install on a USB - for now I am fine with my "quick" and dirty way…
> But I don't need it 100% accurate I only need tendencies…
> 
> 
> 
> I just kill the prozess - and it's there again after next reboot...
> 
> And yes I looked into some services that I disabled for good anyway…
> 
> Greetings,
> Medizinmann


Yep I bench too on my main install but, as you do, only for tendencies (or when I'm too lazy to boot from the usb stick  ).

But I see a lot of people here asking why they get lower scores than others, like the post who triggered this discussion.
My advice for them is: use only the scores from a dedicated install for comparison against someone else.
Otherwise the margin of error will probably be too wide and the scores sensibly worse.
You'll think something is wrong with your config and keep looking how to get better results while you're already there...


----------



## Medizinmann

ManniX-ITA said:


> Yep I bench too on my main install but, as you do, only for tendencies (or when I'm too lazy to boot from the usb stick  ).
> 
> But I see a lot of people here asking why they get lower scores than others, like the post who triggered this discussion.
> My advice for them is: use only the scores from a dedicated install for comparison against someone else.
> Otherwise the margin of error will probably be too wide and the scores sensibly worse.
> You'll think something is wrong with your config and keep looking how to get better results while you're already there...


That’s why I gave that hint/advice - if they bench with their Windows system and numbers seem extremely low - it might not be a problem of low performance of their system but too much Windows clutter in the background…

...and the "quick" and dirty solution is to kill off all unnecessary stuff in the background (in Task Manager)

As I said - this is a quick & dirty approach not an ideal one…but i.e. someone with a 3900x "complaining" with scores like 7100-7200 - should easily see 7400-something when killing most processes apps in the Background - at least in my experience.

Greetings,
Medizinmann


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Medizinmann said:


> That’s why I gave that hint/advice - if they bench with their Windows system and numbers seem extremely low - it might not be a problem of low performance of their system but too much Windows clutter in the background…
> 
> ...and the "quick" and dirty solution is to kill off all unnecessary stuff in the background (in Task Manager)
> 
> As I said - this is a quick & dirty approach not an ideal one…but i.e. someone with a 3900x "complaining" with scores like 7100-7200 - should easily see 7400-something when killing most processes apps in the Background - at least in my experience.
> 
> Greetings,
> Medizinmann


Love your optimism 
I'd start from the basic fact that most people, even here, doesn't have a clue about which background process should be killed 
The USB stick is the safest way, especially for noobs, to get it done.

Even closing everything with the proper killall procedure, the clean install still wins by a small margin in bench score.
I just can't get the same on the main install; after years of installations and patches there's always some little bit which you can't get rid of.
A nasty, hidden software legacy drivers, some registry settings, can be anything.
To be sure you can get the highest score the clean install it's the only truthful way.
I'm lazy, not even considering to reset or start from scratch the main install


----------



## Medizinmann

ManniX-ITA said:


> Love your optimism
> I'd start from the basic fact that most people, even here, doesn't have a clue about which background process should be killed
> The USB stick is the safest way, especially for noobs, to get it done.


Okay then - is this the right target group for tinkering with the EDC bug here...:thinking:

Especially as this might introduce instabilities that might kill you whole windows install /mbr…:thinking:



> Even closing everything with the proper killall procedure, the clean install still wins by a small margin in bench score.
> I just can't get the same on the main install; after years of installations and patches there's always some little bit which you can't get rid of.
> A nasty, hidden software legacy drivers, some registry settings, can be anything.
> To be sure you can get the highest score the clean install it's the only truthful way.
> I'm lazy, not even considering to reset or start from scratch the main install


I agree - but I am also too lazy to create a stick Right now and can live with my "estimate" best results...

Greetings,
Medizinmann


----------



## rastaviper

polkfan said:


> Hey guys test your EDC bug in GeekBench 4 and 5 both and see if you get weird ST scores its the only program i have that does it but its always weird with any EDC setting between 1-11 on my 3700x
> 
> 
> 
> Everything else is good but that i get inconsistent and low scores in geekbench


I get in general very good scores for ST but very low MT scores at Geekbench 3 and 4.
Even with my 3600x clocked at 4.4Ghz all cores.
I believe there is some special tweak that increase the MT scores, as I see other 3600x users with much better scores.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


----------



## jamie1073

ManniX-ITA said:


> Love your optimism
> I'd start from the basic fact that most people, even here, doesn't have a clue about which background process should be killed
> The USB stick is the safest way, especially for noobs, to get it done.
> 
> Even closing everything with the proper killall procedure, the clean install still wins by a small margin in bench score.
> I just can't get the same on the main install; after years of installations and patches there's always some little bit which you can't get rid of.
> A nasty, hidden software legacy drivers, some registry settings, can be anything.
> To be sure you can get the highest score the clean install it's the only truthful way.
> I'm lazy, not even considering to reset or start from scratch the main install



Personally when I bench I start with a base then measure the gain/loss in scores. I also like my tests to be done with the system exactly as I would be using it in day to day operations. I mean the way you test is akin to instead of putting your car on a dyno to get a baseline and then putting it back on the dyno after tuning it to instead removing the engine and bench dyno it and then tune and dyno it again on the stand. When you want to dyno it in the car with the driveline hooked up so you can see the gains through the whole system. Sure it shows you what the processor/system can do with absolutely nothing running but how often, if ever, do you have nothing else running.


----------



## PJVol

*@polkfan*







https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/1449514


----------



## Ov3rdos3

Hello guys,

First of all thank you for all the insight and this wonderful thread. I have a Ryzen 3700x and x570 Crosshair Formula 8, I used the EDC1 as mentionned the boost frequency is very good, all cores on 4375mhz however it is not stable at all.

All my games crash to desktop is there a way to stabilise this issue? 

Thanks


----------



## Nighthog

Ov3rdos3 said:


> Hello guys,
> 
> First of all thank you for all the insight and this wonderful thread. I have a Ryzen 3700x and x570 Crosshair Formula 8, I used the EDC1 as mentionned the boost frequency is very good, all cores on 4375mhz however it is not stable at all.
> 
> All my games crash to desktop is there a way to stabilise this issue?
> 
> Thanks


Try a lower scalar setting. Each cpu is different on tolerance and quality. 
LLC and voltage settings might help but I found the easiest solution for stability issues with this is try a lower scalar setting. You can combine both but it's a lot of testing around.

Begin 1x then 2x and 3 etc until it starts giving trouble. Some may be stable at 10x I was 99% sure it was ok for my 3800X but there was 1 game that gave issue and I found only lower scalar fixed that instance. I tried all other options first but that was what fixed it in the end. I was sure it was a GPU issue but ruled it out after extensive testing. All other games have worked ok for me even with 10X. 
I tried LLC, voltage etc and even memory settings. Wasn't those.

This boost bug disables some limiters so 100% guarantees aren't on the table. You have to check if your setup will allow it to do it's magic or not.


----------



## Ov3rdos3

Nighthog said:


> Try a lower scalar setting. Each cpu is different on tolerance and quality.
> LLC and voltage settings might help but I found the easiest solution for stability issues with this is try a lower scalar setting. You can combine both but it's a lot of testing around.
> 
> Begin 1x then 2x and 3 etc until it starts giving trouble. Some may be stable at 10x I was 99% sure it was ok for my 3800X but there was 1 game that gave issue and I found only lower scalar fixed that instance. I tried all other options first but that was what fixed it in the end. I was sure it was a GPU issue but ruled it out after extensive testing. All other games have worked ok for me even with 10X.
> I tried LLC, voltage etc and even memory settings. Wasn't those.
> 
> This boost bug disables some limiters so 100% guarantees aren't on the table. You have to check if your setup will allow it to do it's magic or not.



Thanks a lot Nighthog !

Great to see that I am not the only one having this issue. This is what I've done for now:

I don't unse the Advance Tweaker PBO but only AMD PBO options:

PBO Manual
EDC 1
SCALER x5 (if troublesome will decrease)
Offset +200mhz
Thermal Throotle 200

Should I keep Vcore to auto?

Thanks again for everything


----------



## nick name

Does anyone here find themselves needing to reboot to get into BIOS often? Would you like a desktop shortcut to deliver you straight from Windows into BIOS without having to mash Del or F2? If the answer is yes then visit:

https://www.overclock.net/forum/13-...membench-0-8-dram-bench-685.html#post28367238


----------



## MyUsername

PJVol said:


> *@polkfan*
> View attachment 332666
> 
> https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/1449514


Nice score, I think you've cracked it. I did a comparison for a laugh and the scores are the same

1 ccd 6/12 https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/1457891

2 ccd 12/24 https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/1457837


----------



## nick name

MyUsername said:


> Nice score, I think you've cracked it. I did a comparison for a laugh and the scores are the same
> 
> 1 ccd 6/12 https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/1457891
> 
> 2 ccd 12/24 https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/1457837


May I play?

https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/1458468

This is with the PC in a room with a 86*F/30*C ambient. I wish I would have gotten my 3900X while it was still cold out.

New ones.

https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/1458634
https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/1458767


----------



## rastaviper

PJVol said:


> *@polkfan*
> View attachment 332666
> 
> https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/1449514


Can u post some scores for Geekbench 3 and 4?

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


----------



## PJVol

I haven't had them installed on the PC, so I can’t, sorry.


----------



## MyUsername

nick name said:


> May I play?
> 
> https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/1458468
> 
> This is with the PC in a room with a 86*F/30*C ambient. I wish I would have gotten my 3900X while it was still cold out.
> 
> New ones.
> 
> https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/1458634
> https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/1458767


Squeezed this one out. It's weird sometimes it's stable, reboot and it's gone all wobbly, reboot fine again.

https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/1467490


----------



## nick name

MyUsername said:


> Squeezed this one out. It's weird sometimes it's stable, reboot and it's gone all wobbly, reboot fine again.
> 
> https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/1467490


Ooooh that's nice. What did you do to get that?


----------



## rastaviper

PJVol said:


> I haven't had them installed on the PC, so I can’t, sorry.


What about some screenshots from your CPU and ram settings?

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


----------



## MyUsername

nick name said:


> Ooooh that's nice. What did you do to get that?


I had the bclk at 100.6 with the EDC bug. Pretty much the limit as bclk at 100.7 makes my sata disappear. I tried taking 2 ram sticks out but that just made multi score plummet to 12000 but single was 1402.

What's your memory timings? Crypto score increases with tighter timings, I made a big jump just changing tfrc from 480 to 350, still can't touch yours though.


----------



## PJVol

rastaviper said:


> What about some screenshots from your CPU and ram settings?


 Sure, though they are BIOS ones, as i don't use RM (if you have been asking for something else, pls specify more precisely):


Spoiler















































In short:
CPU auto, -31mv, pbo 0-0-3 x5 +150 llc 3
RAM 3800 1:1 1.38v
SOC fixed 1.1 llc 3


----------



## KedarWolf

I'm going to CCX overclock using a fixed voltage at first, hope to test it at 1.325v tops, then go Adaptive.

Can anyone with a CCX overclock on the 3000 series post BIOS screenshots of the settings they use?

I'm not sure how to do it.


----------



## nick name

MyUsername said:


> I had the bclk at 100.6 with the EDC bug. Pretty much the limit as bclk at 100.7 makes my sata disappear. I tried taking 2 ram sticks out but that just made multi score plummet to 12000 but single was 1402.
> 
> What's your memory timings? Crypto score increases with tighter timings, I made a big jump just changing tfrc from 480 to 350, still can't touch yours though.


Sorry I can't really remember. I've been playing with memory for the last few days and nothing has been stable overnight yet so I'm not really keeping track. I can tell you that tRFC was anything from 260 - 312 though. I haven't been using anything higher than that.


----------



## nick name

KedarWolf said:


> I'm going to CCX overclock using a fixed voltage at first, hope to test it at 1.325v tops, then go Adaptive.
> 
> Can anyone with a CCX overclock on the 3000 series post BIOS screenshots of the settings they use?
> 
> I'm not sure how to do it.


You'll want to use Ryzen Master for that. I'm not aware of a BIOS that has it baked in yet. Does yours? 

And I've seen folks do CCD, but haven't seen anyone really do CCX yet. I've toyed with it, but didn't do too much because it is a lot more work and all I did was play with benchmarks.


----------



## KedarWolf

nick name said:


> You'll want to use Ryzen Master for that. I'm not aware of a BIOS that has it baked in yet. Does yours?
> 
> And I've seen folks do CCD, but haven't seen anyone really do CCX yet. I've toyed with it, but didn't do too much because it is a lot more work and all I did was play with benchmarks.


Yeah, you're right, Ryzen Master or worktool, but you need the voltages baked in the BIOS first, apparently worktool messes with them and they can be too high. So want to know what voltages I need to manually set. A basic guide below. Need to open the spoiler. But some voltages are on auto, do they matter CCX overclocking? Oh, and need manual voltages, not offset.

https://www.overclock.net/forum/13-amd-general/1741052-edc-1-pbo-turbo-boost-54.html#post28370316


----------



## nick name

KedarWolf said:


> Yeah, you're right, Ryzen Master or worktool, but you need the voltages baked in the BIOS first, apparently worktool messes with them and they can be too high. So want to know what voltages I need to manually set. A basic guide below. Need to open the spoiler. But some voltages are on auto, do they matter CCX overclocking? Oh, and need manual voltages, not offset.
> 
> https://www.overclock.net/forum/13-amd-general/1741052-edc-1-pbo-turbo-boost-54.html#post28370316


What I do is just set BIOS to Auto and then set the voltage in Ryzen Master.


----------



## KedarWolf

nick name said:


> What I do is just set BIOS to Auto and then set the voltage in Ryzen Master.


*The only thing from below I'd do differently in per CCX overclocks on my 3950x, not use it for all core.*



> My experience has been with the GigaByte Ryzen BIOS; however, I am confident that my experience is applicable to your ASUS BIOS. It has taken me days/weeks of trial and error to come to the conclusions I have shared with you.
> 
> The bottom line is, that you can either set the values in the BIOS by hand and avoid Ryzen Master or load the BIOS defaults, set LLC and nothing else and then control the BIOS via Ryzen Master. Any other combination has resulted in my system reacting erratically and unpredictably.
> 
> I wrote something else which you may find interesting here:
> 
> https://forums.evga.com/D...en-3900X-m3001694.aspx
> 
> P.S. If you want to format something from Reddit to post here, then just copy the text and then and paste it into Notepad, turning "Word Wrap" off under the option "Format", then copy that and paste it here. It takes a lot of the hassle out of the whole procedure.





> The very first thing to do is in Ryzen Master go to "Profile 2" (I will explain why Profile 2 further down) and set the Control Mode to "Manual".
> 
> After doing this, go to "Voltage Control" and set "Peak Core(s) Voltage to 1.3 Volts.
> 
> Next go to "Memory Control" click on "Included" and make sure that he slider is set to half of the rated value of you RAM (that is, if you have 3200 RAM you set the slider to 1600).
> 
> The next part is now really easy. Click on all the cores in CCD0 and CCD1 and set them to a speed and test that.
> 
> I started off with 3900 and worked my way up, because this was my first ever experience with a dual chiplet Ryzen CPU.
> 
> When you have set the value then go into Cinebench R20 and under "File" then "Preferences" set the "Minimum Test Duration" to 300 seconds. This will run through the Cinebench test multiple times.
> 
> Now gradually increase the clock speed of the cores and test, until it becomes unstable and Cinebench won't complete the test run.
> 
> Congratulations, you have found the sweet-spot for your CPU and what is more, that clock speed will give you a higher single-core score than setting Ryzen master even to "Auto Overclock".
> 
> With regard to the system I was configuring today, the sweet spot was at 4250 MHz for all the cores. I did manage to do a couple of single runs of Cinebench at 4300 MHz on all cores, but it was not stable over the 300-second run, even when I punted in higher voltage and the Cinebench score at 4300 was only about 100 more than the score at 4250.
> 
> So that was easy right?
> 
> But wait, there's more.
> 
> Remember when I said that you were to configure "Profile 2" and I would explain why? What follows will be the reason.
> 
> For gaming performance clock speed is important. Most games don't use more than four cores and very few games use more than six cores.
> 
> So now that you have configured "Profile 2" you take those values and apply them to "Profile 1" and then the only thing that you change is under "Additional Control" you set "Simultaneous Multithreading" to "Off".
> 
> After you reboot you will have a straight 12 Core/12 Thread system.
> 
> The first thing that you will notice when you run Cinebench is that your temps will be a lot lower - and this is what we will exploit (in the system I was working with this was a difference of 10° - 13° C).
> 
> Now you can find the sweet spot for this configuration - in the case of the system I was working with today, it was stable at an all-core speed of 4.35 GHz.
> 
> So now you have the best of both worlds, a 12 Core/12 Thread "Profile 1" for gaming and a 12 Core/24 Thread "Profile 2" for production work where you need the extra threads.
> 
> You can get even more gaming performance out of your system than this if you follow another guide I wrote which you can find here:
> 
> https://forums.evga.com/How-to-easi...n-overclocking-without-overclocking-m2918913…
> 
> If anything is unclear then please feel free to ask.
> 
> I will then use your feedback to update this post.


----------



## PJVol

Per ccx overclock is a nice feature, but can someone tell me what it has to do with EDC bug exploiting? Sorry.


----------



## Schmuckley

Ov3rdos3 said:


> Hello guys,
> 
> First of all thank you for all the insight and this wonderful thread. I have a Ryzen 3700x and x570 Crosshair Formula 8, I used the EDC1 as mentionned the boost frequency is very good, all cores on 4375mhz however it is not stable at all.
> 
> All my games crash to desktop is there a way to stabilise this issue?
> 
> Thanks


Yeah, scump the PBO and do a real overclock. Yeah! That's real.

Involves disabling SMT and OCing the cpu.

Do you wanna game, or run SMT?

SMT debilitates single core with Ryzen.


----------



## Schmuckley

rastaviper said:


> Can u post some scores for Geekbench 3 and 4?
> 
> Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


Idk 

https://browser.geekbench.com/geekbench3/8851714


----------



## Schmuckley

nick name said:


> May I play?
> 
> https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/1458468
> 
> This is with the PC in a room with a 86*F/30*C ambient. I wish I would have gotten my 3900X while it was still cold out.
> 
> New ones.
> 
> https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/1458634
> https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/1458767




You certainly may.

Ask yourself where you went wrong.

(Then I can tell you) Turn the "hyper-threading" off.

https://browser.geekbench.com/geekbench3/8851714


----------



## rastaviper

PJVol said:


> Sure, though they are BIOS ones, as i don't use RM (if you have been asking for something else, pls specify more precisely):
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 333168
> View attachment 333170
> 
> 
> View attachment 333178
> View attachment 333180
> 
> 
> View attachment 333182
> View attachment 333184
> 
> 
> 
> In short:
> CPU auto, -31mv, pbo 0-0-3 x5 +150 llc 3
> RAM 3800 1:1 1.38v
> SOC fixed 1.1 llc 3


Thanks buddy for all info.
I will keep them in mind.


Schmuckley said:


> You certainly may.
> 
> Ask yourself where you went wrong.
> 
> (Then I can tell you) Turn the "hyper-threading" off.
> 
> https://browser.geekbench.com/geekbench3/8851714


Is this an advice for this specific CPU or will it help with all CPU to improve their Geekbench scores?

And how to turn off the HT?

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


----------



## KedarWolf

Nighthog said:


> *EDC = 1, PBO TURBO BOOST* bug*
> 
> 
> *bug = *feature*.
> 
> Some posters over at the X570 Crosshair VIII thread came upon a way to get PBO to boost like never before. LINK
> 
> Shorthand info:
> 
> Set PBO into manual mode:
> *PPT 0
> TDC 0
> EDC 1*
> c-states disabled
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> For better tweaked results:
> *PPT [150]~[200+]
> TDC [100]~[130+]
> EDC 10 [25-30*]*
> (c-states disabled)
> 
> *CnQ enabled*
> 
> *EDC 25 is for 3950X, EDC 30 is for 3960X
> 
> PPT & TDC aren't important as they can be set whatever you want really but the key aspect here is *EDC*.
> We are setting it to *1 Ampere* Limit.
> 
> Some folks have probably noted there have been a bug in regard to EDC in the newer AGESA 1.0.0.4B BIOS. Some have complained that it would not work period. Basically only stock or 0 value which equals the processor fused setting is used. I have found a little flexibility with this setting but not as flexible as it was previously.
> 
> In case of a *Ryzen 7 3800X* EDC would have a limit of *140A* EDC. There is TDC & PPT as well, PBO uses these limits to set boosting targets and characteristics.
> Sadly I myself have noted PBO is gimped and performing beyond subpar to expectations. There are additional Limits on performance other than the available settings exposed in AMD_CBS & AMD_OVERCLOCKING BIOS pages.
> What settings we have available ONLY set the targets for non-AVX loads. AVX instructions or software have additional targets and limitations that don't take note of these available settings and behaves in their own way. Probably by design by AMD to protect the more heat and Ampere intensive loads these are. They don't want your to fry your CPU with AVX loads when you use PBO. So these are excluded from your OC settings.
> 
> By investigation and testing I've found that Cinebench R20 has a target EDC = 110A & ~70C target to boost. If it hits these targets it's stops boosting and starts to maintain these limits. Simliar target is noted for Y-cruncher 110A EDC, temperature can flex a little but it's similar ~70C. Prime 95 has only a 100A limit for AVX2 & AVX. Some specific loads might exceed these targets. It's unknown how AMD handles the cases when PBO decides to use lower AVX non-user configurable limits. These limits are low!
> 
> This is not a OC friendly system! We have here are *locked* PBO restrictions! Not unlocked processors as we all want these to be! (you can only circumvent these restrictions in full manual OC mode, upp till now that is)
> _________________________________________________________________________________
> *PBO TURBO BOOST* is here!
> 
> We can use *PBO* and the *EDC* setting to create a *feature* super fun *TURBO BOOST* situation!
> We can have EDC setting be so low that the turbo boost algorithm goes *FULL THROTTLE** haywire! *bug
> You will get EDC to be allways above it's set target and the boosting algorithm breaks and goes full throttle boost!
> 
> What we get is *all-core multi-core full boost!* Your CPU will now boost multi-core 4.400-4.550Ghz in most situations for a 3800X sample. (*4.600Ghz attainable)
> 
> EDC Limit gets broken and discarded by the algorithm and you get unlocked PBO boosting.
> I have seen that EDC will read TDC Amperage limit and you cores will run at their full capabilities! EDC gimp no longer!
> 
> What this means is Cinebench R20 will now run up-to 4.4Ghz ALL-CORE rather then the gimped 4.100~4.150Ghz from before because it would hit temperature [~70C ]or EDC [110A] limits for AVX loads.
> Multi-thread score will reach 5200-5280points from 5000point scores.
> 
> Gaming will see your CPU boost to max clock that your sample is capable off in multithread to what your CPU was before in single thread.*
> 
> *sample variances apply, not all chips clock the same, silicon lottery thing
> 
> There are caveats, not all CPU's will be stable with this! *GREAT COOLING REQUIRED*
> 
> Tweaks with voltage and LLC will effect results. Scalar settings has effect on boost. scalar[10x] works best for my 3800X sample.
> 
> *BEWARE! single thread is throttling.*
> Single thread or low load will cause the system to throttle as the boosting algorithm is trying to maintain the 1 Ampere limit for EDC. Only works under higher load. Under lower loads the Algorithm is trying to wrestle control to keep EDC to target.
> Here is advice: Either disable C-states to have no lower clock states or increase EDC target a little to allow the system to have clearance for single-thread loads.
> Disabling c-states has best effect for single thread throttling issues but you no longer have c-state C6 used. So higher power draw at idle. Cores will never fully idle at their lowest power state.
> 
> I myself found EDC targets between *[1]~[12]* work to make the system go *full throttle* under heavy load.
> For single thread loads I've found *EDC 10* and *scalar 10x* has worked best with a *3800X*. It will on occasion throttle to keep the EDC to target at idle or single thread load but all other applications usually work for multi-thread loads to have full boost capabilities.
> Others have found that a *3950X* likes *EDC 25* and a *3960X* likes one around *EDC 30*.
> 
> Picking a too low EDC value will cause more throttling if you have c-state enabled. Using a too high value your CPU will clock down all cores to keep it below your EDC target. More cores usually means you have to pick a higher target for better results.
> 
> Another thing is to test *CnQ* *enabled/*disabled, it alters the boost behaviour. Do note some might be stable with one and unstable with the other.
> I've myself had better boost clocks with *CnQ Enabled*.
> 
> After a tip from *gerardfraser* Install and use the *Windows Ultimate Power Plan* to have less single-thread throttling with *EDC* settings.
> Beware that idle voltages will not reach the usual 0.200V with this, they will usually stay ~1.000V minimum but you might lessen the single thread throttling we had as issue before.
> To add it if you don't have this option run *CMD* with *administrator privileges*.
> 
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> powercfg -duplicatescheme e9a42b02-d5df-448d-aa00-03f14749eb61
> 
> Using this power plan isn't necessary but it might give some better results when having c-states enabled.
> 
> Others may have had good results with the *1usmus Ryzen Power Plan* with c-states enabled.
> 
> *TEST AT YOUR OWN RISK!* I take no liability if anything might brake for you. It works satisfactory here for me at the moment.
> 4.600Ghz single thread & 4.500Ghz+ multi-thread.
> 
> Voltages will increase to accommodate the higher clocks.
> 
> *UNSTABLE?*
> Try a lower scalar setting if you get unstable results with scalar 10X. Some cores are better than others and not all behave the same and can at times only be stable with a lower scalar.
> You can start at either end 1x and go up or at 10X and go down until your stable. Some processors or motherboard combinations might like a value in the middle range 3-5x. It varies.
> Lower value should be more stable but also not allow PBO to boost as much or high. Higher values should give best performance at the exception of more unstable results if it tries to boost to much.
> It varies by CPU samples.
> 
> *Additional suggestions:*
> If you use a *3900X* & *3950X*. You will hit PPT, TDC & CPP/TDP limits which are 140watts & 95A TDC. You will want to increase these from stock limits to not be limited by these as much as matched by your cooling capabilities. Cinebench etc will otherwise throttle @ 140Watts if you don't increase wattage limits and you may only reach 4.1Ghz all-core which isn't the best these can do.
> 
> *3960X* have better behaviour with a *EDC 30* setting.
> *3950X* have better behaviour with a *EDC 20~25* setting.
> *3900X* have better behaviour with a *EDC 16* setting.
> *3800X* have better behaviour with a *EDC 10* setting.



Set PBO into manual mode:
PPT 0
TDC 0
EDC 1

where do I find these settings in the BIOS of an MSI X570 motherboard?

I enabled PBO, nada.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

KedarWolf said:


> [/SPOILER]
> 
> Set PBO into manual mode:
> PPT 0
> TDC 0
> EDC 1
> 
> where do I find these settings in the BIOS of an MSI X570 motherboard?
> 
> I enabled PBO, nada.


I don't have an MSI but on Youtube:

https://youtu.be/R9_epvmNEXI?t=542


----------



## gerardfraser

KedarWolf said:


> [/SPOILER]
> 
> Set PBO into manual mode:
> PPT 0
> TDC 0
> EDC 1
> 
> where do I find these settings in the BIOS of an MSI X570 motherboard?
> 
> I enabled PBO, nada.


MSI was hiding it from you.
CPUConfig


----------



## Medizinmann

gerardfraser said:


> MSI was hiding it from you.
> CPUConfig


Hiding?

As always - you have to look out for expert/advanced settings etc.

Hiding would mean you have no means besides some patching tool to get there - i.e. to unhide OC Option for Razer Laptops.

Something like that...
http://forum.notebookreview.com/thr...otential-to-unlock-all-hidden-options.830993/
...or that….
https://www.reddit.com/r/razer/comments/9jq0w0/temporary_fix_for_razer_blade_15_high_cpu_idle/

Greetings,
Medizinmann


----------



## nick name

MyUsername said:


> I had the bclk at 100.6 with the EDC bug. Pretty much the limit as bclk at 100.7 makes my sata disappear. I tried taking 2 ram sticks out but that just made multi score plummet to 12000 but single was 1402.
> 
> What's your memory timings? Crypto score increases with tighter timings, I made a big jump just changing tfrc from 480 to 350, still can't touch yours though.


I had some cooler weather to make use of so I opened a window and ran some benchmarks today. Got new high scores in CB15 and CB20. Also this Geekbench score. 

https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/1513507


----------



## Hueristic

Medizinmann said:


> Hiding?
> 
> As always - you have to look out for expert/advanced settings etc.
> 
> Hiding would mean you have no means besides some patching tool to get there - i.e. to unhide OC Option for Razer Laptops.
> 
> Something like that...
> http://forum.notebookreview.com/thr...otential-to-unlock-all-hidden-options.830993/
> ...or that….
> https://www.reddit.com/r/razer/comments/9jq0w0/temporary_fix_for_razer_blade_15_high_cpu_idle/
> 
> Greetings,
> Medizinmann


Sounded like a joke to me, like linking to LMGTFY.


----------



## nick name

Using 53*F/12*C outside air blowing into my 360 rad doesn't produce dramatic improvements in results, but the CPU does boost higher. I'm using 500 PPT 500 TDC and 2 EDC. That gets me 3452 points in CB15 with the CPU running a multiplier around 43 ~ 43.5. Cinebench usually runs a multiplier of 41.8 ~ 42 with warmer indoor ambients. So reducing the ambient by roughly 30*F/14*C yields about 100 ~ 175MHz in Cinebench R15 which translates to around 110 points.

Geekbench score: https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/1522022

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

With that air into the radiator my CPU idle is 14*C on one CCD and 18*C on the other. I've tried the cold plate in three different orientations and each yielded the same difference in CCD temps. Always about 4 ~ 5*C. 



The CPU does seem to stay cooler when using fixed multiplier and voltage when comparing equivalents speeds to the EDC bug method. Does anyone know what PPT and TDC values are when running fixed multipliers? I'm assuming that's the reason for the difference in temps at similar speeds.


----------



## Threadbooster

MoDeNa said:


> I tried with my 3950x with scalar 10x and + 200 Mhz and I got 4,8 Ghz of boost. With CBR20 all cores were at 4.325 Mhz - 4.350 Mhz. At first sight seems to be 100% stable but until we have more info I leave it at stock.


Hello, .

i have the same exact configuration you have... 3950x , 3200 14, 2080ti, x570 extreme.

but i struggle to reach good results expecially in clock consistency and scores under cb20.

can you please save your best bios settings and upload that i can try it on my build ?.

also i've noticed that your HWinfo have VRM and chipset both under Gigabyte x570 AORUS Xtreme. Have you re-arranged it manually ?. Also both temps are very close each other, i have one chipset that is 8/10 degress higher than other.

Ask all of this because i'm in the 30 days of amazon and if any defect is present i want to sent it back... this board and cpu cost too much to ignore it.

Many thanks.


----------



## KedarWolf

Does anyone even check their voltages with PBO Turbo Boost?

I've seen then jump scarily high, why I went CCX overclocking, 4.4, 4.375, 4.35, 4.325 at 1.28v in BIOS .175 Offset, much lower VR VOUT when stress testing in Cinibench, etc.

I can imagine the CPU degradation PBO Boost is really doing. 

MY CPU Core voltage while running Karhu RamTest is 1.256v and my VR VOUT is 1.256v as well. :h34r-smi

I've read even 1.312v can degrade something like 50% of 3000 series CPUs.


----------



## hardwarelimits

Someone wrote on reddit if you want to Oc choose this way 

1.) Find your FIT voltage using PBO only and Prime95 Small FFTs till your temperatures reach the maximum. Account for the maximum ambient temperature you’ll ever have as that will change the voltage.

2.) Use a per CCX overclock for increased stability. Also start with a modest LLC and try not to go over your FIT voltage under load.

3.) Pray to God your chip can hit 4.35 GHz.

Silicon lottery plays a lot here. If you don’t care for the lifetime of your chip just pump more voltage with the highest LLC you can and you will almost certainly hit it.

I’d recommend at least 4 hours of Prime95 to ensure stability. You might need to back off on frequencies in decrements of 25 MHz.


----------



## rares495

hardwarelimits said:


> Someone wrote on reddit if you want to Oc choose this way
> 
> 1.) Find your FIT voltage using PBO only and Prime95 Small FFTs till your temperatures reach the maximum. Account for the maximum ambient temperature you’ll ever have as that will change the voltage.
> 
> 2.) Use a per CCX overclock for increased stability. Also start with a modest LLC and try not to go over your FIT voltage under load.
> 
> 3.) Pray to God your chip can hit 4.35 GHz.
> 
> Silicon lottery plays a lot here. If you don’t care for the lifetime of your chip just pump more voltage with the highest LLC you can and you will almost certainly hit it.
> 
> I’d recommend at least 4 hours of Prime95 to ensure stability. You might need to back off on frequencies in decrements of 25 MHz.


FIT voltage has nothing to do with PBO. FIT=stock, PBO=OC

PBO alone will degrade the chips because it goes way over 1.325V and even that is not safe. PBO bug is probably a bad idea long term unless you're setting a massive offset, but then the boosts won't be as high so there isn't really a point of doing this in the first place.


----------



## Medizinmann

Hueristic said:


> Sounded like a joke to me, like linking to LMGTFY.


Might be - if so - he forgot the ""...

Greetings,
Medizinmann


----------



## gerardfraser

Medizinmann said:


> Might be - if so - he forgot the ""...
> 
> Greetings,
> Medizinmann


It was a joke but I am amazed how people can switch from Intel to AMD and not figure it out.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

rares495 said:


> FIT voltage has nothing to do with PBO. FIT=stock, PBO=OC
> 
> PBO alone will degrade the chips because it goes way over 1.325V and even that is not safe. PBO bug is probably a bad idea long term unless you're setting a massive offset, but then the boosts won't be as high so there isn't really a point of doing this in the first place.


AFAIK there have been multiple statements from AMD's Robert about this; Ryzen can work with voltages up to 1.5v and FIT is there, PBO or not, to protect the CPU if the power draw is too high.
Actually it's probably more dangerous running a fixed voltage above 1.4v than PBO with the bug; my voltage is at 1.5v only in idle to light workload, goes down when needed.

The FIT voltage (meaning the one you are interested into, which voltage the CPU will be limited to while using 100% all cores) can be found with open PBO; all values to 255 and running CB20 multithreaded.
If I remember correctly scalar to 1x and 0 Mhz AutoOC.

I have a -0.4 offset and I can still get decent all core performances and much better single core: on top with better thermals and power consumption.
PBO Bug against a fixed OC it's definitely worth if you want best single core performance and accept the trade off.


----------



## rares495

ManniX-ITA said:


> AFAIK there have been multiple statements from AMD's Robert about this; Ryzen can work with voltages up to 1.5v and FIT is there, PBO or not, to protect the CPU if the power draw is too high.
> Actually it's probably more dangerous running a fixed voltage above 1.4v than PBO with the bug; my voltage is at 1.5v only in idle to light workload, goes down when needed.
> 
> The FIT voltage (meaning the one you are interested into, which voltage the CPU will be limited to while using 100% all cores) can be found with open PBO; all values to 255 and running CB20 multithreaded.
> If I remember correctly scalar to 1x and 0 Mhz AutoOC.
> 
> I have a -0.4 offset and I can still get decent all core performances and much better single core: on top with better thermals and power consumption.
> PBO Bug against a fixed OC it's definitely worth if you want best single core performance and accept the trade off.


Standard auto PBO takes my chip to around 1.369V. I find it hard to believe that my FIT voltage is so much higher than 1.325V.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

rares495 said:


> Standard auto PBO takes my chip to around 1.369V. I find it hard to believe that my FIT voltage is so much higher than 1.325V.


Seems right, I did the test a while ago and for my 3800x the FIT voltage is 1.325 volt.
With the PBO bug my all core usage voltage is around 1.388 volt, going down if the thermals worsen.
The bump up is thanks to the PBO scalar a 10x not the low EDC.

Temperature is the most important factor; the FIT voltage is extremely conservative obviously.
If you can keep it cool then also 1.4v is safe; if it wasn't you could bet a trillion dollar AMD wouldn't allow it.

PS: PBO in Auto is not Open PBO: https://www.overclock.net/forum/13-amd-general/1741052-edc-1-pbo-turbo-boost-5.html#post28301470


----------



## rares495

ManniX-ITA said:


> Seems right, I did the test a while ago and for my 3800x the FIT voltage is 1.325 volt.
> With the PBO bug my all core usage voltage is around 1.388 volt, going down if the thermals worsen.
> The bump up is thanks to the PBO scalar a 10x not the low EDC.
> 
> Temperature is the most important factor; the FIT voltage is extremely conservative obviously.
> If you can keep it cool then also 1.4v is safe; if it wasn't you could bet a trillion dollar AMD wouldn't allow it.
> 
> PS: PBO in Auto is not Open PBO: https://www.overclock.net/forum/13-amd-general/1741052-edc-1-pbo-turbo-boost-5.html#post28301470


I bet a trillion dollars that they would allow it. More damaged chips = more sales.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

rares495 said:


> I bet a trillion dollars that they would allow it. More damaged chips = more sales.


Wish it'd be true, there wouldn't be any FIT table at all 
Handling the return is probably more expensive than producing the chip.


----------



## rares495

ManniX-ITA said:


> Wish it'd be true, there wouldn't be any FIT table at all
> Handling the return is probably more expensive than producing the chip.


No returns. You can't return products that you've damaged yourself. Warranty doesn't cover OC. Not even PBO.


----------



## VPII

ManniX-ITA said:


> Seems right, I did the test a while ago and for my 3800x the FIT voltage is 1.325 volt.
> With the PBO bug my all core usage voltage is around 1.388 volt, going down if the thermals worsen.
> The bump up is thanks to the PBO scalar a 10x not the low EDC.
> 
> Temperature is the most important factor; the FIT voltage is extremely conservative obviously.
> If you can keep it cool then also 1.4v is safe; if it wasn't you could bet a trillion dollar AMD wouldn't allow it.
> 
> PS: PBO in Auto is not Open PBO: https://www.overclock.net/forum/13-amd-general/1741052-edc-1-pbo-turbo-boost-5.html#post28301470


Let me jump in here, what I found having used two 3900X and two 3950X processors.... Both these first chips I had was doing well going up to 1.325vcore when manual overclocking it, unfortunately bot the second 3900X and 3950X could not handle vcore at 1.3v or above as temps were quick to reach 90C+ while even running only CB20. However, both the second chips could do speeds higher than the first two at much lower vcore and still stay within the below 85C core temp. So you have some work to do to see what your chip can do at which vcore but keeping an eye on the core temps. Currently I am happy to run my last 3950X at PBO or 4.2ghz all core at 1.1875vcore..... both giving me about the same core temps.

understand this, no cpu is the same, you need to find what works best for you.

Good luck, but it is these challenges brig us together here on this forum.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

rares495 said:


> No returns. You can't return products that you've damaged yourself. Warranty doesn't cover OC. Not even PBO.


Yeah but what would almost everyone do? Return it anyway; then whatever it's the warranty void or not it's a cost. 
And it's huge, that's why there are all these protections in even if customers don't like it.



VPII said:


> Let me jump in here, what I found having used two 3900X and two 3950X processors.... Both these first chips I had was doing well going up to 1.325vcore when manual overclocking it, unfortunately bot the second 3900X and 3950X could not handle vcore at 1.3v or above as temps were quick to reach 90C+ while even running only CB20. However, both the second chips could do speeds higher than the first two at much lower vcore and still stay within the below 85C core temp. So you have some work to do to see what your chip can do at which vcore but keeping an eye on the core temps. Currently I am happy to run my last 3950X at PBO or 4.2ghz all core at 1.1875vcore..... both giving me about the same core temps.
> 
> understand this, no cpu is the same, you need to find what works best for you.
> 
> Good luck, but it is these challenges brig us together here on this forum.


You're welcome to jump in 
It's always a matter of binning, that's why they suggest to find the FIT voltage.
The table is serialized during mass production, it can be used as a calibration table.
You can get an hint on how good or bad is your specific sample; it's different for each one.


----------



## neikosr0x

ManniX-ITA said:


> AFAIK there have been multiple statements from AMD's Robert about this; Ryzen can work with voltages up to 1.5v and FIT is there, PBO or not, to protect the CPU if the power draw is too high.
> Actually it's probably more dangerous running a fixed voltage above 1.4v than PBO with the bug; my voltage is at 1.5v only in idle to light workload, goes down when needed.
> 
> The FIT voltage (meaning the one you are interested into, which voltage the CPU will be limited to while using 100% all cores) can be found with open PBO; all values to 255 and running CB20 multithreaded.
> If I remember correctly scalar to 1x and 0 Mhz AutoOC.
> 
> I have a -0.4 offset and I can still get decent all core performances and much better single core: on top with better thermals and power consumption.
> PBO Bug against a fixed OC it's definitely worth if you want best single core performance and accept the trade off.


Well Zen Arch is really good with handling voltages the problem is Current really. As far as I know, Fit is always present PBO or not FIT is there what BPO does is relaxing the FIT values so the CPU can push to higher frequencies with the use of more voltage and for a longer period. Now the CPU will ask Cores to rotate and to lower Freq/Volt as needed to remain inside FIT max values. A Single Core can achieve 4.6ghz with 12.5w of power while the whole CPU 3900x would be pulling round 45/55w in total while at the same time pushing 4.6ghz at 1.5/1.48v, now you can compare that to a 145w/150w total CPU load which actually generates a lot of heat at 1.325v with or without rotating between Cores and voltages. For me, the only thing that really bugs me is not knowing what are the FIT limits when using the PBO bug, it would be nice if AMD could set a way for us to push the PBO "bug", in a safest way.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

neikosr0x said:


> Well Zen Arch is really good with handling voltages the problem is Current really. As far as I know, Fit is always present PBO or not FIT is there what BPO does is relaxing the FIT values so the CPU can push to higher frequencies with the use of more voltage and for a longer period. Now the CPU will ask Cores to rotate and to lower Freq/Volt as needed to remain inside FIT max values. A Single Core can achieve 4.6ghz with 12.5w of power while the whole CPU 3900x would be pulling round 45/55w in total while at the same time pushing 4.6ghz at 1.5/1.48v, now you can compare that to a 145w/150w total CPU load which actually generates a lot of heat at 1.325v with or without rotating between Cores and voltages. For me, the only thing that really bugs me is not knowing what are the FIT limits when using the PBO bug, it would be nice if AMD could set a way for us to push the PBO "bug", in a safest way.


Yes the FIT table is there with or without PBO enabled; it's a matter of wattage and the heat produced by it. That's why there are hundreds, I don't remember how many AMD said, temperature control points in the silicon.
The FIT limits are static; you don't need to know what they are while using the PBO bug. They are always the same, it's a matter of how they are being used to limit the processor.

AMD should not let use the PBO bug in a safest way; it shouldn't be there in first instance, it's a bug.
What they should do is improve the PBO algorithm radically and let it to its job as good as with the bug now without any "special" settings.

From the hours fiddling to find the best profile my opinion is that PBO is very conservative and for a good reason.
If the CPU and SOC vCore voltages, LLC and VDDP/VDDG are not perfectly calibrated you get worse performances up to straight BSODs and resets.
Nobody wants an automatic overclock that gives you a de-boost instead of a boost.

I think the communication and interaction with the board settings should be improved, if it does exist at all.
PBO should adapt itself to the board settings or otherwise the board settings should be configured by PBO to achieve better performances and reliability.
"Abusing" the bug will let you push a little bit the limits upwards at the cost of almost always loosing the "automatic overclock" feature.


----------



## xAD3r1ty

Guys i have a bug, sometimes when i play games my clocks are at like 4.5ghz, and all of the sudden it drops to idle clocks like 3.0 or 3.6ghz and stays there unless i reboot the windows and it fixes itself.
using edc 10 with 3800x


----------



## KedarWolf

ManniX-ITA said:


> AFAIK there have been multiple statements from AMD's Robert about this; Ryzen can work with voltages up to 1.5v and FIT is there, PBO or not, to protect the CPU if the power draw is too high.
> Actually it's probably more dangerous running a fixed voltage above 1.4v than PBO with the bug; my voltage is at 1.5v only in idle to light workload, goes down when needed.
> 
> The FIT voltage (meaning the one you are interested into, which voltage the CPU will be limited to while using 100% all cores) can be found with open PBO; all values to 255 and running CB20 multithreaded.
> If I remember correctly scalar to 1x and 0 Mhz AutoOC.
> 
> I have a -0.4 offset and I can still get decent all core performances and much better single core: on top with better thermals and power consumption.
> PBO Bug against a fixed OC it's definitely worth if you want best single core performance and accept the trade off.


This is my HWInfo this CCX overclock with these Offsets and Ryzen Performance Power plan but with CPU at 0% minimum, 100% max, C-States enabled with Twitch in the browser running and I'm going to install Battlefield 5, check my clocks and voltages with it running. 

I believe even with a CCX overclock my voltages are well with the safe range for 24/7 use. No need for PBO bug or Auto voltages and clocks. Most games are multicore core now and will be even more so in the future. To have one core at say 4.7GHz and the rest static at 3.6 while gaming and benchmarking is counterproductive I feel.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

KedarWolf said:


> This is my HWInfo this CCX overclock with these Offsets and Ryzen Performance Power plan but with CPU at 0% minimum, 100% max, C-States enabled with Twitch in the browser running and I'm going to install Battlefield 5, check my clocks and voltages with it running.
> 
> I believe even with a CCX overclock my voltages are well with the safe range for 24/7 use. No need for PBO bug or Auto voltages and clocks. Most games are multicore core now and will be even more so in the future. To have one core at say 4.7GHz and the rest static at 3.6 while gaming and benchmarking is counterproductive I feel.


Oh that's awesome 
As soon as I'll have some more free time, I'm going to spend some time for a fine per CCX profile.
Thanks for posting it.

Gaming is a nasty workload; true that games will be more multicore-aware in the future but the maximum clock will be always king of the hill.
The main thread is always going to need more juice than the child threads, even more when the threading is getting extreme with more cores to handle. More kids needs a better parent  
Also there are a lot of instructions, especially FP, which can't be run in parallel and can't be accelerated by the branch predictor.
You can't get more speed with multiple instructions per clock, only by running faster cycles; their speed depends purely on the clock rate.
That's why Intel is pushing so hard on higher frequencies to keep the crown for gaming.

I think it makes sense that both Intel and AMD are planning to go big.LITTLE; I'd be delighted with 4/8 cores at very high clock and another 16/32 running at a lower speed.
It'd fit most of the use cases very well. But they need to prepare the kernels to handle it well, really well.
Haven't seen very brilliant results so far with the Linux kernel for Android.


----------



## Streetdragon

xAD3r1ty said:


> Guys i have a bug, sometimes when i play games my clocks are at like 4.5ghz, and all of the sudden it drops to idle clocks like 3.0 or 3.6ghz and stays there unless i reboot the windows and it fixes itself.
> using edc 10 with 3800x


Its a bug in the bug. i have the same Problem. To solve that i have to disable c-stats in the bios.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Streetdragon said:


> Its a bug in the bug. i have the same Problem. To solve that i have to disable c-stats in the bios.


You are right, had the same issue. Disabling Global C-State did the trick; power consumption in idle will increase but not that much.


----------



## neikosr0x

ManniX-ITA said:


> Yes the FIT table is there with or without PBO enabled; it's a matter of wattage and the heat produced by it. That's why there are hundreds, I don't remember how many AMD said, temperature control points in the silicon.
> The FIT limits are static; you don't need to know what they are while using the PBO bug. They are always the same, it's a matter of how they are being used to limit the processor.
> 
> AMD should not let use the PBO bug in a safest way; it shouldn't be there in first instance, it's a bug.
> What they should do is improve the PBO algorithm radically and let it to its job as good as with the bug now without any "special" settings.
> 
> From the hours fiddling to find the best profile my opinion is that PBO is very conservative and for a good reason.
> If the CPU and SOC vCore voltages, LLC and VDDP/VDDG are not perfectly calibrated you get worse performances up to straight BSODs and resets.
> Nobody wants an automatic overclock that gives you a de-boost instead of a boost.
> 
> I think the communication and interaction with the board settings should be improved, if it does exist at all.
> PBO should adapt itself to the board settings or otherwise the board settings should be configured by PBO to achieve better performances and reliability.
> "Abusing" the bug will let you push a little bit the limits upwards at the cost of almost always loosing the "automatic overclock" feature.


What I meant was, fix the PBO values that actually work allowing us to set it up within the FIT values and not using a BUG to achieve it.


----------



## Streetdragon

ManniX-ITA said:


> You are right, had the same issue. Disabling Global C-State did the trick; power consumption in idle will increase but not that much.


i would not call it "no that much"

full idle 15Watts more. While netflix and chill5 watt more. But i have a 3900x.


----------



## rares495

Streetdragon said:


> i would not call it "no that much"
> 
> full idle 15Watts more. While netflix and chill5 watt more. But i have a 3900x.


How will you even manage with just a 1200W PSU?


----------



## Streetdragon

lel. that has nothing with my PSU to do.
As long as i cant poop money for the electricity bill its not an option


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Streetdragon said:


> i would not call it "no that much"
> 
> full idle 15Watts more. While netflix and chill5 watt more. But i have a 3900x.


I do, sadly 

In idle I have 120W power consumption, just Chrome open, which is basically always, 150W.
And my savings, at least with the old BIOS, were below 10W with Chrome open.
It's about 5-6% which is significant but in the whole economy of the staggering 150W, not that much.

If you play with the PBO bug I don't expect your primary goal is saving on the bill


----------



## KedarWolf

This what I found with BIOS CCX overclocking and PBO Boost using buildzoid settings.

With on Offset on both CPU and CDO voltages, with C-States and Cool 'N Quiet enabled, my idle voltages while watching Twitch on Chrome are very low. 

When running the x265 benchmark at 4K with warmer ambient temps, all my cores hover around 74C, I get a score of just over 30FPS.

With PBO Boost using the buildzoid suggested settings, C_States and Cool 'N Quiet disabled, while running x265 at 4K I get around 84C temps every core and just over 28FPS.

I think I'm going to stick to CCX with Offsets.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

KedarWolf said:


> This what I found with BIOS CCX overclocking and PBO Boost using buildzoid settings.
> 
> With on Offset on both CPU and CDO voltages, with C-States and Cool 'N Quiet enabled, my idle voltages while watching Twitch on Chrome are very low.
> 
> When running the x265 benchmark at 4K with warmer ambient temps, all my cores hover around 74C, I get a score of just over 30FPS.
> 
> With PBO Boost using the buildzoid suggested settings, C_States and Cool 'N Quiet disabled, while running x265 at 4K I get around 84C temps every core and just over 28FPS.
> 
> I think I'm going to stick to CCX with Offsets.


If you get 5-10 degrees more than the settings are wrong. You should spend days if not weeks to find the right ones... it's a pilgrimage.
I have the same temps running all core workload with PBO bug or CCX.

But if all core is important for you instead of single core, stick to CCX oc. I can't reach the same performances with the PBO bug.


----------



## xAD3r1ty

KedarWolf said:


> This what I found with BIOS CCX overclocking and PBO Boost using buildzoid settings.
> 
> With on Offset on both CPU and CDO voltages, with C-States and Cool 'N Quiet enabled, my idle voltages while watching Twitch on Chrome are very low.
> 
> When running the x265 benchmark at 4K with warmer ambient temps, all my cores hover around 74C, I get a score of just over 30FPS.
> 
> With PBO Boost using the buildzoid suggested settings, C_States and Cool 'N Quiet disabled, while running x265 at 4K I get around 84C temps every core and just over 28FPS.
> 
> I think I'm going to stick to CCX with Offsets.


What are the buildzoid suggested settings? Is Cool N quiet the same as eco mode in crosshair motherboards?

I love the edc bug but the system random throtle to idle speed sucks because if im in the middle of something important im fuc*** and in need of a reboot to fix
For me disabling c-state to fix it is not an option, i'd rather go back to stock because i'll only lose 100mhz


----------



## mrsteelx

xAD3r1ty said:


> What are the buildzoid suggested settings? Is Cool N quiet the same as eco mode in crosshair motherboards?
> 
> I love the edc bug but the system random throtle to idle speed sucks because if im in the middle of something important im fuc*** and in need of a reboot to fix
> For me disabling c-state to fix it is not an option, i'd rather go back to stock because i'll only lose 100mhz


you could try the bug at 1 and never get throttled again.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

mrsteelx said:


> you could try the bug at 1 and never get throttled again.


Nope, it doesn't work for me.
Just double checked again.
Same issues; single thread performance crawling to half, cores randomly stuck at base speed.


----------



## Badgerslayer7

I was suffering with my cpu down clocking with the edc bug. I Manually set my ppt-200 tdc-130 edc-16 and it has worked perfectly since but then I have a 3900x and not a 3800x. Maybe you could try the first 2 values and set a edc to suit your chip.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Badgerslayer7 said:


> I was suffering with my cpu down clocking with the edc bug. I Manually set my ppt-200 tdc-130 edc-16 and it has worked perfectly since but then I have a 3900x and not a 3800x. Maybe you could try the first 2 values and set a edc to suit your chip.


Have it already with fixed values 
[email protected] [email protected], anything else will bring down performances.


----------



## Badgerslayer7

I had it at fixed values before too. I had tdc at 120 but it kept downclocking until I increased it to 130.


----------



## nick name

xAD3r1ty said:


> Guys i have a bug, sometimes when i play games my clocks are at like 4.5ghz, and all of the sudden it drops to idle clocks like 3.0 or 3.6ghz and stays there unless i reboot the windows and it fixes itself.
> using edc 10 with 3800x


Increase EDC by 1 until it stops.


----------



## jamie1073

ManniX-ITA said:


> Nope, it doesn't work for me.
> Just double checked again.
> Same issues; single thread performance crawling to half, cores randomly stuck at base speed.



Other than the bug, have you tried the latest AMD driver package to use the AMD Ryzen Balanced power plan? After I updated my drivers I noticed that this power plan or the drivers actually helped my boosting when compared to the previous versions and were close to what the 1usmus power plan does for single core and MT boosting. Since the EDC bug is not working for you then that may help somewhat. Quicker test than the amount of re-boots needed to find the right EDC value.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

jamie1073 said:


> Other than the bug, have you tried the latest AMD driver package to use the AMD Ryzen Balanced power plan? After I updated my drivers I noticed that this power plan or the drivers actually helped my boosting when compared to the previous versions and were close to what the 1usmus power plan does for single core and MT boosting. Since the EDC bug is not working for you then that may help somewhat. Quicker test than the amount of re-boots needed to find the right EDC value.


Oh no, that's only about the Global C-State option.
For me it works pretty well on a GB x570 AORUS Master, I'm at EDC at 1 and I'm using the latest chipset drivers. Didn't notice any change in boosting.
While benching I use the Ultimate power plan; in normal usage the Ryzen Balanced with min CPU from 99 to 0% (quicker to go down in vCore while idling) and PCI-e Link State to Off (causes unreliability).
I have Process Lasso so for demanding programs and games it does switch to Ultimate automatically.

As many others I just can't enable C-State... I think I've seen someone else with an AORUS Master enabling it but I'm not sure.
Can't find any other setting that breaks it, seems it's EDC at 1. With EDC at 0 it works fine.


----------



## jamie1073

ManniX-ITA said:


> Oh no, that's only about the Global C-State option.
> For me it works pretty well on a GB x570 AORUS Master, I'm at EDC at 1 and I'm using the latest chipset drivers. Didn't notice any change in boosting.
> While benching I use the Ultimate power plan; in normal usage the Ryzen Balanced with min CPU from 99 to 0% (quicker to go down in vCore while idling) and PCI-e Link State to Off (causes unreliability).
> I have Process Lasso so for demanding programs and games it does switch to Ultimate automatically.
> 
> As many others I just can't enable C-State... I think I've seen someone else with an AORUS Master enabling it but I'm not sure.
> Can't find any other setting that breaks it, seems it's EDC at 1. With EDC at 0 it works fine.





Have you tried EDC=10 which is suggested in the first post for the 3800x? And I set all my Global C-State and other stuff back to Auto in my BIOS, I found that even with 1usmus I did not have to enable all that stuff they say you need to in the BIOS. I had them enabled and it was not performing any better so I set them all back to Auto.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

jamie1073 said:


> Have you tried EDC=10 which is suggested in the first post for the 3800x? And I set all my Global C-State and other stuff back to Auto in my BIOS, I found that even with 1usmus I did not have to enable all that stuff they say you need to in the BIOS. I had them enabled and it was not performing any better so I set them all back to Auto.


With EDC at 10 the performances are worse than at 1, at least for me.
It's the easy way; had it at 10 at the beginning but it was just slightly better than EDC at 0.

Setting everything else to Auto does not help; I started fresh at least a couple of times for this profile.
Took me weeks to fine tune this profile


----------



## Dan Hot

Badgerslayer7 said:


> I was suffering with my cpu down clocking with the edc bug. I Manually set my ppt-200 tdc-130 edc-16 and it has worked perfectly since but then I have a 3900x and not a 3800x. Maybe you could try the first 2 values and set a edc to suit your chip.


If u use these settings PC crash in CBR15 :/


----------



## patrick7884

I ve the wordt 3700x in the story, cant handle more tha 4.25ghz all core, i can boot at 4.4 Ghz, but if try 4.3 ghz with 1.44v core system crash in cinebench r20, there is good things too, in pbo i canbreash a score of 510 single core and 5050 multicore on cinebench, with multicore frequency 4.175 Ghz with 1.36vcore and 4.375ghz in single core

Inviato dal mio VOG-L29 utilizzando Tapatalk


----------



## ManniX-ITA

patrick7884 said:


> I ve the wordt 3700x in the story, cant handle more tha 4.25ghz all core, i can boot at 4.4 Ghz, but if try 4.3 ghz with 1.44v core system crash in cinebench r20, there is good things too, in pbo i canbreash a score of 510 single core and 5050 multicore on cinebench, with multicore frequency 4.175 Ghz with 1.36vcore and 4.375ghz in single core
> 
> Inviato dal mio VOG-L29 utilizzando Tapatalk


Seems pretty standard, you don't have the worst one. It's not either a great sample.
For sure 1.44v at 4.3GHz it's too much, you should be able to run bechmarks at 1.375v at that speed.

I did see mostly people complaining the 3700x doesn't work but you can try the EDC bug.
If you try, since you already don't have a great sample to start with, better if you set a low IF and RAM speed initially.


----------



## rares495

ManniX-ITA said:


> Seems pretty standard, you don't have the worst one. It's not either a great sample.
> For sure 1.44v at 4.3GHz it's too much, you should be able to run bechmarks at 1.375v at that speed.
> 
> I did see mostly people complaining the 3700x doesn't work but you can try the EDC bug.
> If you try, since you already don't have a great sample to start with, better if you set a low IF and RAM speed initially.


Mine does 4.3GHz at around 1.3V, maybe even lower. I'm able to run 4.4GHz allcore at around 1.375V


----------



## patrick7884

ManniX-ITA said:


> Seems pretty standard, you don't have the worst one. It's not either a great sample.
> 
> For sure 1.44v at 4.3GHz it's too much, you should be able to run bechmarks at 1.375v at that speed.
> 
> 
> 
> I did see mostly people complaining the 3700x doesn't work but you can try the EDC bug.
> 
> If you try, since you already don't have a great sample to start with, better if you set a low IF and RAM speed initially.


What is the edc bug? 

Inviato dal mio VOG-L29 utilizzando Tapatalk


----------



## ManniX-ITA

patrick7884 said:


> What is the edc bug?
> 
> Inviato dal mio VOG-L29 utilizzando Tapatalk


It's in the title of this thread 

Check the first post.


----------



## patrick7884

Sorry, i ll go to read from begin!!! 

Inviato dal mio VOG-L29 utilizzando Tapatalk


----------



## patrick7884

I ve tryed, never seen my 3700x boost up to 4425mhz and multicore 4250mhz!! Before that mod the max that ive seen was 4375mhz st and 4150mt, awesome, i ve set edc 1, scala 10x and all voltage in auto, max temp 67 degree celsius on cpu

Inviato dal mio VOG-L29 utilizzando Tapatalk


----------



## rares495

patrick7884 said:


> I ve tryed, never seen my 3700x boost up to 4425mhz and multicore 4250mhz!! Before that mod the max that ive seen was 4375mhz st and 4150mt, awesome, i ve set edc 1, scala 10x and all voltage in auto, max temp 67 degree celsius on cpu
> 
> Inviato dal mio VOG-L29 utilizzando Tapatalk


What kind of cooler?


----------



## patrick7884

I ve a waterblock alphacool xp3 light blavk v2, lapped, and 190lt for hour substained in the cose loop, 2x 240 radiatore, 1 x120, a gpu waterblock and 2 phobya pump dcp

Inviato dal mio VOG-L29 utilizzando Tapatalk


----------



## ManniX-ITA

patrick7884 said:


> I ve a waterblock alphacool xp3 light blavk v2, lapped, and 190lt for hour substained in the cose loop, 2x 240 radiatore, 1 x120, a gpu waterblock and 2 phobya pump dcp
> 
> Inviato dal mio VOG-L29 utilizzando Tapatalk


Complimenti, it's a nice setup 
Did you set AutoOC/Boost clock frequency to the max?
You could try to bump a little bit the vCore voltage offset and raise PPT and TDC, maybe you can get a little bit more.
Also set the thermal throttle limit to 200.


----------



## patrick7884

Ive tried to vive a positive vcore offset but, seems that the performance never changed, only change in single thread, maybe need more vcore, now i try and check temps, 

Inviato dal mio VOG-L29 utilizzando Tapatalk


----------



## patrick7884

Best performance reached, negative offset - 0.02v, edc 6, tdc ppt maxed out, v core at single core 1.47v, vcore at multi core 1.38v, max temp 69 degree, i think that is not bad, so my cpu isn sure a silicon lottery!! But i'm very happy!!









Inviato dal mio VOG-L29 utilizzando Tapatalk


----------



## jamie1073

patrick7884 said:


> Best performance reached, negative offset - 0.02v, edc 6, tdc ppt maxed out, v core at single core 1.47v, vcore at multi core 1.38v, max temp 69 degree, i think that is not bad, so my cpu isn sure a silicon lottery!! But i'm very happy!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inviato dal mio VOG-L29 utilizzando Tapatalk





That's really good!


----------



## patrick7884

jamie1073 said:


> That's really good!


For me yes, but i'm sure that there is sure most luchy chip that boost over 4.5ghz!

Inviato dal mio VOG-L29 utilizzando Tapatalk


----------



## ManniX-ITA

patrick7884 said:


> For me yes, but i'm sure that there is sure most luchy chip that boost over 4.5ghz!
> 
> Inviato dal mio VOG-L29 utilizzando Tapatalk


From what I've read 3700x are worse binning of 3800x; seems there's a very slim chance to get a lucky one.
Most of them they probably become a 3800x unlucky binning...


----------



## rares495

ManniX-ITA said:


> From what I've read 3700x are worse binning of 3800x; seems there's a very slim chance to get a lucky one.
> Most of them they probably become a 3800x unlucky binning...


Worse chips are usually much better at undervolting. That's one upside of getting a sh.t-tier CPU.


----------



## patrick7884

Yep, i supposte that is it. So i ve payed my 3700x only 240 euro for that 3700x, that was used for a week in a shop only like a promotional pc, so, the price for buy a 3800x was up to 100 euro more, for a maybe 100mhz more. I was supposed that, those 100mhz down t value the more 100 euro of difference

Inviato dal mio VOG-L29 utilizzando Tapatalk


----------



## patrick7884

Guys sorry for my grammatical incorrect english!! 

Inviato dal mio VOG-L29 utilizzando Tapatalk


----------



## jamie1073

patrick7884 said:


> For me yes, but i'm sure that there is sure most luchy chip that boost over 4.5ghz!
> 
> Inviato dal mio VOG-L29 utilizzando Tapatalk



You do not see many boost to far over their max. My 3900X only boosts single core on two of the 12 cores to 4.65Ghz. Then I get 2 cores to 4.625Ghz and the last 2 cores in the first chiplet hit 4.575Ghz. The other chiplet does not have a core that hits over 4.45Ghz and a low of 4.4Ghz on that chiplet. I look more at what this 'bug' did for my multi thread which is raised that 150Mhz over what just PBO would hit. I now get all core of 4.275Ghz instead of 4.125Ghz.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

patrick7884 said:


> Yep, i supposte that is it. So i ve payed my 3700x only 240 euro for that 3700x, that was used for a week in a shop only like a promotional pc, so, the price for buy a 3800x was up to 100 euro more, for a maybe 100mhz more. I was supposed that, those 100mhz down t value the more 100 euro of difference
> 
> Inviato dal mio VOG-L29 utilizzando Tapatalk


There are Android keyboards like this one:

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.touchtype.swiftkey&hl=it

That can support multiple languages and spell checkers at the same time 

The theory is the 3800x isn't worth; 20% price more for 2% performances.
But it's not like that, I'm glad I spent more on the 3800x.
If you do a bit of overclocking the difference is remarkable; for this CPU a 5% on each core is a lot more.

But it's not only the speed; the thermals are better out of stock settings.
The 3700x temps goes up very quickly while the 3800x has much more headroom.
These Ryzens as soon you go over the 60, 70, 75 degrees marks they pull the handbrake.


----------



## FrivolousJay

boldenc said:


> Are you using 1900 FCLK?
> After using EDC1 I can't run 1900 FCLK with stability, it will crash with windows reboot. I had to reduce the FCLK to 1800 with EDC1
> It was stable with manual OC @ 4.4.



Does anyone know why FCLK 1900 can't run with EDC 1? I have the same issue. I changed EDC to 5, PTT 0 and TDC 0 and it's allowing FCLK to run at 1900 so far. EDC 5 is low enough for the boosts and not high enough to where it throttles after idling and on low-load tasks on a 3600x. I'd like to understand what EDC has to do with the FCLK.


----------



## patrick7884

But amd 3000 is compatibile with memore over 3.6ghz only with x570 right? I cant go over 3.6ghz memory speed, so i can do that from bios but cpuz show max 1800 mhz memory clock. 

Inviato dal mio VOG-L29 utilizzando Tapatalk


----------



## jamie1073

FrivolousJay said:


> Does anyone know why FCLK 1900 can't run with EDC 1? I have the same issue. I changed EDC to 5, PTT 0 and TDC 0 and it's allowing FCLK to run at 1900 so far. EDC 5 is low enough for the boosts and not high enough to where it throttles after idling and on low-load tasks on a 3600x. I'd like to understand what EDC has to do with the FCLK.



Probably because the Infiniti Fabric on some setups does not like to run at 1900Mhz and prefers to be more stable at its designed speed of 1800Mhz. Or maybe you need to tweak the Ram to handle it. I can run mine at 1900Mhz just fine but I had to up my mem voltage a hair to get it more stable. But I have seen on here and other Forums that sometimes it just does not work at 1900 but may at 1866.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

FrivolousJay said:


> Does anyone know why FCLK 1900 can't run with EDC 1? I have the same issue. I changed EDC to 5, PTT 0 and TDC 0 and it's allowing FCLK to run at 1900 so far. EDC 5 is low enough for the boosts and not high enough to where it throttles after idling and on low-load tasks on a 3600x. I'd like to understand what EDC has to do with the FCLK.


You have to work on your profile; I'm running at IF 1900 with EDC at 1 with my 3800x and it's rock stable.
You probably need to find the perfect spot for the positive or negative offset voltage.
If you have instability for sure setting PPT and TDC at 0 is not helping at all; better to try something a bit higher than the standard values for your CPU.
CPU and SOC LLC and SOC vCore offset too are critical to IF stability.


----------



## patrick7884

I ve seen a better benchmark score with the ram oc, from 3200 Cl16 that is my originale xmp to 3600 cl15, with 1.45 on ram, ryzen 2 benefits a lot from ram oc

Inviato dal mio VOG-L29 utilizzando Tapatalk


----------



## xAD3r1ty

ManniX-ITA said:


> You have to work on your profile; I'm running at IF 1900 with EDC at 1 with my 3800x and it's rock stable.
> You probably need to find the perfect spot for the positive or negative offset voltage.
> If you have instability for sure setting PPT and TDC at 0 is not helping at all; better to try something a bit higher than the standard values for your CPU.
> CPU and SOC LLC and SOC vCore offset too are critical to IF stability.


You said before that edc 1 would throtle your cpu like i explained and that edc 90 was the fix, what did you change?


----------



## ManniX-ITA

xAD3r1ty said:


> You said before that edc 1 would throtle your cpu like i explained and that edc 90 was the fix, what did you change?


Ouch sorry that was a typo 
I meant TDC at 90 and that was an error too; I have it set to 80.

Check the settings below:


----------



## rares495

Tried this again on my 3700X just now. This is what worked best:

-0.0375V offset(going to -0.05V or more meant losing single core frequency in CB R20 Single and Subnautica)
PPT 200W
TDC 200A
EDC 10A
PBO Max Boost +500MHz

Cinebench R20 score 4500 -> 4630 -> 4991 -> 5250 -> 5400 (PBO disabled vs PBO Auto vs PBO Bug vs [email protected] manual vs [email protected] manual)

Cinebench R20 all core frequency 3900 -> 4025 -> 4150 (PBO disabled vs PBO Auto vs PBO Bug)

Subnautica: Below Zero frequency 4200-4225 -> 4275-4300

VCORE CB R20 Single = same (~1.46V in Ryzen Master)
VCORE CB R20 Multi = 1.294-1.300V in HWInfo (1.37V in Ryzen Master)

Random 1 core max 4400 -> 4450


----------



## ManniX-ITA

rares495 said:


> Tried this again on my 3700X just now. This is what worked best:
> 
> -0.0375V offset(going to -0.05V or more meant losing single core frequency in CB R20 Single and Subnautica)
> PPT 200W
> TDC 200A
> EDC 10A
> PBO Max Boost +500MHz
> 
> Cinebench R20 score 4500 -> 4630 -> 4991 -> 5250 -> 5400 (PBO disabled vs PBO Auto vs PBO Bug vs [email protected] manual vs [email protected] manual)
> 
> Cinebench R20 all core frequency 3900 -> 4025 -> 4150 (PBO disabled vs PBO Auto vs PBO Bug)
> 
> Subnautica: Below Zero frequency 4200-4225 -> 4275-4300
> 
> VCORE CB R20 Single = same (~1.46V in Ryzen Master)
> VCORE CB R20 Multi = 1.294-1.300V in HWInfo (1.37V in Ryzen Master)
> 
> Random 1 core max 4400 -> 4450


Very similar to my first settings, I have much better performances with EDC at 1.
Was always a bit below what I expected.

Did you test with Metro 2003 benchmark?

This was mine with EDC at 10:









While this is with EDC at 1:









Now forget the numbers, there's a margin of error which can be discarded.
Look at the thickness of the fps graph; with EDC at 10 the variance between the min and max is much higher.
Even if the average looks similar the actual result is very different.

I had good fps but frequent micro freezes and random stuttering.
Now it's fluid, really butter smooth 

If you see the same behavior with Metro 2033 try to find a profile that works with EDC at 1.
Play with offset, scalar and LLC until you get a stable single core performance. Check with cpu-z bench.

I had to limit PPT and TDC to avoid performance drops under load. Bit more than with EDC at 0.
Also could be helpful to limit the max boost to 200MHz; is not going above than that and just let it trying can cause a drop.


----------



## rares495

ManniX-ITA said:


> Very similar to my first settings, I have much better performances with EDC at 1.
> Was always a bit below what I expected.
> 
> Did you test with Metro 2003 benchmark?
> 
> 
> 
> Now forget the numbers, there's a margin of error which can be discarded.
> Look at the thickness of the fps graph; with EDC at 10 the variance between the min and max is much higher.
> Even if the average looks similar the actual result is very different.
> 
> I had good fps but frequent micro freezes and random stuttering.
> Now it's fluid, really butter smooth
> 
> If you see the same behavior with Metro 2033 try to find a profile that works with EDC at 1.
> Play with offset, scalar and LLC until you get a stable single core performance. Check with cpu-z bench.
> 
> I had to limit PPT and TDC to avoid performance drops under load. Bit more than with EDC at 0.
> Also could be helpful to limit the max boost to 200MHz; is not going above than that and just let it trying can cause a drop.



Those numbers look the same to me. I'm gonna play around with it a bit more later tonight but there haven't been any drops so far.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

rares495 said:


> Those numbers look the same to me. I'm gonna play around with it a bit more later tonight but there haven't been any drops so far.


That's why I said don't look at the numbers 
Compare the 2 graphs at seconds 20; with EDC at 10 the average is a result of jumps from 130 to 190, with EDC at 1 from 150 to 180.

After a while I started noticing it wasn't fluid.
It's more evident with some specific games under load: World War Z, State of Decay 2, Quake Champions with unlocked fps, etc
Not sure but I remember Subnautica being quite lightweight, would try something else.
I wasn't able to spot the issue with 3DMark or Resident Evil benchmark.


----------



## patrick7884

My best result with 3700x is with edc 5, v core offset - 0.01, i reach 5080pt in mt and 515 in st in cinebench, mt freq 4200/4225, and single core 4425 on last 3 core. Vcore 1.38 in mt and 1.48inbst, max temp 71 degree

Inviato dal mio VOG-L29 utilizzando Tapatalk


----------



## jcpq

Ryzen 3600X
Edc=4
Scalar= 4x


----------



## FrivolousJay

jcpq said:


> Ryzen 3600X
> Edc=4
> Scalar= 4x



What do you have for TDC and PPT? How about voltage settings?


----------



## kuutale

FrivolousJay said:


> What do you have for TDC and PPT? How about voltage settings?


Hello, 

cpu 3950x voltages safety at ch6 motheboard

I use edc bug edc 22 all rest is auto.
LCC 3


I seen cpu-z allcore voltage 1,27
cinebench 1.21
prime blend
intelburn test begin its boost 4,3 allcore with 1,38 vcore, then about 20sec it begin drop like 4100mhz 1.20 allcore.



What u think is this safe avoid detegration cpu? I seen and read safety limit is 1.32-1.30, but voltage reading is not accurate?

my temps not is heavy load around 60-65


----------



## ManniX-ITA

kuutale said:


> Hello,
> 
> cpu 3950x voltages safety at ch6 motheboard
> 
> I use edc bug edc 22 all rest is auto.
> LCC 3
> 
> 
> I seen cpu-z allcore voltage 1,27
> cinebench 1.21
> prime blend
> intelburn test begin its boost 4,3 allcore with 1,38 vcore, then about 20sec it begin drop like 4100mhz 1.20 allcore.
> 
> 
> 
> What u think is this safe avoid detegration cpu? I seen and read safety limit is 1.32-1.30, but voltage reading is not accurate?
> 
> my temps not is heavy load around 60-65


Seems normal to me.
The "FIT voltage" is different from sample to sample, generally is at 1.325v.
If your IBT test starts at 1.38v it's probably around that; PBO adds 50mv.

Theoretically, there shouldn't be any degradation.
If the power draw is too high over time there are other safe locks
That's why it goes down to 4.1 GHz 1.20v during IBT load.


----------



## kuutale

ManniX-ITA said:


> Seems normal to me.
> The "FIT voltage" is different from sample to sample, generally is at 1.325v.
> If your IBT test starts at 1.38v it's probably around that; PBO adds 50mv.
> 
> Theoretically, there shouldn't be any degradation.
> If the power draw is too high over time there are other safe locks
> That's why it goes down to 4.1 GHz 1.20v during IBT load.


Ok thanks for information.

so if u run low load u get more vcore, like use web browser or playing i see voltage jump 1,36-1,44 ryzen master voltage reading?


----------



## ManniX-ITA

kuutale said:


> Ok thanks for information.
> 
> so if u run low load u get more vcore, like use web browser or playing i see voltage jump 1,36-1,44 ryzen master voltage reading?


Yes, low load = low power draw. The CPU will try to boost clocks using a higher voltage. It's by design.


----------



## jcpq

FrivolousJay said:


> What do you have for TDC and PPT? How about voltage settings?


zero in both
cpu default voltage


----------



## kuutale

ManniX-ITA said:


> Yes, low load = low power draw. The CPU will try to boost clocks using a higher voltage. It's by design.


Ok, what is good programs test edc bug stability?


----------



## ManniX-ITA

kuutale said:


> Ok, what is good programs test edc bug stability?


i use first CPU-z bench; check the results are consistent and not dropping too heavily down while running.
Then Geekbench, make multiple runs.
Cinebench R20, compare with others with same CPU.
After that AIDA64 benches and stability test, multiple runs of FPU testing to check overheating.
Final at least 4 hours of OCCT, better 8-12-24 depending how much you want to feel safe.

Best test for has been Metro 2003 benchmark; it did show me the EDC settings were not stable.
Too much variance in min and max fps meant something was wrong.
3DMark just to double check everything is fine.

If you really are scrupulous and have time test also with Intel Burn Test and Prime95 up to 24h but do it only if you have a proper cooling.
And be ready to see low clocks and very high temperatures.


----------



## BIRDMANv84

jcpq said:


> zero in both
> cpu default voltage


Curious to which board are you running with those settings, I want to try this on my 3600x with a CH7Hero, not too much info on this bug with the 3600x, but Im only like 30 pages in so far. First time really trying to do any overclocking(this is my 2nd PC ever), just got my ddr4 stable and its been stable over the past month with help from this website. Now ready to move to the CPU instead of the setting I have now to see if there is any performance difference, right now just running Default boost, PBO off, PE3, everything else is auto except for some voltages I had manually enter when I did my ddr4.


----------



## rastaviper

jcpq said:


> Ryzen 3600X
> 
> Edc=4
> 
> Scalar= 4x


Nice boost, but these are just max clocks.
Any benchmarks to check your performance?
Probably you would get worse results compared to a fixed overclock of 4.3-4.4ghz

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


----------



## GMan79

Anyone with an MSI MPG X570 GAMING EDGE WIFI Board + an Ryzen 3900x ?

What are your Values?


----------



## opethdisciple

My first time messing about with these settings. I just applied the settings Buildzoid advices in this video:








Essentially:


PPT: 300
TDC: 230
EDC: 230
Scalar: 4x


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Did anyone tried with the latest AGESA 1.0.0.5 if the bug still works?


----------



## GMan79

ManniX-ITA said:


> Did anyone tried with the latest AGESA 1.0.0.5 if the bug still works?


People on the RAMOC Discord tested it on the MSI ACE and said "bug" is still there. So it's considered to be something done by AMD for purpose.


----------



## rastaviper

jcpq said:


> zero in both
> 
> cpu default voltage


At your image I see both cpu vid and max standard cpu voltage at 1.475v.
This is not the default voltage. Are u sure that you haven't change it manually?

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


----------



## jcpq

rastaviper said:


> At your image I see both cpu vid and max standard cpu voltage at 1.475v.
> This is not the default voltage. Are u sure that you haven't change it manually?
> 
> Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


No, it's in auto.


----------



## rastaviper

opethdisciple said:


> My first time messing about with these settings. I just applied the settings Buildzoid advices in this video:
> 
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7Z7bJJcCNY
> 
> 
> Essentially:
> 
> 
> PPT: 300
> TDC: 230
> EDC: 230
> Scalar: 4x





jcpq said:


> Ryzen 3600X
> Edc=4
> Scalar= 4x


So i have made some CB20 tests by running my 3600x through these 2 setups, plus at stock settings.


Stock: 3162
jcpq option (worse): 2888
opethdisciple option (best):3217

And as a bonus, when run full core OCing at 4.4Ghz, I get around 4020 points.

Now the big question is why when the jcpq shows that it boosts better, gets the worse results. I have run twice the test so it's verified. And I was watching in real time the clocks and the % cpu usage. The clocks were higher than in the other setups and the usage always 100%. So why worse score?


----------



## jcpq

rastaviper said:


> At your image I see both cpu vid and max standard cpu voltage at 1.475v.
> This is not the default voltage. Are u sure that you haven't change it manually?
> 
> Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


CB20 score


----------



## rastaviper

jcpq said:


> CB20 score


The TDC in that image shows that is 80. Is that correct?
Because earlier u said that u have it at 0.


----------



## jcpq

Zero=default mb


----------



## jamie1073

jcpq said:


> Zero=default mb



If I set my TDC and PPT to 0 on my board it goes back to AMD defaults. I had to set mine manually to the Motherboard ratings, which in my case is TDC=210 and PPT=500, then for my EDC I did the trick and set it to EDC=16 since I have a 3900X. Then it worked like the trick should and increased my all core clocks for R20 by 150Mhz to 4.250Ghz and single core boost to 4.65Ghz. If I play with my LLC settings I get all core to 4.275Ghz but it fails on one thread in P95 and I get random overnight reboots, but did have lower CPU temps alt 100% CPU utilization.


----------



## kroaton

Giustaf said:


> Has anyone tried these settings?
> 
> I have only changed cpu current capability to 130%, not 140!
> 
> 
> in gaming at default, my cpu boost up to 4325 all core, with this setting my cpu boost up to 4400 all core
> 
> do you think they are safe for 3900x?
> 
> 
> SETTINGS:
> The EDC limit set to 1 really works for boosting all cores and single core to their MAX! Thanks to the guy that figured this out.
> 
> Here is what I did to get it to work
> Set your ram timmings to whatever you prefer.
> And the fclk to half that of your ram speed.
> 
> In extreme Tweaker/core performance boost
> 
> set it to – Auto
> 
> In extreme Tweaker/precision boost overdrive
> 
> precision boost overdrive = auto
> max cpu boost clock override = auto
> platform throttle limit = auto
> Set all 3 options to AUTO
> 
> In extreme Tweaker/digi+ power control
> cpu load-line calibration set to = LEVEL 3
> cpu current capability to 140%
> 
> In advanced/amd cbs/nbio common options/xfr enhancement/accepted
> precision boost overdrive = auto
> and precision boost overdrive = auto
> 
> 
> now in
> advanced/amd overclocking/amd overclocking/precision boost override
> precision boost override set this to -advanced
> PBO limits to manual
> PPT limit =0
> TDC limit =0
> EDC limit =1
> precision boost overdrive scalar - manual =10x
> max cpu boost clock override =200mhz
> and the thermal throttle to =200
> save and restart.



I tried these settings but get lower performances than my settings in my video here


----------



## ManniX-ITA

rastaviper said:


> So i have made some CB20 tests by running my 3600x through these 2 setups, plus at stock settings.
> 
> 
> Stock: 3162
> jcpq option (worse): 2888
> opethdisciple option (best):3217
> 
> And as a bonus, when run full core OCing at 4.4Ghz, I get around 4020 points.
> 
> Now the big question is why when the jcpq shows that it boosts better, gets the worse results. I have run twice the test so it's verified. And I was watching in real time the clocks and the % cpu usage. The clocks were higher than in the other setups and the usage always 100%. So why worse score?





jamie1073 said:


> If I set my TDC and PPT to 0 on my board it goes back to AMD defaults. I had to set mine manually to the Motherboard ratings, which in my case is TDC=210 and PPT=500, then for my EDC I did the trick and set it to EDC=16 since I have a 3900X. Then it worked like the trick should and increased my all core clocks for R20 by 150Mhz to 4.250Ghz and single core boost to 4.65Ghz. If I play with my LLC settings I get all core to 4.275Ghz but it fails on one thread in P95 and I get random overnight reboots, but did have lower CPU temps alt 100% CPU utilization.





kroaton said:


> I tried these settings but get lower performances than my settings in my video here


From my experience the root cause for all you issues is the same; the voltages.

It's the reason why this is a bug and not a configurable setting.
AMD's algorithms for PBO are quite limited, hence the lower than advertised boost speeds; the EDC is limiting power draw spikes and is being very conservative.

You are disabling the principal automatic control with the bug, if you want to make it work you have to fine tune yourself.
PBO is not doing it anymore for you and this is a good thing. Otherwise you'll never have the chance to break that barrier.

There are many other controls and safes in the background but by smashing the main door you can get that little bit more with light loads.
Under heavy loads there are many other safes and it's a good thing, the processor would probably burn out very quickly with the wrong settings.

Like most of those who were able to get good results I spent weeks looking for the right settings.
It's a tedious and long process, a very lengthy manual calibration process.

Even if you get good results with someone else's settings you should do it; you can probably get even better scores.
The right settings are very specific to your CPU sample, you board, your RAM, everything.

I'll explain my process, maybe it works for you too.

First you have to set your target IF and memory clock; you'll change it later it will impact the other settings.
Set the SOC voltage to Normal with no offset and fixed VDDP/VDDG; the lower is the better in my experience.
Try to stick to 900/950.

Then it's a very tedious process of testing every CPU offset, LLC and PWM with PBO EDC, Boost clock and scalar.

For testing the settings us CPU-z bench; it's pretty unique. The bench speed is displayed in real time, like a tachometer.
You'll have to watch it and check if and how it goes down.
It is expected to drop after start but it should get back and over the initial speed and over very quickly.
You can use it to compare quickly a new setting without running long benchmarks.

I had already found out the best settings for EDC at 0; I started with these and indeed they were a good starting point.
Nevertheless I tested also all the other possible combinations.

Set the CPU voltage to Normal and LLC to Auto; EDC at the lowest for your processor and boost to zero and scalar to 1.
Adjust the CPU Offset to the lowest point until you get a stable result, just a notch above where CPU-z bench starts collapsing after start.
PBO will raise your voltages under load so you have to set it to the lowest value without it.

Find a good LLC that will make the CPU-z bench more stable over a run; I have mine to Medium.

Then there's another iterative process; raise the scalar and if you can't get it to 10 without drops, start stepping down the Vcore offset.
Ideally for the best results your target is 10. Otherwise the voltage with and without load will be too close.

Then you have to raise the boost clock; this is actually controlling the maximum clock boost.
Your target is at least 150, better the max.
At this point your scalar and vcore offset settings could need another adjustment.
Lower the vcore offset and if it's not working, adjust the scalar. But keep in mind your goal is to keep the scalar at 10.

If you have trouble to find the right spot with scalar at 10 try different settings for LLC and PWM.

Now, if you are lucky, you should get the better boost clocks with effective clocks close to it.
Consistently better scores and no instabilities.


----------



## rastaviper

jcpq said:


> Zero=default mb


Hmm but u haven't mentioned that you have activated the +200mhz option.
I don't think that the other members are using this, so the results cannot be compared then.


----------



## MoDeNa

Threadbooster said:


> Hello, .
> 
> i have the same exact configuration you have... 3950x , 3200 14, 2080ti, x570 extreme.
> 
> but i struggle to reach good results expecially in clock consistency and scores under cb20.
> 
> can you please save your best bios settings and upload that i can try it on my build ?.
> 
> also i've noticed that your HWinfo have VRM and chipset both under Gigabyte x570 AORUS Xtreme. Have you re-arranged it manually ?. Also both temps are very close each other, i have one chipset that is 8/10 degress higher than other.
> 
> Ask all of this because i'm in the 30 days of amazon and if any defect is present i want to sent it back... this board and cpu cost too much to ignore it.
> 
> Many thanks.


Hi mate!

Sorry, I did not see your message until these days 

Anyway we are still on time, as you still have 3 days to try 

Regarding my bios, I updated to the last one some days ago (F12e) and I did not save the template but this is not a problem. The only settings I changed were scalar 10x and + 200 Mhz, ram at 1866 Mhz and thats all. 

Regarding the HWinfo, I did a custom template to monitor what I am interested in. VRM and chipset temps are good as I have 4 intake fans directly (side mount) apart from the front rad fans.

Hope this helps!

Cheers!


----------



## opethdisciple

Just to add Buildzoid then did a follow up video:








However the difference is really minor:



PPT: 300
TDC: 230
EDC: 230
Scalar: 2x


I'm not sure if leaving Scalar on 2x or 4 x is better. Generally I get similar performance between the two. But with 4x I did once get a score of 5000 in CBR20 which is the highest I've recorded so I have left it on 4x. But from what I understand the scalar just controls how long the CPU will hold the voltage when boosting.


I do not know if this is any more unsafe than 2x. As far as Buildzoid is concerned upping the scalar isn't increasingly more unsafe as the CPU will limit the voltages eventually to stay within a safe margin.


---


Thing that confused me about was was the 4x scalar for the 3950x he was using or the Gigabyte board. Because in the video above he is on an Asus board with a 3700x and he uses 2x rather than 4x. But as he says it doesn't matter any way you can try 1x - 4x to see what's best as it differs form cpu/mobo and bios.


----------



## jcpq

Update:
Tested C-State ON
1usmus power plan

What power plan are you using?
And C-State ON, have you tested it?


----------



## rastaviper

jcpq said:


> Update:
> Tested C-State ON
> 1usmus power plan
> 
> What power plan are you using?
> And C-State ON, have you tested it?


1.475v??
U should really check this issue buddy.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

rastaviper said:


> 1.475v??
> U should really check this issue buddy.


The voltage is normal, is not under load.



jcpq said:


> Update:
> Tested C-State ON
> 1usmus power plan
> 
> What power plan are you using?
> And C-State ON, have you tested it?


I'm using Process Lasso; AMD Ryzen Balanced, for high performance applications the Ultimate

With global C-State on I get poor single core performances and randomly clocks stuck at 3.8 GHz after a while.

Use CPU-z bench for testing the C-State, with CB20 the issue doesn't show up often


----------



## jcpq

rastaviper said:


> 1.475v??
> U should really check this issue buddy.


At load MC 1.36v
At load SC 1.46v


----------



## jcpq

ManniX-ITA said:


> The voltage is normal, is not under load.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm using Process Lasso; AMD Ryzen Balanced, for high performance applications the Ultimate
> 
> With global C-State on I get poor single core performances and randomly clocks stuck at 3.8 GHz after a while.
> 
> Use CPU-z bench for testing the C-State, with CB20 the issue doesn't show up often


Ok, thanks, I'll try CPU-z Bench for testing the C-State.


----------



## rastaviper

ManniX-ITA said:


> The voltage is normal, is not under load.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm using Process Lasso; AMD Ryzen Balanced, for high performance applications the Ultimate
> 
> With global C-State on I get poor single core performances and randomly clocks stuck at 3.8 GHz after a while.
> 
> Use CPU-z bench for testing the C-State, with CB20 the issue doesn't show up often


I am missing something?
This is a ss from my hwinfo.

Isn't the vcore on the right the standard voltage of the CPU? Alzo Cpuz shows the same exactly figures with this one.
So what about the SV12 TFN on the left?


----------



## ManniX-ITA

rastaviper said:


> I am missing something?
> This is a ss from my hwinfo.
> 
> Isn't the vcore on the right the standard voltage of the CPU?
> So what about the SV12 TFN on the left?


What I know is that you have to look at the SV12 TFN, it's from the CPU.
The other vcore is from the ITE chipset and depends on the board implementation.

Found an explanation from HWInfo's author:

_SVI2 TFN usually reflects the VRM telemetry as sampled by the CPU, so it's possible that a dedicated Vcore monitoring (i.e. by ITE) can source the Vcore at different points. But this depends on particular board design.
So for such specific questions I suggest to ask at overclocking forums like OCN; i.e. for the C6H board here: http://www.overclock.net/t/1624603/rog-crosshair-vi-overclocking-thread_

https://www.hwinfo.com/forum/threads/more-about-cpu-core-volts-svi2-tfn-and-ryzen.2989/

So this is the right place to ask but I'm not the right one to answer


----------



## rastaviper

ManniX-ITA said:


> What I know is that you have to look at the SV12 TFN, it's from the CPU.
> 
> The other vcore is from the ITE chipset and depends on the board implementation.
> 
> 
> 
> Found an explanation from HWInfo's author:
> 
> 
> 
> _SVI2 TFN usually reflects the VRM telemetry as sampled by the CPU, so it's possible that a dedicated Vcore monitoring (i.e. by ITE) can source the Vcore at different points. But this depends on particular board design.
> 
> So for such specific questions I suggest to ask at overclocking forums like OCN; i.e. for the C6H board here: http://www.overclock.net/t/1624603/rog-crosshair-vi-overclocking-thread_
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.hwinfo.com/forum/threads/more-about-cpu-core-volts-svi2-tfn-and-ryzen.2989/
> 
> 
> 
> So this is the right place to ask but I'm not the right one to answer


If the SV12 is the correct one, then it means that the CPUz info is also not correct and also that the voltage offset is also not correct.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


----------



## ManniX-ITA

rastaviper said:


> If the SV12 is the correct one, then it means that the CPUz info is also not correct and also that the voltage offset is also not correct.
> 
> Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


It's a different measurement point, doesn't mean it's not correct.

I remember reading the following explanation on r/AMD, not sure if it was coming from AMD reps or not.

The Ryzen is a Multi Core Module; there is one or more CCD, the cores memory controllers, the IO die and the Infinity fabric.
Probably something else too.

The SV12 is the internal vCore for the CCD; not sure only the first CCD or an average for all.
Then each core is fed with it's own voltage that you can check with the VID value.

The "classic" vCore is the voltage distributed across all the internal components.
Then you have it converted to VDDP for the memory controller, VDDG IOD for the IO die, VDDG CCD for the IF.

Intel and previous AMD CPUs were monolithic chips, fed by a single vCore, that's why historically only one is reported.

So if you are strictly looking at the CCDs, the CPU cores, look at SV12.
If you are troubleshooting IF and memory overclock then look also at the vCore, the vCore SOC, SOC SV12.


----------



## jamie1073

ManniX-ITA said:


> It's a different measurement point, doesn't mean it's not correct.
> 
> I remember reading the following explanation on r/AMD, not sure if it was coming from AMD reps or not.
> 
> The Ryzen is a Multi Core Module; there is one or more CCD, the cores memory controllers, the IO die and the Infinity fabric.
> Probably something else too.
> 
> The SV12 is the internal vCore for the CCD; not sure only the first CCD or an average for all.
> Then each core is fed with it's own voltage that you can check with the VID value.
> 
> The "classic" vCore is the voltage distributed across all the internal components.
> Then you have it converted to VDDP for the memory controller, VDDG IOD for the IO die, VDDG CCD for the IF.
> 
> Intel and previous AMD CPUs were monolithic chips, fed by a single vCore, that's why historically only one is reported.
> 
> So if you are strictly looking at the CCDs, the CPU cores, look at SV12.
> If you are troubleshooting IF and memory overclock then look also at the vCore, the vCore SOC, SOC SV12.



When I look at HWInfo64 it does list a Voltage for all 12 cores of the 3900x. They bounce all around between 1.47ish down to 1.04ish.


----------



## domdtxdissar

I have been playing around with this "EDC feature" with mixed results, these are my findings:

Cinebench R20 = good multithread, bad singlethread (got 10.1k in multi, highest ive gotten before with tweaked PBO is 10k)
CPU-Z benchmark = good multi and single (only benchmark where singlethread dont throttle, think i was running it at 4.775 ghz sustained)

Geekbench 4 = good multithread, bad singlethread.
EDC bug @ https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/15430206 single=5814, multi=61737
PBO @ https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/15430351 single=6337, multi =59344

Geekbench 5 = good multithread, bad singlethread.
EDC bug @ https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/1908481 single=1172, multi=17092
PBO @ https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/1909279 single=1392, multi=16582

These were my settings:
PPT = 200
TDC = 130
EDC = 25 (i'm using a 3950x)

Had to use pbo scalar 5, otherwise cinebench r20 singlethread would crash.

Could not find any settings to stabilize the singlethread performance, going back to tweaked PBO for now.


----------



## Awsan

domdtxdissar said:


> I have been playing around with this "EDC feature" with mixed results, these are my findings:
> 
> Cinebench R20 = good multithread, bad singlethread (got 10.1k in multi, highest ive gotten before with tweaked PBO is 10k)
> CPU-Z benchmark = good multi and single (only benchmark where singlethread dont throttle, think i was running it at 4.775 ghz sustained)
> 
> Geekbench 4 = good multithread, bad singlethread.
> EDC bug @ https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/15430206 single=5814, multi=61737
> PBO @ https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/15430351 single=6337, multi =59344
> 
> Geekbench 5 = good multithread, bad singlethread.
> EDC bug @ https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/1908481 single=1172, multi=17092
> PBO @ https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/1909279 single=1392, multi=16582
> 
> These were my settings:
> PPT = 200
> TDC = 130
> EDC = 25 (i'm using a 3950x)
> 
> Had to use pbo scalar 5, otherwise cinebench r20 singlethread would crash.
> 
> Could not find any settings to stabilize the singlethread performance, going back to tweaked PBO for now.


Try different powerplans like ultimate or 1usmus's.


----------



## domdtxdissar

Seems like i finally managed to make it work properly 
Boosting all the way up to 4.8ghz* without throttling now (i think)

Geekbench 4:
EDC bug working @ https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/15430514 single=6350, multi=61926

Geekbench 5:
EDC bug working @ https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/1910006 single=1396, multi=17054

*mhz can be seen @ https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/15430514.gb4


----------



## Awsan

domdtxdissar said:


> Seems like i finally managed to make it work properly
> Boosting all the way up to 4.8ghz* without throttling now (i think)
> 
> Geekbench 4:
> EDC bug working @ https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/15430514 single=6350, multi=61926
> 
> Geekbench 5:
> EDC bug working @ https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/1910006 single=1396, multi=17054
> 
> *mhz can be seen @ https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/15430514.gb4


What was the missing ingredient?


----------



## kuutale

domdtxdissar said:


> Seems like i finally managed to make it work properly
> Boosting all the way up to 4.8ghz* without throttling now (i think)
> 
> Geekbench 4:
> EDC bug working @ https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/15430514 single=6350, multi=61926
> 
> Geekbench 5:
> EDC bug working @ https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/1910006 single=1396, multi=17054
> 
> *mhz can be seen @ https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/15430514.gb4


can u share u pbo settings? and what power plan?


----------



## Awsan

Can't get here sooner






EDIT: Wanted to post on the unify thread, my bad


----------



## domdtxdissar

Awsan said:


> What was the missing ingredient?


I had forgot to disable global c-states, that's why i was getting lower singlethread scores... :blushsmil

But in the end, i could not get the cpu 100% stable with this EDC bug, so i'm back to tweaked PBO now.
Not much difference in performance, alittle lower multithread, prettymuch same singlethread.

Buildzoid PBO settings:
Geekbench 4 @ https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/15430811 singlethread=6382, multithread=60482
Geekbench 5 @ https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/1911278 singlethread=1398, multithread=16686



kuutale said:


> can u share u pbo settings? and what power plan?


These were my settings:
PPT = 200
TDC = 130
EDC = 25 (i'm using a 3950x)
Scalar = 10
Together with 1usmus ryzen powerplan

But like i said above, i could not get it 100% stable..

Think i'm one of the lucky ones with semi working PBO from the getgo, so there is not much difference between this EDC bug and regular PBO for me..


----------



## Awsan

I am right now @ 
PPT=200
TDC=140
EDC=25 
Scalar=10
Offset - 0.05
C-state enabled
CnQ enabled 
FCLK 1900mhz
1usmus powerplan

Getting Multi 9604 and single of 514.
Clocks stuck @ 4.2 in multi and up-to 4.6 in single (Multi @ 80 degrees due to the bad mounting on the cooler)

Any tips to get better scores?


EDIT: for the love of god can any one tell me why when disabling spread spectrum I am not @100mhz instead of 99.98? even if I try to enter it manually it will reset to Auto.


----------



## Dash8Q4

For my 3700X which I bought last week, these are the settings I found to give me the highest MT score in CB R20.
PPT = 150
TDC = 110
EDC = 10
Scalar = 2x
100Mhz max boost.

I would appreciate fellow 3700X drivers to chime in their settings, I've looked at a few from this thread but keep getting the highest score with the settings above.
Also, how safe is it to run the system 24/7 with such settings?
Cheers


----------



## domdtxdissar

Awsan said:


> I am right now @
> PPT=200
> TDC=140
> EDC=25
> Scalar=10
> Offset - 0.05
> C-state enabled
> CnQ enabled
> FCLK 1900mhz
> 1usmus powerplan
> 
> Getting Multi 9604 and single of 514 with clocks stuck @ 4.2 in multi and up-to 4.6 in single (Multi @ 80 degrees due to the bad mounting on the cooler)
> 
> Any tips to get better scores?


Like i said above, i had to disable global c-states to get the singlethread boost working..
Found in: AMD CBS -> Zen Commen Options
Change Global c-state control to [disabled]


----------



## Awsan

domdtxdissar said:


> Like i said above, i had to disable global c-states to get the singlethread boost working..
> Found in: AMD CBS -> Zen Commen Options
> Change Global c-state control to [disabled]


Oh sorry the way I wrote it makes it look like a single core was @4.2, my bad i meant the multi was @ 4.2 and the single went upto 4.6


----------



## domdtxdissar

Awsan said:


> Oh sorry the way I wrote it makes it look like a single core was @4.2, my bad i meant the multi was @ 4.2 and the single went upto 4.6


Nah i understood what you meant 
But in my eyes 514 is a bad singlethread score in cinebench r20, thats why i suggesting disabling c-state to up the score.

In my last bench session before i changed back to regular PBO i had 544 singlethread score in cinebench r20...


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Awsan said:


> Oh sorry the way I wrote it makes it look like a single core was @4.2, my bad i meant the multi was @ 4.2 and the single went upto 4.6


If you are looking for better scores enable the Ultimate Power plan:

https://www.howtogeek.com/368781/how-to-enable-ultimate-performance-power-plan-in-windows-10/

And disable C-State.

But you probably have first to fix the cooler issue, thermal throttling is never disabled.


----------



## Awsan

domdtxdissar said:


> Nah i understood what you meant
> But in my eyes 514 is a bad singlethread score in cinebench r20, thats why i suggesting disabling c-state to up the score.
> 
> In my last bench session before i changed back to regular PBO i had 544 singlethread score in cinebench r20...





ManniX-ITA said:


> If you are looking for better scores enable the Ultimate Power plan:
> 
> https://www.howtogeek.com/368781/how-to-enable-ultimate-performance-power-plan-in-windows-10/
> 
> And disable C-State.
> 
> But you probably have first to fix the cooler issue, thermal throttling is never disabled.


Disabling c-state and running the ultimate power plan lowered it to 496.

Will try with other power plans and see.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Awsan said:


> Disabling c-state and running the ultimate power plan lowered it to 496.
> 
> Will try with other power plans and see.


That's highly unusual, maybe the additional power draw is worsening the thermal throttling.


----------



## Awsan

ManniX-ITA said:


> That's highly unusual, maybe the additional power draw is worsening the thermal throttling.


With 1usmus I hit 496, I dont think so the mounting is not that bad and the ambient is fairly cold.

It didnt go above 55 degrees while running the single core test.

EDIT:After returning to 1usmus and reverting the C-state to auto I got 506 and 9629

Higher multi and lower single while doing nothing.


----------



## opethdisciple

Dash8Q4 said:


> For my 3700X which I bought last week, these are the settings I found to give me the highest MT score in CB R20.
> PPT = 150
> TDC = 110
> EDC = 10
> Scalar = 2x
> 100Mhz max boost.
> 
> I would appreciate fellow 3700X drivers to chime in their settings, I've looked at a few from this thread but keep getting the highest score with the settings above.
> Also, how safe is it to run the system 24/7 with such settings?
> Cheers



What CBR20 score do you get?


The settings I am using which I got from the Buldzoid videos I posted earlier in this thread are:


PPT: 300
TDC: 230
EDC: 230
Scalar: 4X (Although you can use 2x here as well whatever works best)


With these settings I get on average about 4965 although I did once see 5000 with the 4x scalar.


My Intel Burn test (high settings, 4 loops) I get 100 points which is an increase of 5% over stock. (95)


----------



## steve258

I'm late to the party. I have 3900x on X370 motherboard (MSI X370 Krait), before applying this edc bug I was running bclk 101.1875 with RAM at DDR4 3710, PBO 230 with scalar x5 and CPU voltage offset of -0.0875v. CB20 multi/single score around 73xx/531 with temp hovering around 4.12Ghz at 75c or so.

PBO 230/230/16, bclk 101.1875, no voltage offset, c-state disabled. CB20 multi score is around the same except that 1 time when I was able to break 7.4k score and got 7450, with clockspeed hovering around 4.25Ghz and temp creeping upto 86c in CB20. Single core scored 537. I cannot apply any kind of minus voltage offset otherwise scores tank despite clockspeed increase.

The only weird thing is when I tried benchmarking red dead redemption 2, it seemed to have triggered something and the clockspeed tanked to as low as 800mhz as if the CPU is trying hard to stick to edc 16. This is different from single core throttle problem because RDR2 clearly is multi-threaded.

This was solved by changing edc to 10. scores and clockspeed is around the same, so I thought wow this is pretty great! until I started running actual game benchmarks.. I ran gears 5, shadow of the tomb raider and found out that the fps is actually slightly LOWER than before..

For me the clockspeed looks nice and it's using a lot more power but there's no real performance gain to back it up. Maybe it just doesn't work as well on a X370. I feel like the CPU is begging for more vcore but I don't have the cooling nor the VRM for that.


----------



## Dash8Q4

opethdisciple said:


> What CBR20 score do you get?
> 
> 
> The settings I am using which I got from the Buldzoid videos I posted earlier in this thread are:
> 
> 
> PPT: 300
> TDC: 230
> EDC: 230
> Scalar: 4X (Although you can use 2x here as well whatever works best)
> 
> 
> With these settings I get on average about 4965 although I did once see 5000 with the 4x scalar.
> 
> 
> My Intel Burn test (high settings, 4 loops) I get 100 points which is an increase of 5% over stock. (95)


I was getting low 4900s. I’ll try again with the buildzoid settings and post back. What voltage are you running for vcore?
I’ll run IBT and get back with results.


----------



## rastaviper

I see many people suggest to disable the c-state?
Is this mandatory or it depends on the CPU?
I don't see everyone doing it though.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


----------



## ManniX-ITA

rastaviper said:


> I see many people suggest to disable the c-state?
> Is this mandatory or it depends on the CPU?
> I don't see everyone doing it though.
> 
> Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


Yes someone had success also with C-State on.
But generally is a problem.
I'm not 100% sure but I think it was working on mine with EDC at 10.
But then the performances were not much above than EDC at 0.


----------



## Medizinmann

rastaviper said:


> I see many people suggest to disable the c-state?
> Is this mandatory or it depends on the CPU?
> I don't see everyone doing it though.
> 
> Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


I have C-States enabled.
Running a 3900x on an Aorus Xtreme.

EDC=1
TDC=700
PPT=1300

LLC in a medium setting.

Greetings,
Medizinmann


----------



## rastaviper

ManniX-ITA said:


> Yes someone had success also with C-State on.
> But generally is a problem.
> I'm not 100% sure but I think it was working on mine with EDC at 10.
> But then the performances were not much above than EDC at 0.


What seems to be the problem?
I also have it ON. Is it like reduced performance of booting issues?
Except if I miss some settings that other people have and they don't conflict with the c-states.

I just have some figures for PPT, TDC, EDC and Scalar.
Do I miss something?


----------



## ManniX-ITA

rastaviper said:


> What seems to be the problem?
> I also have it ON. Is it like reduced performance of booting issues?
> Except if I miss some settings that other people have and they don't conflict with the c-states.
> 
> I just have some figures for PPT, TDC, EDC and Scalar.
> Do I miss something?


The adverse effect is single thread performance dropping to half and/or clocks stuck at 3.8/3.9 GHz.
If I enable it my CPU-z/Geekebench scores multi thread will stay the same, the single thread cut to half.
Less frequently and randomly after a while the cores on the 2nd CCX will get stuck at 3.8 GHz.
Others keep good single thread performances but the cores stuck at 3.8/3.9 GHz.

Almost identical configs so seems depending on the CPU but also the board and the settings.
Only way to know is using it for a while to see the outcome.


----------



## rastaviper

ManniX-ITA said:


> The adverse effect is single thread performance dropping to half and/or clocks stuck at 3.8/3.9 GHz.
> 
> If I enable it my CPU-z/Geekebench scores multi thread will stay the same, the single thread cut to half.
> 
> Less frequently and randomly after a while the cores on the 2nd CCX will get stuck at 3.8 GHz.
> 
> Others keep good single thread performances but the cores stuck at 3.8/3.9 GHz.
> 
> 
> 
> Almost identical configs so seems depending on the CPU but also the board and the settings.
> 
> Only way to know is using it for a while to see the outcome.


Are we talking about Global Cstate Control?
Or also for CPPC and CPPC preferred cores?
Also my Cool&Quiet is on.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


----------



## rastaviper

ManniX-ITA said:


> If you are looking for better scores enable the Ultimate Power plan:
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.howtogeek.com/368781/how-to-enable-ultimate-performance-power-plan-in-windows-10/
> 
> 
> 
> And disable C-State.
> 
> 
> 
> But you probably have first to fix the cooler issue, thermal throttling is never disabled.


About this plan, I have a plan called High Performance plan, but no ultimate.
Is it the same thing?

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


----------



## rastaviper

rastaviper said:


> Are we talking about Global Cstate Control?
> Or also for CPPC and CPPC preferred cores?
> Also my Cool&Quiet is on.
> 
> Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


BTW i have run many CPUz and GB3 tests with Cstate On and off.
The results are all over the place. No such issues as u are mentioning with limited clocks or better ST results.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


----------



## opethdisciple

Dash8Q4 said:


> I was getting low 4900s. I’ll try again with the buildzoid settings and post back. What voltage are you running for vcore?
> I’ll run IBT and get back with results.



I leave everything on stock voltages.


I am getting the same scores with 2x scalar as I am with 4x scalar so maybe best to try it with 2x.


----------



## Yuke

Quick Question:

Does this still work with the newest chipset drivers? I want to fix my bad SATA-SSD performance and considering upgrading the chipsetdrivers but *REALLY DONT WANT TO LOOSE MY PBO BOOST!*

Thanks in advance.


----------



## jcpq

Load


----------



## thomasck

jcpq said:


> Load


1.394V under load, do you really think this EDC = 1 is good?


----------



## Ironcobra

So reading thru this thread and wanting to test some of this out for my 3600 and aurous master I am having trouble finding the LLC and voltage offset settings in the bios. Can anyone give me a hint? Thanks.

edit: also having some issue using cpuz stress test to run a baseline, its showing 3.7 while stressing while ryzen master is showing 4.03 hwinfo 4.05-4.1, all updated to current.


----------



## KedarWolf

domdtxdissar said:


> Seems like i finally managed to make it work properly
> Boosting all the way up to 4.8ghz* without throttling now (i think)
> 
> Geekbench 4:
> EDC bug working @ https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/15430514 single=6350, multi=61926
> 
> Geekbench 5:
> EDC bug working @ https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/1910006 single=1396, multi=17054
> 
> *mhz can be seen @ https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/15430514.gb4


What are your PBO settings and Scalar etc.?


----------



## jamie1073

Yuke said:


> Quick Question:
> 
> Does this still work with the newest chipset drivers? I want to fix my bad SATA-SSD performance and considering upgrading the chipsetdrivers but *REALLY DONT WANT TO LOOSE MY PBO BOOST!*
> 
> Thanks in advance.



The newest chipset drivers, at least in my testing, did not adversely affect PBO Boost. Seemed that the clocks were the same boost wise both in single core and MT. The latest AMD Ryzen Balanced plan actually scored almost the same as 1usmus power plan on my system.


----------



## Dash8Q4

opethdisciple said:


> What CBR20 score do you get?
> 
> 
> The settings I am using which I got from the Buldzoid videos I posted earlier in this thread are:
> 
> 
> PPT: 300
> TDC: 230
> EDC: 230
> Scalar: 4X (Although you can use 2x here as well whatever works best)
> 
> 
> With these settings I get on average about 4965 although I did once see 5000 with the 4x scalar.
> 
> 
> My Intel Burn test (high settings, 4 loops) I get 100 points which is an increase of 5% over stock. (95)


Those settings yield me ~75Gflops each run in IBT high settings, 4 loops. In CB r20 I get ~4740 score. The settings I mentioned initially get me just above 4920 in CB r20, either with or without an offset of - 0.01875v for vcore, I get roughly the same result, CPU voltage hovers between 1.337~1.34 during full load at just above 80C. My cpu cooler is very old so I don't know if the efficiency has degraded with the years. I usually rinse it with pressured water and blow dry it afterwards. I don't know if thats the way to cool the fins but anyway, yeah. That's my CPU stats atm.


----------



## opethdisciple

Dash8Q4 said:


> Those settings yield me ~75Gflops each run in IBT high settings, 4 loops. In CB r20 I get ~4740 score. The settings I mentioned initially get me just above 4920 in CB r20, either with or without an offset of - 0.01875v for vcore, I get roughly the same result, CPU voltage hovers between 1.337~1.34 during full load at just above 80C. My cpu cooler is very old so I don't know if the efficiency has degraded with the years. I usually rinse it with pressured water and blow dry it afterwards. I don't know if thats the way to cool the fins but anyway, yeah. That's my CPU stats atm.



Something is holding you back then. 


Because I get 100 points in Intel Burn test and 4970 in CBR20.


My ram is 3600MHz CL16 and I have a Noctua NH-D14.


As Buldzoid says the CPU will perform better the better the cooling is that you supply it.


So if your saying your hitting 80c then I think your thermals are limiting you.


I have never bothered playing around with offsets etc... for me all stock voltages.


I've spent years in the past overclocking and these days just want the easy way.


I have switched to using 2x scalar.


----------



## Dash8Q4

opethdisciple said:


> Something is holding you back then.
> 
> 
> Because I get 100 points in Intel Burn test and 4970 in CBR20.
> 
> 
> My ram is 3600MHz CL16 and I have a Noctua NH-D14.
> 
> 
> As Buldzoid says the CPU will perform better the better the cooling is that you supply it.
> 
> 
> So if your saying your hitting 80c then I think your thermals are limiting you.
> 
> 
> I have never bothered playing around with offsets etc... for me all stock voltages.
> 
> 
> I've spent years in the past overclocking and these days just want the easy way.
> 
> 
> I have switched to using 2x scalar.


What sort of temperatures are you hitting during CBr20? And also how safe is it to run these settings 24/7?
Yeah the temps get right up there. I'll save for a new cooler but for now this one will have to do. The noctuas don't go with my case due to their brown fans, but I'll keep an eye on the new chromax edition that just got released. I've been also looking at the Dark Rock pro 4 by BeQuiet since my case is already BeQuiet.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

steve258 said:


> I'm late to the party. I have 3900x on X370 motherboard (MSI X370 Krait), before applying this edc bug I was running bclk 101.1875 with RAM at DDR4 3710, PBO 230 with scalar x5 and CPU voltage offset of -0.0875v. CB20 multi/single score around 73xx/531 with temp hovering around 4.12Ghz at 75c or so.
> 
> PBO 230/230/16, bclk 101.1875, no voltage offset, c-state disabled. CB20 multi score is around the same except that 1 time when I was able to break 7.4k score and got 7450, with clockspeed hovering around 4.25Ghz and temp creeping upto 86c in CB20. Single core scored 537. I cannot apply any kind of minus voltage offset otherwise scores tank despite clockspeed increase.
> 
> The only weird thing is when I tried benchmarking red dead redemption 2, it seemed to have triggered something and the clockspeed tanked to as low as 800mhz as if the CPU is trying hard to stick to edc 16. This is different from single core throttle problem because RDR2 clearly is multi-threaded.
> 
> This was solved by changing edc to 10. scores and clockspeed is around the same, so I thought wow this is pretty great! until I started running actual game benchmarks.. I ran gears 5, shadow of the tomb raider and found out that the fps is actually slightly LOWER than before..
> 
> For me the clockspeed looks nice and it's using a lot more power but there's no real performance gain to back it up. Maybe it just doesn't work as well on a X370. I feel like the CPU is begging for more vcore but I don't have the cooling nor the VRM for that.


Doesn't work for everyone.
But if you have clocks going down to 800 usually means over temperature protection kicked in.
You should try with a much lower offset, compensating with an higher LLC and scalar.
Mine is at around -0.05, try to go lower, step by step.



rastaviper said:


> Are we talking about Global Cstate Control?
> Or also for CPPC and CPPC preferred cores?
> Also my Cool&Quiet is on.
> 
> Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


Only C-state



rastaviper said:


> About this plan, I have a plan called High Performance plan, but no ultimate.
> Is it the same thing?
> 
> Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


Ultimate Power plan:
https://www.howtogeek.com/368781/how-to-enable-ultimate-performance-power-plan-in-windows-10/



rastaviper said:


> BTW i have run many CPUz and GB3 tests with Cstate On and off.
> The results are all over the place. No such issues as u are mentioning with limited clocks or better ST results.
> 
> Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


Then you are really lucky, it's a good sign!



Yuke said:


> Quick Question:
> 
> Does this still work with the newest chipset drivers? I want to fix my bad SATA-SSD performance and considering upgrading the chipsetdrivers but *REALLY DONT WANT TO LOOSE MY PBO BOOST!*
> 
> Thanks in advance.


Yes it works but the new chipset drivers doesn't fix anything about SATA speed.



Ironcobra said:


> So reading thru this thread and wanting to test some of this out for my 3600 and aurous master I am having trouble finding the LLC and voltage offset settings in the bios. Can anyone give me a hint? Thanks.
> 
> edit: also having some issue using cpuz stress test to run a baseline, its showing 3.7 while stressing while ryzen master is showing 4.03 hwinfo 4.05-4.1, all updated to current.


First screen "Tweaker", last voice at the bottom.



Dash8Q4 said:


> What sort of temperatures are you hitting during CBr20? And also how safe is it to run these settings 24/7?
> Yeah the temps get right up there. I'll save for a new cooler but for now this one will have to do. The noctuas don't go with my case due to their brown fans, but I'll keep an eye on the new chromax edition that just got released. I've been also looking at the Dark Rock pro 4 by BeQuiet since my case is already BeQuiet.


I have the Dark Rock Pro 4 and it's a very quiet cooler of course 
But it's just barely enough for my 3800x.
The Noctua at full speed is a bit more powerful.


----------



## opethdisciple

Dash8Q4 said:


> What sort of temperatures are you hitting during CBr20? And also how safe is it to run these settings 24/7?
> Yeah the temps get right up there. I'll save for a new cooler but for now this one will have to do. The noctuas don't go with my case due to their brown fans, but I'll keep an eye on the new chromax edition that just got released. I've been also looking at the Dark Rock pro 4 by BeQuiet since my case is already BeQuiet.



As far as Buildzoid is concerned there is nothing to worry about running these settings 24/7. All the CPU's protections are still in place so it will never let it's self exceed one of the thresholds. (That's assuming a stock BIOS of course. If you manually deactivate/activate settings then that's up to you)


I'm not sure what temps I'm getting as I haven't measured it but I've been using these settings 2x scalar) for the last week or so and gaming on it with no issues.


I'd say watch the Gigabyte video but then use 2x scalar rather than 4x which is what he does in the second video.


Even your stock results seem very low to me. At stock in Intel Burn test I was getting 95 compared to your 75.


----------



## opethdisciple

Buildzoid has posted a new video. He isn't talking about it directly but indirectly it looks like new PBO settings he recommends are now:


PPT: 333
TDC: 230
EDC: 230
Scalar: 1X


----------



## rares495

A bit worried about his 3700X results with a degraded chip. I'll test this stuff myself to see what happens.


----------



## MyUsername

rares495 said:


> A bit worried about his 3700X results with a degraded chip. I'll test this stuff myself to see what happens.


What he's saying is that running 1.4V all core 16T will degrade the cpu quickly, 1 core @1.4V doesn't draw as much current so less stress on the power management.


----------



## rares495

MyUsername said:


> What he's saying is that running 1.4V all core 16T will degrade the cpu quickly, 1 core @1.4V doesn't draw as much current so less stress on the power management.


I know what he's saying, dude. I've been saying the same thing myself for a while now but people will not listen.


----------



## rares495

rares495 said:


> A bit worried about his 3700X results with a degraded chip. I'll test this stuff myself to see what happens.


For those interested, I'm attaching an image of Buildzoid's 3700X voltages and a simple .txt file with my voltages. Couldn't get them as low as Buildzoid's even with high LLC. I measured using HWInfo64 not actual tools like he used but meh. Close enough.

EDIT: Yeah, so...even on 8/8 LLC the lowest I got in Prime95 128K 16T from 1.375V was 1.319V which is nowhere near the 1.287V from 333 230 230 PBO. I guess that means I should try 1.35V initial voltage instead of 1.375V


----------



## MyUsername

rares495 said:


> I know what he's saying, dude. I've been saying the same thing myself for a while now but people will not listen.


More fool them, I tend to trust what the AMD engineers have come up with their PBO however borked it is. I can run balls out 1.4v, but running that 24/7 ain't happening when default is 1.27-1.30 max all core 4.2-4.35GHz with the EDC bug.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

opethdisciple said:


> Buildzoid has posted a new video. He isn't talking about it directly but indirectly it looks like new PBO settings he recommends are now:
> 
> 
> PPT: 333
> TDC: 230
> EDC: 230
> Scalar: 1X


Seems a bit traumatized by the degraded 3700x 
He's wondering why PBO with higher scalar raises the voltages so high with light load... says it's weird and maybe not safe.
But the voltage bump is needed for the clock boost, maybe he's a bit too much focused on the static overclock here.
After a while in the video he starts realizing the frequency and current/power draw relationship.

I think he's using the settings above only to find the voltages, he's not recommending them for the best PBO performances.



MyUsername said:


> What he's saying is that running 1.4V all core 16T will degrade the cpu quickly, 1 core @1.4V doesn't draw as much current so less stress on the power management.


From what I heard he's saying more quickly than a lower voltage but not quickly in absolute. 
He's talking about a decent lifespan if you keep it cool and below the limits without running every day stress tests.
Which is probably what he did with the 3700x at 1.53V for the 5GHz OC 

I wonder when my 3800x will start showing the first degradation issues... 
Prime 128K in-place runs at an average 1.33v but the temps are not that bad, 85-89 degrees.


----------



## Kildar

Disabled Global C-States.
It did not do anything to my overclock but it lowered my voltages. 
Especially Idle voltages.


----------



## MyUsername

ManniX-ITA said:


> From what I heard he's saying more quickly than a lower voltage but not quickly in absolute.
> He's talking about a decent lifespan if you keep it cool and below the limits without running every day stress tests.
> Which is probably what he did with the 3700x at 1.53V for the 5GHz OC
> 
> I wonder when my 3800x will start showing the first degradation issues...
> Prime 128K in-place runs at an average 1.33v but the temps are not that bad, 85-89 degrees.


I was talking extreme, but yes you can never prevent degradation. But what he's saying you should run no more than full load voltage at all times because it maybe unsafe blablabla

I would love to see a 3700x at 5GHz LOL

I think most of us understand the correlation between frequency and voltage and that there are spikes in voltage on low load due to AMD's PBO algorithm which must be safe because it wouldn't be allowed. Yes you can adjust the scaler which sustains higher voltage for a longer periods, but that's entirely user preference and it's going outside of AMD's recommendations. Buildzoid is right I believe, I also read some 15-20 years ago cpu's have a life expectancy span of about 10 years on normal operation. If we run EDC with the bug we run a risk of shortening the cpu's life. I haven't really noticed any difference in operation on single threads apart from the cpu maintaining higher single core clock at 1.48v up to 13 watts approx 8.8 amps which is nothing when it comes to total. But it's how the cpu behaves under full load, all core. AMD designed the cpu to have a maximum long term duration of 95amps with spikes up to 140amps. Both of these have to stay within 142watts, so whether it's 1.48 volts or 1.3 volts it has to keep within this margin depending on how many cores are used. This is why AMD capped the total amps allowed to 95amps. In my case 12 cores pulling 180 watts @ 1.32 volts is 136 amps which is a lot.

Yes we can manipulate PBO, yes we can make it draw more current, but ultimately we will shorten the cpu's life. Whatever we do outside of AMD's recommendations is dangerous.


----------



## zbug

My voltage in ryzen master on a 3900x at idle/in use is oscilating between 1.43 to 1.48v . Is that anything i should be "worried" about ?

Using EDC 16, PPT300, TDC230 scalar 10, 200mhz.


----------



## speed_demon

Am also curious to know more about Zen 2 & Vcore. With my mobo at 100% default values my 3900X was sitting @ 1.478v and it would boost to 4500 during light load, instantly hit 90c, then throttle all 12 cores to 1400MHz. I have a better cooler on the way and I'm wondering if I should just leave it with PBO on or tweak my settings manually for the best result. 1.478v does seem awfully high, but again I'm new to this zen 2 architecture.


----------



## jamie1073

zbug said:


> My voltage in ryzen master on a 3900x at idle/in use is oscilating between 1.43 to 1.48v . Is that anything i should be "worried" about ?
> 
> Using EDC 16, PPT300, TDC230 scalar 10, 200mhz.



With a light to no load that is what they do. Get a good load and you will see the voltages drop.


----------



## rares495

speed_demon said:


> Am also curious to know more about Zen 2 & Vcore. With my mobo at 100% default values my 3900X was sitting @ 1.478v and it would boost to 4500 during light load, instantly hit 90c, then throttle all 12 cores to 1400MHz. I have a better cooler on the way and I'm wondering if I should just leave it with PBO on or tweak my settings manually for the best result. 1.478v does seem awfully high, but again I'm new to this zen 2 architecture.





Low current loads(0-20A) => High boost and high voltage (up to 1.52V) - idle at the desktop or browsing the web



High current loads(60+ A) => Low frequency and low voltage(1.0-1.2V) - games, video editing or benchmarks/stresstests


----------



## ManniX-ITA

speed_demon said:


> Am also curious to know more about Zen 2 & Vcore. With my mobo at 100% default values my 3900X was sitting @ 1.478v and it would boost to 4500 during light load, instantly hit 90c, then throttle all 12 cores to 1400MHz. I have a better cooler on the way and I'm wondering if I should just leave it with PBO on or tweak my settings manually for the best result. 1.478v does seem awfully high, but again I'm new to this zen 2 architecture.


Yes you need a better cooling; I only touch 88c with Prime95 128K in-place FFT with my 3800x.

My VIDs goes up to 1,48V with light load, 1,33-1,38V with heavy load. AVX workload like Prime95 1,29-1,32V.


----------



## rares495

ManniX-ITA said:


> Yes you need a better cooling; I only touch 88c with Prime95 128K in-place FFT with my 3800x.
> 
> My VIDs goes up to 1,48V with light load, 1,33-1,38V with heavy load. AVX workload like Prime95 1,29-1,32V.





88c at default settings? That seems awfully high. Check out my temps in 128K.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

rares495 said:


> 88c at default settings? That seems awfully high. Check out my temps in 128K.


Nothing even close to default settings 
It's a highly tuned and aggressive PBO bug profile with EDC at 1.
And I have a 3800x; recently I had to increase the LLC so there's not much vdroop even during Prime95.
Hope the proc isn't dying before I have my TEC build ready...

All my cores are running at effective clocks of 4,150 MHz except the unlucky one at 4,000 MHz at 1,275V.
Till the temp is below 80 degrees they run at 4,250/4,150 at 1,37V.


----------



## rares495

ManniX-ITA said:


> Nothing even close to default settings
> It's a highly tuned and aggressive PBO bug profile with EDC at 1.
> And I have a 3800x; recently I had to increase the LLC so there's not much vdroop even during Prime95.
> Hope the proc isn't dying before I have my TEC build ready...
> 
> All my cores are running at effective clocks of 4,150 MHz except the unlucky one at 4,000 MHz at 1,275V.
> Till the temp is below 80 degrees they run at 4,250/4,150 at 1,37V.


Oh, ok then. Nice!


----------



## rastaviper

What should we check regarding the amps that the CPU is reaching?
Should the CPU hit a specific amount during heavy load and how the PBO settings are affecting this?

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


----------



## ManniX-ITA

rastaviper said:


> What should we check regarding the amps that the CPU is reaching?
> Should the CPU hit a specific amount during heavy load and how the PBO settings are affecting this?
> 
> Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


Every CPU has its default limit; I think it's 60A for the 3700x and 80A for the 3800x.
PBO is playing with the limits, boosting voltages to achieve higher clock speeds keeping the parameters inside an "envelope".

This envelope is determined by PPT, TDC, EDC and the temperature.
TDC defines the sustained limit for current, EDC for current bursts, PPT is the socket power supply resulting from voltage and current per the whole CPU.

With PBO Advanced you can override these limits up to some extent. With the EDC bug another layer of protection is removed; like peeling an onion.
This is what makes possible to achieve higher voltages and almost as advertised boost clocks speeds.

There are still many protections in the background, the last one and most draconian is the thermal protection: if the temps are going up it'll kick in whatever you set.

At the end I didn't really answer your question...

If you see my screenshot above running Prime95 I'm limited by PPT and TDC.
Due to the EDC bug I don't get limited for bursts which allows the higher boost clocks.

Now maybe you are wondering why then not relaxing PPT and TDC and use super high values?
It's a very bad idea.
You are ending up having much worse performances.
With these values I'm already at 88 degrees with this sustained load.
The thermal protection has already kicked in lowering voltages and clocks.

If the values where higher the thermal protection would have tanked the CPU and much earlier.
You just get horrible scores in benchmarks, stuttering and inconsistent games and applications.

With PBO Advanced and EDC at 0 you get better results with very specifics settings.
For mine I think it was PPT 125 and TDC 80. It's near or just above the default settings.

The PBO bug it's adding even more voltage, also for the sustained workload when TDC kicks in.
I have to use PPT 135 and TDC 90 to get the best performances; a bit lower or higher and it sinks.

With PBO Advanced you have an higher degree of control but you have to use it.
Just setting some values shared by others is a 50-50 chance it's going to be worse.
It's a starting point, you have to find the best values testing and testing.

The main factor is the power draw and dissipation capability.
It's different for everyone; your cooling solution, the binning lottery, the mainboard.
My advice is to use values higher than those working best at EDC 0 and raise it accordingly to your temps.


----------



## jcpq

ManniX-ITA said:


> Nothing even close to default settings
> It's a highly tuned and aggressive PBO bug profile with EDC at 1.
> And I have a 3800x; recently I had to increase the LLC so there's not much vdroop even during Prime95.
> Hope the proc isn't dying before I have my TEC build ready...
> 
> All my cores are running at effective clocks of 4,150 MHz except the unlucky one at 4,000 MHz at 1,275V.
> Till the temp is below 80 degrees they run at 4,250/4,150 at 1,37V.
> 
> View attachment 342282


Very nice.
Settings?
Thanks


----------



## jcpq

I have a doubt.
When I set a value in the bios for ppt, in the ryzen master it always appears 128w.
It's normal?


----------



## ManniX-ITA

jcpq said:


> Very nice.
> Settings?
> Thanks





jcpq said:


> I have a doubt.
> When I set a value in the bios for ppt, in the ryzen master it always appears 128w.
> It's normal?


I've been lazy last time... no screenshots, I'll take them at next reboot.

I'll export also the profile, if you don't have many custom settings you can start from there.


----------



## gerardfraser

So I been running my 3800X PC gaming,it is averaging Cpu 4500Mhz and DDR4 Ram 3866Mhz is it OK to run like this.


----------



## rastaviper

ManniX-ITA said:


> Every CPU has its default limit; I think it's 60A for the 3700x and 80A for the 3800x.
> PBO is playing with the limits, boosting voltages to achieve higher clock speeds keeping the parameters inside an "envelope".
> 
> This envelope is determined by PPT, TDC, EDC and the temperature.
> TDC defines the sustained limit for current, EDC for current bursts, PPT is the socket power supply resulting from voltage and current per the whole CPU.
> 
> With PBO Advanced you can override these limits up to some extent. With the EDC bug another layer of protection is removed; like peeling an onion.
> This is what makes possible to achieve higher voltages and almost as advertised boost clocks speeds.
> 
> There are still many protections in the background, the last one and most draconian is the thermal protection: if the temps are going up it'll kick in whatever you set.
> 
> At the end I didn't really answer your question...
> 
> If you see my screenshot above running Prime95 I'm limited by PPT and TDC.
> Due to the EDC bug I don't get limited for bursts which allows the higher boost clocks.
> 
> Now maybe you are wondering why then not relaxing PPT and TDC and use super high values?
> It's a very bad idea.
> You are ending up having much worse performances.
> With these values I'm already at 88 degrees with this sustained load.
> The thermal protection has already kicked in lowering voltages and clocks.
> 
> If the values where higher the thermal protection would have tanked the CPU and much earlier.
> You just get horrible scores in benchmarks, stuttering and inconsistent games and applications.
> 
> With PBO Advanced and EDC at 0 you get better results with very specifics settings.
> For mine I think it was PPT 125 and TDC 80. It's near or just above the default settings.
> 
> The PBO bug it's adding even more voltage, also for the sustained workload when TDC kicks in.
> I have to use PPT 135 and TDC 90 to get the best performances; a bit lower or higher and it sinks.
> 
> With PBO Advanced you have an higher degree of control but you have to use it.
> Just setting some values shared by others is a 50-50 chance it's going to be worse.
> It's a starting point, you have to find the best values testing and testing.
> 
> The main factor is the power draw and dissipation capability.
> It's different for everyone; your cooling solution, the binning lottery, the mainboard.
> My advice is to use values higher than those working best at EDC 0 and raise it accordingly to your temps.


Reped and very interesting point.

What benchmark should I use for this method of finding the best values? And with which settings should I start testing my 3600x, which with stock boost hits 4.3ghz and with fixed allcore ocing goes up till 4.5ghz?


----------



## ManniX-ITA

jcpq said:


> I have a doubt.
> When I set a value in the bios for ppt, in the ryzen master it always appears 128w.
> It's normal?


Here's in attach the profile for the BIOS F12a and some screenshots.
I had to set LLC and OCP High and PWM Extreme to regain stability with the high ambient temperatures.
Didn't check but probably I lost something in benchmark scores.



rastaviper said:


> Reped and very interesting point.
> 
> What benchmark should I use for this method of finding the best values? And with which settings should I start testing my 3600x, which with stock boost hits 4.3ghz and with fixed allcore ocing goes up till 4.5ghz?


Look here:
https://www.overclock.net/forum/13-amd-general/1741052-edc-1-pbo-turbo-boost-64.html#post28409956

The 3600x is probably kind of limited in PBO due to the restrictive parameters serialize for the model.

You should try to match with vcore offset and scalar the core VIDs you use for the 4,5 GHz allcore OC when CB20 MT is running.
Look for it using EDC at 1 and PPT/TDC at 254 with no Boost clock and scalar at 10x.

Check always with CPU-z to see if it's not dropping big; run the Metro 2033 benchmark and check there's not too much delta in min and max fps in the graph.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Well, I just had this morning a BSOD, PC powering off, struggling to POST and the BIOS reset to defaults.
This while browsing internet so almost no load.

Last thing I changed was the Chipset fan profile from Balanced to Silent.
Since the weather got worse and the ambient temperature much lower I though it was fine but maybe it's not...

Now I'm back to Balanced and will see how it goes.


----------



## rastaviper

ManniX-ITA said:


> Here's in attach the profile for the BIOS F12a and some screenshots.
> I had to set LLC and OCP High and PWM Extreme to regain stability with the high ambient temperatures.
> Didn't check but probably I lost something in benchmark scores.
> 
> 
> 
> Look here:
> https://www.overclock.net/forum/13-amd-general/1741052-edc-1-pbo-turbo-boost-64.html#post28409956
> 
> The 3600x is probably kind of limited in PBO due to the restrictive parameters serialize for the model.
> 
> You should try to match with vcore offset and scalar the core VIDs you use for the 4,5 GHz allcore OC when CB20 MT is running.
> Look for it using EDC at 1 and PPT/TDC at 254 with no Boost clock and scalar at 10x.
> 
> Check always with CPU-z to see if it's not dropping big; run the Metro 2033 benchmark and check there's not too much delta in min and max fps in the graph.


Thanks again.

At your previous post you were suggesting to set the TDC at 80-90.
But now you propose to have it 254. 
So what is better?
BTW I have tried a few CPUz runs with 2 setups: 
1)PPT 300, TDC 230, EDC 230, SCALAR 4x
2)PPT 254, TDC 254, EDC 1, SCALAR 10x
The first one has like 50% better score for both ST and MT than the other.

Also there are 2 PBO menu in the Gigabyte BIOS. Are u changing values in both of them?


----------



## buddywh

Dash8Q4 said:


> For my 3700X which I bought last week, these are the settings I found to give me the highest MT score in CB R20.
> PPT = 150
> TDC = 110
> EDC = 10
> Scalar = 2x
> 100Mhz max boost.
> 
> I would appreciate fellow 3700X drivers to chime in their settings, I've looked at a few from this thread but keep getting the highest score with the settings above.
> Also, how safe is it to run the system 24/7 with such settings?
> Cheers


What are your CB20 single thread scores...I think I saw elsewhere your ST scores around 4900.

Right now with my 3700X...
PPT = 300
TDC = 230
EDC = 10
Scalar 5x
200Mhz max boost

CnQ is enabled, Global C is disabled

-0.0125V offset for VCore

I'm getting MT scores 5150-5165, once 5191. ST scores 512.

When running light bursty tasks like a Defender virus scan it will boost up to 3 cores to 4425Mhz, one at a time, and 3 others to 4400 pretty regular. SVI2 core voltage is running about 1.43-1.46V when doing that, which is lower than the 1.46-1.5V it's doing when 'full stock' when only one core ever hits 4400 and that's rare. So it's using lower volts even while hitting higher clocks, that has to be good for operating life IMO.

Also, under extreme all-core loads (P95) it's still dropping clocks and volts as temperature rises. I think voltage is landing at pretty much the same, around 1.26-1.28, but clocks are bouncing around 25-50Mhz higher than full stock settings. Clocks are really hard to know for sure since they bounce so much, but I have to think the low voltage being used means it's following FIT and 'keeping healthy'


----------



## ManniX-ITA

rastaviper said:


> Thanks again.
> 
> At your previous post you were suggesting to set the TDC at 80-90.
> But now you propose to have it 254.
> So what is better?
> BTW I have tried a few CPUz runs with 2 setups:
> 1)PPT 300	TDC 230	EDC 230	SCALAR 4x
> 2)PPT 254	TDC 254	EDC 1	SCALAR 10x
> The first one has like 50% better score for both ST and MT than the other.
> 
> Also there are 2 PBO menu in the Gigabyte BIOS. Are u changing values in both of them?


No, the settings at 254 you have to use them only to search for the FIT voltage value. Also EDC should be set at 254, my typo?
With EDC at 1 you are using the PBO bug and without a very careful setting of offset, scalar and PPT/TDC you will get throttled immediately.
That's why you have worse scores.

I'm setting the values mostly in Auto in AMD CBS except VDDP/VDDG.
For PBO all Auto.
Then custom config with Advanced in AMD Overclocking.


----------



## rastaviper

ManniX-ITA said:


> No, the settings at 254 you have to use them only to search for the FIT voltage value. Also EDC should be set at 254, my typo?
> 
> With EDC at 1 you are using the PBO bug and without a very careful setting of offset, scalar and PPT/TDC you will get throttled immediately.
> 
> That's why you have worse scores.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm setting the values mostly in Auto in AMD CBS except VDDP/VDDG.
> 
> For PBO all Auto.
> 
> Then custom config with Advanced in AMD Overclocking.


I have edited my previous post to make the numbers right.
But still I don't get which way should I go to get better results 

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


----------



## opethdisciple

buddywh said:


> What are your CB20 single thread scores...I think I saw elsewhere your ST scores around 4900.
> 
> Right now with my 3700X...
> PPT = 300
> TDC = 230
> EDC = 10
> Scalar 5x
> 200Mhz max boost
> 
> CnQ is enabled, Global C is disabled
> 
> -0.0125V offset for VCore
> 
> I'm getting MT scores 5150-5165, once 5191. ST scores 512.
> 
> When running light bursty tasks like a Defender virus scan it will boost up to 3 cores to 4425Mhz, one at a time, and 3 others to 4400 pretty regular. SVI2 core voltage is running about 1.43-1.46V when doing that, which is lower than the 1.46-1.5V it's doing when 'full stock' when only one core ever hits 4400 and that's rare. So it's using lower volts even while hitting higher clocks, that has to be good for operating life IMO.
> 
> Also, under extreme all-core loads (P95) it's still dropping clocks and volts as temperature rises. I think voltage is landing at pretty much the same, around 1.26-1.28, but clocks are bouncing around 25-50Mhz higher than full stock settings. Clocks are really hard to know for sure since they bounce so much, but I have to think the low voltage being used means it's following FIT and 'keeping healthy'



I've been running the following on my 3700x and saw a nice 5% boost in Intel Burn test and a good 200 points in CBR20:


PPT = 300
TDC = 230
EDC = 230
Scalar 2x


I tried you're settings and I have increased my Intel burn test results by another 3 flops and my CBR20 score has gone from around 4965 too 5095!


PPT = 300
TDC = 230
EDC = 10
Scalar 5x


Temps are around 80c whilst running Intel Burn test around 77c in Cinebench.


Volts I see when an all core load is going around 1.319v. (Obviously it spikes to 1.4v but that is normal for Ryzen)



I take it this is OK to run 24/7 and the PC will protect it's self from harm should anything be exceeded? Not that I run my pc 24/7 but you know what I mean. In fact this machine is only turned on for gaming.


But can you explain to me the logic for you're settings, because I have no idea and only tried it based on the Buildzoid videos. And he has much different settings to you (edc 10 vs edc 230).


Thanks


----------



## buddywh

opethdisciple said:


> I've been running the following on my 3700x and saw a nice 5% boost in Intel Burn test and a good 200 points in CBR20:
> 
> ...
> 
> I take it this is OK to run 24/7 and the PC will protect it's self from harm should anything be exceeded? Not that I run my pc 24/7 but you know what I mean. In fact this machine is only turned on for gaming.
> 
> 
> But can you explain to me the logic for you're settings, because I have no idea and only tried it based on the Buildzoid videos. And he has much different settings to you (edc 10 vs edc 230).
> 
> 
> Thanks


I only know that you want the processor to be able to manage itself by lowering voltage and clocks when processing gets really heavy and PBO let's it do that. So it's much safer than using a fixed voltage that NEVER lowers. But the thing about electromigration is it's ever present as long as you power on your system and the hotter it gets the faster it degrades from it. But with being able to lower voltage with PBO at least it's not constantly driving a heavy current like a fixed voltage will.

I can't explain why it works beyond seeming to be a bug in the way AGESA 1004b implements PBO. The very beginning of this thread OP and several of the following posts talk about it. One thing I've found is it's important to keep GlobalCStates disabled for my system or single thread performance (measured with CB20 ST) tanks pretty bad. That's probably part of the bug, and based on reading the posts that follow OP's both that and other parameters can vary a lot on different motherboards.


----------



## rdr09

buddywh said:


> What are your CB20 single thread scores...I think I saw elsewhere your ST scores around 4900.
> 
> Right now with my 3700X...
> PPT = 300
> TDC = 230
> EDC = 10
> Scalar 5x
> 200Mhz max boost
> 
> CnQ is enabled, Global C is disabled
> 
> -0.0125V offset for VCore
> 
> I'm getting MT scores 5150-5165, once 5191. ST scores 512.
> 
> When running light bursty tasks like a Defender virus scan it will boost up to 3 cores to 4425Mhz, one at a time, and 3 others to 4400 pretty regular. SVI2 core voltage is running about 1.43-1.46V when doing that, which is lower than the 1.46-1.5V it's doing when 'full stock' when only one core ever hits 4400 and that's rare. So it's using lower volts even while hitting higher clocks, that has to be good for operating life IMO.
> 
> Also, under extreme all-core loads (P95) it's still dropping clocks and volts as temperature rises. I think voltage is landing at pretty much the same, around 1.26-1.28, but clocks are bouncing around 25-50Mhz higher than full stock settings. Clocks are really hard to know for sure since they bounce so much, but I have to think the low voltage being used means it's following FIT and 'keeping healthy'


On a R7 2700 with an all core oc, the clocks, voltage, and wattage all lower. On the R5 3600 as well except clocks. Power mode is set to Windows Balance.


----------



## opethdisciple

buddywh said:


> I only know that you want the processor to be able to manage itself by lowering voltage and clocks when processing gets really heavy and PBO let's it do that. So it's much safer than using a fixed voltage that NEVER lowers. But the thing about electromigration is it's ever present as long as you power on your system and the hotter it gets the faster it degrades from it. But with being able to lower voltage with PBO at least it's not constantly driving a heavy current like a fixed voltage will.
> 
> I can't explain why it works beyond seeming to be a bug in the way AGESA 1004b implements PBO. The very beginning of this thread OP and several of the following posts talk about it. One thing I've found is it's important to keep GlobalCStates disabled for my system or single thread performance (measured with CB20 ST) tanks pretty bad. That's probably part of the bug, and based on reading the posts that follow OP's both that and other parameters can vary a lot on different motherboards.



Why EDC = 10 tho, seems very low. When I google around to see what other people are using you get numbers like 80-90 all the way to 230.


I don't get how people can have such random numbers for these values.


Is EDC = 10 part of this bug?


----------



## MyUsername

After watching Buildzoids video the other day, I thought I'll see how my cpu behaves comparing EDC 1 bug and with EDC @ 140 amps. I left TCD @ 150 and PPT @ 500 watts so not to limit ECD. I found it interesting with some strange behavior. Might be of interest. Prime95 FFT 128k


----------



## ManniX-ITA

rastaviper said:


> I have edited my previous post to make the numbers right.
> But still I don't get which way should I go to get better results
> 
> Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


It's a very long process... this one worked for me.

You need to use CPU-z without anything running in background.

Best would be to use a USB stick with a minimal install:
https://www.easyuefi.com/wintousb/

It'll save a lot of time and headaches.

Every time you must be 100% sure nothing else is running in background.
Open task manager, show all processes if you have UAC, and check nothing else is eating CPU: updates, windows defender, telemetry, etc
Close every single utility in the system tray.

Run CPU-z bench with your best PBO settings and record the single and multi threaded score.
Record also CB20 and Geekbench scores at least.

You need first to find the FIT voltage with open PBO. Scalar at 1x, 0 MHz boost clock, PPT/TDC/EDC at 254.
Run CB20 MT with no offset, almost all settings default/Auto, especially LLC, PWM, OCP.

Looks at the VID cores voltages at the middle of run, they should settled to a specific voltage, usually it's 1.325V or about there.
Don't look at frequency or score, just the voltage.

Now you want to set that voltage with EDC at 1.

Disable C-States, you can check at the end if it's working for you enabled.
Set the Platform Throttle Limit at 200.

Set EDC at 1, PPT and TDC at 0.
Check again as before the VIDs on CB20 MT.
It'll be very likely a different value, up to + or - 0.5v.
Set the offset to match the FIT voltage.

Now watch the CPU-z benchmark running: it's usually starting with a value, dropping a bit, going up again and finishing steady.
Run it at least 5 times.
The 2nd run is normal there will be a bigger drop in multi thread score but it should end with almost a full score like the 1st and subsequent runs.

Don't look yet at the score, just focus on have it run steady.

If it's not raise the LLC, PWM, OCP values.

Now once it's steady record the score.

Raise the Scalar, you want it ideally to have it at 10x. Test first with 5x and then 10x.
If you get a worse score or it's not steady anymore, lower the offset.
Try to reach a point where you can set the highest scalar with the most steady and higher score.

Record the best score.

Now once you have the offset and scalar right, raise the boost clock.
Set and check the CPU-z bench behavior at 100, 150 and 200.

This is controlling the boost in light load together with the scalar.
On mine there's a minimal difference between 150 and 200.
But ideally you want it set at 200.

If the score is worse at 200 but not at 150, stick with 150.
If it's worse also at 150 try 200 lowering a bit the scalar, not below 6x.
Try also if it's better keeping the scalar high but lowering a notch the offset.

At this point the single thread score should be higher than with the boost clock at 0 MHz, the MT the same.

If you are lucky at this point the scores are same or better than the normal PBO scores.

You have to find the right values for PPT/TDC.

Now since you have set PPT and EDC at 0 they are set at the mainboard default value.
If you don't know them already start Ryzen Master and record the values.

Now you have to use CB20 and HWinfo.
Run CB20 MT and raise the PPT and TDC values till after a run the CPU PPT Limit Max is around 80% and CPU TDC Limit at 75%.

These values will leave you enough headroom to run heavier workloads without throttling but also be conservative enough with the boosting.
Higher PPT and EDC will make PBO with the bug to attempt too much, Leeroy Jenkins style; this usually means lower scores or even worse stuttering, BSODs etc

In some cases works but you either must have a very lucky binning or a very good cooling.

Now, for the first time, you can compare the benchmarks you recorded at the beginning with normal PBO.

You should get similar or better MT scores, sometimes a bit lower than normal PBO. Much lower than your all core oc.
The single thread scores should be higher than the normal PBO and same or higher than the all core oc.


----------



## buddywh

opethdisciple said:


> Why EDC = 10 tho, seems very low. When I google around to see what other people are using you get numbers like 80-90 all the way to 230.
> 
> 
> I don't get how people can have such random numbers for these values.
> 
> 
> Is EDC = 10 part of this bug?


I don't get this either, and EDC = 10 (or 1, or 15, or whatever weirdly low number works best for your CPU) does seem to be part of it. But even the 333/230/230 settings Buildzoid uses has to suggest a bug's at fault, heck, even the video where he talks about it calls it a bug. It's probably not easily explainable and many people have said it was different with AGESA 1003abba, although I haven't tried it out myself. So what will happen with the next AGESA? will it be just as bugged but in different ways? or will the values you plug in give results as you'd expect? 

It's amazing to me how a digital device can act so darned analog sometimes.


----------



## jamie1073

It is interesting. With the EDC=16 on my 3900x I get in the 7350-7400 range in R20. With the new BIOS, 1.0.0.5 I get 6850-6900 in R20 no matter if I have PBO enabled or not and when I tried the EDC=16 on my second boot I got the processor running at 800Mhz. Now back to the previous BIOS on my MEG X570 Ace board. Not sure what the hell they did but I got 200+ points less running stock on the new BIOS than the old. And almost 500 pts less and 250Mhz lower all core on the new BIOS.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

buddywh said:


> I don't get this either, and EDC = 10 (or 1, or 15, or whatever weirdly low number works best for your CPU) does seem to be part of it. But even the 333/230/230 settings Buildzoid uses has to suggest a bug's at fault, heck, even the video where he talks about it calls it a bug. It's probably not easily explainable and many people have said it was different with AGESA 1003abba, although I haven't tried it out myself. So what will happen with the next AGESA? will it be just as bugged but in different ways? or will the values you plug in give results as you'd expect?
> 
> It's amazing to me how a digital device can act so darned analog sometimes.


The only analog involved is the AMD's engineers that designed PBO 

These values, as PBO was designed at the beginning, are board values. The board should tell the CPU what is capable of.
Then PBO would influence it's behavior according to this input.

To reduce frustration, since every board manufacturer was doing whatever to be a bit better than the competition, they made them configurable via PBO Advanced.
It's a very mild way to get an Automatic OC without going too much far (but still voiding the warranty...).
Not a gift, they were under pressure by the much better fixed overclock capabilities from Intel.

PPT is the max *power draw from the socket*; how much watts the board can deliver to the CPU. This value should be adjusted according to it. A board with a miserable 4-phase VRM with no additional EPS or 4/8 pins 12V should tell the CPU the minimum spec value. Otherwise with top high-end boards with an additional 8-pin can go crazy high.

TDC is the max *current under thermally-constrained conditions*; the maximum amperes the VRM can deliver continuously, when all cores are running at 100%. This depends on the above plus the VRM design, how many phases, the PWM regulator, the quality of all components, the PCB layers, if and how there's active or passive cooling on the VRM, etc etc.

EDC is the max *current spike*; here's a bit like above but more about transients and less about thermals, the PWM regulator quality and sizing, the number of phases, etc etc.

This is all fancy theory, how actually PBO is using these inputs it's only known by AMD and if you see for yourself the behavior is a bit different.

The safety measures in the CPU are like the Tor protocol; a huge numbers of algorithms and safety layers on top of each other.
They work independently from these settings but the upper layers behaviors are affected by them.
The decisions are taken upon readings of hundreds of thermal and voltage sensors inside the CPU.
PBO is one of the upper layers.

You can tell the CPU that the board can deliver 240A and at the beginning it will behave like it. It'll ramp up power draw at 60A considering it's at 25% of the limit.
But if it's detecting a drop or a fluctuation it's going to understand there's something wrong. At this point will pull the handbrake; lower scores, lower voltages, lower clocks.
If it doesn't detect it and is going with the same ramp up and up you'll likely get a stuttering, hard protections measures like clocks stuck at 800/1400 Mhz, BSDOs, sudden reboots, etc.

When you set values that high you just let loose the CPU to go top speed. Like running with a Ferrari on the highway at night.
You can be lucky, no crashes, no police. Or not.

Sometimes you have all that the CPU needs to go to that speed but very often not. Usually thermals kicks in. 
Thermal control is the deepest layer of the onion's skin.
It will ultimately trigger restrictions whatever you are setting or capable of. It's the most critical one.
If the CPU is detecting high thermals in idle and light workloads it's not even trying to speed up above the limits and it's going to change the acceleration according to it.
Ironically a bad cooling can be better than a good cooling that is undersized for the maximum load.

As I said these values are not being used as they are theoretically defined.
You can check it with HWInfo monitoring the limits percentage during different workloads.
From what I've seen PPT acts like a master limit; too low and it's going to choke everything. It has a global but mild effect on how TDC and EDC are behaving.
TDC is clearly the all core workload limit; it's choking voltages and frequencies at 100% and its behavior is a direct result of increasing cores usage and thermals.
EDC limit goes up with light workload when boosting is active; it's like TDC but with an additional multiplier for the speed and voltage bump from boosting.
It doesn't look that much at thermals (at least those we can see) cause usually they are not an issue with few cores boosting.

With normal PBO during a gaming session from HWInfo monitoring you can see EDC reaching its limit and TDC low when few cores are being used.
When more cores are used EDC goes a little down and TDC takes the lead as limiting factor.

This is why the EDC bug is so juicy; the limit goes away and the boosting is maximized reaching, even if not always, the advertised speed for brief moments.
But this happens only if your setup allows it. Otherwise is either going slower or failing with horrible consequences.
It's just a first layer, if a lower safety layer kicks in can be quite aggressive and instead of ramping down could trigger an harsh protection mechanism.

About Buildzoid's settings; they are Buildzoid's settings...
They work for him with his CPU binning, board, open bench, PSU, etc
Incidentally they work for most people having a 3950x cause there's usually not much difference. 
Almost all 3950x have very high binning, runs on decent boards, PSU and cooling.
You are probably not going to see much difference setting these values a bit higher or a bit lower.

They influence ramping up in a way that is probably being adjusted much earlier by another layer using voltage and thermal sensors.

EDC is not working properly with AGESA 1.0.0.4, if you set it at 0 the board will set its default value.
If you set manually this value it's going to score worse. This is true on almost all boards, seems not all are behaving like this.

The options are EDC at 0, very low like at 1 or extremely high.

In all cases if you want to get the best performances you have to find the best values to influence the ramping up to be optimal for your setup.
PBO itself in automatic mode is not capable of it; it's very conservative and probably too much primitive.

You can get good results with an extremely high value but you'll get the best results only if you find the perfect match.
A bit too low or a bit too high and all the gains will vanish; another layer will kick in and pull the handbrake that tad too much.


----------



## pipes

can work for 3700x?


----------



## buddywh

ManniX-ITA said:


> ...
> About Buildzoid's settings; they are Buildzoid's settings...
> They work for him with his CPU binning, board, open bench, PSU, etc
> ...


I think Buildzoid was trying to arrive at settings that pretty much anyone could make to get like 90% of the benefit PBO has to offer. And this was in a time when most people were still in the camp saying PBO's worthless on Ryzen 3000. 

Later on, he did try tweaking in the 'EDC=10' bug on some of his CPU's and found the same thing I did: it might benefit, but not that big a deal. But I for one do enjoy taking time to tweak in settings when I see them actually DOING something, even if minor! Once I finished it was seriously sweet to see it boosting to 4425Mhz on three cores regularly. And also hitting the CB20 numbers my 3700X is doing in both lightly threaded and heavy multi threaded work loads, which is the 'true-er' test of performance. But I do have to be honest, the uplift from using Buildzoids settings was not nearly the uplift I got from no PBO to PBO with his settings.

So IMO, if you do nothing else just dial in BZ's settings and call it a day. I'm OK with that.


----------



## Cidious

I have experimented extensively with these settings. They come with the downside of unreliability. It's not stable. Performance will be different for different tasks and be depending on how your PC feels when it boots of up... It's fun to experiment with for a single run or a specific benchmark app but it just DOES NOT give stable performance for daily usage. treat it as a bug to play with. Don't expect to much of it otherwise.


----------



## buddywh

Cidious said:


> I have experimented extensively with these settings. They come with the downside of unreliability. It's not stable. Performance will be different for different tasks and be depending on how your PC feels when it boots of up... It's fun to experiment with for a single run or a specific benchmark app but it just DOES NOT give stable performance for daily usage. treat it as a bug to play with. Don't expect to much of it otherwise.


Of course this is like any performance tweaking of a system: you can only go as far as the weakest link allows. So if memory, PSU, motherboard VRM, cooling is borderline then it can go unstable. So you have to back off until it is.

I'd suggest running Prime95 with a super hot FFT (like 128K) with AVX enabled for 20 min's at least. Your CPU should stay in a good temperature range, if it gets over 80C it will start to pull frequency really fast and if it gets to even 90C consider improving it. When it's getting that hot voltage better be pulling wayyyy back, to safe FIT values. At this point some VDroop is highly desireable so don't be using LLC, at least not high settings, to minimize Ton/Toff transient spikes. The extreme load will put a strain on your PSU and VRM; a weak 4 phase or under-capacity PSU will overheat and not deliver clean power. At such low voltage already your CPU may not like it. I think these problems are endemic in low-spec systems and the reason the PPT/EDC/TDC limits are there in the first place.


----------



## Cidious

buddywh said:


> Cidious said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have experimented extensively with these settings. They come with the downside of unreliability. It's not stable. Performance will be different for different tasks and be depending on how your PC feels when it boots of up... It's fun to experiment with for a single run or a specific benchmark app but it just DOES NOT give stable performance for daily usage. treat it as a bug to play with. Don't expect to much of it otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course this is like any performance tweaking of a system: you can only go as far as the weakest link allows. So if memory, PSU, motherboard VRM, cooling is borderline then it can go unstable. So you have to back off until it is.
> 
> I'd suggest running Prime95 with a super hot FFT (like 128K) with AVX enabled for 20 min's at least. Your CPU should stay in a good temperature range, if it gets over 80C it will start to pull frequency really fast and if it gets to even 90C consider improving it. When it's getting that hot voltage better be pulling wayyyy back, to safe FIT values. At this point some VDroop is highly desireable so don't be using LLC, at least not high settings, to minimize Ton/Toff transient spikes. The extreme load will put a strain on your PSU and VRM; a weak 4 phase or under-capacity PSU will overheat and not deliver clean power. At such low voltage already your CPU may not like it. I think these problems are endemic in low-spec systems and the reason the PPT/EDC/TDC limits are there in the first place.
Click to expand...

Mate you miss the point. My memory, motherboard, vrm etc is not unstable. The abusing of this bug is. The bug results in unpredictable behavior. In one application it will perform very well and in the next it won't. And it can be different with every fresh boot also.

It's a bug! Let's not pretend it's anything else.

I send Buildzoid my collected data a whule ago. He tested this bug himself and came to the same conclusion. It's unreliable and doesn't perform consistent.

I'm on the Unfiy with 3800X and a custom loop.. and running Prime95 AVX IS JUST DUMB. it's completely unrealistic and may actually harm your silicon running it for hours in a row. OCCT without avx comes much closer to real world load scenarios and temps. And is thus much more suitable to test system stability.

I was talking about performance consistency. Not crashing. My system doesn't crash with edc but abuse. But the performance is inconsistent per app and loadcase. It's a bug. Fun for trying but not for daily settings.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Cidious said:


> Mate you miss the point. My memory, motherboard, vrm etc is not unstable. The abusing of this bug is. The bug results in unpredictable behavior. In one application it will perform very well and in the next it won't. And it can be different with every fresh boot also.
> 
> It's a bug! Let's not pretend it's anything else.
> 
> I send Buildzoid my collected data a whule ago. He tested this bug himself and came to the same conclusion. It's unreliable and doesn't perform consistent.
> 
> I'm on the Unfiy with 3800X and a custom loop.. and running Prime95 AVX IS JUST DUMB. it's completely unrealistic and may actually harm your silicon running it for hours in a row. OCCT without avx comes much closer to real world load scenarios and temps. And is thus much more suitable to test system stability.
> 
> I was talking about performance consistency. Not crashing. My system doesn't crash with edc but abuse. But the performance is inconsistent per app and loadcase. It's a bug. Fun for trying but not for daily settings.


Hey, what did you use to test consistency?
I'd like to see if I have the same issue.

So far the only inconsistency I found is running at EDC 10.
You can spot it with Metro 2033 benchmark.
But with EDC at 1 it goes away and didn't see any other but I mostly used synthetic benchmarks.

BTW what about the SATA speed bug?


----------



## Dino1989

gerardfraser said:


> So I been running my 3800X PC gaming,it is averaging Cpu 4500Mhz and DDR4 Ram 3866Mhz is it OK to run like this.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RoBvy7A6q1U&t=0s





Can you share your bios settings? I am trying to make this work on my 3800x ... but for some reason not successful


----------



## buddywh

Cidious said:


> ...
> It's a bug! Let's not pretend it's anything else.
> ...


Oh it is definitely a bug! I don't have any illusion otherwise...

I have very consistent performance with my system though...but only as much as any closed loop control system can provide consistent performance. Specifically, performance varies quite a bit with temperature. I can get a CB20 MT score close to 5200 first boot-up in the morning. But by mid-day, even on a fresh boot, it's mid 5100's as the system is fully saturated at a much warm temperature. 

The video I saw where BZ tested out the bug he said his results were variable on his CPU's, which would be expected, and his got most of what PBO can do. So it wasn't worth it to figure out how to use, which makes a lot of sense in his case since he's checking a bunch of CPU's in several different boards. But I do agree it's not a major improvement on his settings, even with what I found, and tweaky to get down. But this thread, this very forum I think, isn't about finding the easiest way. This is about tweaking until you get the most you can because you like doing that. So even if I'm only getting about 5% more than his 333/230/230 bug exploit gets I'm happy working for it.

But also, even BZ's 333/230/230 is inconsistent as I was talking with someone who didn't find any improvement with his X570 board compared to just sliding all three to MAX. So yeah, it can be inconsistent and especially inconsistent across different systems and CPU's. But we knew that even in the first post of this thread so no surprises.


----------



## Cidious

ManniX-ITA said:


> Hey, what did you use to test consistency?
> I'd like to see if I have the same issue.
> 
> So far the only inconsistency I found is running at EDC 10.
> You can spot it with Metro 2033 benchmark.
> But with EDC at 1 it goes away and didn't see any other but I mostly used synthetic benchmarks.
> 
> BTW what about the SATA speed bug?



Here 2 screenshots. The first stock. NO PBO. Just memory OC. The second one EDC=1 like suggested. Same results with 10 or any other value. On 1.0.0.4B and 1.0.0.5. 


On the second screenshot you can clearly see the random light load throttling. What will happen is that the load starts bouncing across cores very rapidly and never stabilize. The next moment you run the same benchmark again and it's normal again. It's UNRELIABLE. One moment it may give you a boost the other it will drag your system through the mud. And for what? 75 more MC points on CB? People should start accepting that AMD did a REALLY nice job with the stock boosting algorithm and stop looking for some magic potion to feed their processor to become invincible. It's dangerous for long term usage or at least it hasn't been proven safe at all yet. While stock is stock. And stock will give the most reliable performance under all circumstances. The people here chasing clockspeed unicorns or 50 extra points on CB should land back on the earth and look reality in the face LOL... 

The EDC BUG is NOT MAGIC it's a bug and it's not reliable. Stock is. And stocks performs near the same but consistently. If you want more power.. buy more cores... AMD scales really nicely like that... Or wait for Zen 3...

Rest my case on the EDC bug. 


Regarding the SATA bug. It's not solved with 1.0.0.5 and I don't think AMD will ever be able to solve it.. seems like a job for X670. I personally only run 1x 1TB SATA as a back-up drive for my 1TB NVME documents drive... So I'm not too hurt by it. But I think it's ridiculous it exists and nobody cares about it much.


----------



## MyUsername

Cidious said:


> Here 2 screenshots. The first stock. NO PBO. Just memory OC. The second one EDC=1 like suggested. Same results with 10 or any other value. On 1.0.0.4B and 1.0.0.5.
> 
> 
> On the second screenshot you can clearly see the random light load throttling. What will happen is that the load starts bouncing across cores very rapidly and never stabilize. The next moment you run the same benchmark again and it's normal again. It's UNRELIABLE. One moment it may give you a boost the other it will drag your system through the mud. And for what? 75 more MC points on CB? People should start accepting that AMD did a REALLY nice job with the stock boosting algorithm and stop looking for some magic potion to feed their processor to become invincible. It's dangerous for long term usage or at least it hasn't been proven safe at all yet. While stock is stock. And stock will give the most reliable performance under all circumstances. The people here chasing clockspeed unicorns or 50 extra points on CB should land back on the earth and look reality in the face LOL...
> 
> The EDC BUG is NOT MAGIC it's a bug and it's not reliable. Stock is. And stocks performs near the same but consistently. If you want more power.. buy more cores... AMD scales really nicely like that... Or wait for Zen 3...
> 
> Rest my case on the EDC bug.
> 
> 
> Regarding the SATA bug. It's not solved with 1.0.0.5 and I don't think AMD will ever be able to solve it.. seems like a job for X670. I personally only run 1x 1TB SATA as a back-up drive for my 1TB NVME documents drive... So I'm not too hurt by it. But I think it's ridiculous it exists and nobody cares about it much.


You have a point, I ran the same tests for my own satisfaction. It seems CB20 and CPU-Z only benefit from the EDC bug. Real world productivity and games don't care and in fact perform the same or better. First is EDC 1 bug, second PBO at defaults, memory and IF at 3800 on both tests.


----------



## gerardfraser

Dino1989 said:


> Can you share your bios settings? I am trying to make this work on my 3800x ... but for some reason not successful


Sure ,I am not doing anything special.All BIOS Settings in screen shots. 

Test CPU offset voltage for your CPU.If setting negative CPU offset voltage beware of clock stretching because you will lose performance if set to low.
In the screenshot I set a positive CPU offset voltage for higher CPU Boost clock for older games.



Spoiler



CPUConfig 

CPUConfig_00 

CPUConfig_01



Video of Cinbench20 with negative CPU offset voltage with all voltages

Single Thread-530 score
Multi Thread -5260 score
Idle temperature CPU-28°C
Max temperature CPU-71°C
Max CPU Core Voltage (SVI2 TFN) reached-1.431v


Spoiler











Video with positive CPU offset voltage, good with older games running on a couple threads, if you want to look at higher CPU Boost Clocks


Spoiler


----------



## buddywh

Cidious said:


> Here 2 screenshots. The first stock. NO PBO. Just memory OC. The second one EDC=1 like suggested. Same results with 10 or any other value. On 1.0.0.4B and 1.0.0.5.
> 
> 
> On the second screenshot you can clearly see the random light load throttling. What will happen is that the load starts bouncing across cores very rapidly and never stabilize. The next moment you run the same benchmark again and it's normal again. It's UNRELIABLE. One moment it may give you a boost the other it will drag your system through the mud. And for what? 75 more MC points on CB? People should start accepting that AMD did a REALLY nice job with the stock boosting algorithm and stop looking for some magic potion to feed their processor to become invincible. It's dangerous for long term usage or at least it hasn't been proven safe at all yet. While stock is stock. And stock will give the most reliable performance under all circumstances. The people here chasing clockspeed unicorns or 50 extra points on CB should land back on the earth and look reality in the face LOL...
> 
> The EDC BUG is NOT MAGIC it's a bug and it's not reliable. Stock is. And stocks performs near the same but consistently. If you want more power.. buy more cores... AMD scales really nicely like that... Or wait for Zen 3...
> 
> Rest my case on the EDC bug.
> 
> 
> Regarding the SATA bug. It's not solved with 1.0.0.5 and I don't think AMD will ever be able to solve it.. seems like a job for X670. I personally only run 1x 1TB SATA as a back-up drive for my 1TB NVME documents drive... So I'm not too hurt by it. But I think it's ridiculous it exists and nobody cares about it much.


I don't know what you mean by 'not reliable'. I assume you mean lack of repeatability in benchmark performance? That's been an issue ever since WindowsXP I guess. I just have not been able to see repeatable BM performance in back to back runs in any benchmark...especially CB20 and before that CB15. I used to reboot to get a repeat performance in CB15 in particular. And the thing is, CB20 and CB15 have always been considered highly repeatable.

Now, with Windows10 and Ryzen's highly opportunistic boosting algorithm it's been even less likely to ever get repeatabilty. But I've found at least it's logical if I can set the benchmark to run with RealTime priority to keep Windows from inserting itself in the background so often. That works with CB20, but most others (like PCMark10, for instance) launch processes as a part of the BM so that's not possible. 

And speaking of PCMark10...that one is the least repeatable on any system I've run it on. I get pretty significant variances, whether stock or even fixed overclock, even if I reboot before making a run. And since PCMark specifically looks at so many other facets of your system arguably GPU, memory and SSD/HDD performance play a huge roll with all three together much bigger than CPU alone so even drawing conclusions about CPU performance and tuning in isolation seems very illogical to me.

If it doesn't work for you, then don't use it. But it's just as safe as any other PBO setting is so if it gets me anything, even if not in all instances or runs of a synthetic BM, I see no reason not to use it as it definitely does not hurt performance. And as I've noted before...I don't mind tweaking. It's an enjoyable time filler when stuck at home anyway.

And yah sure, it's a bug in PBO. I have no doubt of that...how could anyone when setting a current limit of 10A doesn't throttle the CPU to it's knees.

And what is the SATA bug?


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Cidious said:


> Here 2 screenshots. The first stock. NO PBO. Just memory OC. The second one EDC=1 like suggested. Same results with 10 or any other value. On 1.0.0.4B and 1.0.0.5.
> 
> 
> On the second screenshot you can clearly see the random light load throttling. What will happen is that the load starts bouncing across cores very rapidly and never stabilize. The next moment you run the same benchmark again and it's normal again. It's UNRELIABLE. One moment it may give you a boost the other it will drag your system through the mud. And for what? 75 more MC points on CB? People should start accepting that AMD did a REALLY nice job with the stock boosting algorithm and stop looking for some magic potion to feed their processor to become invincible. It's dangerous for long term usage or at least it hasn't been proven safe at all yet. While stock is stock. And stock will give the most reliable performance under all circumstances. The people here chasing clockspeed unicorns or 50 extra points on CB should land back on the earth and look reality in the face LOL...
> 
> The EDC BUG is NOT MAGIC it's a bug and it's not reliable. Stock is. And stocks performs near the same but consistently. If you want more power.. buy more cores... AMD scales really nicely like that... Or wait for Zen 3...
> 
> Rest my case on the EDC bug.
> 
> 
> Regarding the SATA bug. It's not solved with 1.0.0.5 and I don't think AMD will ever be able to solve it.. seems like a job for X670. I personally only run 1x 1TB SATA as a back-up drive for my 1TB NVME documents drive... So I'm not too hurt by it. But I think it's ridiculous it exists and nobody cares about it much.


Okay, understand what you mean.
I had similar issues but I've been able to find the right settings.

It's a bug and it's not always reliable I agree but it's different for everyone.
My scores have 100% repeatability now and are higher in everything than normal PBO by a good margin.

Yes it's not stable sometimes but this is regardless the EDC bug...
It's actually much more stable now than with stock settings or default PBO.
But you know, I have an AORUS Master...

I have caching on NVMe for the SATA drives, it does compensate, but I'm really disappointed.
The difference with the old i4770k running on the Z87 is quite evident when caching is not available.


----------



## mongstradamus

Cidious said:


> Here 2 screenshots. The first stock. NO PBO. Just memory OC. The second one EDC=1 like suggested. Same results with 10 or any other value. On 1.0.0.4B and 1.0.0.5.
> 
> 
> On the second screenshot you can clearly see the random light load throttling. What will happen is that the load starts bouncing across cores very rapidly and never stabilize. The next moment you run the same benchmark again and it's normal again. It's UNRELIABLE. One moment it may give you a boost the other it will drag your system through the mud. And for what? 75 more MC points on CB? People should start accepting that AMD did a REALLY nice job with the stock boosting algorithm and stop looking for some magic potion to feed their processor to become invincible. It's dangerous for long term usage or at least it hasn't been proven safe at all yet. While stock is stock. And stock will give the most reliable performance under all circumstances. The people here chasing clockspeed unicorns or 50 extra points on CB should land back on the earth and look reality in the face LOL...
> 
> The EDC BUG is NOT MAGIC it's a bug and it's not reliable. Stock is. And stocks performs near the same but consistently. If you want more power.. buy more cores... AMD scales really nicely like that... Or wait for Zen 3...
> 
> Rest my case on the EDC bug.
> 
> 
> Regarding the SATA bug. It's not solved with 1.0.0.5 and I don't think AMD will ever be able to solve it.. seems like a job for X670. I personally only run 1x 1TB SATA as a back-up drive for my 1TB NVME documents drive... So I'm not too hurt by it. But I think it's ridiculous it exists and nobody cares about it much.


I am still on the fence whether to use 0/0/10 or 300/230/230 for my 3800x. As far as bench mark goes i get slightly better scores with cpu-z on 0/0/10. Its about 545/5750 compared to 520/5600. Probably isn't enough of a difference to make any kind of real world difference. I am just trying to make sure I am getting the max performance out of my 3800x. For the record with 0/0/10 my single core boost is 4.625 and my all core boost is 4.3, on 300/230/230 max single core boost is 4.575 with a 4.2 all core boost. I haven't been really doing anything all that demanding on my pc so i have contemplated just running with eco mode and call it a day, since probably less power needed and it will function well enough.


----------



## Dino1989

gerardfraser said:


> Sure ,I am not doing anything special.All BIOS Settings in screen shots.
> 
> Test CPU offset voltage for your CPU.If setting negative CPU offset voltage beware of clock stretching because you will lose performance if set to low.
> In the screenshot I set a positive CPU offset voltage for higher CPU Boost clock for older games.
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> CPUConfig
> 
> CPUConfig_00
> 
> CPUConfig_01
> 
> 
> 
> Video of Cinbench20 with negative CPU offset voltage with all voltages
> 
> Single Thread-530 score
> Multi Thread -5260 score
> Idle temperature CPU-28°C
> Max temperature CPU-71°C
> Max CPU Core Voltage (SVI2 TFN) reached-1.431v
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0VjJ7nfdOw&t=0s
> 
> 
> 
> Video with positive CPU offset voltage, good with older games running on a couple threads, if you want to look at higher CPU Boost Clocks
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hue_XOOT3w4





thanks  i will give it a try.. hopefully it will work just fine


----------



## rastaviper

mongstradamus said:


> I am still on the fence whether to use 0/0/10 or 300/230/230 for my 3800x. As far as bench mark goes i get slightly better scores with cpu-z on 0/0/10. Its about 545/5750 compared to 520/5600. Probably isn't enough of a difference to make any kind of real world difference. I am just trying to make sure I am getting the max performance out of my 3800x. For the record with 0/0/10 my single core boost is 4.625 and my all core boost is 4.3, on 300/230/230 max single core boost is 4.575 with a 4.2 all core boost. I haven't been really doing anything all that demanding on my pc so i have contemplated just running with eco mode and call it a day, since probably less power needed and it will function well enough.


Check more benchmarks like CB20, CB15 in order to see the improvement in performance.

Also you can check Superpi for gains from memory tweaking

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


----------



## jamie1073

buddywh said:


> I don't know what you mean by 'not reliable'. I assume you mean lack of repeatability in benchmark performance? That's been an issue ever since WindowsXP I guess. I just have not been able to see repeatable BM performance in back to back runs in any benchmark...especially CB20 and before that CB15. I used to reboot to get a repeat performance in CB15 in particular. And the thing is, CB20 and CB15 have always been considered highly repeatable.
> 
> Now, with Windows10 and Ryzen's highly opportunistic boosting algorithm it's been even less likely to ever get repeatabilty. But I've found at least it's logical if I can set the benchmark to run with RealTime priority to keep Windows from inserting itself in the background so often. That works with CB20, but most others (like PCMark10, for instance) launch processes as a part of the BM so that's not possible.
> 
> And speaking of PCMark10...that one is the least repeatable on any system I've run it on. I get pretty significant variances, whether stock or even fixed overclock, even if I reboot before making a run. And since PCMark specifically looks at so many other facets of your system arguably GPU, memory and SSD/HDD performance play a huge roll with all three together much bigger than CPU alone so even drawing conclusions about CPU performance and tuning in isolation seems very illogical to me.
> 
> If it doesn't work for you, then don't use it. But it's just as safe as any other PBO setting is so if it gets me anything, even if not in all instances or runs of a synthetic BM, I see no reason not to use it as it definitely does not hurt performance. And as I've noted before...I don't mind tweaking. It's an enjoyable time filler when stuck at home anyway.
> 
> And yah sure, it's a bug in PBO. I have no doubt of that...how could anyone when setting a current limit of 10A doesn't throttle the CPU to it's knees.
> 
> And what is the SATA bug?



Try running the PCMark in High Priority instead of Real Time and see what happens. 



Also no idea of what the SATA Bug is, since in my personal rig I only run NVME drives. I do have a B450 rig I run a SATA drive but it is my mom's and the OS and programs are all on an NVME and the SATA is just a storage drive and I doubt she would notice any performance issues accessing Word Doc's.


----------



## buddywh

jamie1073 said:


> Try running the PCMark in High Priority instead of Real Time and see what happens.
> 
> 
> Also no idea of what the SATA Bug is, since in my personal rig I only run NVME drives. I do have a B450 rig I run a SATA drive but it is my mom's and the OS and programs are all on an NVME and the SATA is just a storage drive and I doubt she would notice any performance issues accessing Word Doc's.


I've never tried that because PCMark is just a launcher that launches processes (various browser processes, word processor, spreadsheet, photo editing, POVray rendering process, etc) and times them as part of what it's doing. I'd have to set each process to REALTIME as it launches and that alone (fiddling around in task manager in the midst of it all) would affect the BM in undefined ways during each run. At least that's what I've assumed.

I think I did try it with RealBench (works similar to PCMark) and that was what I found.

But I've always felt such variability is just the nature of running in a highly active multi-tasking environment. The best I can do is minimize variability, and that means running the cleanest Windows setup possible and run a bench right after a re-start. Even the virus scanner being run can introduce variability even if you tell it to pause during the run. I've no idea how to run completely free of one because Windows will enable Defender automatically if you don't have one installed.

And oh yeah, and be sure to disable Fast Startup and PreFetch because Windows wants to move parts of files to a contiguous area of the drive to facilitate the next launch (even in the middle of a BM run!) which will introduce even more variability. And besides, with modern NVME systems it's superfluous.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

buddywh said:


> I've never tried that because PCMark is just a launcher that launches processes (various browser processes, word processor, spreadsheet, photo editing, POVray rendering process, etc) and times them as part of what it's doing. I'd have to set each process to REALTIME as it launches and that alone (fiddling around in task manager in the midst of it all) would affect the BM in undefined ways during each run. At least that's what I've assumed.
> 
> I think I did try it with RealBench (works similar to PCMark) and that was what I found.
> 
> But I've always felt such variability is just the nature of running in a highly active multi-tasking environment. The best way is to minimize variability, and that means running the cleanest Windows setup possible and run a bench right after a re-start.
> 
> And oh yeah, and be sure to disable Fast Startup and PreFetch because Windows wants to move parts of files to a contiguous area of the drive to facilitate the next launch (even in the middle of a BM run!) which will introduce even more variability. And besides, with modern NVME systems it's superfluous.


If you are worried about such things use a clean Windows installation on a USB stick.

The SATA bug was noticed by Cidious; all HDD and SSD are running with lower throughput than normal.


----------



## buddywh

ManniX-ITA said:


> If you are worried about such things use a clean Windows installation on a USB stick.
> 
> The SATA bug was noticed by Cidious; all HDD and SSD are running with lower throughput than normal.


I'm not really worried about them...I'm content using CB20, so long as it includes an ST run along with MT, to assess whether I'm improving, degrading or just going sideways with any tweaks. I understand how to get a fairly repeatable score: first reboot, let it settle a bit, launch CB20 setting REALTIME priority, run MT three times and take average or midpoint as the score so as to include core and AIO warming effect. But since I am using an AIO, my mid point will probably be higher than many air coolers since they saturate way sooner. It does warm up, but three runs isn't nearly enough to saturate a 240mm AIO.

About that SATA bug: when 'all hdd and ssd' are running that way, that kind of sounds like normal to me. LOL Maybe some systems just perform better? Enjoy what you got.


----------



## Cidious

buddywh said:


> I don't know what you mean by 'not reliable'. I assume you mean lack of repeatability in benchmark performance? That's been an issue ever since WindowsXP I guess. I just have not been able to see repeatable BM performance in back to back runs in any benchmark...especially CB20 and before that CB15. I used to reboot to get a repeat performance in CB15 in particular. And the thing is, CB20 and CB15 have always been considered highly repeatable.
> 
> Now, with Windows10 and Ryzen's highly opportunistic boosting algorithm it's been even less likely to ever get repeatabilty. But I've found at least it's logical if I can set the benchmark to run with RealTime priority to keep Windows from inserting itself in the background so often. That works with CB20, but most others (like PCMark10, for instance) launch processes as a part of the BM so that's not possible.
> 
> And speaking of PCMark10...that one is the least repeatable on any system I've run it on. I get pretty significant variances, whether stock or even fixed overclock, even if I reboot before making a run. And since PCMark specifically looks at so many other facets of your system arguably GPU, memory and SSD/HDD performance play a huge roll with all three together much bigger than CPU alone so even drawing conclusions about CPU performance and tuning in isolation seems very illogical to me.
> 
> If it doesn't work for you, then don't use it. But it's just as safe as any other PBO setting is so if it gets me anything, even if not in all instances or runs of a synthetic BM, I see no reason not to use it as it definitely does not hurt performance. And as I've noted before...I don't mind tweaking. It's an enjoyable time filler when stuck at home anyway.
> 
> And yah sure, it's a bug in PBO. I have no doubt of that...how could anyone when setting a current limit of 10A doesn't throttle the CPU to it's knees.
> 
> And what is the SATA bug?



Mate please just look at the screenshot. This is not an XP issue.. this is a difference between bios settings. stock settings produce stable performance over and over again. the EDC bugs Fs with it and during lighter or single core loads it throttles on and off. Please. I know you want to believe in this hocus pocus magic but it's really not. AMD spend months trying to squeeze all out of these chips and they did.. sadly for us this is just it. All ya folks looking for magic performance are going to be disappointed. You're fooling yourself. 

SATA Bug is a huge 50% performance hit on random read and writes and a chunk on the sequential writes. 
https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/fwh7q0/sata_performance_is_gimped_on_x570_compared_to/

MSI has confirmed the issue but says it has to come from AMD. But AMD doesn't acknowledge the issue because it doesn't get enough traction. ALL X570 chipset boards have this issue. B450 and X470 and even lower boards perform without this issue. Nobody seems to care much.


----------



## buddywh

Cidious said:


> Mate please just look at the screenshot. This is not an XP issue.. this is a difference between bios settings. stock settings produce stable performance over and over again. the EDC bugs Fs with it and during lighter or single core loads it throttles on and off. Please. I know you want to believe in this hocus pocus magic but it's really not. AMD spend months trying to squeeze all out of these chips and they did.. sadly for us this is just it. All ya folks looking for magic performance are going to be disappointed. You're fooling yourself.
> 
> SATA Bug is a huge 50% performance hit on random read and writes and a chunk on the sequential writes.
> https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/fwh7q0/sata_performance_is_gimped_on_x570_compared_to/
> 
> MSI has confirmed the issue but says it has to come from AMD. But AMD doesn't acknowledge the issue because it doesn't get enough traction. ALL X570 chipset boards have this issue. B450 and X470 and even lower boards perform without this issue. Nobody seems to care much.


Speaking only for myself...I'm not looking for 'magical performance' as you seem to think it needs to be. It's a tweak...just a tweak. It works for me, and it's worked for others...but also not worked for others. To much in play to speculate why. And further: it's perfectly repeatable for me when I've careful to minimize Window's variablity and thermal variability. That you can't make it repeatable is not my problem, it's your problem. 

So enjoy your rig, I'll enjoy mine. Just stop trying to tear down others for successes.

EDIT: oh, and I kind of put this in the same category as what BIOS update to 1003abba did. Sure, it started boosting to rated boost clocks, as advertised, in 'light bursty tasks'. Everyone raged on and on about important that was, but so what? CB20 BM's and Handbrake encodes didn't improve any from what it was doing before...but at least it looked neat boosting to 4400.


----------



## RossiOCUK

On my 3900X I'm running:
PPT = 0
TDC = 0
EDC = 1
Overdrive = 200mhz
vcore = Auto

Actually runs quite a bit cooler for me than just running PE3 and boosts upto:
4.675GHz on cores 0+1
4.625GHz on cores 2+3
4.600GHz on cores 4+5
4.400GHZ to 4.475GHz on cores 6 to 11
All core: 4.25GHz

But CB20 scores don't improve...

Also, another oddity it borks single core CB20 and runs under 3GHz....


----------



## buddywh

OK...something I tried that would offer better repeatability even if not really a benchmark. I'm running Prime95 using a custom FFT - 128k, Run In Place, AVX on for maximum heat and stress on the CPU.

When I run this test using my 'EDC=10' bug settings (that's PPT333, TDC230, EDC10, Global C-States disabled) for about 2-3 min's, just enough to get the CPU good and hot without saturating the AIO. Monitoring with HWInfo I see core clocks have dropped to 41.8 multiplier average (that's 4.180Ghz).

Now, reboot into BIOS and revert to BZ's preferred PBO settings, that's PPT333, TDC230, EDC230) and re-enable Global CStates (disabling that is part of the 'bug'). Now I find that core clocks dropped to 40.5 multiplier after 2-3 min's run time. That's a sustained, heavily loaded all-core performance loss of 125Mhz without exploiting the bug which is quite substantial in the scheme of things. That's about all many all-core manual overclockers are hoping for even by risking their CPU's life, so something I should be happy to enjoy finding for free while keeping my processor relatively safe.

Now, reboot to BIOS and re-enable my 'EDC=10' bug settings (see above). Re-run P95, same as above, and core clocks drop to 41.5. That's logical to be lower than the very first 'bug run' because core and AIO liquid thermals are building but still returning to a 100Mhz improvement over what the BZ preferred will do.

BTW...I'm just using the same method Buildzoid did when in his video: 



 on his preferred PBO settings (333/230/230). I was shocked to see the improvement when I did the same tests he was doing in the video (that's what may me think to try that now). Then, I saw clocks drop to below 39.0 multiplier with only enabling to dropping to the same 40.5 I'm getting above with his settings. And BTW with no PBO, so completely stock settings, it's dropping to 36.25 or so which is effectively base clock for my 3700X.

So yah, i'm seeing some perfectly repeatable improvements so long as thermals are cooperating.


----------



## jamie1073

RossiOCUK said:


> On my 3900X I'm running:
> PPT = 0
> TDC = 0
> EDC = 1
> Overdrive = 200mhz
> vcore = Auto
> 
> Actually runs quite a bit cooler for me than just running PE3 and boosts upto:
> 4.675GHz on cores 0+1
> 4.625GHz on cores 2+3
> 4.600GHz on cores 4+5
> 4.400GHZ to 4.475GHz on cores 6 to 11
> All core: 4.25GHz
> 
> But CB20 scores don't improve...
> 
> Also, another oddity it borks single core CB20 and runs under 3GHz....



That is because you did not read the first post in this thread that suggests you try EDC=16 for a 3900X processor. I get consistant 4.65Ghz on at least 2 cores during an R20 run and 4.625 on two others and 5.75 on the remaining two in CCD1. I then get 4.4-4.45 on the cores in CCD2. Scores range from 522-527 on single thread in R20. I also set PPT=500 and TDC=230 for this, if I set them to 0 then they go back to stock AMD values on my board. I set the 2 setting based on what my motherboard would set when turning PBO on and to Motherboard settings for my VRM's.


----------



## jamie1073

buddywh said:


> Speaking only for myself...I'm not looking for 'magical performance' as you seem to think it needs to be. It's a tweak...just a tweak. It works for me, and it's worked for others...but also not worked for others. To much in play to speculate why. And further: it's perfectly repeatable for me when I've careful to minimize Window's variablity and thermal variability. That you can't make it repeatable is not my problem, it's your problem.
> 
> So enjoy your rig, I'll enjoy mine. Just stop trying to tear down others for successes.
> 
> EDIT: oh, and I kind of put this in the same category as what BIOS update to 1003abba did. Sure, it started boosting to rated boost clocks, as advertised, in 'light bursty tasks'. Everyone raged on and on about important that was, but so what? CB20 BM's and Handbrake encodes didn't improve any from what it was doing before...but at least it looked neat boosting to 4400.



Yeah mine is always repeatable and in all testing with other software my CPU performs at higher clocks than set to just PBO enabled or PBO even disabled. Maybe the newer chips perform better and are better binned than mine so I need the bug. I got my 3900X in August. I noticed from the get go that it performed slower that what reviewers were getting and people on forums were getting in comparison to mine. Like considerably lower scores in Cinebench R20, by more than 200pts lower no matter what settings I set to in some peoples tests 400pts lower on MT and 11pts to 20+pts lower on ST performance. So much so I thought it was the motherboard and switched that out from a B450 to a X570. Then another X570 that had better VRM's. And guess what, it performed exactly as crappy on all three. When I tweaked it and tried this bug I then got the same scores other were getting, that was what they were getting without this big tweak. 



So now it seems to be working and I am happy, for now. Once the Gen 3 comes out I will then upgrade to one of those and cross my fingers I get a good one. I am not unhappy with it in the least, but was bothered that I was not getting what everyone else was getting. But I am glad I found this tweak to get it to where it should be performance wise.


----------



## buddywh

jamie1073 said:


> ...
> Maybe the newer chips perform better and are better binned than mine so I need the bug.
> ...


That definitely could be part of what's happening as I also have an older 3700X; I got it not more than a month after launch. It's not just 'better binning' though; 3700X are pretty much bottom of the bottom. I feel process maturation probably has resulted in significant improvements for all CPU's up and down the product line.


----------



## RossiOCUK

jamie1073 said:


> That is because you did not read the first post in this thread that suggests you try EDC=16 for a 3900X processor. I get consistant 4.65Ghz on at least 2 cores during an R20 run and 4.625 on two others and 5.75 on the remaining two in CCD1. I then get 4.4-4.45 on the cores in CCD2. Scores range from 522-527 on single thread in R20. I also set PPT=500 and TDC=230 for this, if I set them to 0 then they go back to stock AMD values on my board. I set the 2 setting based on what my motherboard would set when turning PBO on and to Motherboard settings for my VRM's.


To be fair, the OP is a nightmare to decipher. 

Regardless, it doesn’t seem to matter what PBO settings I use, my single core gets borked, clocks run under 3GHz sometimes even under 2GHz when running CB20 single core. Very odd.


----------



## buddywh

RossiOCUK said:


> To be fair, the OP is a nightmare to decipher.
> 
> Regardless, it doesn’t seem to matter what PBO settings I use, my single core gets borked, clocks run under 3GHz sometimes even under 2GHz when running CB20 single core. Very odd.


Did you try it with Global C States Disabled?

I agree OP's post is hard to fathom in isolation. I had to read a bunch of the following posts to get a better idea of what knobs needed twisting and find what worked for mine.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

RossiOCUK said:


> To be fair, the OP is a nightmare to decipher.
> 
> Regardless, it doesn’t seem to matter what PBO settings I use, my single core gets borked, clocks run under 3GHz sometimes even under 2GHz when running CB20 single core. Very odd.


If it's not the c-states, you have to find the right settings to make it work.
It's a bug, for someone it's just not working no matter what you do.

Due to the unrestricted EDC the voltage is fed sometimes too low, others too high.
All the parameters must be set with swiss precision otherwise you'll get worse scores, inconsistent performances, falling single thread, clocks going down, crashes, etc.
Everything that is being argued continuously here.

Checking the clocks or multipliers while benching it's useless.
You can get 4,75 GHz clocks but worse performances than running at 4,3 GHz.
You need first to check that the effective clocks are at least very close to the multipliers.
Then you have to compare the actual scores against normal PBO.
You need to compare a lot of different benchmarks, not just a couple.
Even with the same effective clocks if the settings are not perfect you get worse or inconsistent performances.

Read the whole thread or use the search function.


----------



## Medizinmann

RossiOCUK said:


> On my 3900X I'm running:
> PPT = 0
> TDC = 0
> EDC = 1
> Overdrive = 200mhz
> vcore = Auto
> 
> Actually runs quite a bit cooler for me than just running PE3 and boosts upto:
> 4.675GHz on cores 0+1
> 4.625GHz on cores 2+3
> 4.600GHz on cores 4+5
> 4.400GHZ to 4.475GHz on cores 6 to 11
> All core: 4.25GHz
> 
> But CB20 scores don't improve...
> 
> Also, another oddity it borks single core CB20 and runs under 3GHz....


Problem with your settings are - 0 will give you stock settings - that means you give the chip a boost for EDC but you cap PPT and TDC at stock settings...so performance will cap out especially with multicore as power Budget stays at 142W.

I am running at following settings…
PPT= 1300 
TDC= 500 
EDC=1

Overboost doesn’t do anything for me and also scalar over 3x won’t bring any benefits.
With these settings I see total power consumption of up to 187W (used to be up to 230W with old AGESA)
In other words PPT and TDC at motherboards max. and EDC=1. 

And remember – all this only really works with excessive cooling – a stock cooler won’t do…and the power delivery of you mobo must be good of course…
You might have to fiddle with LLC and things like it.

I see an increase for the CB20 Scores from 7150 to 7570. 
CPU-Z single core goes from 530 to 568.
I also see much higher sustained boost.

Also higher scores for TimeSpy and such...

Results are little better then the “old” EDC-bug circumvent with EDC set to 0 (which results in EDC=140A) and PPT/TDC set to motherboards max.

Greetings
Medizinmann


----------



## St0RM53

buddywh said:


> OK...something I tried that would offer better repeatability even if not really a benchmark. I'm running Prime95 using a custom FFT - 128k, Run In Place, AVX on for maximum heat and stress on the CPU.
> 
> When I run this test using my 'EDC=10' bug settings (that's PPT333, TDC230, EDC10, Global C-States disabled) for about 2-3 min's, just enough to get the CPU good and hot without saturating the AIO. Monitoring with HWInfo I see core clocks have dropped to 41.8 multiplier average (that's 4.180Ghz).
> 
> Now, reboot into BIOS and revert to BZ's preferred PBO settings, that's PPT333, TDC230, EDC230) and re-enable Global CStates (disabling that is part of the 'bug'). Now I find that core clocks dropped to 40.5 multiplier after 2-3 min's run time. That's a sustained, heavily loaded all-core performance loss of 125Mhz without exploiting the bug which is quite substantial in the scheme of things. That's about all many all-core manual overclockers are hoping for even by risking their CPU's life, so something I should be happy to enjoy finding for free while keeping my processor relatively safe.
> 
> Now, reboot to BIOS and re-enable my 'EDC=10' bug settings (see above). Re-run P95, same as above, and core clocks drop to 41.5. That's logical to be lower than the very first 'bug run' because core and AIO liquid thermals are building but still returning to a 100Mhz improvement over what the BZ preferred will do.
> 
> BTW...I'm just using the same method Buildzoid did when in his video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ismHAZAHAUs&t=225s on his preferred PBO settings (333/230/230). I was shocked to see the improvement when I did the same tests he was doing in the video (that's what may me think to try that now). Then, I saw clocks drop to below 39.0 multiplier with only enabling to dropping to the same 40.5 I'm getting above with his settings. And BTW with no PBO, so completely stock settings, it's dropping to 36.25 or so which is effectively base clock for my 3700X.
> 
> So yah, i'm seeing some perfectly repeatable improvements so long as thermals are cooperating.





Buildzoid's method seems to be the correct way to go. I didn't yet test it, but i tested the EDC bug with the method of this thread and posted the results. It boosts to max and will give the best scores but people ignored the fact (and my post) that it KEEPS THE VOLTAGES HIGH ALL OF THE TIME. This will degrade your CPU much faster. I am assuming Buildzoid's method doesn't suffer from this as the PBO algorithm works normally which should keep the voltages adjusting automatically. Still waiting for AGESA 1.0.0.5 on Gigabyte to see if they actually made any changes to this.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

St0RM53 said:


> Buildzoid's method seems to be the correct way to go. I didn't yet test it, but i tested the EDC bug with the method of this thread and posted the results. It boosts to max and will give the best scores but people ignored the fact (and my post) that it KEEPS THE VOLTAGES HIGH ALL OF THE TIME. This will degrade your CPU much faster. I am assuming Buildzoid's method doesn't suffer from this as the PBO algorithm works normally which should keep the voltages adjusting automatically. Still waiting for AGESA 1.0.0.5 on Gigabyte to see if they actually made any changes to this.


Which voltages you see always high? I don't.

Degradation for high voltage at low load will impact maybe 6 months over 10 years of lifetime...
Yes on average the core VIDs and vCore are much higher and usually between 1.4v and 1.5v, that's how it boosts better.
But it does it only with low to medium power draw, nothing to be worried.
When it can become dangerous the safety protections are limiting to a very tolerable voltage.
If you spent some time setting it right.

My cores are idling at 2.2 GHz/0.950v going to 3.6 GHz/1.094v with light load and boosting to 4.55 GHz/1.45v-1.48v very quickly.
There are intermediate values but much less than without the bug.
If you see a different behavior then there's something wrong with your settings.

Very likely you left Min CPU at 99% in the Power saving profile.
And didn't set to Off the Link State Power Management for PCI Express.


----------



## St0RM53

ManniX-ITA said:


> Which voltages you see always high? I don't.
> 
> Degradation for high voltage at low load will impact maybe 6 months over 10 years of lifetime...
> Yes on average the core VIDs and vCore are much higher and usually between 1.4v and 1.5v, that's how it boosts better.
> But it does it only with low to medium power draw, nothing to be worried.
> When it can become dangerous the safety protections are limiting to a very tolerable voltage.
> If you spent some time setting it right.
> 
> My cores are idling at 2.2 GHz/0.950v going to 3.6 GHz/1.094v with light load and boosting to 4.55 GHz/1.45v-1.48v very quickly.
> There are intermediate values but much less than without the bug.
> If you see a different behavior then there's something wrong with your settings.
> 
> Very likely you left Min CPU at 99% in the Power saving profile.
> And didn't set to Off the Link State Power Management for PCI Express.



That's why i said faster. You don't know if it will reduce 6 months or 5 years in 10 years; unless you guarantee you buy me a new 3950x when it does degrade sooner than what you said.
What you are seeing is correct. That's core voltage. Issue is what i consider light load with example Firefox open with all my tabs makes the cpu boost high, frequently, that's why the voltages don't drop and stay at 1.5V. So unnecessary voltage for boost for no reason as that task is not time critical. PBO doesn't know what you are doing.


And yes i tested multiple power plans; that's not the issue here, the issue is that the CPU will always boost when it can to finish the work ASAP and then idle. Most applications for one reason or another will hit the CPU consistently. Plus setting a min CPU state is the stupidest thing for a desktop, that's only useful for battery powered PC's like laptops where you want to stay in a better efficiency spot at the expense of longer processing time.


So using the EDC bug is only useful for benchmarks and constant load processing same as manual overclock unless you don't care about degradation.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

St0RM53 said:


> That's why i said faster. You don't know if it will reduce 6 months or 5 years in 10 years; unless you guarantee you buy me a new 3950x when it does degrade sooner than what you said.
> What you are seeing is correct. That's core voltage. Issue is what i consider light load with example Firefox open with all my tabs makes the cpu boost high, frequently, that's why the voltages don't drop and stay at 1.5V. So unnecessary voltage for boost for no reason as that task is not time critical. PBO doesn't know what you are doing.
> 
> 
> And yes i tested multiple power plans; that's not the issue here, the issue is that the CPU will always boost when it can to finish the work ASAP and then idle. Most applications for one reason or another will hit the CPU consistently. Plus setting a min CPU state is the stupidest thing for a desktop, that's only useful for battery powered PC's like laptops where you want to stay in a better efficiency spot at the expense of longer processing time.
> 
> 
> So using the EDC bug is only useful for benchmarks and constant load processing same as manual overclock unless you don't care about degradation.


No I'm not going buy you a new 3950x 
I don't agree and that's fine, we all have our opinions.

All Ryzen can go safely up to 1.5V, it's what AMD declared and I don't see any reason to doubt it.
It's probably a pretty conservative figure.

Did you research a bit what exactly is electromigration degradation?

Make your own knowledge instead of taking for granted what you hear around:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromigration

Check the Black's equation main factors; cross-sectional area, the 7nm fab, the current density (amperes per area) and temperature.
If the current and temperature are lower than specific set points then the degradation, which is always there, is more affected by environmental factors.
That's why I'm confident saying it's likely 6 months over 10 years.

The voltage it's only a secondary factor; plays a role only because at higher voltage more amperes goes through the copper interconnects.

If you see it as classic car problem where speed is voltage, on a highway with no exits and no traffic it's unlikely you'll have an accident.
Add traffic, amperes, and exits, temperature, and the accident is guaranteed.


----------



## buddywh

St0RM53 said:


> That's why i said faster. You don't know if it will reduce 6 months or 5 years in 10 years; unless you guarantee you buy me a new 3950x when it does degrade sooner than what you said.....


If you're worried about it then just disable PBO, leave voltage and frequency in auto, turn off boosting. There are more things you can do if you want: turn on eco-mode, set a max temperature limit of 65C, a lowered TDP of 35W. But if you want that...why are you even lurking these forums? 

This forum isn't about that, it's about pushing our processors as hard as we can for the very limited time that it's performance is relevant in an ever changing computing world. Even powering your processor on degrades it, pushing it hard with a 24 hour rendering degrades it faster, push it harder still with optimized PBO degrades it faster still. Nothing degrades it as fast as a fixed voltage overclock, to the point now at 7nm it's not worth it with. You can't say 'I want highest performance' and 'I want guaranteed safe' in the same sentence. It's the very definition of cognitive dissonance.


----------



## buddywh

St0RM53 said:


> Buildzoid's method seems to be the correct way to go. I didn't yet test it, but i tested the EDC bug with the method of this thread and posted the results. It boosts to max and will give the best scores but people ignored the fact (and my post) that it KEEPS THE VOLTAGES HIGH ALL OF THE TIME. This will degrade your CPU much faster. I am assuming Buildzoid's method doesn't suffer from this as the PBO algorithm works normally which should keep the voltages adjusting automatically. Still waiting for AGESA 1.0.0.5 on Gigabyte to see if they actually made any changes to this.


I think you're probably doing it wrong... but then every motherboard is different. Who knows.

On my motherboard, my 3700X, when set up full-on 'stock', in idle for light bursty loads, the voltage is spiking up to 1.47-1.49V while one core hits 4400 rarely. It does not stay there constantly; it's not fixed.

When I've set up this edc=10 PBO bug it's spiking up to 1.43-1.46V so it's actually lowered the voltage requirement, and hitting more cores at 3 cores at 4425, 3 more at 4400. And still, it does not stay there constantly. It's not fixed. It drops to 1.0V or less quite frequently at idle and I've confirmed it with a DVM reading at the base of the socket.

Lastly, under heavy all-core loads when temperature is in mid-70's and core current is at maximum the voltage has dropped to 1.28V or so. The same as the FIT voltage under stock settings, so I'm still following FIT. 

If you're voltage is staying at one fixed value, you're doing it wrong.


----------



## St0RM53

ManniX-ITA said:


> No I'm not going buy you a new 3950x
> I don't agree and that's fine, we all have our opinions.
> 
> All Ryzen can go safely up to 1.5V, it's what AMD declared and I don't see any reason to doubt it.
> It's probably a pretty conservative figure.
> 
> Did you research a bit what exactly is electromigration degradation?
> 
> Make your own knowledge instead of taking for granted what you hear around:
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromigration
> 
> Check the Black's equation main factors; cross-sectional area, the 7nm fab, the current density (amperes per area) and temperature.
> If the current and temperature are lower than specific set points then the degradation, which is always there, is more affected by environmental factors.
> That's why I'm confident saying it's likely 6 months over 10 years.
> 
> The voltage it's only a secondary factor; plays a role only because at higher voltage more amperes goes through the copper interconnects.
> 
> If you see it as classic car problem where speed is voltage, on a highway with no exits and no traffic it's unlikely you'll have an accident.
> Add traffic, amperes, and exits, temperature, and the accident is guaranteed.



If you are not gonna buy me a new one it means you don't have 100% confidence. Not even AMD has 100% confidence and they have all the data and equipment to test this. I know about electromigration. Using empirical equations is not confidence inspiring neither will get you to a true results. In fact not even knowing how the actual silicon design is and how many redundant interconnects it uses you can only calculate a worst case scenario. Not to count every silicon has different defects and do not forget this is a new process (not EUV but still new). I want to see what AMD does with AGESA 1.0.0.5 or later revisions. Will it patch it? If not why they didn't tune the algorithm from the start like this..remember they even had the chance with the 2nd PBO revision on AGESA 1.0.0.4...That's why Buildzoid's method should be a safer option (assuming voltages adjust correctly)




buddywh said:


> If you're worried about it then just disable PBO, leave voltage and frequency in auto, turn off boosting. There are more things you can do if you want: turn on eco-mode, set a max temperature limit of 65C, a lowered TDP of 35W. But if you want that...why are you even lurking these forums?
> 
> This forum isn't about that, it's about pushing our processors as hard as we can for the very limited time that it's performance is relevant in an ever changing computing world. Even powering your processor on degrades it, pushing it hard with a 24 hour rendering degrades it faster, push it harder still with optimized PBO degrades it faster still. Nothing degrades it as fast as a fixed voltage overclock, to the point now at 7nm it's not worth it with. You can't say 'I want highest performance' and 'I want guaranteed safe' in the same sentence. It's the very definition of cognitive dissonance.



And this thread is about a specific bug. I am discussing that, so where's the problem? I am mentioning facts as well. This is part of PBO, and has nothing to do with disabling or not. PBO bug is a trick, it's was never meant to behave like this; AMD is not stupid to leave performance on the table for no reason at all. PBO at full consistent load is essentially the same as a manual fixed overclock. If you are doing rendering 24h it doesn't matter if PBO does all cores at 4ghz/1.45V and you put the same settings in a manual overclock. If you like your CPU to die faster feel free to do it; just stop telling people it's ok to do if you are not gonna buy them a new cpu when it dies because you are not AMD chief silicon architect.


----------



## buddywh

St0RM53 said:


> ....
> 
> .... PBO at full consistent load is essentially the same as a manual fixed overclock. If you are doing rendering 24h it doesn't matter if PBO does all cores at 4ghz/1.45V and you put the same settings in a manual overclock. If you like your CPU to die faster feel free to do it; just stop telling people it's ok to do if you are not gonna buy them a new cpu when it dies because you are not AMD chief silicon architect.


PBO is nothing at all like a manual fixed overclock! To even say that suggests you don't understand what's happening. The boosting algorithm pulls BOTH voltage and frequency back as far as it needs to keep the processor within FIT ranges. That's been demonstrated already in Buildzoids video where he's clearly showing it...the EDC=10 bug doesn't alter anything to do with it. 

I've even run the same tests BZ did. It's easy, P95 is all you need and a couple BIOS profiles. At full P95 load whether in PBO or stock core voltage was about 1.28V with temp. low 70's. But more! idle voltage was spiking upwards of 1.47-1.49V while stock but my idle voltage in my PBO only spikes 1.44 to 1.46V so I'm actually SAFER, if you will. 

PBO is no different from putting better cooling on your CPU since it can hold a higher clock at the same temp with same voltage. PBO along with better cooling is even better yet!

PPT - EDC - TDC are limits in place to protect the VRM! You're CPU will only draw the current or power that the CPU can draw...and that's limited by the temperature range within where the boosting algorithm will even allow it. I can't make my CPU perform to the TDP of a 3800X just by engaging PBO, whether or not with any EDC=10 bug. It will just stop trying to protect a VRM that's well capable of delivering more than the maximum possible draw of a 3700X that's still limited to following FIT across temperature.

I'm not saying it's safe to do PBO...I'm gonna tell you it's unsafe to even turn on your PC. Do you have any idea what inrush currents do to semiconductors at startup? And OH MY GOD getting the temps up during a gaming session! that increases degradation 1000 fold over just idling around at room temperature! so no no...don't game. that's way too dangerous!

If you don't want to risk degradtion, then don't do it. Just don't turn it on. ONLY then will I guarantee you your CPU won't degrade.


----------



## steve258

Guys do it or don't it's your personal choice just make up your own mind and accept the consequence, simple as that. The first post has been pretty clear at stating that this is a bug, an exploit that might or might not damage your CPU. Post your personal experience, share results or suggest other options to try. Obviously being an overclocking enthusiasts forum people are going to push things a bit! so if you don't like just leave it. No need to go overly defensive of your own opinions/choice.




ManniX-ITA said:


> Doesn't work for everyone.
> But if you have clocks going down to 800 usually means over temperature protection kicked in.
> You should try with a much lower offset, compensating with an higher LLC and scalar.
> Mine is at around -0.05, try to go lower, step by step.


Yeah I eventually found a balance at EDC 12 that works so far, fingers crossed. Unfortunately still can't lower offset without hurting performance, maybe I have a bad chip. I'm at auto stock voltage and LLC at mode 6 (out of 8) that gives good performance without too much heat. It REALLY likes higher voltage. Temperature still creeps upto 85C under CB20 load so I had to lower TDC and PPT a bit to manage but so far it's good, with small but solid performance gain all round. Can constantly score between 7380-7450 in CB20 MT (from 7200-7300), 533-537 ST (from 518). I might test with CnQ disabled next.

Also what I found is that even with the bug it sill performs better with colder temp so it's obvious that some sort of temperature-based clock modulation is still going on. On a chilly morning on fresh boot I can easily get 100+ extra points in CB20 than if the system was hot.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

St0RM53 said:


> If you are not gonna buy me a new one it means you don't have 100% confidence. Not even AMD has 100% confidence and they have all the data and equipment to test this. I know about electromigration. Using empirical equations is not confidence inspiring neither will get you to a true results. In fact not even knowing how the actual silicon design is and how many redundant interconnects it uses you can only calculate a worst case scenario. Not to count every silicon has different defects and do not forget this is a new process (not EUV but still new). I want to see what AMD does with AGESA 1.0.0.5 or later revisions. Will it patch it? If not why they didn't tune the algorithm from the start like this..remember they even had the chance with the 2nd PBO revision on AGESA 1.0.0.4...That's why Buildzoid's method should be a safer option (assuming voltages adjust correctly)
> 
> And this thread is about a specific bug. I am discussing that, so where's the problem? I am mentioning facts as well. This is part of PBO, and has nothing to do with disabling or not. PBO bug is a trick, it's was never meant to behave like this; AMD is not stupid to leave performance on the table for no reason at all. PBO at full consistent load is essentially the same as a manual fixed overclock. If you are doing rendering 24h it doesn't matter if PBO does all cores at 4ghz/1.45V and you put the same settings in a manual overclock. If you like your CPU to die faster feel free to do it; just stop telling people it's ok to do if you are not gonna buy them a new cpu when it dies because you are not AMD chief silicon architect.


No, I'm not 100% confident but reasonably enough.
I'm not confident about the reliability of this processor in general.
It's the first CPU I had in my lifetime which didn't work at stock settings.
But this is something different than electromigration issues and/or high voltage issues.

PBO is, in my humble opinion, a too simplistic and not properly designed series of algorithms.
They didn't tune like this cause it just wouldn't work for most of the people.
The amount of work you need to spend to get better performances and reliability at the same time it's huge, too much.

You link it to electromigration issues; I say there's no hint about it, PBO normally doesn't boost like that just cause it's not good enough to do it.

PBO with or without bug never runs load 4Ghz/1.45V and it's not behaving remotely close to a manual oc, you are just using a wrong comparison.
Honestly it's you telling everyone, in caps, how incredibly dangerous can be; nobody said it's safe.
It's stated in the first post that can be dangerous and it's pretty clear to anyone there are risks.



steve258 said:


> Guys do it or don't it's your personal choice just make up your own mind and accept the consequence, simple as that. The first post has been pretty clear at stating that this is a bug, an exploit that might or might not damage your CPU. Post your personal experience, share results or suggest other options to try. Obviously being an overclocking enthusiasts forum people are going to push things a bit! so if you don't like just leave it. No need to go overly defensive of your own opinions/choice.
> 
> Yeah I eventually found a balance at EDC 12 that works so far, fingers crossed. Unfortunately still can't lower offset without hurting performance, maybe I have a bad chip. I'm at auto stock voltage and LLC at mode 6 (out of 8) that gives good performance without too much heat. It REALLY likes higher voltage. Temperature still creeps upto 85C under CB20 load so I had to lower TDC and PPT a bit to manage but so far it's good, with small but solid performance gain all round. Can constantly score between 7380-7450 in CB20 MT (from 7200-7300), 533-537 ST (from 518). I might test with CnQ disabled next.
> 
> Also what I found is that even with the bug it sill performs better with colder temp so it's obvious that some sort of temperature-based clock modulation is still going on. On a chilly morning on fresh boot I can easily get 100+ extra points in CB20 than if the system was hot.


Already good results, haven't seen much better for your model.
Yes thermal is the main factor, that's why I'm settings up a crazy build with TECs 
If you can keep it below 40 always it's going faster and smoother.


----------



## Nighthog

steve258 said:


> Yeah I eventually found a balance at EDC 12 that works so far, fingers crossed. Unfortunately still can't lower offset without hurting performance, maybe I have a bad chip. I'm at auto stock voltage and LLC at mode 6 (out of 8) that gives good performance without too much heat. It REALLY likes higher voltage. Temperature still creeps upto 85C under CB20 load so I had to lower TDC and PPT a bit to manage but so far it's good, with small but solid performance gain all round. Can constantly score between 7380-7450 in CB20 MT (from 7200-7300), 533-537 ST (from 518). I might test with CnQ disabled next.
> 
> Also what I found is that even with the bug it sill performs better with colder temp so it's obvious that some sort of temperature-based clock modulation is still going on. On a chilly morning on fresh boot I can easily get 100+ extra points in CB20 than if the system was hot.


More voltage = More speed.

PBO will take any voltage you give it and increase clocks as far as you are not limited by Temperature, PPT, TDC & EDC.

So a positive voltage offset will at all times give more speed unless any of those is reached.

I tested this a bit yesterday. When running that buildzoid recommended 128K FFT in-place Prime95 AVX2 test. 
For example with my custom water cooling loop I get 4.200-4.225Ghz core speeds on all cores with temperatures around 84C at best with my 3800X using EDC=10 and no voltage offset with 16THREAD load.
It's a heavy load and the VRM PWM is barely keeping up it seems. Voltage fluctuates between 1.280-1.313V a lot. ~150Watts CPU Package Power.

Scalar does not seem to have a effect in this situation too much. It's hitting a limit somewhere, it's near the maximum current/voltage it will allow for these kind of loads.
It's using ~95Amps. It doesn't want to give any more than the stock TDC limit. You can limit it lower and it will not use more than your limit but give it more it's reluctant to use it.
Give a negative voltage, clocks go down. Give a positive voltage, clocks go up. In the range ~25Mhz per 0.025V adjustment. Temperatures change about ~2C in either direction from the change.

I'm having trouble to get it not to fail messing around. I have a core that is weak on AVX2 loads. It barely wants to do it @ 4.200Ghz. I knew this from earlier doing manual OC sessions. It hits a hard wall around there and voltage doesn't help too much. On the other side it's the best boosting core for normal loads that are not AVX.
So it's a little troubling to test but I wanted to see if PBO would manage. Barely. It's dancing on a knife edge not to boost too much for the AVX2 load.

But testing around I found PBO was voltage starved. Boost behaviour was directly related to your supplied voltage the cores were getting. 
LLC is here important that you don't want voltage drops to cause instabilities. LLC is much board specific so each motherboard will have their own behaviour and preferred settings for it as result.
And as it's effecting voltage it has a direct relation to how your PBO will manage. If your cores are getting low voltage thanks to the VRM & PWM settings it will perform worse than if it's supplying more voltage.

PBO is working directly from the supplied voltage to boost as much as it can for the allowed load to not get unstable. I'm unsure how it works in the ground level to manage stability but it's much close to the edge at all times. So a sudden drop in voltage like 128K FFT in-place AVX2 is disastrous with a weak core. For me extra voltage increases lifetime here but the extra speed it tries in the same step negates the stability increase I was after.
LLC settings I've found not to helpful on the Aorus Xtreme. Anything but Normal seems worse for response time giving worse voltage and drops with more heat.

This is very much Overclocking utilizing PBO & PBO BUG in particular. We allow PBO to work on the edge of stability if you have unlocked it's restrictions regarding PPT wattage, TDC/EDC Ampere. 
Temperature needs to be kept in check but it is allowed up to 90C.

How temperature allows for higher clocks, easy. More cool = more stable = more clocks.


----------



## buddywh

steve258 said:


> ...
> Yeah I eventually found a balance at EDC 12 that works so far, fingers crossed. Unfortunately still can't lower offset without hurting performance, maybe I have a bad chip. I'm at auto stock voltage and LLC at mode 6 (out of 8) that gives good performance without too much heat.
> ...


THAT I feel is the right way to do it! Doing this right you have to tweak at it some and compare where the voltages and temperatures are for your CPU/motherbord/cooling combination both at heavy loaded conditions and when boosting at idle. Lower voltage if you have to, through offsets. Avoid use of LLC as VDroop is HELPFUL with this, itself a contrary approach to old-school overclocking, to keep your processor in the safe voltages at both performance areas. YES getting into safe ranges may affect attainable performance in one or both operating regimes...but that's doing it RIGHT!

How do you know safe voltages? We know what it is at idle boosting; AMD has told us that clearly. Accept it or deny it, do what you will. At extreme heavy loaded conditions the best way I've seen are the testing methods Buildzoid is using in his videos where he shows us an at least 'passable' way to find useable FIT values to guide us.

And it's easy to understand why the results will be so variable, and with some it will not work at all if all you're looking for is 'improvement'. Processor variability is one since we're all pretty sure the fuzed-in FIT values are unique to each processor, and also improvement from process maturation for later processors coming out of AMD. And of course cooling, as Ryzen loves better cooling and cooling performance improvement is simply magnified by this. But also a major uncontrollable variable is the motherboard itself: the VRM control scheme, the amount of VDroop it has, and how well the mfr tuned the BIOS, if at all, of your motherboard for stock performance. MFR's have a lot of latitude in setting up motherboard defaults for the PBO parameters and many times they do not follow AMD's specification for how other settings should behave. ASUS' refusal to disable PCIE gen 4 is a famous example of that. 

In my case, I have one of the earliest 3700x's and I'm pretty sure MSI did no tuning at all for my motherboard so there's a lot of potential. In other cases users, without using PBO at all and running full-stock settings beyond a slight negative offset, are doing very close to my EDC=10 settings in CB-20. That certainly suggests to me I have to tweak the PBO just to get back to 'even' with what another mfr. did in their BIOS defaults. Except 1004b PBO settings do not work right, so this EDC=10 bug has proven to be the equalizer I needed.


----------



## Medizinmann

ManniX-ITA said:


> Already good results, haven't seen much better for your model.


Better is possible - but this might mean higher cost for a better cooling solution of more noise or both…









My personal best with PB0 7573 - the 7740 was with CCX-OC.

But both with all fans blazing at full speed and pumps running at 100%.
Some users even posted results a little over 7900 - but with questionable stability 
More realistic is indeed 7450 with reasonable noise levels...



> Yes thermal is the main factor, that's why I'm settings up a crazy build with TECs
> If you can keep it below 40 always it's going faster and smoother.


Well - you might take a look at something like this….:thumb:
https://www.alphacool.com/shop/neue-produkte/21410/alphacool-eiszeit-2000-chiller-black

Greetings,
Medizinmann


----------



## jamie1073

Medizinmann said:


> Better is possible - but this might mean higher cost for a better cooling solution of more noise or both…
> 
> View attachment 343820
> 
> 
> My personal best with PB0 7573 - the 7740 was with CCX-OC.
> 
> But both with all fans blazing at full speed and pumps running at 100%.
> Some users even posted results a little over 7900 - but with questionable stability
> More realistic is indeed 7450 with reasonable noise levels...
> 
> 
> 
> Well - you might take a look at something like this….:thumb:
> https://www.alphacool.com/shop/neue-produkte/21410/alphacool-eiszeit-2000-chiller-black
> 
> Greetings,
> Medizinmann



I can get in the 7600's if I set the Priority to High in Task Manager for R20. What settings were you using to get that score in the 7500 range? Best I get it high 7300- low 7400's. I get in the 7400's if I close iCue.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Medizinmann said:


> ---
> 
> Well - you might take a look at something like this….:thumb:
> https://www.alphacool.com/shop/neue-produkte/21410/alphacool-eiszeit-2000-chiller-black
> 
> Greetings,
> Medizinmann


65 dbA it's just about twice the noise level I'm willing to accept for my cooling system.
And 20 minutes of that noise to drop 10c the water temperature is an eternity.

Nah, I like my concept better 

https://www.overclock.net/forum/62-peltiers-tec/1746684-meertec-build-log.html


----------



## buddywh

Medizinmann said:


> ...
> 
> Well - you might take a look at something like this….:thumb:
> https://www.alphacool.com/shop/neue-produkte/21410/alphacool-eiszeit-2000-chiller-black
> 
> Greetings,
> Medizinmann


An interesting concept excepting it's pricetag and then I saw this....

"Notice:

Attention: The manufacturer Mayhems advises that Mayhems fluids, especially the Aurora line of products, have been manufactured and distributed solely for show and modding purposes. These should not be utilized in the system for more than 14 days.

We would also like to advise that Mayhems fluids can damage water cooling products, and using Mayhems fluids can thereby void the warranties offered by the following manufacturers: Koolance, Phobya, Alphacool, Aqua Computer, Watercool."

That makes it seem pretty impractical except certain use cases.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

buddywh said:


> An interesting concept excepting it's pricetag and then I saw this....
> 
> "Notice:
> 
> Attention: The manufacturer Mayhems advises that Mayhems fluids, especially the Aurora line of products, have been manufactured and distributed solely for show and modding purposes. These should not be utilized in the system for more than 14 days.
> 
> We would also like to advise that Mayhems fluids can damage water cooling products, and using Mayhems fluids can thereby void the warranties offered by the following manufacturers: Koolance, Phobya, Alphacool, Aqua Computer, Watercool."
> 
> That makes it seem pretty impractical except certain use cases.


Yep, it's very expensive stuff...

That's a note cause the early Mayhem dye fluids were clogging and degrading blocks and pumps.
Seems it's not an issue anymore, not more than any dye, but Alphacool has it as a static footer in every description.


----------



## Medizinmann

buddywh said:


> An interesting concept excepting it's pricetag


 Well – the fans on my cooling solution alone are about 450€ + rads for about 300€ + pumps - makes roughly 950€ and in theory you could ditch these and only use this chiller – so the pricetag isn’t that out of the world…



> and then I saw this....
> 
> "Notice:
> 
> Attention: The manufacturer Mayhems advises that Mayhems fluids, especially the Aurora line of products, have been manufactured and distributed solely for show and modding purposes. These should not be utilized in the system for more than 14 days.
> We would also like to advise that Mayhems fluids can damage water cooling products, and using Mayhems fluids can thereby void the warranties offered by the following manufacturers: Koolance, Phobya, Alphacool, Aqua Computer, Watercool."


 Yeah...der8auer had a video about this nasty stuff.



> That makes it seem pretty impractical except certain use cases.


 Well noise and power consumption make it almost totally impractical for normal every day use to cool a computer. 65db(A) and 660W of power draw! That is totally crazy and only makes sense if you really have to use a chiller and can’t do without it.
I would assume that the target group is a little different than “us” – more like the totally crazy enthusiast or like cooling some kind of extreme workstation or server setup – where the machine resides in a sperate room.


Greetings,
Medizinmann


----------



## Medizinmann

ManniX-ITA said:


> 65 dbA it's just about twice the noise level I'm willing to accept for my cooling system.
> And 20 minutes of that noise to drop 10c the water temperature is an eternity.


 Yes, noise is a problem - but the system could/should reside in different room...
And 660W of power consumption are totally over the top for every day use.



> Nah, I like my concept better
> 
> https://www.overclock.net/forum/62-peltiers-tec/1746684-meertec-build-log.html


Yeah...crazy enough...:thumb:

The charm of the linked chiller is - just plug it in and it runs - you could even use it without rads and additional pumps etc.
...and it would even easily cool a workstation setup with triple GPU with NVLink/SLI at full load and hefty OC.

Greetings,
Medizinmann


----------



## andy0x2a

I must be doing something wrong. I am not seeing the performance improvements that most people in this thread are seeing.
3800X, MSI x570-a-pro, 3400Mhz-18-19-19 RAM, H100i XT 240mm AIO.

Stock/PBO Cine-20 score: 4975. temp: 76
PBO-10X offset -0.1250 Cine-20 score: 5050, temp:66
PPT/TDC 0, EDC 10, Scalar 10x, stock LLC, *Cine-20 score: 5110 temp: 82*


I have played a bit with 6 < EDC < 12 and 1x < Scalar < 10, and its all quite similar results, 5075-5125. But the kicker is that my temperature jumps to the low 80s during a cinebench run. I have found that for a small drop in cinebench results ( ~ 50pts), I can just use standard PBO with a large negative voltage offset (0.1250V), which resulted in much better temps without this bug. Using this bug with a small negative of -0.0125 dropped the temps by a bit, but with a corresponding drop in cine-20 MT scores. I have also tested with 300/230/10 and 150/100/10, and they all give around the same 5100 MT score.
I want to keep testing, but would anyone be able to point me in the right direction? I feel like the 80-82C temperature is not right for cinebench with this bug, but I don't have enough info to properly understand this.

Any suggestions?


----------



## buddywh

andy0x2a said:


> I must be doing something wrong. I am not seeing the performance improvements that most people in this thread are seeing.
> 3800X, MSI x570-a-pro, 3400Mhz-18-19-19 RAM, H100i XT 240mm AIO.
> 
> Stock/PBO Cine-20 score: 4975. temp: 76
> PBO-10X offset -0.1250 Cine-20 score: 5050, temp:66
> PPT/TDC 0, EDC 10, Scalar 10x, stock LLC, *Cine-20 score: 5110 temp: 82*
> 
> 
> I have played a bit with 6 < EDC < 12 and 1x < Scalar < 10, and its all quite similar results, 5075-5125. But the kicker is that my temperature jumps to the low 80s during a cinebench run. I have found that for a small drop in cinebench results ( ~ 50pts), I can just use standard PBO with a large negative voltage offset (0.1250V), which resulted in much better temps without this bug. Using this bug with a small negative of -0.0125 dropped the temps by a bit, but with a corresponding drop in cine-20 MT scores. I have also tested with 300/230/10 and 150/100/10, and they all give around the same 5100 MT score.
> I want to keep testing, but would anyone be able to point me in the right direction? I feel like the 80-82C temperature is not right for cinebench with this bug, but I don't have enough info to properly understand this.
> 
> Any suggestions?


Those PBO settings are similar to what I used for my B450 Mortar which seems to need some voltage help as it's got a fairly wonky VRM control scheme. That may not be the case for your X570 board with a 3800X. This is why what works for one setup may not for another. So instead try Buildzoids recommended: PPT=300, EDC and TDC = 230. Be sure Global C states is enabled and set Scalar to 1X. Then set LLC to a flat setting so that there's a little VDroop. Start with VCore set to AUTO, then try adding a little negative offset at a time until BOTH ST and MT scores are at their best. Whatever you do you have to test both ST and MT but in the end it may well end up your 3880X likes a big negative offset on your board. 

EDIT add...also, be sure to set up for your CB20 test well if you want a repeatable score: disable everything you can that runs in the system tray (like iCue) and reboot. Then start CB20, put it in REALTIME priority using Task Manager and run multi-thread. Run it three times. Each time it will get a little slower as the cores heat up, if you're running stock cooling it will drop really far by the third run. Let it cool a bit then run ST.

BZ's using motherboards more like yours than mine. Go watch this one, it's done on a Gigabyte board but you should get the idea what to do in your MSI BIOS.


----------



## andy0x2a

buddywh said:


> PPT=300, EDC and TDC = 230. Be sure Global C states is enabled and set Scalar to 1X. Then set LLC to a flat setting so that there's a little VDroop. Start with VCore set to AUTO, then try adding a little negative offset at a time until BOTH ST and MT scores are at their best. Whatever you do you have to test both ST and MT but in the end it may well end up your 3880X likes a big negative offset on your board.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7Z7bJJcCNY&t=1046s


Thanks for responding.

I have tried with a flat LLC, and 300/230/230. With 0 voltage offset, my Cinebench scores plummet to 4750, a drop of around 300 points! I am trying right now with higher negative offsets, but those score will need to climb a lot to match stock or pbo+offset.

Thanks for the tip abour repeatability, I do indeed do multiple runs of cinebench, as well as setting the niceness. I am recording the ambient temperature, as well as the temperature of my liquid cooling, in order to remove more uncertanty around the measurements.

Edit:

The scores do seem to be increasing with a much higher negative offset
-0.0125 -> 4925
-0.0500 -> 4936
-0.1125 -> 4986
-0.1250 -> 5019
-0.1375 -> 4994


----------



## steve258

andy0x2a said:


> I must be doing something wrong. I am not seeing the performance improvements that most people in this thread are seeing.
> 3800X, MSI x570-a-pro, 3400Mhz-18-19-19 RAM, H100i XT 240mm AIO.
> 
> Stock/PBO Cine-20 score: 4975. temp: 76
> PBO-10X offset -0.1250 Cine-20 score: 5050, temp:66
> PPT/TDC 0, EDC 10, Scalar 10x, stock LLC, *Cine-20 score: 5110 temp: 82*
> 
> 
> I have played a bit with 6 < EDC < 12 and 1x < Scalar < 10, and its all quite similar results, 5075-5125. But the kicker is that my temperature jumps to the low 80s during a cinebench run. I have found that for a small drop in cinebench results ( ~ 50pts), I can just use standard PBO with a large negative voltage offset (0.1250V), which resulted in much better temps without this bug. Using this bug with a small negative of -0.0125 dropped the temps by a bit, but with a corresponding drop in cine-20 MT scores. I have also tested with 300/230/10 and 150/100/10, and they all give around the same 5100 MT score.
> I want to keep testing, but would anyone be able to point me in the right direction? I feel like the 80-82C temperature is not right for cinebench with this bug, but I don't have enough info to properly understand this.
> 
> Any suggestions?


You are not doing anything wrong. It's not exact science since every motherboard and every CPU is different, it just takes a lot of trial and error to find the right settings for you.

My experience is very similar to yours. My 3900x under normal PBO 230/230/230 x5 and -0.1000 offset scored only 50-100 points lower than with EDC set to 12 and stock voltage. outside CB20 in several games I tested it's also only a few FPS slower and generally unnoticeable. After all the EDC bug is not magic especially when you were already running heavy negative offset. It's up to you to decide if it's worth it to run the bug.

This EDC bugged PBO loves high voltage and will reward good cooling with much higher boost it seems. Apart from running no negative offset I also had to turn up LLC a couple notches for the see the performance gain it is that voltage hungry.

Since your RAM is only running 3400 maybe try running the IF clock in async mode and try pushing it to 1866 or 1900 if you're lucky? As with the temp mine also shoots upto 85/86 on a beefy air cooler when doing cinebench run so I think it's normal.


----------



## buddywh

andy0x2a said:


> Thanks for responding.
> ....
> 
> The scores do seem to be increasing with a much higher negative offset
> -0.0125 -> 4925
> -0.0500 -> 4936
> -0.1125 -> 4986
> -0.1250 -> 5019
> -0.1375 -> 4994


Be sure to include an ST test. With that much negative offset you might be affecting it's ability to hit the higher clocks in lightly threaded work loads and that means affect gaming performance.


----------



## andy0x2a

buddywh said:


> Be sure to include an ST test. With that much negative offset you might be affecting it's ability to hit the higher clocks in lightly threaded work loads and that means affect gaming performance.


Right. ST doesn't seem to be too bad, using CPU-Z ST benchmark, seems to be within a few points of eachother.

However, this isn't really for gaming, more for development/docker/tomcat, so I can take a bit of a hit with ST perf if it means higher sustained multicore performance.

0 offset is 535,
Drops 3 points for-0.1250v,

Using the EDC 10 trick, ST jumps up to 550-555


----------



## buddywh

andy0x2a said:


> Right. ST doesn't seem to be too bad, using CPU-Z ST benchmark, seems to be within a few points of eachother.
> 
> However, this isn't really for gaming, more for development/docker/tomcat, so I can take a bit of a hit with ST perf if it means higher sustained multicore performance.
> 
> 0 offset is 535,
> Drops 3 points for-0.1250v,
> 
> Using the EDC 10 trick, ST jumps up to 550-555


I've not used the CPUz BM much to know how it works with system changes like this so I can't say it's good...or bad. But I do know CB20's ST score is pretty good since it takes a while to run so pulls it through the early boosting phase which is a lot longer on Ryzen processors. That's annoying as it does take a while, but it's good to make a run at least every now and then when going that far.

But setting up a profile for all-core heavy work loads makes it sound as you are on the right track as a lower voltage should help it stay cooler. And since cooler means better sustained boosting, so long as you don't go too far, that has to be a good thing.

Does your board have a LLC setting that slopes the load line down as load increases? effectively increasing the amount of droop. My MSI does and that helps me lower VCore at extreme heavy loads (P95) with cooler temperature and higher average clocks with minimal effect on ST score.


----------



## andy0x2a

buddywh said:


> I've not used the CPUz BM much to know how it works with system changes like this so I can't say it's good...or bad. But I do know CB20's ST score is pretty good since it takes a while to run so pulls it through the early boosting phase which is a lot longer on Ryzen processors. That's annoying as it does take a while, but it's good to make a run at least every now and then when going that far.
> 
> But setting up a profile for all-core heavy work loads makes it sound as you are on the right track as a lower voltage should help it stay cooler. And since cooler means better sustained boosting, so long as you don't go too far, that has to be a good thing.
> 
> Does your board have a LLC setting that slopes the load line down as load increases? effectively increasing the amount of droop. My MSI does and that helps me lower VCore at extreme heavy loads (P95) with cooler temperature and higher average clocks with minimal effect on ST score.


I hae tested a few runs with the higher offset and single-score on Cinebench, and it has a simliar performance numbers.

I have LLC set to auto, which is the droopiest it can be (LLC 2 is no droop, 7, 8, auto are all very droopy).




steve258 said:


> You are not doing anything wrong. It's not exact science since every motherboard and every CPU is different, it just takes a lot of trial and error to find the right settings for you.
> 
> My experience is very similar to yours. My 3900x under normal PBO 230/230/230 x5 and -0.1000 offset scored only 50-100 points lower than with EDC set to 12 and stock voltage. outside CB20 in several games I tested it's also only a few FPS slower and generally unnoticeable. After all the EDC bug is not magic especially when you were already running heavy negative offset. It's up to you to decide if it's worth it to run the bug.
> 
> This EDC bugged PBO loves high voltage and will reward good cooling with much higher boost it seems. Apart from running no negative offset I also had to turn up LLC a couple notches for the see the performance gain it is that voltage hungry.
> 
> Since your RAM is only running 3400 maybe try running the IF clock in async mode and try pushing it to 1866 or 1900 if you're lucky? As with the temp mine also shoots upto 85/86 on a beefy air cooler when doing cinebench run so I think it's normal.


Thanks for the advice. I will have tried a higher LLC, but I will see if I can tweek some other parameters. And I will try it again with a desynced fclk, thanks for the tip.


----------



## mongstradamus

buddywh said:


> Those PBO settings are similar to what I used for my B450 Mortar which seems to need some voltage help as it's got a fairly wonky VRM control scheme. That may not be the case for your X570 board with a 3800X. This is why what works for one setup may not for another. So instead try Buildzoids recommended: PPT=300, EDC and TDC = 230. Be sure Global C states is enabled and set Scalar to 1X. Then set LLC to a flat setting so that there's a little VDroop. Start with VCore set to AUTO, then try adding a little negative offset at a time until BOTH ST and MT scores are at their best. Whatever you do you have to test both ST and MT but in the end it may well end up your 3880X likes a big negative offset on your board.
> 
> EDIT add...also, be sure to set up for your CB20 test well if you want a repeatable score: disable everything you can that runs in the system tray (like iCue) and reboot. Then start CB20, put it in REALTIME priority using Task Manager and run multi-thread. Run it three times. Each time it will get a little slower as the cores heat up, if you're running stock cooling it will drop really far by the third run. Let it cool a bit then run ST.
> 
> BZ's using motherboards more like yours than mine. Go watch this one, it's done on a Gigabyte board but you should get the idea what to do in your MSI BIOS.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7Z7bJJcCNY&t=1046s


I have been having trouble getting my 3800x to work properly with PBO with and without the edc bug. I have a fairly crap motherboard so i am not sure if that is something to blame with PBO. I have tried 333/230/10 and 333/230/230 with scalar 4x , which worked best for me. With 333/230/10 while I can get decent multicore scores the boosting becomes really inconsistent, where after using pc for a while it will no longer boost above 3.6 gh, so thats obviously an issue. I have been moving back to the more standard 333/230/230, but I feel like my results are way below what they should be. R20 drops to 506/5020, and cpu-z drops down to 530/5642. with edc bug i usually have my r20 around 530/5150 and cpu-z around 545/5750. Its not the biggest difference in scores, but the biggest issue I have is even on single core boost with pbo without edc bug is that my boost never hit 4.5+ , so not even hitting guaranteed boosts.


----------



## St0RM53

buddywh said:


> PBO is nothing at all like a manual fixed overclock! To even say that suggests you don't understand what's happening. The boosting algorithm pulls BOTH voltage and frequency back as far as it needs to keep the processor within FIT ranges. That's been demonstrated already in Buildzoids video where he's clearly showing it...the EDC=10 bug doesn't alter anything to do with it.
> 
> I've even run the same tests BZ did. It's easy, P95 is all you need and a couple BIOS profiles. At full P95 load whether in PBO or stock core voltage was about 1.28V with temp. low 70's. But more! idle voltage was spiking upwards of 1.47-1.49V while stock but my idle voltage in my PBO only spikes 1.44 to 1.46V so I'm actually SAFER, if you will.
> 
> PBO is no different from putting better cooling on your CPU since it can hold a higher clock at the same temp with same voltage. PBO along with better cooling is even better yet!
> 
> PPT - EDC - TDC are limits in place to protect the VRM! You're CPU will only draw the current or power that the CPU can draw...and that's limited by the temperature range within where the boosting algorithm will even allow it. I can't make my CPU perform to the TDP of a 3800X just by engaging PBO, whether or not with any EDC=10 bug. It will just stop trying to protect a VRM that's well capable of delivering more than the maximum possible draw of a 3700X that's still limited to following FIT across temperature.
> 
> I'm not saying it's safe to do PBO...I'm gonna tell you it's unsafe to even turn on your PC. Do you have any idea what inrush currents do to semiconductors at startup? And OH MY GOD getting the temps up during a gaming session! that increases degradation 1000 fold over just idling around at room temperature! so no no...don't game. that's way too dangerous!
> 
> If you don't want to risk degradtion, then don't do it. Just don't turn it on. ONLY then will I guarantee you your CPU won't degrade.



"at full consistent load" i wrote but it seems you only read whatever you want to read..
ok Mr. CHIEF i see you beating all overclocking records... I DEMAND THIS FORUM GIVE A TROPHY TO THIS MAN IMMEDIATELY!
If i ran a sever farm i would take no second in hiring you! Imagine what you can do with your skills! Undervolting to higher than 100% efficiency!
Your touch must turn silicon interconnects to superconductors!
You are Midas of the silicon age!
You even break the 2nd law of thermodynamics! 

Meaning you can decrease entropy and therefore reverse time!
Which can only mean one thing...

YOU ARE A GOD!!!


----------



## andy0x2a

steve258 said:


> Since your RAM is only running 3400 maybe try running the IF clock in async mode and try pushing it to 1866 or 1900 if you're lucky? As with the temp mine also shoots upto 85/86 on a beefy air cooler when doing cinebench run so I think it's normal.


19000 FCLK with 1700 memclk results in a small performance hit when benchmarking (5055 vs 5099). Thank you for your suggestion.

And thanks for the info about temperature. I was a bit worried when it hit the low 80s, but that is good to know. I still think I will leave the voltage offset at -0.125, and stick with a a lower cinebench score and mid 60s temperatures. Seems to push the chip less anyways, and less chance of degredation


----------



## Medizinmann

jamie1073 said:


> I can get in the 7600's if I set the Priority to High in Task Manager for R20. What settings were you using to get that score in the 7500 range? Best I get it high 7300- low 7400's. I get in the 7400's if I close iCue.


The numbers are from mid December 2019 – so a little lower ambient temps than now.
Settings where like this:
EDC=0
PPT=1300
TDC=300
Scalar=5x
Overboost=0
And I ran a 102 MHz BCLK…
And as always when benching I try to kill all unnecessary processes/services/tasks in the background...

With these settings I saw boosts up to 4,7 GHz on two core!









But my memory OC wasn’t 100% stable.

With EDC set to 1 I see boost up to 4,65 GHz on two cores and with a BCLK of 100,2 my memory OC to CL14 3600(4x16GB G-Skill b-die rated cl14 3200) is stable.

CB20 numbers and Z-Bech and temps are similar to the former settings…

Greetings,
Medizinmann


----------



## rastaviper

St0RM53 said:


> "at full consistent load" i wrote but it seems you only read whatever you want to read..
> ok Mr. CHIEF i see you beating all overclocking records... I DEMAND THIS FORUM GIVE A TROPHY TO THIS MAN IMMEDIATELY!
> If i ran a sever farm i would take no second in hiring you! Imagine what you can do with your skills! Undervolting to higher than 100% efficiency!
> Your touch must turn silicon interconnects to superconductors!
> You are Midas of the silicon age!
> You even break the 2nd law of thermodynamics!
> 
> Meaning you can decrease entropy and therefore reverse time!
> Which can only mean one thing...
> 
> YOU ARE A GOD!!!


Apart from all the theatrics, I understand that what he says is that Fixed ocing brings more performance, than any PBO setup.

Except if I am mistaken from his post.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


----------



## ManniX-ITA

rastaviper said:


> Apart from all the theatrics, I understand that what he says is that Fixed ocing brings more performance, than any PBO setup.
> 
> Except if I am mistaken from his post.
> 
> Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


If you consider MT load, yes you can almost always get much better performances.
For ST not likely, you are usually limited to per CCX clocking.

My PBO's bug CPU-z score is 555/5980, mild per-CCX 525/6090.

But you really have to forget the whole degradation topic of course.
If you are not very careful about the voltage and thermals, you can end up very quickly with an unstable processor.
Like Buildzoid's 3700x for which he's so sad about.

There are many less layers of protection without PBO.
PBO manages for you the undervolting and underclocking of the unlucky cores.
Those which runs at lower speed than the others under load or don't boost; your loosing tickets from the binning lottery.

They generate more heat than the others at same clock and voltage; you are forcing all of them to run the same, regardless of their capabilities.
At some point the thermal protection will kick in but the damage could be already done.

But you can't reach the same ST performance with a fixed overclock unless you can setup the same highest boosting clock from PBO.
Which usually requires 1.4v to 1.5v and more.
Even with the best binning and best thermals running all cores at full load on one CCX will most likely kill the processor, quickly, like BZ's 3700x.

And you can't manage a CCX clock/voltage upon the load of others CCX/CCD.
That's what PBO does. Not really well, but it does it.

So if you are not concerned about degradation issues, have very very good thermals and mostly run high load MT workload yes the fixed OC is better.


----------



## buddywh

rastaviper said:


> Apart from all the theatrics, I understand that what he says is that Fixed ocing brings more performance, than any PBO setup.
> ....


What I am really trying to say is a fixed overclock is nothing similar to using PBO, and especially so at "full consistent load" because it means using a fixed voltage. A fixed voltage is probably the most dangerous thing since it can never fluctuate up and down with variations at extreme processing load when the processor wants to maintain FIT...that's been a major take-away from watching BZ's vid's for me. 

Buildzoid aside, many other 'experienced' overclockers have now come down hard on fixed overclocks for 3rd gen and set a standard guidance that 1.2V is the highest you should use for 24/7 application and instead use PBO (in addition to IF and memory OC'g, of course). That's pretty revealing to me since these are people who knowingly accept the risks of overclocking, so for them to go so hard-core conservative on this is something else.


----------



## buddywh

ManniX-ITA said:


> If you consider MT load, yes you can almost always get much better performances.
> ...
> PBO manages for you the undervolting and underclocking of the unlucky cores.
> Those which runs at lower speed than the others under load or don't boost; your loosing tickets from the binning lottery.
> ...


I hadn't considered that but I can see that happening with my 3700x. To a degree at least as the weaker cores do run at lower clocks in extreme loads more consistently, and throttle back more frequently. I'm still not sure anyone's ever said for a certainty whether dLDO's are enabled in 3rd gen Ryzen to allow for per-core voltage changes though.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

buddywh said:


> I hadn't considered that but I can see that happening with my 3700x. To a degree at least as the weaker cores do run at lower clocks in extreme loads more consistently, and throttle back more frequently. I'm still not sure anyone's ever said for a certainty whether dLDO's are enabled in 3rd gen Ryzen to allow for per-core voltage changes though.


The FIT voltage is one value of a probably huge multi-dimensional matrix; 100% maximum load on all cores.
There are multiple layers of protection.
The processor will always enforce them once a danger condition is triggered.
No matter if you are using PBO or not.

That's why Ryzen CPUs are not very extreme overclocking friendly.
On a fixed oc Intel CPUs can be pushed to the limit, they'll either shutdown or die at the limit.
Ryzen CPUs they behave differently according to their sensor inputs.
They usually slow down or behave crazy before dying, hard to troubleshoot.

PBO, in its design intention, is working in a predictive way.
It's using the FIT matrix to boost when it's safe and preemptively slow down before the CPU is approaching a dangerous state.

This is the main difference with a static oc; the when.
With a fixed oc the handbrake is being pulled off once you are already in the critical state.
PBO, at a cost of lower MT performance, is avoiding you end up there.

IMO it's not doing it very well either the boosting or the braking, too conservative and primitive.
But it's safe and work for most of the setups.

This processor, like mine, sometimes doesn't work reliably either at stocks settings. 
I'd do the same in their shoes; kept it very conservative.
Of course this should have been reflected in much lower boost clocks advertised.
But marketing overriding engineering is an old story in every field...

Also: the problem with degradation due to the static oc is exacerbated by the unlucky cores.
Not only they'll degrade much faster cause of the higher temperature but they'll also affect the adjacent good ones.

If you overvolt a bit too much, after a while in a CCX with 3 good cores and 1 unlucky you'll get 3 bad and only one still good.
Running at 100% for 24h/7 on these CPUs is not really recommended. There's not enough margin. It's much safer to undervolt to 1.2V.
But if you mostly use it for browsing and some gaming sessions, don't think you can get in trouble before a few years.


----------



## rares495

ManniX-ITA said:


> The FIT voltage is one value of a probably huge multi-dimensional matrix; 100% maximum load on all cores.
> There are multiple layers of protection.
> The processor will always enforce them once a danger condition is triggered.
> No matter if you are using PBO or not.
> 
> That's why Ryzen CPUs are not very extreme overclocking friendly.
> On a fixed oc Intel CPUs can be pushed to the limit, they'll either shutdown or die at the limit.
> Ryzen CPUs they behave differently according to their sensor inputs.
> They usually slow down or behave crazy before dying, hard to troubleshoot.
> 
> PBO, in its design intention, is working in a predictive way.
> It's using the FIT matrix to boost when it's safe and preemptively slow down before the CPU is approaching a dangerous state.
> 
> This is the main difference with a static oc; the when.
> With a fixed oc the handbrake is being pulled off once you are already in the critical state.
> PBO, at a cost of lower MT performance, is avoiding you end up there.
> 
> IMO it's not doing it very well either the boosting or the braking, too conservative and primitive.
> But it's safe and work for most of the setups.
> 
> This processor, like mine, sometimes doesn't work reliably either at stocks settings.
> I'd do the same in their shoes; kept it very conservative.
> Of course this should have been reflected in much lower boost clocks advertised.
> But marketing overriding engineering is an old story in every field...
> 
> Also: the problem with degradation due to the static oc is exacerbated by the unlucky cores.
> Not only they'll degrade much faster cause of the higher temperature but they'll also affect the adjacent good ones.
> 
> If you overvolt a bit too much, after a while in a CCX with 3 good cores and 1 unlucky you'll get 3 bad and only one still good.
> Running at 100% for 24h/7 on these CPUs is not really recommended. There's not enough margin. It's much safer to undervolt to 1.2V.
> But if you mostly use it for browsing and some gaming sessions, don't think you can get in trouble before a few years.


What do you think about Buildzoid's method for finding the safe static OC voltage?


----------



## buddywh

ManniX-ITA said:


> The FIT voltage is one value of a probably huge multi-dimensional matrix; 100% maximum load on all cores.
> ...
> This processor, like mine, sometimes doesn't work reliably either at stocks settings.
> I'd do the same in their shoes; kept it very conservative.
> Of course this should have been reflected in much lower boost clocks advertised.
> But marketing overriding engineering is an old story in every field...
> ....


I really can't see anything wrong with the advertised boost clocks once I came to understand how it works: one core at a time, in light bursty loads. But I do think motherboard mfr's fail to set up their board BIOS's well enough to always see it with default settings even when running the right BIOS and chipset drivers. That's a variable that AMD can't control though and it's highly likely that for any boost they advertised one or more motherboards probably won't achieve it 'out of the box'. So yeah, it's mostly just marketing in that sense. 

Especially since, just like any other marketing metrics, 'maximum boost frequency' really isn't important anyway. With the boost algorithm's highly dynamic, opportunistic nature it's constantly changing clocks and voltages up and down, even putting some to C6 deep sleep at times, across temperature to track to FIT what really matters is the intermediate clocks and they change too much to always relate to. That's why measuring performance with both heavily threaded extreme workloads and lightly threaded workloads with something like Cinebench 20 is more important than just looking at clocks.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

buddywh said:


> I really can't see anything wrong with the advertised boost clocks once I came to understand how it works: one core at a time, in light bursty loads. But I do think motherboard mfr's fail to set up their board BIOS's well enough to always see it with default settings even when running the right BIOS and chipset drivers. That's a variable that AMD can't control though and it's highly likely that for any boost they advertised one or more motherboards probably won't achieve it 'out of the box'. So yeah, it's mostly just marketing in that sense.
> 
> Especially since, just like any other marketing metrics, 'maximum boost frequency' really isn't important anyway. With the boost algorithm's highly dynamic, opportunistic nature it's constantly changing clocks and voltages up and down, even putting some to C6 deep sleep at times, across temperature to track to FIT what really matters is the intermediate clocks and they change too much to always relate to. That's why measuring performance with both heavily threaded extreme workloads and lightly threaded workloads with something like Cinebench 20 is more important than just looking at clocks.


I agree it's more important to see the real performances with different type of workloads instead of looking at clocks.
Especially with the Ryzen where, differently than Intel, neither reference clock or effective clock is linear with actual throughput.

But I don't agree that maximum boost frequency isn't important; it was a clear metric for customers just like clocks, cores and all other advertised technical specifications.
Customers are taking their decisions based on this data.
AMD should have known better after the Bulldozer SMT debacle, instead they did it again.

There's something very good which is called "industry's standard".
When something is introduced in the market for the first time and becomes popular, it's the standard.
If another company is catching up with the same or a similar feature to compete and uses the same name or terminology, customers are expecting the same behavior.

Intel introduced the "max boost clock" with Turbo Boost years ago and it's fair customers where expecting the same from AMD. Or at least very similar.
Now the latest gen will have another boosting mechanism which is behaving differently. It's specced apart and called Turbo Boost Max.
They are using a different name to market it, cause they know better what could be the backlash otherwise.

Both are "cheating" to brag for who's running faster but they have to stay in that well defined gray area to come out clean.


----------



## Dyngsur

Hello!

I am trying to fiddle with the PBO settings. I am on the latest beta bios F12e, my memory is stable and all.

But in Gigabyte Bios i got several places to change the PPT, TDC, EDC values. Should i change them in XFR or CPU Overclock menu or both?
Someone know max settings for 3800x values in PPT, TDC and EDC for that motherboard?

I have tryed the EDC 1-10 bug, seeing good numbers, but when the computer is starting to idle it will throttle to get the boost going in for example CR20 mt. Its like not wakening up, when the voltage goes down to much.
Should I then use a higher LLC Vcore value for example high to maintain the CPU or should i leave Vcore voltage in bios to normal and use LLC low or should I use Negative offset with LLC High?

I have been reading a lot now about this stuff, but it seems its like finding a needle in a haystack for me. Would love to have some guidance where I should start, tried BZ settings 300/230/230 but they aint giving me good results either.

Hope someone can help me out! I have OC my ram so i want SOC LLC High, but the rest is like trial and error.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Dyngsur said:


> Hello!
> 
> I am trying to fiddle with the PBO settings. I am on the latest beta bios F12e, my memory is stable and all.
> 
> But in Gigabyte Bios i got several places to change the PPT, TDC, EDC values. Should i change them in XFR or CPU Overclock menu or both?
> Someone know max settings for 3800x values in PPT, TDC and EDC for that motherboard?
> 
> I have tryed the EDC 1-10 bug, seeing good numbers, but when the computer is starting to idle it will throttle to get the boost going in for example CR20 mt. Its like not wakening up, when the voltage goes down to much.
> Should I then use a higher LLC Vcore value for example high to maintain the CPU or should i leave Vcore voltage in bios to normal and use LLC low or should I use Negative offset with LLC High?
> 
> I have been reading a lot now about this stuff, but it seems its like finding a needle in a haystack for me. Would love to have some guidance where I should start, tried BZ settings 300/230/230 but they aint giving me good results either.
> 
> Hope someone can help me out! I have OC my ram so i want SOC LLC High, but the rest is like trial and error.


I leave Auto in XFR and set everything in CPU Overclock.

You didn't tell you board model.

I'm using PPT/TDC/EDC 135/90/1 on my 3800x.
You need to find the right voltage offset for yours; mine for EDC at 1 works best -0.04375V.
But you need to set VDDP/VDDG at 900/950 in both XFR and CPU OC menu with vCore SOC Auto.

Problems at idle are from LLC.

See the screenshots in attach.
There's the whole configuration.


----------



## Dyngsur

ManniX-ITA said:


> I leave Auto in XFR and set everything in CPU Overclock.
> 
> You didn't tell you board model.
> 
> I'm using PPT/TDC/EDC 135/90/1 on my 3800x.
> You need to find the right voltage offset for yours; mine for EDC at 1 works best -0.04375V.
> But you need to set VDDP/VDDG at 900/950 in both XFR and CPU OC menu with vCore SOC Auto.
> 
> Problems at idle are from LLC.
> 
> See the screenshots in attach.
> There's the whole configuration.


My bad Gigabyte Aorus Master X570


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Dyngsur said:


> My bad Gigabyte Aorus Master X570


I have the same then.
You can try the config above but I suggest you look for my previous posts on how to find the correct offset.

It's best if you build your own config but anyway here's in attach my config profile.
You can use it but, unless you have the same exact memory modules, you have to change the ram settings to match yours.
I'm using BIOS F12a, for me better than F11 for stability and performances.


----------



## Dyngsur

ManniX-ITA said:


> I have the same then.
> You can try the config above but I suggest you look for my previous posts on how to find the correct offset.
> 
> It's best if you build your own config but anyway here's in attach my config profile.
> You can use it but, unless you have the same exact memory modules, you have to change the ram settings to match yours.
> I'm using BIOS F12a, for me better than F11 for stability and performances.


Oh nice, well I use different ram than you, but the pictures you posted about your settings in bios, I will use them as a guidance.


----------



## Dyngsur

ManniX-ITA said:


> I have the same then.
> You can try the config above but I suggest you look for my previous posts on how to find the correct offset.
> 
> It's best if you build your own config but anyway here's in attach my config profile.
> You can use it but, unless you have the same exact memory modules, you have to change the ram settings to match yours.
> I'm using BIOS F12a, for me better than F11 for stability and performances.



Think I need to swap bios to an earlier version cause F12e doesn't work well with PBO on x570 Aorus Master.
Wounder if I should use F12b or F12a or F11...


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Dyngsur said:


> Think I need to swap bios to an earlier version cause F12e doesn't work well with PBO on x570 Aorus Master.
> Wounder if I should use F12b or F12a or F11...


I had to make a change on my profile, PWM to Auto.

I recommend F12a, best overall for me. F12b is buggy, F11 is ok.


----------



## Dyngsur

ManniX-ITA said:


> I had to make a change on my profile, PWM to Auto.
> 
> I recommend F12a, best overall for me. F12b is buggy, F11 is ok.



Hmm okey, gonna try that out! You don´t have F12a that you could upload so I can download, cant remember if I have that bios saved.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

I did already, it's a few posts above 

https://www.overclock.net/forum/13-amd-general/1741052-edc-1-pbo-turbo-boost-82.html#post28441390


----------



## Dyngsur

ManniX-ITA said:


> I did already, it's a few posts above
> 
> https://www.overclock.net/forum/13-amd-general/1741052-edc-1-pbo-turbo-boost-82.html#post28441390


Sweet, I was to fast, thought it was you profile only but thx anyway! Btw you dont know the difference bettween F11 vs F12a?


----------



## Medizinmann

Dyngsur said:


> Sweet, I was to fast, thought it was you profile only but thx anyway! Btw you dont know the difference bettween F11 vs F12a?


Well - they changed some things about memory training. 

But there isn't a real change log - as always...

Greetings,
Medizinmann


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Medizinmann said:


> Well - they changed some things about memory training.
> 
> But there isn't a real change log - as always...
> 
> Greetings,
> Medizinmann


Indeed no real change log... 
But I could see a slight change in better for the memory settings.
PBO seems more stable than F11, probably connected to the improvement with memory.


----------



## Dyngsur

ManniX-ITA said:


> Indeed no real change log...
> But I could see a slight change in better for the memory settings.
> PBO seems more stable than F11, probably connected to the improvement with memory.


Okey then I will try F12a on my second bios and give it a try, F12e seems kinda bad..


----------



## Awsan

Hey everyone today I just sent my friend that knows nothing about computers a build that has a tuf x570 and a 3800x

https://uk.pcpartpicker.com/list/nb...WM_QOI9X9OiLAMBy_VWKCXho8266Erkk4Nh-gJO_SdnXs

And wanted to ask 3800x users other than running xmp and running 1:1:1 what other settings would you recommend? pbo parameters? as his main focus is gaming and streaming.

Thanks


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Awsan said:


> Hey everyone today I just sent my friend that knows nothing about computers a build that has a tuf x570 and a 3800x
> 
> https://uk.pcpartpicker.com/list/nb...WM_QOI9X9OiLAMBy_VWKCXho8266Erkk4Nh-gJO_SdnXs
> 
> And wanted to ask 3800x users other than running xmp and running 1:1:1 what other settings would you recommend? pbo parameters? as his main focus is gaming and streaming.
> 
> Thanks


If he knows nothing better if he sticks with PBO Auto.
Together with XMP and IF at 1:1 it's already a nice beast.


----------



## Medizinmann

Awsan said:


> Hey everyone today I just sent my friend that knows nothing about computers a build that has a tuf x570 and a 3800x
> 
> https://uk.pcpartpicker.com/list/nb...WM_QOI9X9OiLAMBy_VWKCXho8266Erkk4Nh-gJO_SdnXs
> 
> And wanted to ask 3800x users other than running xmp and running 1:1:1 what other settings would you recommend? pbo parameters? as his main focus is gaming and streaming.
> 
> Thanks


He could do as ManniX-ITA said and just activate XMP and go…:thumb:

….or he could start with similar settings from ManniX-ITA - some post ago he posted all BIOS settings, PBO setting, RAM timings and so on.
But he will need some time to test and fidle to find his own ideal/working Settings - especially with a different mobo and a different RAM Kit .

And by the way - I would strongly recommend a different mobo and a better power supply…
At this price point the MSI MEG UNIFY is much better and 550w for the power supply seems a little to tight to me as this doesn’t leave much headroom for upgrades.

Greetings,
Medizinmann


----------



## rares495

Awsan said:


> Hey everyone today I just sent my friend that knows nothing about computers a build that has a tuf x570 and a 3800x
> 
> https://uk.pcpartpicker.com/list/nb...WM_QOI9X9OiLAMBy_VWKCXho8266Erkk4Nh-gJO_SdnXs
> 
> And wanted to ask 3800x users other than running xmp and running 1:1:1 what other settings would you recommend? pbo parameters? as his main focus is gaming and streaming.
> 
> Thanks


No point in getting such an expensive Micron Rev. E kit when there's B-die available for 1 pound more.

https://uk.pcpartpicker.com/product...b-2-x-8-gb-ddr4-3200-memory-f4-3200c16d-16gfx


----------



## Bal3Wolf

i found a wierd pbo setting 350 350 19 and i was keeping a all core clock over 4300 mhz peaking at 4650 but i don't like the large amounts of vcore it likes to sit on i can run 4400 at 1.28 on all cores i like that better my cpu is never truly idle.


----------



## rastaviper

Bal3Wolf said:


> i found a wierd pbo setting 350 350 19 and i was keeping a all core clock over 4300 mhz peaking at 4650 but i don't like the large amounts of vcore it likes to sit on i can run 4400 at 1.28 on all cores i like that better my cpu is never truly idle.


Should we guess your CPU or do u plan to mention it at some point?

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


----------



## Bal3Wolf

sorry figured it showed in my sig 3900x with a ASUS AMD AM4 ROG Strix X570-E


----------



## rares495

rastaviper said:


> Should we guess your CPU or do u plan to mention it at some point?
> 
> Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk



You can actually guess by the frequencies.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Bal3Wolf said:


> i found a wierd pbo setting 350 350 19 and i was keeping a all core clock over 4300 mhz peaking at 4650 but i don't like the large amounts of vcore it likes to sit on i can run 4400 at 1.28 on all cores i like that better my cpu is never truly idle.


You can either try with a negative offset for vCore or a more reasonable setting for TDC.


----------



## Awsan

Medizinmann said:


> He could do as ManniX-ITA said and just activate XMP and go…:thumb:
> 
> ….or he could start with similar settings from ManniX-ITA - some post ago he posted all BIOS settings, PBO setting, RAM timings and so on.
> But he will need some time to test and fidle to find his own ideal/working Settings - especially with a different mobo and a different RAM Kit .
> 
> And by the way - I would strongly recommend a different mobo and a better power supply…
> At this price point the MSI MEG UNIFY is much better and 550w for the power supply seems a little to tight to me as this doesn’t leave much headroom for upgrades.
> 
> Greetings,
> Medizinmann


As an unify owner I couldn't agree more, the problem is he doesn't want to go a pound over 1500 but I convinced him that its worth it "its just a 50-60 more thats like a couple of meals" and mentioned that it can be tweaked more and told him that for another 50-60 he can get a better motherboard and a larger power supply and aiming for the Unify + either the same unit @ 650w or another 750w unit.



rares495 said:


> No point in getting such an expensive Micron Rev. E kit when there's B-die available for 1 pound more.
> 
> https://uk.pcpartpicker.com/product...b-2-x-8-gb-ddr4-3200-memory-f4-3200c16d-16gfx


The problem is he has 0 knowledge and I know he will be very very frustrated if it doesn't work perfectly out of the box, that's why I tried to keep it safe with some 3600mhz ram, ( I was even considering an intel build at some point).


Thanks to both of you for the suggestions


----------



## opethdisciple

I've given up on PBO for the most part. 10c more heat for 5% more performance.


I've overclocked my ram tho which has yielded a very nice benefit.


Anyway I was looking at these memory overclocking statistics and noticed 1usmus is using PBO settings 160 105 160 for his bench run.


His is at the top of the list.


Worth a try if someone wants to report.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

opethdisciple said:


> I've given up on PBO for the most part. 10c more heat for 5% more performance.
> 
> 
> I've overclocked my ram tho which has yielded a very nice benefit.
> 
> 
> Anyway I was looking at these memory overclocking statistics and noticed 1usmus is using PBO settings 160 105 160 for his bench run.
> 
> 
> His is at the top of the list.
> 
> 
> Worth a try if someone wants to report.


He's using the old AGESA, where EDC was working.
If you want to go down that route you have to downgrade the BIOS to a very old one.


----------



## Bal3Wolf

ManniX-ITA said:


> You can either try with a negative offset for vCore or a more reasonable setting for TDC.



Honestly not worth the hassle to me i can run a all core oc of 4.4ghz on 1.30 down to 1.26-1.28 under load my pc is never really idle always got something going on on mutiple cores time you do your negative offset and tweak tdc you lose any great boosting.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Bal3Wolf said:


> Honestly not worth the hassle to me i can run a all core oc of 4.4ghz on 1.30 down to 1.26-1.28 under load my pc is never really idle always got something going on on mutiple cores time you do your negative offset and tweak tdc you lose any great boosting.


If you have always something going on all cores a fixed OC is way better.
I could come close with PBO only with BCLK OC but with the added benefit of random reboots...

If you don't the PBO boost with single core and light threading is quite sensible.
Nothing mind blowing but it's a nice 5% that you can't get with anything else.

With PBO a negative offset or TDC limiting doesn't necessarily constrain the boosting, quite the opposite.
My 3800x on this AORUS Master runs cooler and faster with a -0.05v offset.
The board just give too much voltage in Normal or Auto.
Higher temperature, less performance.

Same for TDC, without limiting to a proper value it keeps all core workload at 25-50mv more than it should.
After a few seconds the temps will increase too much with a steep ramp up and the performance sink.

I see almost everyone decreasing the scalar or the boost clock, raising the EDC value to compensate.
This will indeed limit the boosting.


----------



## Bal3Wolf

ManniX-ITA said:


> If you have always something going on all cores a fixed OC is way better.
> I could come close with PBO only with BCLK OC but with the added benefit of random reboots...
> 
> If you don't the PBO boost with single core and light threading is quite sensible.
> Nothing mind blowing but it's a nice 5% that you can't get with anything else.
> 
> With PBO a negative offset or TDC limiting doesn't necessarily constrain the boosting, quite the opposite.
> My 3800x on this AORUS Master runs cooler and faster with a -0.05v offset.
> The board just give too much voltage in Normal or Auto.
> Higher temperature, less performance.
> 
> Same for TDC, without limiting to a proper value it keeps all core workload at 25-50mv more than it should.
> After a few seconds the temps will increase too much with a steep ramp up and the performance sink.
> 
> I see almost everyone decreasing the scalar or the boost clock, raising the EDC value to compensate.
> This will indeed limit the boosting.



yea when i tried negative offset it was turning my boost down to like 4100 on all cores and 4450-4500 on one.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Bal3Wolf said:


> yea when i tried negative offset it was turning my boost down to like 4100 on all cores and 4450-4500 on one.


It really depends on the CPU binning; probably yours doesn't need an offset or maybe a slight positive one.
I could compare with others with a 3800x on the AORUS Master.
Checking temperature and voltage running CB20 we had same results with a different offset.
Same range as mine with -0.05v but running with 0 or +0.05v.
But a positive offset is very rare, usually is zero or negative.


----------



## Dyngsur

ManniX-ITA said:


> He's using the old AGESA, where EDC was working.
> If you want to go down that route you have to downgrade the BIOS to a very old one.


Do you mean he using a bios version like F7b or which version do you think think he uses?


----------



## Dyngsur

ManniX-ITA said:


> It really depends on the CPU binning; probably yours doesn't need an offset or maybe a slight positive one.
> I could compare with others with a 3800x on the AORUS Master.
> Checking temperature and voltage running CB20 we had same results with a different offset.
> Same range as mine with -0.05v but running with 0 or +0.05v.
> But a positive offset is very rare, usually is zero or negative.


Changed bios settings again?

Could u post the newest settings you use now?


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Dyngsur said:


> Do you mean he using a bios version like F7b or which version do you think think he uses?


He's using an MSI Godlike, not a Gigabyte AORUS.
SMU version 46.40 so it's a very old bios.



Dyngsur said:


> Changed bios settings again?
> 
> Could u post the newest settings you use now?


Not much, that was months ago when looking for the best offset for EDC at 0.

I'm testing new memory timings after checking the new profile for Hynix DJRs in Ryzen DRAM Calc 1.7.3.

Didn't realized before that a lower VDDP not only improve stability but also performances.
I'm testing now SOC vCore at 1.100v instead of Auto with VDDP at 900 and VDDG at 1050.
I had one single event of failed resume from Standby.
Only once but enough to not let me be 100% satisfied 

Despite the lower timings I couldn't get much better performances.
I think I'm already at the maximum bandwidth the 3800x IMU can reach.

Screenshots below with the changes.

View attachment 200518085102 (Medium).BMP


View attachment 200518085109 (Medium).BMP


View attachment 200518085115 (Medium).BMP


View attachment 200518085119 (Medium).BMP


View attachment 200518085124 (Medium).BMP


View attachment 200518085134 (Medium).BMP


View attachment 200518085137 (Medium).BMP


----------



## Dyngsur

ManniX-ITA said:


> He's using an MSI Godlike, not a Gigabyte AORUS.
> SMU version 46.40 so it's a very old bios.
> 
> 
> 
> Not much, that was months ago when looking for the best offset for EDC at 0.
> 
> I'm testing new memory timings after checking the new profile for Hynix DJRs in Ryzen DRAM Calc 1.7.3.
> 
> Didn't realized before that a lower VDDP not only improve stability but also performances.
> I'm testing now SOC vCore at 1.100v instead of Auto with VDDP at 900 and VDDG at 1050.
> I had one single event of failed resume from Standby.
> Only once but enough to not let me be 100% satisfied
> 
> Despite the lower timings I couldn't get much better performances.
> I think I'm already at the maximum bandwidth the 3800x IMU can reach.
> 
> Screenshots below with the changes.
> 
> View attachment 347168
> 
> 
> View attachment 347170
> 
> 
> View attachment 347172
> 
> 
> View attachment 347174
> 
> 
> View attachment 347176
> 
> 
> View attachment 347178
> 
> 
> View attachment 347180


You dont have to use VDDP and VDDG in overclock menu, (Only thing u want to change in Overclock menu is PBO 200MHZ and ThermalThrottle, rest u change in XFR)

If u using 2 dims, i would recommend RttWr disabled and RttPark RzQ/5

In XFR use FCLK freq as 1900 and UCLK DIV1 Mode to 1:1, Geardown mode disable, All CadbusStrenght 24 or u can try 30/20/24/24, if ur dims aint B-dies u can need 53 Ohm+ for ProcODT.

Dram Volt 1.45-1.48, Dram Termination will be half of Dram Voltage.

Why have you changed CPUVDDP18 from auto to 1.84? Try auto.

Try VCore SOC 1.125

VDDP volt 1025 can work aswell!

LLC VCORE Soc High.


Just some tips from me to you, my Ram is OC'ed aswell and i got like 62,9 NS in Aida @3800mts. But I got B-Dies @1.5v Cl15-15-15-30-42 TRFC 260


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Dyngsur said:


> You dont have to use VDDP and VDDG in overclock menu, (Only thing u want to change in Overclock menu is PBO 200MHZ and ThermalThrottle, rest u change in XFR)
> 
> If u using 2 dims, i would recommend RttWr disabled and RttPark RzQ/5
> 
> In XFR use FCLK freq as 1900 and UCLK DIV1 Mode to 1:1, Geardown mode disable, All CadbusStrenght 24 or u can try 30/20/24/24, if ur dims aint B-dies u can need 53 Ohm+ for ProcODT.
> 
> Dram Volt 1.45-1.48, Dram Termination will be half of Dram Voltage.
> 
> Why have you changed CPUVDDP18 from auto to 1.84? Try auto.
> 
> Try VCore SOC 1.125
> 
> VDDP volt 1025 can work aswell!
> 
> LLC VCORE Soc High.
> 
> 
> Just some tips from me to you, my Ram is OC'ed aswell and i got like 62,9 NS in Aida @3800mts. But I got B-Dies @1.5v Cl15-15-15-30-42 TRFC 260


Thanks for the tips!



You dont have to use VDDP and VDDG in overclock menu, (Only thing u want to change in Overclock menu is PBO 200MHZ and ThermalThrottle, rest u change in XFR) *-> Had problems not setting manually in both, they are not set correctly or cause instability with SOC vCore Auto. Decided to keep changing in both menu to stay safe. Everything else is Auto in XFR and manually set in AMD Overclocking menu, it works.*

If u using 2 dims, i would recommend RttWr disabled and RttPark RzQ/5 *-> Yes, have to try this. What should I expect? More speed? I have no problems with stability*

In XFR use FCLK freq as 1900 and UCLK DIV1 Mode to 1:1, Geardown mode disable, All CadbusStrenght 24 or u can try 30/20/24/24, if ur dims aint B-dies u can need 53 Ohm+ for ProcODT. *-> FCLK is already 1900 at 1:1, GDM disabled doesn't work for me with low timings (Hynix DJR), CB strengths have tried no changes, ProcODT didn't work below 53.3 but with bios F12a I can go lower*

Dram Volt 1.45-1.48, Dram Termination will be half of Dram Voltage. *-> Don't really need with the DJR and these timings, only higher temperatures*

Why have you changed CPUVDDP18 from auto to 1.84? Try auto. *-> Because it drops to 1.790 under load sometimes, it's more stable at 1.840v. It does fix some random stuttering*

Try VCore SOC 1.125 *-> I try to avoid going high, in the daily usage I get stability issues. With LLC at High it's not really needed. It's a specific behavior with EDC at 1.*

VDDP volt 1025 can work aswell! *-> Yes but lower VDDP means more read bandwidth, I loose 500 MB/s read speed going from 900 to 950 *

LLC VCORE Soc High. *-> Done that already*


----------



## Dyngsur

ManniX-ITA said:


> Thanks for the tips!
> 
> 
> 
> You dont have to use VDDP and VDDG in overclock menu, (Only thing u want to change in Overclock menu is PBO 200MHZ and ThermalThrottle, rest u change in XFR) *-> Had problems not setting manually in both, they are not set correctly or cause instability with SOC vCore Auto. Decided to keep changing in both menu to stay safe. Everything else is Auto in XFR and manually set in AMD Overclocking menu, it works.*
> 
> If u using 2 dims, i would recommend RttWr disabled and RttPark RzQ/5 *-> Yes, have to try this. What should I expect? More speed? I have no problems with stability*
> 
> In XFR use FCLK freq as 1900 and UCLK DIV1 Mode to 1:1, Geardown mode disable, All CadbusStrenght 24 or u can try 30/20/24/24, if ur dims aint B-dies u can need 53 Ohm+ for ProcODT. *-> FCLK is already 1900 at 1:1, GDM disabled doesn't work for me with low timings (Hynix DJR), CB strengths have tried no changes, ProcODT didn't work below 53.3 but with bios F12a I can go lower*
> 
> Dram Volt 1.45-1.48, Dram Termination will be half of Dram Voltage. *-> Don't really need with the DJR and these timings, only higher temperatures*
> 
> Why have you changed CPUVDDP18 from auto to 1.84? Try auto. *-> Because it drops to 1.790 under load sometimes, it's more stable at 1.840v. It does fix some random stuttering*
> 
> Try VCore SOC 1.125 *-> I try to avoid going high, in the daily usage I get stability issues. With LLC at High it's not really needed. It's a specific behavior with EDC at 1.*
> 
> VDDP volt 1025 can work aswell! *-> Yes but lower VDDP means more read bandwidth, I loose 500 MB/s read speed going from 900 to 950 *
> 
> LLC VCORE Soc High. *-> Done that already*


[*]If u using 2 dims, i would recommend RttWr disabled and RttPark RzQ/5 *-> Yes, have to try this. What should I expect? More speed? Might give better stability, One thing you can try is AUTO on all of em.*

hmm gonna check myself some shiet later than  Might try some stuff aswell,


----------



## nick name

Dyngsur said:


> You dont have to use VDDP and VDDG in overclock menu, (Only thing u want to change in Overclock menu is PBO 200MHZ and ThermalThrottle, rest u change in XFR)
> 
> If u using 2 dims, i would recommend RttWr disabled and RttPark RzQ/5
> 
> In XFR use FCLK freq as 1900 and UCLK DIV1 Mode to 1:1, Geardown mode disable, All CadbusStrenght 24 or u can try 30/20/24/24, if ur dims aint B-dies u can need 53 Ohm+ for ProcODT.
> 
> Dram Volt 1.45-1.48, Dram Termination will be half of Dram Voltage.
> 
> Why have you changed CPUVDDP18 from auto to 1.84? Try auto.
> 
> Try VCore SOC 1.125
> 
> VDDP volt 1025 can work aswell!
> 
> LLC VCORE Soc High.
> 
> 
> Just some tips from me to you, my Ram is OC'ed aswell and i got like 62,9 NS in Aida @3800mts. But I got B-Dies @1.5v Cl15-15-15-30-42 TRFC 260



What are you changing Thermal Throttle to?


----------



## ManniX-ITA

nick name said:


> What are you changing Thermal Throttle to?


Set to 200 otherwise at Auto will cripple heavy threaded workload:

View attachment 200430072409 (Small).BMP


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Dyngsur said:


> [*]If u using 2 dims, i would recommend RttWr disabled and RttPark RzQ/5 *-> Yes, have to try this. What should I expect? More speed? Might give better stability, One thing you can try is AUTO on all of em.*
> 
> hmm gonna check myself some shiet later than  Might try some stuff aswell,


I never really had any stability issue or need to fix errors with these G.Skill modules.
It's were they really shine; down to the point you can get them works error free even at low voltage.
If something is wrong either the board will not POST and reset the profile or boot at 2133 MHz.

But I didn't really try very hard, not enough time so far.
Last time I tried a bit too much hazardous settings is when I think I've lost the backup bios.
Which I still have to try to recover removing the battery.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Nope, anything above 900/950 and it's unstable again.
Stuttering, USB resets, crashes...
But the fixed SOC vCore at 1.100v seems holding.

No it didn't, mouse cursor moving but buttons unresponsive.
Went back to Auto.

Unrelated, it was the Logitech software messed up...


----------



## Dyngsur

nick name said:


> What are you changing Thermal Throttle to?


200 or 255


----------



## Tweedilderp

Medizinmann said:


> Problem with your settings are - 0 will give you stock settings - that means you give the chip a boost for EDC but you cap PPT and TDC at stock settings...so performance will cap out especially with multicore as power Budget stays at 142W.
> 
> I am running at following settings…
> PPT= 1300
> TDC= 500
> EDC=1
> 
> Overboost doesn’t do anything for me and also scalar over 3x won’t bring any benefits.
> With these settings I see total power consumption of up to 187W (used to be up to 230W with old AGESA)
> In other words PPT and TDC at motherboards max. and EDC=1.
> 
> And remember – all this only really works with excessive cooling – a stock cooler won’t do…and the power delivery of you mobo must be good of course…
> You might have to fiddle with LLC and things like it.
> 
> I see an increase for the CB20 Scores from 7150 to 7570.
> CPU-Z single core goes from 530 to 568.
> I also see much higher sustained boost.
> 
> Also higher scores for TimeSpy and such...
> 
> Results are little better then the “old” EDC-bug circumvent with EDC set to 0 (which results in EDC=140A) and PPT/TDC set to motherboards max.
> 
> Greetings
> Medizinmann



What BIOS version were you running in this config mate? Also running the X570 Aorus Xtreme but with the f11 and 32gb flarex 3200mhz cl14 @ 3800mhz cl16.


----------



## vasyltheonly

Hello all. I am using the Asrock X570 Taichi with a 3600x with the following values 300/300/6 10x 200mhz. I get pretty decent results with it for the MC, but my SC is throttling (CPUZ SC is around 300 vs the 520+). I have the Ultimate Performance power plan from the first page and it did not resolve anything, I cant seem to find CnQ in the Asrock bios menus. Any other suggestions?


----------



## ManniX-ITA

vasyltheonly said:


> Hello all. I am using the Asrock X570 Taichi with a 3600x with the following values 300/300/6 10x 200mhz. I get pretty decent results with it for the MC, but my SC is throttling (CPUZ SC is around 300 vs the 520+). I have the Ultimate Performance power plan from the first page and it did not resolve anything, I cant seem to find CnQ in the Asrock bios menus. Any other suggestions?



Disable Global C state
Limit PPT
Negative offset for vCore


----------



## vasyltheonly

ManniX-ITA said:


> Disable Global C state
> Limit PPT
> Negative offset for vCore


It was the C-States. Dug through the manual and found the settings in AMD CBS page.


----------



## rastaviper

ManniX-ITA said:


> Disable Global C state
> 
> Limit PPT
> 
> Negative offset for vCore


That's strange.

I am pretty sure that you or some other poster was mentioning to enable the Global C states for my 3600x.
Should it be enabled for some specific tasks only?

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


----------



## ManniX-ITA

rastaviper said:


> That's strange.
> 
> I am pretty sure that you or some other poster was mentioning to enable the Global C states for my 3600x.
> Should it be enabled for some specific tasks only?
> 
> Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


It's a lower energy power state, the CPU consumes less in idle.
But with the EDC bug for most people if it's enabled will kill the ST performance.
As described CPU-Z bench drops to 200-300.
Someone is lucky and can use it as well with a low EDC but it's quite rare.


----------



## Nighthog

rastaviper said:


> That's strange.
> 
> I am pretty sure that you or some other poster was mentioning to enable the Global C states for my 3600x.
> Should it be enabled for some specific tasks only?
> 
> Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


C-states disabled is like the guaranteed way to get least amount of issues with throttling if using EDC Bug. Basically eliminates any and all throttling issues at the cost of much higher idle voltages. Your cores will not go down to the lowest possible power states which prevents PBO from trying to throttle your single core loads down to your set EDC target.

A low load situation can cause your processor to try maintain your EDC target, there is a certain threshold at which point it just boosts way and above regular PBO and trying to ascertain the limits as is the normal behaviour. 
With C-states enabled we encounter that we often need some kind of continuos load to a degree to get the best boosting behaviour. If your load goes way down your EDC target is being tried to be maintained, so you get horrendous single core boosting that throttles down between max and a low EDC target. 
Various settings play into it and software has a function as well. We try to get a good combination so it doesn't throttle but it can be difficult to get in all situations.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Nighthog said:


> C-states disabled is like the guaranteed way to get least amount of issues with throttling if using EDC Bug. Basically eliminates any and all throttling issues at the cost of much higher idle voltages. Your cores will not go down to the lowest possible power states which prevents PBO from trying to throttle your single core loads down to your set EDC target.
> 
> A low load situation can cause your processor to try maintain your EDC target, there is a certain threshold at which point it just boosts way and above regular PBO and trying to ascertain the limits as is the normal behaviour.
> With C-states enabled we encounter that we often need some kind of continuos load to a degree to get the best boosting behaviour. If your load goes way down your EDC target is being tried to be maintained, so you get horrendous single core boosting that throttles down between max and a low EDC target.
> Various settings play into it and software has a function as well. We try to get a good combination so it doesn't throttle but it can be difficult to get in all situations.


If you have Global C states enabled the downclocking at idle will be managed by the processor.
Without it the processor will not go into C6 state, meaning the cores will not be parked; C6 state can almost shut off a whole core.
The other difference is the smoothness of transitions to idle; the processor will smoothly go up and down in clock and voltages based on load.
This of course can cause problems with overclocking; that's why it's usually recommended to disable it.

It's not correct you'll have much higher idle voltages; you'll never get cores parking but the voltages and clocks will go down.
Just not the same as with Global C states; mine goes down to 2,2GHz and 0,900v in idle.
I have a few intermediaries, not many not smooth indeed. But enough to save in power and keep the temps in control.

This is often referred as a problem because you have to modify the power profile and set Min CPU at 0%.
The default AMD profiles does have 99% to avoid Windows managing the downclocking and let Global C state doing it instead.
If you don't modify it then yes, you'll have always high clocks and voltages.
Since you disabled it, you have to let Windows manage it.

The C6 core parking was a big thing for Bulldozer because it was connected to the boosting; without cores parking the boost would never max.
But with PBO is different, you don't need cores in C6 to get the max boost.

What are you going to loose in power saving?
On my setup is between 5W and 15W in idle over 160/170W.
For someone is a big deal, for me doesn't even merit consideration.


----------



## Nighthog

ManniX-ITA said:


> If you have Global C states enabled the downclocking at idle will be managed by the processor.
> Without it the processor will not go into C6 state, meaning the cores will not be parked; C6 state can almost shut off a whole core.
> The other difference is the smoothness of transitions to idle; the processor will smoothly go up and down in clock and voltages based on load.
> This of course can cause problems with overclocking; that's why it's usually recommended to disable it.
> 
> *It's not correct you'll have much higher idle voltages*; you'll never get cores parking but the voltages and clocks will go down.
> Just not the same as with Global C states; mine goes down to 2,2GHz and 0,900v in idle.


C-states enabled gives you a 0.200V idle compared to a 0.900-1.000V idle with it disabled. Disabled gives you higher idle voltages. It isn't wrong.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Nighthog said:


> C-states enabled gives you a 0.200V idle compared to a 0.900-1.000V idle with it disabled. Disabled gives you higher idle voltages. It isn't wrong.


Yeah you are right, it's still both very low but from 0.2 to 0.9 it is much higher 
I wanted to say not always 1.3-1.4v which is what happens without Min CPU at 0% and what usually people are complaining about.
Took me a while to find out.


----------



## jimpsar

Hello,
Have been reading the forum and nice findings here there is.
Only a week ago went from z390 Aorus & 9900k to 3900x + Tomahawk Max . Also having 2080ti Asus and playing in 2k.
Did not notice any downgrade at all. 
Anyway, I have been trying the have the best result either for bench but mostly for gaming. Using the edc bug, have mine at 900-240-18 atm 
and 1usmus settings like that:
Global C-state Control = Enabled
Power Supply Idle Control = Low Current Idle
CPPC = Enabled
CPPC Preferred Cores = Enabled
AMD Cool'n'Quiet = Enabled
PPC Adjustment = PState 0

I get very good gaming results. CPU stays at mostly 4400-4375. However the problem is that it does not always go very good and it seems that have issues.
I am new at AMD ecosystem and all seems to me new and kinda weird.
So , anyone with suggestion please let me know.
Thank you 

P.S. Also temps using edc bug are around 50's while gaming but idle is around 35. It is already pretty hot in Greece this time , 35 Celsius now


----------



## ManniX-ITA

jimpsar said:


> Hello,
> Have been reading the forum and nice findings here there is.
> Only a week ago went from z390 Aorus & 9900k to 3900x + Tomahawk Max . Also having 2080ti Asus and playing in 2k.
> Did not notice any downgrade at all.
> Anyway, I have been trying the have the best result either for bench but mostly for gaming. Using the edc bug, have mine at 900-240-18 atm
> and 1usmus settings like that:
> Global C-state Control = Enabled
> Power Supply Idle Control = Low Current Idle
> CPPC = Enabled
> CPPC Preferred Cores = Enabled
> AMD Cool'n'Quiet = Enabled
> PPC Adjustment = PState 0
> 
> I get very good gaming results. CPU stays at mostly 4400-4375. However the problem is that it does not always go very good and it seems that have issues.
> I am new at AMD ecosystem and all seems to me new and kinda weird.
> So , anyone with suggestion please let me know.
> Thank you
> 
> P.S. Also temps using edc bug are around 50's while gaming but idle is around 35. It is already pretty hot in Greece this time , 35 Celsius now


Well you didn't really tell what are these issues 
I guess you already checked with Global C state disabled right?

Temperatures are suspiciously too good IMO... what kind of cooling you have?


----------



## ManniX-ITA

I had to switch back SOC vCore to fixed 1.100v.
One degree more ambient temp and again stuttering, USB issues, crashes.
Voltage in Auto are absolutely a damnation; don't know if it's specific to the AORUS Master or in combination with the PBO bug.
But if you want to make your life easier, set a fixed voltage both for CPU and SOC.


----------



## jimpsar

ManniX-ITA said:


> Well you didn't really tell what are these issues
> I guess you already checked with Global C state disabled right?
> 
> Temperatures are suspiciously too good IMO... what kind of cooling you have?


Thank you for your reply.
My issue is kinda means any help regarding edc bug / pbo oc and any suggestion in order to have good usage of CPU.
I am totally new to AMD thats why 

Μy system is 
3900x
b450 Tomahawk Max
Nzxt x62 cooling
2080ti Asus
2x8 Gskill 4266 @ 3800 16 16 16 30
1900 Fclk Running

I have the settings of 1usmus with C states on. Shoukld I put them off ? Also CnQ and rest of 1usmus suggestions to off?

Have uploaded some results using edc bug with pbo at 900-240-18 10x Scalar 200Mhz 

Thank you again .


----------



## ManniX-ITA

jimpsar said:


> Thank you for your reply.
> My issue is kinda means any help regarding edc bug / pbo oc and any suggestion in order to have good usage of CPU.
> I am totally new to AMD thats why
> 
> Μy system is
> 3900x
> b450 Tomahawk Max
> Nzxt x62 cooling
> 2080ti Asus
> 2x8 Gskill 4266 @ 3800 16 16 16 30
> 1900 Fclk Running
> 
> I have the settings of 1usmus with C states on. Shoukld I put them off ? Also CnQ and rest of 1usmus suggestions to off?
> 
> Have uploaded some results using edc bug with pbo at 900-240-18 10x Scalar 200Mhz
> 
> Thank you again .


Apparently seems all in order, good temps and good boost.

You don't have to disable C states if it's not causing issues.
Neither CnQ, the rest of 1usmus suggestions I'd recommend to follow it.

I only have one doubt; I'd have expected at least a couple of the first six cores to have a max effective clocks close to 4.7 Ghz.
Can you reset the HWInfo stats and open and run CB20 single thread benchmark?
Take a screenshot in the middle of the run.

Nope, it's not the correct bench.
Run CPU-Z benchmark but set 1 thread only.


----------



## RWBY FNDM

I can’t wrap my head around this. No matter what I set EDC to, I still get 4.1ghz boost in CB20


----------



## jimpsar

ManniX-ITA said:


> Apparently seems all in order, good temps and good boost.
> 
> You don't have to disable C states if it's not causing issues.
> Neither CnQ, the rest of 1usmus suggestions I'd recommend to follow it.
> 
> I only have one doubt; I'd have expected at least a couple of the first six cores to have a max effective clocks close to 4.7 Ghz.
> Can you reset the HWInfo stats and open and run CB20 single thread benchmark?
> Take a screenshot in the middle of the run.
> 
> Nope, it's not the correct bench.
> Run CPU-Z benchmark but set 1 thread only.


Thank you mate
Here is couple screenshots cpuz running 1 thread
Running AC odyssey in background dont think there is an issue whatsoever.


----------



## zbug

4700 on a 3900x is pretty good i would say. Looking at those shots, a lot of them are boosting way above 4600 as well.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

jimpsar said:


> Thank you mate
> Here is couple screenshots cpuz running 1 thread
> Running AC odyssey in background dont think there is an issue whatsoever.


Looks good, 4.575 MHz effective clock is fine.
Unless you have a specific issue I wouldn't change the settings.


----------



## KedarWolf

On the latest AGESA 1.0.0.5 beta BIOS for the Unify, PBO bug or even just PBO enabled not working at all.

Clocks never move from the stock 3.5GHz.


----------



## vasyltheonly

ManniX-ITA said:


> I had to switch back SOC vCore to fixed 1.100v.
> One degree more ambient temp and again stuttering, USB issues, crashes.
> Voltage in Auto are absolutely a damnation; don't know if it's specific to the AORUS Master or in combination with the PBO bug.
> But if you want to make your life easier, set a fixed voltage both for CPU and SOC.


So what does this contribute to the whole picture of EDC? Why does a higher SOC prevent some issues? My SOC is at 1.050-1.056 depending on load, so I have a bit of room to raise it. After disabling CnQ and getting consistent scores, I began toying with BCLK. I can go to 103 with JUST my NVME being detected, other SATA drives drop out, getting a nice little boost in MC and SC scores on CPUz. I am currently sitting at 100.6 which makes all three of my drives remain connected upon booting into windows. Any suggestions to maximize this bug even further with BCLK OC? Is there a way to "desync" the CPU to the rest of the system? I think Gigabyte has the functionality available in their motherboards, but I am on ASRock.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

vasyltheonly said:


> So what does this contribute to the whole picture of EDC? Why does a higher SOC prevent some issues? My SOC is at 1.050-1.056 depending on load, so I have a bit of room to raise it. After disabling CnQ and getting consistent scores, I began toying with BCLK. I can go to 103 with JUST my NVME being detected, other SATA drives drop out, getting a nice little boost in MC and SC scores on CPUz. I am currently sitting at 100.6 which makes all three of my drives remain connected upon booting into windows. Any suggestions to maximize this bug even further with BCLK OC? Is there a way to "desync" the CPU to the rest of the system? I think Gigabyte has the functionality available in their motherboards, but I am on ASRock.


Mine floats between 1.080v and 1.092v on Auto.
Higher SOC voltage is recommended for OC in general; especially for IF 1900 and memory at 3800 MHz.
With a normal PBO with EDC at 0, I didn't have all these issues with SOC voltage.
But I can't really judge cause it was a different OC 1800/3600 and much lower ambient temp.

I don't know what you mean about the desync option. I don't have anything specific on the AORUS Master.
Anything above 0.1 and 0.9 on top of BCLK boot fine, all peripherals recognized. Then at some point it does a sudden reboot.
Couldn't find anything to make it stable, I gave up.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

KedarWolf said:


> On the latest AGESA 1.0.0.5 beta BIOS for the Unify, PBO bug or even just PBO enabled not working at all.
> 
> Clocks never move from the stock 3.5GHz.


I guess this is the blocking bug they were talking about...


----------



## Nighthog

ManniX-ITA said:


> I guess this is the blocking bug they were talking about...


If 1.0.0.5 has PBO completely disabled I don't know what AMD is doing...

Every release since Launch has only been crippling and adding bugs to PBO functionality. Really only the pre-release beta seemed to work as it should.


----------



## Farih

Trying the EDC bug now.

Normal PBO settings in CB20 i get 508 ST and 5033 MT.

With EDC bug i get 513 ST and 4979 MT.

Strange i get lower MT because i see higher clocks
Normal PBO it starts at 4175mhz and drops to 4125mhz.
With EDC bug it starts at 4225mhz and drops to 4175mhz.

ST is from 4425-4475mhz, up to 100mhz more then standard PBO (4325-4375mhz) but only 5 points more in CB20?

Voltages are the same.
Lowering offset just reduces both ST and MT score.
Global C-state is off.


Any idea's?


----------



## Nighthog

Farih said:


> Trying the EDC bug now.
> 
> Normal PBO settings in CB20 i get 508 ST and 5033 MT.
> 
> With EDC bug i get 513 ST and 4979 MT.
> 
> Strange i get lower MT because i see higher clocks
> Normal PBO it starts at 4175mhz and drops to 4125mhz.
> With EDC bug it starts at 4225mhz and drops to 4175mhz.
> 
> ST is from 4425-4475mhz, up to 100mhz more then standard PBO (4325-4375mhz) but only 5 points more in CB20?
> 
> Voltages are the same.
> Lowering offset just reduces both ST and MT score.
> Global C-state is off.
> 
> 
> Any idea's?


Any LLC settings used?

They can have a profound effect on the usage of this bug, meaning AUTO/Normal might work best for scores but might give stability troubles at times, higher LLC will increase stability but at the cost of more temperature and lower frequencies.
You can then combine with offset depending on your silicon & motherboard preference on which direction gives better results.
Temperature is significant on boost & voltage also, you can't have the processor starve voltage if it wants to boost.

Myself Cinebench likes AUTO/Normal voltage & LLC. but it's not fully stable all situations(other software). I have to increase LLC but I lose frequency doing that, to compensate I use even more voltage. It starts to regain frequency then. But this is at significant cost of heat & wattage than just having everything AUTO for best benchmark scores.

Scalar setting is good here as it increases the voltage allowed for multi-thread loads. If you used 1x try 2-10x scalar. Higher gives better results unless temperature constrained.

You need PPT be high enough so you aren't being limited by that as well.


----------



## Farih

Nighthog said:


> Any LLC settings used?
> 
> They can have a profound effect on the usage of this bug, meaning AUTO/Normal might work best for scores but might give stability troubles at times, higher LLC will increase stability but at the cost of more temperature and lower frequencies.
> You can then combine with offset depending on your silicon & motherboard preference on which direction gives better results.
> Temperature is significant on boost & voltage also, you can't have the processor starve voltage if it wants to boost.
> 
> Myself Cinebench likes AUTO/Normal voltage & LLC. but it's not fully stable all situations(other software). I have to increase LLC but I lose frequency doing that, to compensate I use even more voltage. It starts to regain frequency then. But this is at significant cost of heat & wattage than just having everything AUTO for best benchmark scores.
> 
> Scalar setting is good here as it increases the voltage allowed for multi-thread loads. If you used 1x try 2-10x scalar. Higher gives better results unless temperature constrained.
> 
> You need PPT be high enough so you aren't being limited by that as well.


LLC is on Auto for both CPU and SoC.
Scalar is set to X4 (was with standard PBO settings to)
PPT = 300, TDC =230 and EDC = 10
RAM is 3800/1900

P95 smallest FFT's nets the same Vcore and heat over time but with about 150mhz more then before.

Just find it wierd i see higher frequencies but lower score's in MT


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Farih said:


> Trying the EDC bug now.
> 
> Normal PBO settings in CB20 i get 508 ST and 5033 MT.
> 
> With EDC bug i get 513 ST and 4979 MT.
> 
> Strange i get lower MT because i see higher clocks
> Normal PBO it starts at 4175mhz and drops to 4125mhz.
> With EDC bug it starts at 4225mhz and drops to 4175mhz.
> 
> ST is from 4425-4475mhz, up to 100mhz more then standard PBO (4325-4375mhz) but only 5 points more in CB20?
> 
> Voltages are the same.
> Lowering offset just reduces both ST and MT score.
> Global C-state is off.
> 
> 
> Any idea's?


Seems to me your effective clocks are much lower than the perf clocks.
You should enable the display in HWInfo.

If your MT score is going down is probably due to the increased heat, 77c is pretty high.
There's a gate at 75c which will cripple the processor heavily.
I see your PPT and TDC limits are maxing at 30/40%.
This could be the problem of low MT score; you have to lower the values till a CB20 run will max them at 75/80%.
Otherwise PBO will try to ramp up too fast, hit a thermal limit and pull the handbrake.

Share the full settings for PBO, including scalar, boost clock, and thermal throttle.
Best would be screenshots from the BIOS menus.


----------



## Farih

ManniX-ITA said:


> Seems to me your effective clocks are much lower than the perf clocks.
> You should enable the display in HWInfo.
> 
> If your MT score is going down is probably due to the increased heat, 77c is pretty high.
> There's a gate at 75c which will cripple the processor heavily.
> I see your PPT and TDC limits are maxing at 30/40%.
> This could be the problem of low MT score; you have to lower the values till a CB20 run will max them at 75/80%.
> Otherwise PBO will try to ramp up too fast, hit a thermal limit and pull the handbrake.
> 
> Share the full settings for PBO, including scalar, boost clock, and thermal throttle.
> Best would be screenshots from the BIOS menus.


LLC is on Auto for both CPU and SoC.
Scalar is set to X4 (was with standard PBO settings to)
PPT = 300, TDC =230 and EDC = 10 (without EDC bug EDC used to be on 230 to)
RAM is 3800/1900

Temps in CB20 max 77 now, before max 72. (frequencies still higher regardless of more heat though)

Ordered 3 new fans for the CPU cooler, the ones on it now only spin at a max of 800rpm.

My bios doesn't have screenshot ability so here are some crappy phone pics


----------



## Nighthog

Try 10x scalar and normal voltage, no offset.

I think your processor is one that likes positive offsets like mine does.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Farih said:


> LLC is on Auto for both CPU and SoC.
> Scalar is set to X4 (was with standard PBO settings to)
> PPT = 300, TDC =230 and EDC = 10 (without EDC bug EDC used to be on 230 to)
> RAM is 3800/1900
> 
> Temps in CB20 max 77 now, before max 72. (frequencies still higher regardless of more heat though)
> 
> Ordered 3 new fans for the CPU cooler, the ones on it now only spin at a max of 800rpm.
> 
> My bios doesn't have screenshot ability so here are some crappy phone pics


Yes you have to lower the PPT and TDC as suggested before.
Also set the Platform Thermal Throttle to 200.

I'd recommend also to set SOC vCore to a bit lower 1.100v instead of 1.125v.
On my setup also VDPP/VDDG at 900/950 works much better than anything else, you could try.

If you want more ST boost you have to use scalar at 10.
But then to compensate the added voltage you have to work to find a perfect negative offset.
IMO the best performance can only be obtained by lowering EDC; if you can go down to 1 is better than 10.
Use CPU-z bench to check how it goes.

On my board Phase Control other than Auto is a problem, check it if you can't get consistent results.

If you have done all right then you can set SOC and CPU LLC to High and get the highest bench scores, consistent and with stability.
I couldn't set anything higher than SOC Medium and CPU Low before finding the correct settings.
Otherwise stability or either bench scores would be affected negatively.


----------



## Farih

Think i "see" the problem (no solution yet though)

First picture with lower PPT and TDC, 2nd with lower PPT, TDC and 10x scalar and 3rd picture is standard PBO.
Seems like with EDC bug a few threads don't go full boost but stay under 4ghz


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Farih said:


> Think i "see" the problem (no solution yet though)
> 
> First picture with lower PPT and TDC, 2nd with lower PPT, TDC and 10x scalar and 3rd picture is standard PBO.
> Seems like with EDC bug a few threads don't go full boost but stay under 4ghz


That's probably due to the 5c more in CPU temp.
Seems is working as expected, you go above the 4.1GHz barrier.
Try to play with the offset negative/positive with scalar at 10x.
But maybe it's better you wait for the new fans.
If you really want to make it work it's going to take days if not weeks of testing.


----------



## Farih

ManniX-ITA said:


> That's probably due to the 5c more in CPU temp.
> Seems is working as expected, you go above the 4.1GHz barrier.
> Try to play with the offset negative/positive with scalar at 10x.
> But maybe it's better you wait for the new fans.
> If you really want to make it work it's going to take days if not weeks of testing.


Yeah will wait for the new fans, its also a bit hotter here the last 2 days.
And yes, its very "finnicky" to get all the settings just right.
Happy i got 3800/1900 stable though, thats probably the biggest jump so far.

Going for these fans:
https://www.alternate.nl/Deepcool/TF-120S-case-fan/html/product/1571539?

Seems to be pretty good for just 9,- each.
Hopefully alot better then 800rpm fans


----------



## Nighthog

The 3700X seems to have a much weaker CCX on one side than the other. I don't see a solution to the problem than trying to push too much voltage to compensate.

I don't recommend people over-volt but I don't see another solution here to try get the cores to boost higher. They are weak and probably need more voltage than normal if they even can clock higher at all with stability as concern. PBO usually does good work to keep stability in check. With the voltages supplied those cores on that CCX don't seem able to answer to the task.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Farih said:


> Yeah will wait for the new fans, its also a bit hotter here the last 2 days.
> And yes, its very "finnicky" to get all the settings just right.
> Happy i got 3800/1900 stable though, thats probably the biggest jump so far.
> 
> Going for these fans:
> https://www.alternate.nl/Deepcool/TF-120S-case-fan/html/product/1571539?
> 
> Seems to be pretty good for just 9,- each.
> Hopefully alot better then 800rpm fans


Yep they look good and cheap, don't know them.
I use the Arctic Bionix P120 usually. A little bit more expensive but very reliable and quiet.
Got a bunch of Corsair ML120 now and well, they are very expensive but indeed definitely superior.


----------



## Farih

Nighthog said:


> The 3700X seems to have a much weaker CCX on one side than the other. I don't see a solution to the problem than trying to push too much voltage to compensate.
> 
> I don't recommend people over-volt but I don't see another solution here to try get the cores to boost higher. They are weak and probably need more voltage than normal if they even can clock higher at all with stability as concern. PBO usually does good work to keep stability in check. With the voltages supplied those cores on that CCX don't seem able to answer to the task.


For my 3700x both CCX behave the same with stock and standard PBO.
Things just get a bit weird with the EDC bug. 
Ill get it to work one day properly but gonna wait for new fans first.



ManniX-ITA said:


> Yep they look good and cheap, don't know them.
> I use the Arctic Bionix P120 usually. A little bit more expensive but very reliable and quiet.
> Got a bunch of Corsair ML120 now and well, they are very expensive but indeed definitely superior.


My case has 5x Corsair fan to, think its the AF series though. 
They look pretty but start to become noisy above 1000rpm, i run them at around 900rpm.

These Deepcool TS120 fans seem to do pretty good in reviews and seem like a steal at 9,- each.
Going to run them PWM i think.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Farih said:


> For my 3700x both CCX behave the same with stock and standard PBO.
> Things just get a bit weird with the EDC bug.
> Ill get it to work one day properly but gonna wait for new fans first.
> 
> 
> 
> My case has 5x Corsair fan to, think its the AF series though.
> They look pretty but start to become noisy above 1000rpm, i run them at around 900rpm.
> 
> These Deepcool TS120 fans seem to do pretty good in reviews and seem like a steal at 9,- each.
> Going to run them PWM i think.


I have 3 x AF140 on the Corsair 750D case and they are among the quietest ever heard.
But they don't move that much air at high speed.

The ML series is a very big step up but also in the price.
These ML120 gets very noisy, at 2400rpm, but they are moving air like a typhoon...

The difference with the Bionix fans against the same rad it's quite impressive, the static pressure is way higher.
At the same time they can go down to 150rpm and almost inaudible up to 1000rpm.
After 1000rpm the Bionix are much less noisy. But they also move less air.
The Bionix are very quiet till 1600rpm and maxed at 2000rpm are still not bad and moving a lot of air.
But the ML120 at 2000rpm are already moving probably twice the air, even against a thicker rad.
Between 2000rpm and 2400rpm they start being very noisy, like an airplane, but the amount of air moved is absolutely huge.

The problem with cheap PWM fans is they can get noisy at certain speeds; clicking and rattling.
So check carefully the whole spectrum of speed and in case drive them with voltage or avoid the problematic speed ranges.


----------



## Farih

ManniX-ITA said:


> I have 3 x AF140 on the Corsair 750D case and they are among the quietest ever heard.
> But they don't move that much air at high speed.
> 
> The ML series is a very big step up but also in the price.
> These ML120 gets very noisy, at 2400rpm, but they are moving air like a typhoon...
> 
> The difference with the Bionix fans against the same rad it's quite impressive, the static pressure is way higher.
> At the same time they can go down to 150rpm and almost inaudible up to 1000rpm.
> After 1000rpm the Bionix are much less noisy. But they also move less air.
> The Bionix are very quiet till 1600rpm and maxed at 2000rpm are still not bad and moving a lot of air.
> But the ML120 at 2000rpm are already moving probably twice the air, even against a thicker rad.
> Between 2000rpm and 2400rpm they start being very noisy, like an airplane, but the amount of air moved is absolutely huge.
> 
> The problem with cheap PWM fans is they can get noisy at certain speeds; clicking and rattling.
> So check carefully the whole spectrum of speed and in case drive them with voltage or avoid the problematic speed ranges.


The AF120 dont seem silent to me, maybe alot different then AF140's
Also, "silence is in the ear of the beholder" 

According to reviews the Deepcool's shouldn't tick with low rpm PWM.
If they do ill put them on my fan-controller


----------



## R-Type!

I basically gave up on the EDC bug bec. i never could get it to work. Always had huge performance drops no matter what settings i used (didn't spent too much time but tried quite a few combinations).

Today i woke up early and my coffee told me to try again -> success! 

System specs:
3900x
Gigabyte x570 master bios F11
BCLK 100.3 (100.4 causes SATA to act up  )
G.Skill F4-3600C16-16GTZNC [email protected]/1900 1:1:1
RTX gfx


Settings that worked for me:

PPT/TDC/EDC 1200/540/18 (PPT and TDC are Board limits)
Scalar x10
AutoOC +200MHz
1usmus recommended settings except Global C-States: Disabled (with C-States enabled SingleCore performance drops significantly)

Dram 3800 with 1900 synced FCLK/UCLK and Ryzen Dram Calc 1.7.3 Fast timings @1.39V

Everything else (VCore/LLC/SoC etc.) at auto.

Now for some scores:

CB20 MT/ST: 7745/542
CB15 MT/ST: 3402/220
CPU-Z MT/ST: 8786/568
Intel-Burn-Test v2.54 High, 4run average: 154.3
Blender BMW: 1m48s
Blender Classroom: 5m24s

While it was fun finally getting the EDC bug to work for me I'm not comfortable with the Voltages/Power draw with these settings (see HWInfo screen during CB20 run).
HWInfo reports 174W max. CPU Package power during CB20 run.
Thanks to a custom loop the temps are fine 


For Comparison my "daily" settings:
PPT/TDC/EDC: 300/230/230 (BuildZoid settings)
-0.125V Vcore offset
C-States enabled

CB20: 7541/535
CPU-Z: 8557/563

max CPU Package Power during CB20: 143W

Interestingly enough my CPU likes negative offset with BuildZoid settings, i get the the best scores at -0.125V.
Using the EDC bug the situation is reversed and any neg. offset lowers the scores (higher neg. offset ->even lower scores, tested from -0.025 to -0.100)

CB20 and HWInfo during CB20-MT Screenshots:


----------



## ManniX-ITA

R-Type! said:


> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> I basically gave up on the EDC bug bec. i never could get it to work. Always had huge performance drops no matter what settings i used (didn't spent too much time but tried quite a few combinations).
> 
> Today i woke up early and my coffee told me to try again -> success!
> 
> System specs:
> 3900x
> Gigabyte x570 master bios F11
> BCLK 100.3 (100.4 causes SATA to act up  )
> G.Skill F4-3600C16-16GTZNC [email protected]/1900 1:1:1
> RTX gfx
> 
> 
> Settings that worked for me:
> 
> PPT/TDC/EDC 1200/540/18 (PPT and TDC are Board limits)
> Scalar x10
> AutoOC +200MHz
> 1usmus recommended settings except Global C-States: Disabled (with C-States enabled SingleCore performance drops significantly)
> 
> Dram 3800 with 1900 synced FCLK/UCLK and Ryzen Dram Calc 1.7.3 Fast timings @1.39V
> 
> Everything else (VCore/LLC/SoC etc.) at auto.
> 
> Now for some scores:
> 
> CB20 MT/ST: 7745/542
> CB15 MT/ST: 3402/220
> CPU-Z MT/ST: 8786/568
> Intel-Burn-Test v2.54 High, 4run average: 154.3
> Blender BMW: 1m48s
> Blender Classroom: 5m24s
> 
> While it was fun finally getting the EDC bug to work for me I'm not comfortable with the Voltages/Power draw with these settings (see HWInfo screen during CB20 run).
> HWInfo reports 174W max. CPU Package power during CB20 run.
> Thanks to a custom loop the temps are fine
> 
> 
> For Comparison my "daily" settings:
> PPT/TDC/EDC: 300/230/230 (BuildZoid settings)
> -0.125V Vcore offset
> C-States enabled
> 
> CB20: 7541/535
> CPU-Z: 8557/563
> 
> max CPU Package Power during CB20: 143W
> 
> Interestingly enough my CPU likes negative offset with BuildZoid settings, i get the the best scores at -0.125V.
> Using the EDC bug the situation is reversed and any neg. offset lowers the scores (higher neg. offset ->even lower scores, tested from -0.025 to -0.100)
> 
> CB20 and HWInfo during CB20-MT Screenshots:


Well at least you got it done 
Maybe you can try to lower TDC and/or PPT to reduce the power draw with all core usage.
But indeed the EDC bug whatever you try will draw much more power than the speed boost would justify.


----------



## zbug

Any reason to use 18 on the 3900x? first page suggests 12. Maybe I missed something in the few recent pages.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

zbug said:


> Any reason to use 18 on the 3900x? first page suggests 12. Maybe I missed something in the few recent pages.


It's a recommendation, what works for most.
Doesn't mean it works for everyone or that works best.
On my 3800x I started with the recommended 10 but found at 1 was working much better.


----------



## Nighthog

zbug said:


> Any reason to use 18 on the 3900x? first page suggests 12. Maybe I missed something in the few recent pages.


Just suggested values on where people testing had success more or less.


----------



## zbug

I see, thanks both! i'll stick to 333/230/12 for now as it is very stable and with my x470 prime pro, i'm quite limited.


----------



## Dash8Q4

rares495 said:


> A bit worried about his 3700X results with a degraded chip. I'll test this stuff myself to see what happens.


Did you ever test these settings? Or any others for that matter?
cheers


----------



## rares495

Dash8Q4 said:


> Did you ever test these settings? Or any others for that matter?
> cheers


I did.


----------



## jimpsar

R-Type! said:


> I basically gave up on the EDC bug bec. i never could get it to work. Always had huge performance drops no matter what settings i used (didn't spent too much time but tried quite a few combinations).
> 
> Today i woke up early and my coffee told me to try again -> success!
> 
> System specs:
> 3900x
> Gigabyte x570 master bios F11
> BCLK 100.3 (100.4 causes SATA to act up  )
> G.Skill F4-3600C16-16GTZNC [email protected]/1900 1:1:1
> RTX gfx
> 
> 
> Settings that worked for me:
> 
> PPT/TDC/EDC 1200/540/18 (PPT and TDC are Board limits)
> Scalar x10
> AutoOC +200MHz
> 1usmus recommended settings except Global C-States: Disabled (with C-States enabled SingleCore performance drops significantly)
> 
> Dram 3800 with 1900 synced FCLK/UCLK and Ryzen Dram Calc 1.7.3 Fast timings @1.39V
> 
> Everything else (VCore/LLC/SoC etc.) at auto.
> 
> Now for some scores:
> 
> CB20 MT/ST: 7745/542
> CB15 MT/ST: 3402/220
> CPU-Z MT/ST: 8786/568
> Intel-Burn-Test v2.54 High, 4run average: 154.3
> Blender BMW: 1m48s
> Blender Classroom: 5m24s
> 
> While it was fun finally getting the EDC bug to work for me I'm not comfortable with the Voltages/Power draw with these settings (see HWInfo screen during CB20 run).
> HWInfo reports 174W max. CPU Package power during CB20 run.
> Thanks to a custom loop the temps are fine
> 
> 
> For Comparison my "daily" settings:
> PPT/TDC/EDC: 300/230/230 (BuildZoid settings)
> -0.125V Vcore offset
> C-States enabled
> 
> CB20: 7541/535
> CPU-Z: 8557/563
> 
> max CPU Package Power during CB20: 143W
> 
> Interestingly enough my CPU likes negative offset with BuildZoid settings, i get the the best scores at -0.125V.
> Using the EDC bug the situation is reversed and any neg. offset lowers the scores (higher neg. offset ->even lower scores, tested from -0.025 to -0.100)
> 
> CB20 and HWInfo during CB20-MT Screenshots:



Great scores mate!!
Thanks for sharing. 
I will try them out to check if I have any luck. Ofc you a beast mobo , used to have Aorus z390 
Wanted to ask you, in windows which power plan do u use? 1usmus Ryzen or something else?


----------



## dansi

R-Type! said:


> I basically gave up on the EDC bug bec. i never could get it to work. Always had huge performance drops no matter what settings i used (didn't spent too much time but tried quite a few combinations).
> 
> Today i woke up early and my coffee told me to try again -> success!
> 
> System specs:
> 3900x
> Gigabyte x570 master bios F11
> BCLK 100.3 (100.4 causes SATA to act up  )
> G.Skill F4-3600C16-16GTZNC [email protected]/1900 1:1:1
> RTX gfx
> 
> 
> Settings that worked for me:
> 
> PPT/TDC/EDC 1200/540/18 (PPT and TDC are Board limits)
> Scalar x10
> AutoOC +200MHz
> 1usmus recommended settings except Global C-States: Disabled (with C-States enabled SingleCore performance drops significantly)
> 
> Dram 3800 with 1900 synced FCLK/UCLK and Ryzen Dram Calc 1.7.3 Fast timings @1.39V
> 
> Everything else (VCore/LLC/SoC etc.) at auto.
> 
> Now for some scores:
> 
> CB20 MT/ST: 7745/542
> CB15 MT/ST: 3402/220
> CPU-Z MT/ST: 8786/568
> Intel-Burn-Test v2.54 High, 4run average: 154.3
> Blender BMW: 1m48s
> Blender Classroom: 5m24s
> 
> While it was fun finally getting the EDC bug to work for me I'm not comfortable with the Voltages/Power draw with these settings (see HWInfo screen during CB20 run).
> HWInfo reports 174W max. CPU Package power during CB20 run.
> Thanks to a custom loop the temps are fine
> 
> 
> For Comparison my "daily" settings:
> PPT/TDC/EDC: 300/230/230 (BuildZoid settings)
> -0.125V Vcore offset
> C-States enabled
> 
> CB20: 7541/535
> CPU-Z: 8557/563
> 
> max CPU Package Power during CB20: 143W
> 
> Interestingly enough my CPU likes negative offset with BuildZoid settings, i get the the best scores at -0.125V.
> Using the EDC bug the situation is reversed and any neg. offset lowers the scores (higher neg. offset ->even lower scores, tested from -0.025 to -0.100)
> 
> CB20 and HWInfo during CB20-MT Screenshots:


My gigabyte board also love negative offset. I guess it really depends if the vendor implement the proper pbo codes wrt to their vrm. 

My findings here
https://www.overclock.net/forum/10-...should-undervolt-your-ryzen-3000-part-ii.html


----------



## jimpsar

Hello tried the above but did not got so large numbers. It seems more like manual oc numbers though and not like edc bug ones.


----------



## R-Type!

jimpsar said:


> Great scores mate!!
> Thanks for sharing.
> I will try them out to check if I have any luck. Ofc you a beast mobo , used to have Aorus z390
> Wanted to ask you, in windows which power plan do u use? 1usmus Ryzen or something else?





jimpsar said:


> Hello tried the above but did not got so large numbers. It seems more like manual oc numbers though and not like edc bug ones.


I use 1usmus universal Power Plan

In the Hwinfo screenshot i posted you can see the core speed fluctuating a bit so no, not a fixed OC 

Maybe I'm lucky with my Silicon. My Chip likes lower Voltages under "normal" conditions so if you supply higher auto voltages in this no-limits scenario it can boost higher.
Since PBO tries to boost all cores equally under multithreaded loads the limiting factor seems to be the 2nd CCD. A per-CCD (or CCX) PBO would be interesting to play with


----------



## zbug

Been trying to use higher EDC values than 12 on my 3900x just for the sake of it but results would not be "better" than 12 in terms of max boost clock that is.

The only thing I have not touched at all is voltage. I'm on a X470 Prime pro.
At idle, it's using around 4.6 to 4.8 average
In game, around 1.41 to 1.45 average sometimes a bit lower, depends on the game.
push pull (6 fans) on a 360 aio, get around 60°C/65°C in use (was with 28°C room temp)

It's high but does not look worrying?

Would trying some offest bring anything in regards to this edc behavior like higher clocks? or lower temps maybe?

I'm just unsure what offset/voltage to touch (theres tons in this damn bios) and what to try (I don't wanna lower my ST boosts, very happy with them)

thanks for your input, very appreciated on all the work and feedback in this thread!


----------



## highdude702

MCM = Multi Chip Module. Almost every cpu in the last 15 years have been "Multi core modules"  just to help clear any confusion up


----------



## ManniX-ITA

zbug said:


> Been trying to use higher EDC values than 12 on my 3900x just for the sake of it but results would not be "better" than 12 in terms of max boost clock that is.
> 
> The only thing I have not touched at all is voltage. I'm on a X470 Prime pro.
> At idle, it's using around 4.6 to 4.8 average
> In game, around 1.41 to 1.45 average sometimes a bit lower, depends on the game.
> push pull (6 fans) on a 360 aio, get around 60°C/65°C in use (was with 28°C room temp)
> 
> It's high but does not look worrying?
> 
> Would trying some offest bring anything in regards to this edc behavior like higher clocks? or lower temps maybe?
> 
> I'm just unsure what offset/voltage to touch (theres tons in this damn bios) and what to try (I don't wanna lower my ST boosts, very happy with them)
> 
> thanks for your input, very appreciated on all the work and feedback in this thread!


To look for better clocks you can try with scalar at 10 and higher max boost clock.

To lower the temps a negative CPU vCore offset; if the bench scores are dropping you can compensate with the above or try a higher LLC setting.

The CPU vCore should be VDDCR CPU Voltage on you ASUS but I'm not sure how you can set an offset.


----------



## Bal3Wolf

after much playin with settings on pbo pretty decent 300 254 16 llc 3 -0.056 offset its + or -1 1-2% tops of my all core 4300 overclock and hits 4.65 on single core Voltages range between 1.275-1.437.


----------



## Nighthog

Bal3Wolf said:


> after much playin with settings on pbo pretty decent 300 254 16 llc 3 -0.056 offset its + or -1 1-2% tops of my all core 4300 overclock and hits 4.65 on single core Voltages range between 1.275-1.437.


The question remains are you happy with the results? Gonna keep using it or go back to manual OC?

There is quite a difference between the CCD's on your 3900X. one does 4.400Ghz and the other 4.600Ghz in boost behaviour. We have seen it quite often for the 3900X & 3950X.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Bal3Wolf said:


> after much playin with settings on pbo pretty decent 300 254 16 llc 3 -0.056 offset its + or -1 1-2% tops of my all core 4300 overclock and hits 4.65 on single core Voltages range between 1.275-1.437.


Did you run P95 to reach 88c on the 2nd CCD?


----------



## zbug

ManniX-ITA said:


> To look for better clocks you can try with scalar at 10 and higher max boost clock.
> 
> To lower the temps a negative CPU vCore offset; if the bench scores are dropping you can compensate with the above or try a higher LLC setting.
> 
> The CPU vCore should be VDDCR CPU Voltage on you ASUS but I'm not sure how you can set an offset.


Thanks! i'll give it a try, although i'm very happy with my current settings, they are rock stable and all in all, even with curren thigh ambiant temp, hitting 45°C at max at idle (with c-state off) is pretty good. (already using scalar 10 and 200mhz boost (nothing higher). I'll see if I can find that cpu voltage thing.


----------



## Bal3Wolf

ManniX-ITA said:


> Did you run P95 to reach 88c on the 2nd CCD?



yea the hot temps are prime 95 pbo is quite a bit hotter then a manual overclock i noticed.



Nighthog said:


> The question remains are you happy with the results? Gonna keep using it or go back to manual OC?
> 
> There is quite a difference between the CCD's on your 3900X. one does 4.400Ghz and the other 4.600Ghz in boost behaviour. We have seen it quite often for the 3900X & 3950X.


i gamed on it last night on farcry 5 boost stayed around 4350-4400 farcry 5 tends to use 4 threads it ran pretty good.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

zbug said:


> Thanks! i'll give it a try, although i'm very happy with my current settings, they are rock stable and all in all, even with curren thigh ambiant temp, hitting 45°C at max at idle (with c-state off) is pretty good. (already using scalar 10 and 200mhz boost (nothing higher). I'll see if I can find that cpu voltage thing.


They are already pretty good temps; my 3800x is idling at 35c, max 45c, with a Dark Rock Pro 4.
Doesn hurt to try a negative offset but it's probably already the right voltage.



Bal3Wolf said:


> yea the hot temps are prime 95 pbo is quite a bit hotter then a manual overclock i noticed.
> i gamed on it last night on farcry 5 boost stayed around 4350-4400 farcry 5 tends to use 4 threads it ran pretty good.


Yes usually it's at least 4-5c more.
Considering the very well equipped wc loop in the sig I'd have expected better temps.


----------



## Bal3Wolf

yea i did a remount of the block afterwards with some as5 after some cure time i hope temps come down some more maybe. I also don't run fans at max rpm they are near silent almost all the time and pumps are turned down to 2500 rpms give or take my gpu never passes 44c funny thing my old x99 6800k it hit 55c so the amd is dumping alot less heat into the loop.


----------



## Nighthog

Bal3Wolf said:


> yea i did a remount of the block afterwards with some as5 after some cure time i hope temps come down some more maybe. I also don't run fans at max rpm they are near silent almost all the time and pumps are turned down to 2500 rpms give or take my gpu never passes 44c funny thing my old x99 6800k it hit 55c so the amd is dumping alot less heat into the loop.


Yeah, the Ryzen 3000 series really don't give the heat away to your cooling that efficiently. I wonder what would happen if they did the same as Intel did for 10000 series and slim down the substrate to achieve better thermals.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Nighthog said:


> Yeah, the Ryzen 3000 series really don't give the heat away to your cooling that efficiently. I wonder what would happen if they did the same as Intel did for 10000 series and slim down the substrate to achieve better thermals.


Yep, it's very hard to avoid the temp to ramp up quickly and to dissipate even with a strong cooling.
It's quite impressive the difference at idle; instead of the common 5c delta now it's an impressive 15c delta between min and max.
Don't think they can go down with the substrate or the heatspreader thickness.
The MCM design is much more fragile than a monolithic design and could suffer from torque stress.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

In attach the zip with all bios screenshots for my AORUS Master K16C config and the profile for BIOS F12a.
The F12a BIOS is also in attach.

I can finally say it's 100% stable even with ambient temperature swings.

Consistent and reliable results, real boosting, system is much snappier and without microfreezes, stuttering or USB vdroops.
Much more stable and reliable than stock or PBO with EDC=0 for me.
Yes, almost 4-5c degrees more for CPU temp and a bit more power draw but it's worth it.
With Global C states disabled a bit more idle power consumption but the annoying micro freeze when the parked core is resumed is gone.

The memory profile is for the F4-3600C16-16GTZNC; best for my 3800x.
If you have a 3900x or 3950x the profile from @rissie is probably better (https://www.overclock.net/forum/11-...570-aorus-owners-thread-528.html#post28253346).


----------



## RWBY FNDM

I got a weird one for ya. On my 3700X, with a ROG Strix X570-E, my EDC is currently at 11. It boosts up to 4.2. Scores about 4500 on CB20. 

If I set it to 1, or 2, it boosts to 4.3, yet scores 3300. 

It doesn’t like 20 EDC, as it’ll boost to 1.6ghz...so I’ve ruled out (I think) values from 0, up to 12. I’ll try 13 and see what happens.


----------



## Bal3Wolf

that happens sometimes i can get a all core 4400 boost on my 3900 but -perf tanks.


----------



## RWBY FNDM

Bal3Wolf said:


> that happens sometimes i can get a all core 4400 boost on my 3900 but -perf tanks.


Any tips? What am I doing wrong


----------



## Nighthog

RWBY FNDM said:


> Any tips? What am I doing wrong


You cpu/motherboard combo is throttling, you might need to set c-states to disabled to have any proper function with this bug.

You sample is trying to maintain the EDC limit and performance is tanking because of it. It's not boosting the way we want it, it's getting curtailed for whatever reason the board/cpu thinks it's good to keep EDC at your target.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

RWBY FNDM said:


> Any tips? What am I doing wrong


Check with disabled Global C states as suggested.
Share you full PBO settings; including PPT/TDC, boost clock, scalar, thermal throttle, etc
CPU vCore, SOC vCore, LLC, PWM, IF/RAM clocks, etc

Run CB20 ST and MT and take a screenshots from HWInfo with effective clocks displayed right in the middle of each run.

A lower EDC will raise the boost clock but can raise the voltage too high.
If you don't have a hard thermal bottleneck you can try to compensate with a negative vCore offset.


----------



## zbug

One thing I noticed in Ryzen Master on my 3900x, although I have configured:

PPT: 333
TDC: 230
EDC: 12

Ryzen master shows:










wonder why that PPT value is not going to whats configured, probably holding me as well.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

zbug said:


> One thing I noticed in Ryzen Master on my 3900x, although I have configured:
> 
> PPT: 333
> TDC: 230
> EDC: 12
> 
> Ryzen master shows:
> ...
> wonder why that PPT value is not going to whats configured, probably holding me as well.


According to this thread:

https://rog.asus.com/forum/showthread.php?112453-PRIME-X470-PRO-BIOS-5204-amp-PBO-settings-BUG

Could be on your board PPT is properly configured only if set on the AI Tweaker menu.
Give it a try, maybe you have to set it somewhere else or in both...


----------



## alien41

Hello!

My first post here, so i want share my findings:

Ryzen 3900x
32gb DDr4 3600 trident royal z - Ryzen calculator timings 
MB GB Aorus x570 elite (f11 bios)
Noctua nh15 Chromax Black

Bios settings:

PPT = 175
TDC = 117
EDC = 10
Scalar 10x
offset = -0.078
LLC = Auto
Cstates = enabled

CBR20 MT Score = 7504
CPUZ SC = 544.4
CPUZ MT = 8664.9 

with all these modifications I had a clock increase of approximately 100-150 mhz but i'm very afraid of the voltages, which indicators should I be most concerned with? Pls look at my pic and tell me what u guys tink. I took the photo in the middle of the test


----------



## ManniX-ITA

alien41 said:


> Hello!
> 
> My first post here, so i want share my findings:
> 
> Ryzen 3900x
> 32gb DDr4 3600 trident royal z - Ryzen calculator timings
> MB GB Aorus x570 elite (f11 bios)
> Noctua nh15 Chromax Black
> 
> Bios settings:
> 
> PPT = 175
> TDC = 117
> EDC = 10
> Scalar 10x
> offset = -0.078
> LLC = Auto
> Cstates = enabled
> 
> CBR20 MT Score = 7504
> CPUZ SC = 544.4
> CPUZ MT = 8664.9
> 
> with all these modifications I had a clock increase of approximately 100-150 mhz but i'm very afraid of the voltages, which indicators should I be most concerned with? Pls look at my pic and tell me what u guys tink. I took the photo in the middle of the test


Not bad but your ST score in CPU-Z is low and core 9 is downclocking to 3.8 GHz in MT.
Did you try with Global C states disabled?

I'd give a try with a little bit more headroom to PPT and TDC; bit more or less offset; stronger LLC.

Voltages are perfectly normal, there's nothing to be particularly worried.


----------



## zbug

ManniX-ITA said:


> According to this thread:
> 
> https://rog.asus.com/forum/showthread.php?112453-PRIME-X470-PRO-BIOS-5204-amp-PBO-settings-BUG
> 
> Could be on your board PPT is properly configured only if set on the AI Tweaker menu.
> Give it a try, maybe you have to set it somewhere else or in both...


Indeed that was the "bug". Went and applied the exact same settings on both, seems to be doing ok for now, have not seen the cpu boost as high as usual but hwinfo can sometime takes ages to catch the highest boost speed so will see.

In regards to the post above, i never made it above 540 in cpuz SC and aroun 8300 in cpuz MT  .


----------



## ManniX-ITA

zbug said:


> Indeed that was the "bug". Went and applied the exact same settings on both, seems to be doing ok for now, have not seen the cpu boost as high as usual but hwinfo can sometime takes ages to catch the highest boost speed so will see.
> 
> In regards to the post above, i never made it above 540 in cpuz SC and aroun 8300 in cpuz MT  .


Nice :thumb:

I may be wrong but I remember the 3900x being capable more or less the same ST boost as 3800x; between 550-565.


----------



## jamie1073

ManniX-ITA said:


> Nice :thumb:
> 
> I may be wrong but I remember the 3900x being capable more or less the same ST boost as 3800x; between 550-565.



I get 544 with iCue running and 558 if I close it on ST with my 3900x, EDC=16.


----------



## Nighthog

ManniX-ITA said:


> Nice :thumb:
> 
> I may be wrong but I remember the 3900x being capable more or less the same ST boost as 3800x; between 550-565.


Cpu-z is more memory sensitive on the score than Cinebench. I think he can get 550+ if they use 3800/1900 mem/fclk.


----------



## Medizinmann

ManniX-ITA said:


> Nice :thumb:
> 
> I may be wrong but I remember the 3900x being capable more or less the same ST boost as 3800x; between 550-565.





jamie1073 said:


> I get 544 with iCue running and 558 if I close it on ST with my 3900x, EDC=16.





Nighthog said:


> Cpu-z is more memory sensitive on the score than Cinebench. I think he can get 550+ if they use 3800/1900 mem/fclk.



CPU-Z is very sensitive to background processes - if I close everything unnecessary I get 565 for SC and 8754 for MT with EDC=16 that was.


But around 545-554 is realistic with the usual stuff...


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Nighthog said:


> Cpu-z is more memory sensitive on the score than Cinebench. I think he can get 550+ if they use 3800/1900 mem/fclk.





Medizinmann said:


> CPU-Z is very sensitive to background processes - if I close everything unnecessary I get 565 for SC and 8754 for MT with EDC=16 that was.
> 
> 
> But around 545-554 is realistic with the usual stuff...


Right, forgot about IF and background stuff 
I only bench with the USB stick, main install I get 545 too.


----------



## Bal3Wolf

i dont know why but sorta addicted to trying to get a really good pbo overclock but iv run into a set back i noticed my 2nd ccd always runs a much lower boost then first one so thats holding back a decent pbo. I can do 4.4Ghz on 6 cores 4.35Ghz on 3 and 4.3ghz on that last 3 in a ccd overclock.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Bal3Wolf said:


> i dont know why but sorta addicted to trying to get a really good pbo overclock but iv run into a set back i noticed my 2nd ccd always runs a much lower boost then first one so thats holding back a decent pbo. I can do 4.4Ghz on 6 cores 4.35Ghz on 3 and 4.3ghz on that last 3 in a ccd overclock.


Which is the voltage you can keep these speeds?
You should try to match it with an offset and reduce TDC.
Higher LLC can help too to avoid downlocking under load.


----------



## Bal3Wolf

had it on auto no offset i will try a little offset and see. My ccd overclock tops out at 1.28 under the 1.29-1.30 my cpu gives my cpu under stock running prime95 my cpu seems like higher voltages. And i have noticed after switching to effective clocks only one core boosts to 4500 rest stay under 4300 for the most part. Got the all core stable but i dont really boost very high at all on single core a 100mhz more on 1 core is all.


----------



## Bal3Wolf

heres my ccd overclock im using right now.


----------



## zbug

ManniX-ITA said:


> Right, forgot about IF and background stuff
> I only bench with the USB stick, main install I get 545 too.


I'm never ever near such scores. Best i reached was 540 with normal setup minus heaving hungry cpu apps closed down.

But the problem that I came across today while testing is that if I close literally everything, windows decides to drop the cpu speed very low and as soon as I start any task, it goes into throttle bug. Tried to move edc from 12 all the way to 18 but same issue, as soon as I get close to 0/1% cpu usage (with pretty much every app and services possibly closed) i'll get hit by the throttle bug, even with c-states off and using the ultimate performance power plan.

Bright side, I got tdc/ppt to finally be at the right value by setting them in AI tweaker too. But to get to the max boost I could see in hwinfo, had to bump edc from 12 to 13 as it would not boost as high with those settings at 12.. go figure 

So all in all, "works" to get highest single core boosts speed and most of the time i seem to be running almost 4.4 all cores stable (dunno in benchs, think cbr drops me to like 4.18 or so) but I gotta always make sure "something" runs in the background or I go all the way down to 1ghz and its reboot time


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Bal3Wolf said:


> heres my ccd overclock im using right now.


I think you need to use a large negative offset, try -0.05v.
It's probably downclocking due to the temperature.
You have to check the boost clock with CPU-z bench with 1 thread.
Or just use the PC and keep HWInfo open for half a day to see the real boost.



zbug said:


> I'm never ever near such scores. Best i reached was 540 with normal setup minus heaving hungry cpu apps closed down.
> 
> But the problem that I came across today while testing is that if I close literally everything, windows decides to drop the cpu speed very low and as soon as I start any task, it goes into throttle bug. Tried to move edc from 12 all the way to 18 but same issue, as soon as I get close to 0/1% cpu usage (with pretty much every app and services possibly closed) i'll get hit by the throttle bug, even with c-states off and using the ultimate performance power plan.
> 
> Bright side, I got tdc/ppt to finally be at the right value by setting them in AI tweaker too. But to get to the max boost I could see in hwinfo, had to bump edc from 12 to 13 as it would not boost as high with those settings at 12.. go figure
> 
> So all in all, "works" to get highest single core boosts speed and most of the time i seem to be running almost 4.4 all cores stable (dunno in benchs, think cbr drops me to like 4.18 or so) but I gotta always make sure "something" runs in the background or I go all the way down to 1ghz and its reboot time


Weird, it could be the voltage; check different voltage offsets.
Try disable the PCIe Link state power management in the power profile.
The Minimum Processor State should be set to 100% on the Ultimate, check with 0% or 5%.


----------



## Bal3Wolf

i dont think its a heat issue they dont thottle on all load but i used a big negaitve and it didnt do anything really droped all core down and now its under 65c on cb20 sometimes 60c single core just dont like to boost very hight.


----------



## St0RM53

I've re-tested this and here are the results with W10 2004, 3950x, x570 aorus master F11, with 2x16gb e-die @ 1900mhz 1:1:1 Fclk:Uclk:Mclk with custom timings (~66ns aida64 latency, 10000% karhu stable), NH-D15 cooler with ~30oC ambient and noctua paste (i'll put liquid metal next time i disassemble for cleaning, too bored to do now), latest chipset drivers, and program versions, AMD high performance power plan. My windows install is not bench optimized since i have a **** ton of services and background programs running, but these are back to back so they are compatible. 



XFR and PBO enabled, Vcore LLC high, PBO scalar 5x


Normal method: PPT 999 TDC 999(540) EDC 999(600) CB20 9325 @~4.2ghz all core, 71.8oC peak average CCDs temp, 171W SMU peak, 513|173|521 single thread CPU-Z bench
Buildzoid method: PPT 300 TDC 230 EDC 230 CB20 9556 @~4.3ghz all core, 86.8oC peak average CCDs temp, 215W SMU peak, 530|177|533 single thread CPU-Z bench
EDC bug method: PPT 999 TDC 999(540) EDC 20 CB20 9855 @~4.4ghz all core, 90.1oC peak average CCDs temp, 216W SMU peak, 544|182|545 single thread CPU-Z bench


Idle power and temp remains same between all 3 cases.
Ryzen master reports about same average core voltage at idle, however hwinfo shows over 1.45V at idle for buildzoid and EDC bug method however i caught voltages under 1V in minimums. However for example running Firefox with ~50 active tabs keeps average core voltage on Ryzen high (~1.47V) even though frequencies downclock as should since load is low. Voltage at this load might not be harmful but there is no point of being that high when it's not needed for frequency stability. It doesn't seem to be related to one core boosting and therefore vcore must increase, all drop to under 1ghz. If you ask me AMD should just fix their boost algorithm instead.


----------



## Nighthog

@St0RM53

By the cpu-z scores you mean all different three tests for the single core scores?

I tested them all this morning after boot with my settings I got CPU-Z bench: *[552.0|184.6|562.9]* single core

PPT 1000 TDC 1000 EDC 10, scalar 10x, 100C Limit
3800X 3800/1900 4x8GB Micron Rev.E 13.24.17.30 GDM:disabled 1T
Vcore: LCC Turbo, +0.0500V offset
WIN 10 Home 1903

I ask people to be a little discerning my voltage choice. This will use ~1.500V running most things daily.
For example the popular *TM5* memory testing method I get 4.500Ghz all core boost with my settings, effective clock.


----------



## zbug

ManniX-ITA said:


> Weird, it could be the voltage; check different voltage offsets.
> Try disable the PCIe Link state power management in the power profile.
> The Minimum Processor State should be set to 100% on the Ultimate, check with 0% or 5%.


pcie is off
I had set the minimum state to 99% on that profile (similar to 1usmus) is that bad? i'll try 5% like on the balanced one.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

zbug said:


> pcie is off
> I had set the minimum state to 99% on that profile (similar to 1usmus) is that bad? i'll try 5% like on the balanced one.


No should be better 
But since you have this weird issue even with C states off...
If you set it at 99% the AMD stuff will manage the power saving with C states, otherwise Windows will do its stuff.


----------



## Bal3Wolf

i think i must give up on my cpu on pbo it just does not like to boost at all no matter the bios or settings i can hold a near 4.3Ghz all core boost but my single core is not any better then my all overclock setup no cores hit 4.5ghz only one hits 4.4 usualy really wierd.


----------



## zbug

ManniX-ITA said:


> No should be better
> But since you have this weird issue even with C states off...
> If you set it at 99% the AMD stuff will manage the power saving with C states, otherwise Windows will do its stuff.


5% made no difference.

I was installing the new may update 2020 and during the first boot it shows you some screens telling you its doing stuff, since most of your startup items etc are not loaded, bug got triggered, was not fun having an initial boot aftrer an update with a 800mhz processor  took ages.

pretty clueless what to try else at this point beside always ensuring having an app to trigger the cpu :s


----------



## St0RM53

Nighthog said:


> @*St0RM53*
> 
> By the cpu-z scores you mean all different three tests for the single core scores?
> 
> I tested them all this morning after boot with my settings I got CPU-Z bench: *[552.0|184.6|562.9]* single core
> 
> PPT 1000 TDC 1000 EDC 10, scalar 10x, 100C Limit
> 3800X 3800/1900 4x8GB Micron Rev.E 13.24.17.30 GDM:disabled 1T
> Vcore: LCC Turbo, +0.0500V offset
> WIN 10 Home 1903
> 
> I ask people to be a little discerning my voltage choice. This will use ~1.500V running most things daily.
> For example the popular *TM5* memory testing method I get 4.500Ghz all core boost with my settings, effective clock.



Yes i mean the 3 different tests, v17|v19|AVX


----------



## ipwnabs

Hey guys,

Im pretty new to this and ive read allot of things and tbh im not sure if im doing this right so im just throwing this out here:

My setup

3900x
2080 Super Gaming X Trio
Gigabyte x570 Aorus Master
Push/Pull System Nzxt X73
3600 Crucial Balliistix

These are my findings, pretty standard pbo settings with a Vcore -0.0125 offset, PBO 300/230/18 Scalar x10, 1800 1:1:1, LLC both on Auto.
Using 1usmus power plan with all hes settings, and im mainly using this machine for gaming right now.

Can you check my temps and voltages and tell me if its ok and/or where should i try to improve.

Thanks in advance


----------



## VinnieM

I must say this PBO bug is working pretty good on my 3800x. It's boosting about 100MHz higher in games (4475-4500MHz vs 4350-4400MHz).
Highest I've seen is 4600MHz on the best core, but only very briefly.

Regarding the single thread CPU-z benchmark: I've noticed CPU-z always uses CPU 0 for that, so if you're unlucky and have a bad core 0, you may get lower scores than someone else.
My 3800x has core 0 as the worst core, so the best I get is about 544 points. That core struggles to get to 4500.


----------



## zbug

Bit puzzled here.

A week ago, i had my 3900x boost up to 4700mhz without any issues everyday on core 0

Since 2 days ago, it won't get passed 4650mhz, without having touched any settings  . triggers my ocd so much 

Tried all combination of EDC values from 12 to 18 but pretty much no differences (12/13 giving me best results in bench)

Getting higher single core boost clocks with this "bug" is to lower EDC values? So, should i try going into lower values like 10?

Any other suggestion? I really wanna try to get back that 4.7 boost


----------



## Bal3Wolf

temps come into play when boosting has room temp changed or even a dust buildup in your case.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

VinnieM said:


> I must say this PBO bug is working pretty good on my 3800x. It's boosting about 100MHz higher in games (4475-4500MHz vs 4350-4400MHz).
> Highest I've seen is 4600MHz on the best core, but only very briefly.
> 
> Regarding the single thread CPU-z benchmark: I've noticed CPU-z always uses CPU 0 for that, so if you're unlucky and have a bad core 0, you may get lower scores than someone else.
> My 3800x has core 0 as the worst core, so the best I get is about 544 points. That core struggles to get to 4500.


I honestly would get rid of this 3800x as soon as possible.
It's very surprising and shameful the Core 0 is a bad one, this CCD should have been used as 2nd for 3900x/3950x.
Despite CCPC there's always a lot of load that will be forced on Core 0.



zbug said:


> Bit puzzled here.
> 
> A week ago, i had my 3900x boost up to 4700mhz without any issues everyday on core 0
> 
> Since 2 days ago, it won't get passed 4650mhz, without having touched any settings  . triggers my ocd so much
> 
> Tried all combination of EDC values from 12 to 18 but pretty much no differences (12/13 giving me best results in bench)
> 
> Getting higher single core boost clocks with this "bug" is to lower EDC values? So, should i try going into lower values like 10?
> 
> Any other suggestion? I really wanna try to get back that 4.7 boost


It's very likely ambient temperature.
You can get better boosting lowering EDC but on a 3900x it's extremely hard to make it work below 10 from what I've seen.
Try with a negative CPU vCore offset, raise LLC at the same time if you get lower performances or downclocking.
You need to gain some temp degrees; check if you can make it work with lower VDDP/VDDG/SOC voltage.


----------



## zbug

ManniX-ITA said:


> I honestly would get rid of this 3800x as soon as possible.
> It's very surprising and shameful the Core 0 is a bad one, this CCD should have been used as 2nd for 3900x/3950x.
> Despite CCPC there's always a lot of load that will be forced on Core 0.
> 
> 
> 
> It's very likely ambient temperature.
> You can get better boosting lowering EDC but on a 3900x it's extremely hard to make it work below 10 from what I've seen.
> Try with a negative CPU vCore offset, raise LLC at the same time if you get lower performances or downclocking.
> You need to gain some temp degrees; check if you can make it work with lower VDDP/VDDG/SOC voltage.


Very weird, temp has not moved since weekend (been lower actually ) .

I'll give a try at lowering the vcore and just leave edc at 13 which gives me the best results in bench for now.

What would be a good offset to start with you reckon?


----------



## ManniX-ITA

zbug said:


> Very weird, temp has not moved since weekend (been lower actually ) .
> 
> I'll give a try at lowering the vcore and just leave edc at 13 which gives me the best results in bench for now.
> 
> What would be a good offset to start with you reckon?


Well 50 MHz difference is almost nothing, could be even a different behavior; like keeping a window half open or not.
Could be also temperature is not the root cause.
If the settings are not perfect the behavior and stability can change radically in a matter of hours up to 2 weeks.

If you don't use an offset already start testing with the lowest negative and then raise it.
Try to find the biggest negative offset you can keep without impacting clocks/performances.
Once you find it raise it a notch and see how it goes.
Lower voltage and temperature will help the boost behavior; will boost higher and longer.
Test again if you can lower EDC at this point.


----------



## zbug

ManniX-ITA said:


> Well 50 MHz difference is almost nothing, could be even a different behavior; like keeping a window half open or not.
> Could be also temperature is not the root cause.
> If the settings are not perfect the behavior and stability can change radically in a matter of hours up to 2 weeks.
> 
> If you don't use an offset already start testing with the lowest negative and then raise it.
> Try to find the biggest negative offset you can keep without impacting clocks/performances.
> Once you find it raise it a notch and see how it goes.
> Lower voltage and temperature will help the boost behavior; will boost higher and longer.
> Test again if you can lower EDC at this point.


Would a higher configured PPT (was stuck at 142 before in auto and now at 300) potentially have anything to do with that?

Well, i've tried all sort of combinations (based on suggestions and my I reckon limited knowledge to this more advanced stuff) and offsets, llc values, and any other options i found in tweaking menus.
None of them made any differences to my boosting speeds (some made it worse) or thermals really (maybe 1/2c at best) 

Very weird. With my current settings, I would start this boosttester.exe app, and instantly get core 0 at 4700mhz, not it wont go above 4650. I'll keep trying in and there but :thumbsdow


----------



## St0RM53

New Chipset Update 2.04.28.626. Can anyone test for any changes? No actual change log again from AMD..


----------



## MyUsername

zbug said:


> Bit puzzled here.
> 
> A week ago, i had my 3900x boost up to 4700mhz without any issues everyday on core 0
> 
> Since 2 days ago, it won't get passed 4650mhz, without having touched any settings  . triggers my ocd so much
> 
> Tried all combination of EDC values from 12 to 18 but pretty much no differences (12/13 giving me best results in bench)
> 
> Getting higher single core boost clocks with this "bug" is to lower EDC values? So, should i try going into lower values like 10?
> 
> Any other suggestion? I really wanna try to get back that 4.7 boost


The thing is when hwinfo is reporting 4700, it's not actually 4.7GHz it's just a nice number. A few months ago during winter I was getting 4.7 on core 1 and 3, 2 and 4 where at 4650 with the other 2 at 4625. I tested this against another config with core 1 and 3 at 4650 and it was the same, literally. Overclock the bclk and you'll get true 4.7GHz, that's if your chipset doesn't get too wobbly.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

zbug said:


> Would a higher configured PPT (was stuck at 142 before in auto and now at 300) potentially have anything to do with that?
> 
> Well, i've tried all sort of combinations (based on suggestions and my I reckon limited knowledge to this more advanced stuff) and offsets, llc values, and any other options i found in tweaking menus.
> None of them made any differences to my boosting speeds (some made it worse) or thermals really (maybe 1/2c at best)
> 
> Very weird. With my current settings, I would start this boosttester.exe app, and instantly get core 0 at 4700mhz, not it wont go above 4650. I'll keep trying in and there but :thumbsdow


Yes PPT can have an effect, if you suspect it could be linked try to revert to Auto or set manually 142.
I get the highest boost only with a very specific TDC/PPT combination, lower or higher is worse.



St0RM53 said:


> New Chipset Update 2.04.28.626. Can anyone test for any changes? No actual change log again from AMD..


There are release notes:
https://www.amd.com/en/support/kb/release-notes/rn-ryzen-chipset-2-04-28-626

I really hope they are missing something cause there's nothing new there...

*Release Highlights*

Installer displays more descriptive messages in case of errors and installation failures
*Fixed Issues*

Driver uninstall fails if the Windows user accounts for install and uninstall are different
Resolved condition where GPIO driver may not upgrade from previous chipset driver version



MyUsername said:


> The thing is when hwinfo is reporting 4700, it's not actually 4.7GHz it's just a nice number. A few months ago during winter I was getting 4.7 on core 1 and 3, 2 and 4 where at 4650 with the other 2 at 4625. I tested this against another config with core 1 and 3 at 4650 and it was the same, literally. Overclock the bclk and you'll get true 4.7GHz, that's if your chipset doesn't get too wobbly.


It's not a nice number is actually the clock.
Problem is with Ryzen it doesn't mean much...
You have to check that the perf clock under 100% gets closer if not same as the ref clock.
Even if it does, doesn't mean it's going full speed.
If you see a gap in clocks or performances, then the settings are not ideal.


----------



## Andi64

I just wanted to share my results. I'm trying to get a conservative OC, just like how PBO is supposed to work.

3800X on Gigabyte Aorus Pro Wifi with UEFI 12a.

PPT: 300
TDC: 300
EDC: 10
Scalar: Auto
CnQ Enabled
C states Enabled
LLC Auto
Auto OC: +200Mhz

No throttling issues.

Beforce max single core 4550Mhz 1.488-1.494v
After max single core 4675Mhz 1.494v-1.50v
Before max multi core CB20: 4225-4250Mhz 1.32v
After max multi core CB20: 4325-4375Mhz 1.33-1.35v (67.5°C)


----------



## MyUsername

ManniX-ITA said:


> It's not a nice number is actually the clock.
> Problem is with Ryzen it doesn't mean much...
> You have to check that the perf clock under 100% gets closer if not same as the ref clock.
> Even if it does, doesn't mean it's going full speed.
> If you see a gap in clocks or performances, then the settings are not ideal.


Not quite. I can't remember what the actual effective clock was, but it was just enough for it round it up to 4.7GHz. From what I saw, it just seems like the bugs unstable flicker and skewed the perf clock to that speed when you get absolutely zero benefit. I'm not saying the bug has no benefit, just don't expect the unexpected when the cpu boost max is 4650MHz.

You can't get your perf clock near ref with the bug, it either is or isn't and it's too inconsistent and no amount of micro tweaking is going to solve that. On the whole you may get 10% boost from PBO stock and I do see through afterburner some cores manage to reach 4.6GHz when gaming if I'm lucky, but usually it's hovering 4.3-4.5GHz which is slightly up from stock. I've just ironed out some kinks in the memory that it was giving me with 12g bios, this is what I get now. Running max speed 1900/3800 cl16 1.42v and the settings are ideal.

Ryzen master reports ccd2 is closer to the actual reported speed, ccd1 is not far from normal operation at stock settings. 4.7GHz is unrealistic for a 3900x but somehow 2 cores have reached it...

4617<--supposed to be 4650MHz
4598<--4600 stock
4617<--4625 stock
4594<--4600 stock
4562<--4575 stock
4562<--4575 stock
4469<--That's closer to 4475MHz
4465<--4450 stock
4399
4399
4423
4434


----------



## Bal3Wolf

my 3900x can hit 4700 with the pbo bug on perf but not effective.


----------



## Tweedilderp

Bal3Wolf said:


> my 3900x can hit 4700 with the pbo bug on perf but not effective.


Mine won't even hit that, max of 4550mhz, how are you reaching those speeds? I am on the Aorus Xtreme with 1300, 500 and 1 for EDC with c-states off to stop throttling in certain games.

What are your settings may I ask?


----------



## Tweedilderp

MyUsername said:


> Not quite. I can't remember what the actual effective clock was, but it was just enough for it round it up to 4.7GHz. From what I saw, it just seems like the bugs unstable flicker and skewed the perf clock to that speed when you get absolutely zero benefit. I'm not saying the bug has no benefit, just don't expect the unexpected when the cpu boost max is 4650MHz.
> 
> You can't get your perf clock near ref with the bug, it either is or isn't and it's too inconsistent and no amount of micro tweaking is going to solve that. On the whole you may get 10% boost from PBO stock and I do see through afterburner some cores manage to reach 4.6GHz when gaming if I'm lucky, but usually it's hovering 4.3-4.5GHz which is slightly up from stock. I've just ironed out some kinks in the memory that it was giving me with 12g bios, this is what I get now. Running max speed 1900/3800 cl16 1.42v and the settings are ideal.
> 
> Ryzen master reports ccd2 is closer to the actual reported speed, ccd1 is not far from normal operation at stock settings. 4.7GHz is unrealistic for a 3900x but somehow 2 cores have reached it...
> 
> 4617<--supposed to be 4650MHz
> 4598<--4600 stock
> 4617<--4625 stock
> 4594<--4600 stock
> 4562<--4575 stock
> 4562<--4575 stock
> 4469<--That's closer to 4475MHz
> 4465<--4450 stock
> 4399
> 4399
> 4423
> 4434


What settings are you using ? I am on an Aorus Xtreme with a 3900x @ 1300, 500, 1 and the max I get is 4550 with ST and 4250 MT but that is "actual" 4416 ST and 4100 MT. 

C-state disabled
CnQ Enabled
Memory also 1900/3800 CL16 @ 1.42v (yay RAM stability)
BIOS F12f
Vcore Normal with negative offset (-.025v)
Highest I can get is what I posted, MT drops down if I change EDC from 1 to 16 or 18 and ST drops slightly as well.

Wish I could find my "zen" settings...har har....


----------



## Bal3Wolf

Tweedilderp said:


> Mine won't even hit that, max of 4550mhz, how are you reaching those speeds? I am on the Aorus Xtreme with 1300, 500 and 1 for EDC with c-states off to stop throttling in certain games.
> 
> What are your settings may I ask?


300 230 18 with a negative offset of -.050 and llc on 3 and scaler 10 on my board i get almost same score on cb20 as i do with a all manual oc of 4.3ghz now been toying with see which i really wannna use im on a asus x570 gaming -e. C states are on i don't see much of a change with them off or on with my board.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

MyUsername said:


> Not quite. I can't remember what the actual effective clock was, but it was just enough for it round it up to 4.7GHz. From what I saw, it just seems like the bugs unstable flicker and skewed the perf clock to that speed when you get absolutely zero benefit. I'm not saying the bug has no benefit, just don't expect the unexpected when the cpu boost max is 4650MHz.
> 
> You can't get your perf clock near ref with the bug, it either is or isn't and it's too inconsistent and no amount of micro tweaking is going to solve that. On the whole you may get 10% boost from PBO stock and I do see through afterburner some cores manage to reach 4.6GHz when gaming if I'm lucky, but usually it's hovering 4.3-4.5GHz which is slightly up from stock. I've just ironed out some kinks in the memory that it was giving me with 12g bios, this is what I get now. Running max speed 1900/3800 cl16 1.42v and the settings are ideal.
> 
> Ryzen master reports ccd2 is closer to the actual reported speed, ccd1 is not far from normal operation at stock settings. 4.7GHz is unrealistic for a 3900x but somehow 2 cores have reached it...
> 
> 4617<--supposed to be 4650MHz
> 4598<--4600 stock
> 4617<--4625 stock
> 4594<--4600 stock
> 4562<--4575 stock
> 4562<--4575 stock
> 4469<--That's closer to 4475MHz
> 4465<--4450 stock
> 4399
> 4399
> 4423
> 4434


Sorry maybe I wasn't clear; the effective clock should stay close to perf clock.

I use CPU-z stress test to verify; there must be a clear and smooth curve going down adding threads.

My max boost is MP 45.3 to 46.5, on all cores.
Of course the 4650 MHz duration is infinitesimal.
But under continuous load you should get something like this:









1 thread: Perf 4525 MHz and effective 4500 Mhz
2 threads: Perf 4475 MHz and effective 4475 Mhz
4 threads: Perf 4450 MHz and effective 4450 Mhz
6 threads: Perf 4400 MHz and effective 4400 Mhz
8 threads: Perf 4375 MHz and effective 4366 Mhz
10 threads: Perf 4375 MHz and effective 4350 Mhz
16 threads: Perf 4300 MHz and effective 4300 Mhz

This is much better than normal PBO and it does reflect in real world performances heavily, not just benchmarks.


----------



## rastaviper

What's the best CB20 score that you have seen by using the bug on a 3600/x cpu?

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


----------



## zbug

ManniX-ITA said:


> Yes PPT can have an effect, if you suspect it could be linked try to revert to Auto or set manually 142.
> I get the highest boost only with a very specific TDC/PPT combination, lower or higher is worse.


That was the golden sentence!

Looks like my board is getting close to its limit (expected tbh) so as you, I have to really be specific in my settings to get the best bench/clocks results. After I don't know how many hours I managed:

4700 on core 0 & 3.

cpuz ST: 556
cpuz MT: 8578
cbr20: 7412

average voltage is 1.465 from what the average hwinfo is saying. highest recorded was 1.495v

Temps wise, stays at 70/71°C and 1.1v under prime95 small ffts (default settings on app opening) after 30mins+ running . Sure at that point cpu clocked down to 3950/4000mhz but eh 

pretty happy so far finally.

Next step would likely to try and give that baby some negative offset to see if I can drop some temps without losing those scores/speeds. Might help with summer around the corner


----------



## ManniX-ITA

zbug said:


> That was the golden sentence!
> 
> Looks like my board is getting close to its limit (expected tbh) so as you, I have to really be specific in my settings to get the best bench/clocks results. After I don't know how many hours I managed:
> 
> 4700 on core 0 & 3.
> 
> cpuz ST: 556
> cpuz MT: 8578
> cbr20: 7412
> 
> average voltage is 1.465 from what the average hwinfo is saying. highest recorded was 1.495v
> 
> Temps wise, stays at 70/71°C and 1.1v under prime95 small ffts (default settings on app opening) after 30mins+ running . Sure at that point cpu clocked down to 3950/4000mhz but eh
> 
> pretty happy so far finally.
> 
> Next step would likely to try and give that baby some negative offset to see if I can drop some temps without losing those scores/speeds. Might help with summer around the corner


Nice result! :thumb:
I've spent literally weeks to get where I'm now so don't be shy...
Yes it's a good idea to hunt for a negative offset at this point; when you are at the point where boosting/clocks decrease give a try to a higher LLC.
Very often is detrimental but if you are in a good spot like mine up to High doesn't hurt performances.


----------



## VinnieM

ManniX-ITA said:


> I honestly would get rid of this 3800x as soon as possible.
> It's very surprising and shameful the Core 0 is a bad one, this CCD should have been used as 2nd for 3900x/3950x.
> Despite CCPC there's always a lot of load that will be forced on Core 0.


Yeah, I noticed that too. Although some single-thread programs (SuperPI) like to run on the best core of CCX 0 (core 1 of my CPU).
Games seem to use core 0, but the best core as well, although strangely the second thread (T1) instead of the first.
You can see in this screenshot of HWiNFO that the core distribution is probably not the best.


----------



## Bal3Wolf

ManniX-ITA said:


> Nice result! :thumb:
> I've spent literally weeks to get where I'm now so don't be shy...
> Yes it's a good idea to hunt for a negative offset at this point; when you are at the point where boosting/clocks decrease give a try to a higher LLC.
> Very often is detrimental but if you are in a good spot like mine up to High doesn't hurt performances.



lol yea i get that a manual oc is so much easier and less gray hairs my cpu is so wierd my perf and eff clocks are always way off on single threaded and my chip/board likes to send tons of volts to the chip im running a -.05 offset and still sends 1.30 to the cpu under prime 95 small fft. Not to mention i taken my block off 20 times trying to stay under 70c on everything but prime 95 i managed to get ccd1 or 2 under 75c on prime95 but the other one would be super hot lol.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Bal3Wolf said:


> lol yea i get that a manual oc is so much easier and less gray hairs my cpu is so wierd my perf and eff clocks are always way off on single threaded and my chip/board likes to send tons of volts to the chip im running a -.05 offset and still sends 1.30 to the cpu under prime 95 small fft. Not to mention i taken my block off 20 times trying to stay under 70c on everything but prime 95 i managed to get ccd1 or 2 under 75c on prime95 but the other one would be super hot lol.


Well, it's probably not the best binning but if it can take the voltage and still process error free at that temp you're fine.
I'd not run prime95 too extensively with this config...
If you are worried about temps with high core count usage you can limit reducing the TDC value.


----------



## Bal3Wolf

yea im not letting p95 run but a few secs don't like it at all with pbo my chip wont down volt under 1.3 unless i do a -100+. I think i might be safer with my chip to do a 1.23-1.26 volt all core clock of 4300.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

That's why I always recommend to avoid crazy high PPT/TDC with PBO.
If you stay 70/80% on CB20 MT you are probably ending in the right spot with Prime95 or any other high core count AVX load.
It's never helping to leave them open unless you have an absurdly oversize or sub-ambient cooling system.

I can run P95 Small FFTs at around 1.265v with 80c temp, it's the limit where I feel comfortable but anyhow I don't run it for stability stress testing.
Either the temperature barrier or the PPT/TDC which are at 99% will keep the overall in a safe spot.
Clocks will go down to 4150 MHz with the one really unlucky core down to 3900 MHz:


----------



## Bal3Wolf

yea at 4.3ghz on 1.26 prime 95 smallfft 128k hits 78-80c i really thought my loop would cool this cpu better a 420mm and 360mm kept my old 6800k at 60c tops even pushing 1.35 vcore thru it i do keep my fans fairly low tho they only ramp up over 65c. I have remounted the block about 15 times tonight and managed to get ccd 1 or 2 under 75c on prime95 smallfft even had it under 70c one time but cant get it perfect for both chiplets.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

I've never found a decent review of the Velocity Strike block but I have the feeling the fins plate is too small for the Ryzen 3000.
Maybe you should think testing Roman's OC custom brackets:

https://www.caseking.de/en/der8auer-ryzen-3000-oc-bracket-custom-mount-fsd8-034.html

This huge difference between the two CCDs can probably be mitigated with a better block alignment.


----------



## Bal3Wolf

maybe will have to keep testing, just got a new bios for my board so gonna test it see if pbo is any differnt.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Failed to mention another possible reason for a sudden lower max boost: software.
My benching Windows installation on the USB stick can boost 50 MHz more than the main installation.
The software part has an impact so a lower boost could be also due to a recent installation/upgrade.


----------



## Tweedilderp

Found a 40 point difference (timespy) between using CnQ enabled/disabled with a 3900X on the X570 Aorus Xtreme with the following settings:

C-states disabled
PBO- 1300, 500, 18
Vcore: Normal -.0250 Offset
G.Skill FlareX @ 3800 16-16-17-16-32 @ 3800Mhz.

CB R20 MT 7512 ST 525-529 with all background apps killed, CnQ has no affect.

CPU-Z 554 ST (540 without apps killed in background).


----------



## rastaviper

rastaviper said:


> What's the best CB20 score that you have seen by using the bug on a 3600/x cpu?
> 
> Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


Any comments about this?

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


----------



## zbug

I'm likely doing it wrong but I have been trying to drop an voltage offset on cpu as suggested but it does not appear to be doing anything really (beside lowering my single core boost speed xD). Could be doing it in the wrong place.

On my asus board, under AI TWEAKER there is a section called "VDCR vpu voltage" which is by default set to AUTO and value shows 1.100v
I changed that to offset mode, chose - and in the field typeed 0.05 (seems to be a good suggested value for 3900x)

Rebooted and ran some benchs etc but hwinfo still reports the same average and "maximum" as with automatic. Is that expected?


----------



## ManniX-ITA

zbug said:


> I'm likely doing it wrong but I have been trying to drop an voltage offset on cpu as suggested but it does not appear to be doing anything really (beside lowering my single core boost speed xD). Could be doing it in the wrong place.
> 
> On my asus board, under AI TWEAKER there is a section called "VDCR vpu voltage" which is by default set to AUTO and value shows 1.100v
> I changed that to offset mode, chose - and in the field typeed 0.05 (seems to be a good suggested value for 3900x)
> 
> Rebooted and ran some benchs etc but hwinfo still reports the same average and "maximum" as with automatic. Is that expected?


I think that's the right setting.
You should take a specific reference, like in the middle of a CB20 run SC & MC.
Depends on your processor which offset is best; you should try all the way from -0.05 to +0.05 and see where it performs best while keeping a decent temperature.
Lower is usually better; I'd suggest you test with max TDC/PPT and scalar 1, boost clock at 0 MHz.


----------



## Yuke

The thought of changing my CPU in a year or so to a refreshed Zen3 is already giving me a headache when reading all the comments here.

My 3800x was one of the worst SKU i had so far in my life...it needed 1.46V to run an all core 4.4Ghz overclock (yes you read this right)...and yet, when this EDC thing happened, i just had to set it to 0/0/1 and put an positive offset value (two notches up) to boost gaming performance AND single/multi threaded benchmarks....it would also work without setting an offset value but i got another +50Mhz on all the cores by setting it higher...

So weird that it works so good with an absolute trashpile of a SKU...and best thing is that it seems that all safety procedures are still in place (max 1.5V boost voltages, downclocking with higher loads/temps, etc)

This EDC thing was probably the best find in the history of overclocking...i was regretting going AMD after all the starting problems, not gonna lie...the boosting problems at release + a really bad SKU? Like it was a nightmare....but now its pretty awesome when i see it boost to 4.6Ghz in gaming and run at 4.35Ghz in CB20 ... on top of the IPC gains Zen2 got.

Here is hoping that the 4950XT will be as easy to fix too...


----------



## zbug

ManniX-ITA said:


> I think that's the right setting.
> You should take a specific reference, like in the middle of a CB20 run SC & MC.
> Depends on your processor which offset is best; you should try all the way from -0.05 to +0.05 and see where it performs best while keeping a decent temperature.
> Lower is usually better; I'd suggest you test with max TDC/PPT and scalar 1, boost clock at 0 MHz.


Thanks, i'll give that a try. Temp were identical so will see if I get any differences and can get my speed boost back else I might as well keep my current settings ^^


----------



## zbug

Well, tried all sorts of combinations I could think off but none of them gets me better results (maybe within 10/20 cpuz MT so negligeable) scores. temps/voltage stays the same but lose 25mhz so eh. I'll stick with my currents, think my temps/voltage is still within proper margin anyway.

Anyone has been able to get a 3900x to boost passed 4700mhz?


----------



## RWBY FNDM

ManniX-ITA said:


> RWBY FNDM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any tips? What am I doing wrong
> 
> 
> 
> Check with disabled Global C states as suggested.
> Share you full PBO settings; including PPT/TDC, boost clock, scalar, thermal throttle, etc
> CPU vCore, SOC vCore, LLC, PWM, IF/RAM clocks, etc
> 
> Run CB20 ST and MT and take a screenshots from HWInfo with effective clocks displayed right in the middle of each run.
> 
> A lower EDC will raise the boost clock but can raise the voltage too high.
> If you don't have a hard thermal bottleneck you can try to compensate with a negative vCore offset.
Click to expand...

300/300/230 are my power limits. Fixed 1.325V. 20x scale. C states enabled. Thermal throttle is default. 

I’ve messed with EDC and Scalar and LLC. Everything is worse


----------



## ManniX-ITA

RWBY FNDM said:


> 300/300/230 are my power limits. Fixed 1.325V. 20x scale. C states enabled. Thermal throttle is default.
> 
> I’ve messed with EDC and Scalar and LLC. Everything is worse


Scaler at 20 I've never seen it, should be max at 10.
I'd set the thermal throttle at 200 and C states disabled.

Don't know which board you have but on my AORUS Master a fixed voltage with PBO doesn't do any good.
Use an an offset for the CPU vCore; try to find the best looking for the highest boost clock and CPU-z ST score.
Set scalar at 1 and boost clock at 0 MHz.
Start with EDC=1 and test offset from -0.05v to +0.05v.
Repeat for EDC=2 and up.
You should get a good picture, pick the lowest EDC and offset where you have the best result.
Now raise scalar up to 10 and boost clock to max, 200 or more
If the boost clock goes down instead of up lower the offset or the scalar, better the offset.

I did all this with almost everything in Auto, could not work for you.
You need to have already a good working memory profile and VDDP/VDDG/SOC voltage.
If the performances and bench results are wiggling too much or you see instability like stuttering, microfreezes, usb vdroops, then test higher CPU/SOC LLC settings.
Didn't see many having success with 3600x/3700x though.


----------



## Martin778

Works like a charm, wow. EDC 30, other limits at 450W, x10 scalar and windows power plan set to ultimate performance. It kicks the CPU's butt hard though, hitting 340W in Aida64 test and even the TR4 360mm with 6x NF12x25 barely keeps it under 86*C.

Standard PBO vs 'broken' one:









Single core does throttle randomly, with x1 scalar it was going up from 500 to 515 but with x10 it drops to 474. With *EDC=35 and x10* it's at 507



Spoiler














EDC=40:


Spoiler


----------



## RWBY FNDM

ManniX-ITA said:


> RWBY FNDM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 300/300/230 are my power limits. Fixed 1.325V. 20x scale. C states enabled. Thermal throttle is default.
> 
> Iâ€™️ve messed with EDC and Scalar and LLC. Everything is worse
> 
> 
> 
> Scaler at 20 I've never seen it, should be max at 10.
> I'd set the thermal throttle at 200 and C states disabled.
> 
> Don't know which board you have but on my AORUS Master a fixed voltage with PBO doesn't do any good.
> Use an an offset for the CPU vCore; try to find the best looking for the highest boost clock and CPU-z ST score.
> Set scalar at 1 and boost clock at 0 MHz.
> Start with EDC=1 and test offset from -0.05v to +0.05v.
> Repeat for EDC=2 and up.
> You should get a good picture, pick the lowest EDC and offset where you have the best result.
> Now raise scalar up to 10 and boost clock to max, 200 or more
> If the boost clock goes down instead of up lower the offset or the scalar, better the offset.
> 
> I did all this with almost everything in Auto, could not work for you.
> You need to have already a good working memory profile and VDDP/VDDG/SOC voltage.
> If the performances and bench results are wiggling too much or you see instability like stuttering, microfreezes, usb vdroops, then test higher CPU/SOC LLC settings.
> Didn't see many having success with 3600x/3700x though.
Click to expand...

Yeah I can’t figure it out. EDC refuses to function at 3


----------



## RWBY FNDM

And why are there 2 PBO menus? Which one am I even adjusting?


----------



## ManniX-ITA

RWBY FNDM said:


> And why are there 2 PBO menus? Which one am I even adjusting?


What mainboard you have?
On the AORUS the AMD CBS\XFR menu doesn't have all the options.
I leave it Auto there and use the AMD Overclocking menu.


----------



## RWBY FNDM

ManniX-ITA said:


> RWBY FNDM said:
> 
> 
> 
> And why are there 2 PBO menus? Which one am I even adjusting?
> 
> 
> 
> What mainboard you have?
> On the AORUS the AMD CBS\XFR menu doesn't have all the options.
> I leave it Auto there and use the AMD Overclocking menu.
Click to expand...

ROG Strix X570-E


----------



## ManniX-ITA

RWBY FNDM said:


> ROG Strix X570-E


Not sure, probably better in AI Tweaker.


----------



## RWBY FNDM

ManniX-ITA said:


> RWBY FNDM said:
> 
> 
> 
> ROG Strix X570-E
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure, probably better in AI Tweaker.
Click to expand...

I have one in AMD Overclocking, and one in AI Tweaker. Should they be mirrored?


----------



## ManniX-ITA

RWBY FNDM said:


> I have one in AMD Overclocking, and one in AI Tweaker. Should they be mirrored?


Usually not necessary, mirroring it's annoying and you could forget to update a setting in both places.
Find it out if AI Tweaker can set all thing properly with AMD CBS in Auto.
Some ASUS boards have issues and if you set PPT/TDC/EDC in one menu it's not applied; don't recall exactly, it's here in this thread.


----------



## zbug

Based on my Asus Prime X470, PPT is the only one that is not applied in the AMD overclocking. The way I do it (which works so far) is to set pbo settings manual in AI tweaker for PPT/TDC/EDC then leave rest to AUTO. Then in AMD overclocking, set the same values for PPT/TDC/EDC and configure the rest there.


----------



## RWBY FNDM

ManniX-ITA said:


> RWBY FNDM said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have one in AMD Overclocking, and one in AI Tweaker. Should they be mirrored?
> 
> 
> 
> Usually not necessary, mirroring it's annoying and you could forget to update a setting in both places.
> Find it out if AI Tweaker can set all thing properly with AMD CBS in Auto.
> Some ASUS boards have issues and if you set PPT/TDC/EDC in one menu it's not applied; don't recall exactly, it's here in this thread.
Click to expand...

Oh I know about issues. My bios is buggy as hell


----------



## ManniX-ITA

RWBY FNDM said:


> Oh I know about issues. My bios is buggy as hell


I'd do as suggested di zbug.


----------



## RWBY FNDM

ManniX-ITA said:


> RWBY FNDM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh I know about issues. My bios is buggy as hell
> 
> 
> 
> I'd do as suggested di zbug.
Click to expand...

Danke.


----------



## Yuke

Nighthog said:


> @St0RM53
> 
> By the cpu-z scores you mean all different three tests for the single core scores?
> 
> I tested them all this morning after boot with my settings I got CPU-Z bench: *[552.0|184.6|562.9]* single core
> 
> PPT 1000 TDC 1000 EDC 10, scalar 10x, 100C Limit
> 3800X 3800/1900 4x8GB Micron Rev.E 13.24.17.30 GDM:disabled 1T
> Vcore: LCC Turbo, +0.0500V offset
> WIN 10 Home 1903
> 
> I ask people to be a little discerning my voltage choice. This will use ~1.500V running most things daily.
> For example the popular *TM5* memory testing method I get 4.500Ghz all core boost with my settings, effective clock.


wow, what are your voltages in a CB20 multi run with that LLC?


----------



## Nighthog

Yuke said:


> wow, what are your voltages in a CB20 multi run with that LLC?


Can't test right now as I'm on a different memory OC & kit but I think it was above 1.400V+ for that. 
Voltage overkill. But Cinebench doesn't need the voltage though, it's more about temperature for that bench so it's counter to what you want if you are after scores there.

It was using ~1.450V minimum running AVX2 Prime95 384K-768K etc...


----------



## ManniX-ITA

I have very nice single core CPU-z scores with my config: [559.5|187|567.9]


----------



## weleh

Hey guys, I've been using the EDC bug with some success on my 3600x (Gaming Pro Carbon AC B450 board) and I was wondering about something.

Here's my settings.

EDC bug settings:

C-States disabled
vCore: Auto
LLC: Auto


PPT: doesn't matter as long as you don't set a low value (tested 180 to 300)
TDC: doesn't matter as long as you don't set a low value (tested 140 to 230)
EDC: 3 or 4. Tested 5 and 6 and both cause ST performance thorttle due to EDC dropping below the 5A limit.
Scallar: x5 (tested all ranges, no difference).

CPU:Z ST-540-545 and MT:4250 to 4300+ which is a gigantic boost over stock figures (520 ST and 4100-4200 MT)
CB20: ST - 509 to 519 and MT - 3850 to 3950. (500 to 3800 stock).

So I run 1866 fCLK and 3733 mCLK. 

I found out that I can boot at 1900 fCLK if I use LN2 mode on my board. After adjusting VDDG voltages and SOC voltage I managed to stabilize 1900 fCLK without WHEA errors and sound crackle. Using 1.04 VDDG CCD, auto VDDG IOD(no idea since I can't measure this and run unsynced from CCD) and auto VDDP (1.1V).

My 3800 mCLK is hours stable into Kahru and my fCLK is hours stable into RandomX.

Now the problem is, LN2 mode seems to prevent EDC bug from working. I get stock performance on CB and CPU-Z no matter what I do in the bios. Has anyone tested this? Any tips? I've disabled AMD CNQ as well but it doesn't seem to help.

EDIT:

It's very strange, benchmark performance remains stock but by manually loading each core, I get the same behaviour as if the EDC bug was active.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

weleh said:


> Hey guys, I've been using the EDC bug with some success on my 3600x (Gaming Pro Carbon AC B450 board) and I was wondering about something.
> 
> Here's my settings.
> 
> EDC bug settings:
> 
> C-States disabled
> vCore: Auto
> LLC: Auto
> 
> 
> PPT: doesn't matter as long as you don't set a low value (tested 180 to 300)
> TDC: doesn't matter as long as you don't set a low value (tested 140 to 230)
> EDC: 3 or 4. Tested 5 and 6 and both cause ST performance thorttle due to EDC dropping below the 5A limit.
> Scallar: x5 (tested all ranges, no difference).
> 
> CPU:Z ST-540-545 and MT:4250 to 4300+ which is a gigantic boost over stock figures (520 ST and 4100-4200 MT)
> CB20: ST - 509 to 519 and MT - 3850 to 3950. (500 to 3800 stock).
> 
> So I run 1866 fCLK and 3733 mCLK.
> 
> I found out that I can boot at 1900 fCLK if I use LN2 mode on my board. After adjusting VDDG voltages and SOC voltage I managed to stabilize 1900 fCLK without WHEA errors and sound crackle. Using 1.04 VDDG CCD, auto VDDG IOD(no idea since I can't measure this and run unsynced from CCD) and auto VDDP (1.1V).
> 
> My 3800 mCLK is hours stable into Kahru and my fCLK is hours stable into RandomX.
> 
> Now the problem is, LN2 mode seems to prevent EDC bug from working. I get stock performance on CB and CPU-Z no matter what I do in the bios. Has anyone tested this? Any tips? I've disabled AMD CNQ as well but it doesn't seem to help.


 @rastaviper could be interested in your testing.

May I ask how did you end up with 1.04 VDDG?
In theory it should be better to keep a 50mV or 75mV span.
VDDP at 1100 seems pretty high.

The LN2 setting is not disabling the EDC bug for me; I have stability issues if enabled.
It's probably a specific issue with your board or with B450.


----------



## weleh

My AUTO VDDG and VDDP were 1V and 1.1V at 1866fCLK. Seems to be a normal behaviour with some boards to just yeet voltages to keep things in check. I never tested below these voltages because things just worked straight out of the box.

Now, when I found out about the LN2 Mode possibly enabling 1 tick higher fCLK, I decided to test it. I left everything else at stock and just enabled LN2 mode and 1900 fCLK and got an instant boot. 

However, in Windows, I found out that I was having sound crackles so I kept messing with VDDG voltages (synced) and left VDDP on auto (1.1V).
After a while I found out that 1.15V SoC, 1.04 VDDG CDD/IOD and 1.1VDDP worked without sound crackles and was apparently stable, but running HWinfo64 I saw WHEA CPU BUS/INTERCONNECT ERRORS once in a while.

Today I decided to look into it again...

From my testing, below 1.04 VDDG caused crackles and higher than 1.05V caused hangs/hard reboots and errors, I randomly decided to unlink CCD and IOD and found out that at 700mV IOD (AUTO) (just checked on BIOS), made my 1900fCLK is 100% stable. Tested with RandomX for an hour and obviously Kahru for hours.

I'm running 3800c14 @1900fCLK but my EDC bug seems to be gone/messed up.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

I only know about X570, maybe B450 behavior is very different.

Now that it works reliably with split VDDG, did you try again without LN2 enabled?
Don't know the MSI board but maybe a fixed CPU vCore voltage, or offset if supported, could work better than Auto.
Maybe with a low voltage you can go lower with EDC and higher with scalar.


----------



## weleh

I haven't tested without LN2 no, maybe I'll do it now.

A fixed VCore makes no sense, maybe an offset but I've noticed performance degradation going as low as 0.0125V at stock/pbo and EDC bug seems to be unaffected much.

I just don't understand why LN2 breaks EDC bug for me...


----------



## zbug

ManniX-ITA said:


> I have very nice single core CPU-z scores with my config: [559.5|187|567.9]


Damn 559/567 thats higher than my 3900x xD

What's the 187?


----------



## ManniX-ITA

zbug said:


> Damn 559/567 thats higher than my 3900x xD
> 
> What's the 187?


That's the 19.01.64 beta benchmark, the third is AVX2:


----------



## ManniX-ITA

weleh said:


> I haven't tested without LN2 no, maybe I'll do it now.
> 
> A fixed VCore makes no sense, maybe an offset but I've noticed performance degradation going as low as 0.0125V at stock/pbo and EDC bug seems to be unaffected much.
> 
> I just don't understand why LN2 breaks EDC bug for me...


At least on my board fixed vCore means a baseline, it's not really static.
PBO will adjust it dynamically on load.
At least that's what I remember, I'm not setting it fixed since months


----------



## Nitethorn

So I've been messing with this bug for a bit and I've had moderate success. Seeing boost clocks just shy of 4.7ghz sc but my cinebench scores are not even close to a 4.3ghz all core oc. I'm thinking there is something I am missing. I've tried to go through this entire thread but that's about like attempted to read an encyclopedia lol...

My current settings.

Vcore=auto
SoC voltage=1.125
VDDG CCD=1.070
VDDG IOD=1.070
SB=1.025
SoC LLC=Level 3
CPU LLC=auto
PBO settings
PPT=145
TDC=95
EDC=12
Scalar 10x
Boost override=200mhz

The screenshot posted is with the above settings. I've tinkered with EDC between 10 and 12, 12 is by far better. I also tried Ultimate Performance power plan vs AMD Ryzen High Performance, ultimate is definitely better. However, then I tried 1usmus power plan and that was even better for me than ultimate. Clocks were slightly lower, but scores were better.

3800X
C8H


----------



## gerardfraser

Nitethorn said:


> Clocks were slightly lower, but scores were better.
> 
> 3800X
> C8H


Well you can copy my settings for your 3800X and see how it goes, all voltages in video


Single Thread-530 score
Multi Thread -5260 score
Idle temperature CPU-28°C
Max temperature CPU-71°C
Max CPU Core Voltage (SVI2 TFN) reached-1.431v

Settings in BIOS
MCLK/UCLK/FCLK Synced 1:1:1 1933Mhz ,that's DDR4 3866Mhz for those who do not know.
PBO Manual
PPT= 0 actual max limit reached 90.4%
TDC=0 actual max limit reached 81.4%
EDC=1 actual max limit reached 7737.7%
Scaler 10X
PBO Override 500Mhz


----------



## Tweedilderp

So I have a question for everyone with ryzen 3000 series but especially those with a 3900X.

Should we be worried about voltages when running CB R20 AVX loads when using scalar x10?

I have my voltage offset -.05v and still hit 1.325v-1.344v and thats while sucking in over 100a on the EDC (CB R20 MT). Surely this will cause degradation right? Temps are fine and under 75c but should I be worried about degradation?

Also I get 4.55ghz effective clocks while benching ST in R20 and CPU-Z but when I flick over to a game and switch on rivatuner statistics server I see 4375mhz-4400mhz across all cores with some dips on the 2nd CCD but the primary CCD max it hits is like 4450mhz even in games like farcry 5, Ark: Survival Evolved, Battlefield 5, COD: MW2....pretty much everything. Even tried 2-threaded games and it still whacks all the cores over to the previously mentioned speeds. And it doesn't seem to matter if I use ultimate power plan, 1usmus, 1usmus universal or Ryzen High Perf, Though ultimate has had more frame stuttering in a couple of titles.

Am I doing something wrong here? Also I would greatly appreciate feedback on degradation regarding scalar as I don't just benchmark I edit and trans-code video as well which means it is doing these workloads for an hour or more and even though temps are fine I am worried about stability and reliability with my future boost clocks.

P.S. This is with LLC Low, have now switched to standard with a -.04v offset and x7 scalar until someone can convince me degradation wont occur in premiere pro workloads lol.

Cheers.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Nitethorn said:


> So I've been messing with this bug for a bit and I've had moderate success. Seeing boost clocks just shy of 4.7ghz sc but my cinebench scores are not even close to a 4.3ghz all core oc. I'm thinking there is something I am missing. I've tried to go through this entire thread but that's about like attempted to read an encyclopedia lol...
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> My current settings.
> 
> Vcore=auto
> SoC voltage=1.125
> VDDG CCD=1.070
> VDDG IOD=1.070
> SB=1.025
> SoC LLC=Level 3
> CPU LLC=auto
> PBO settings
> PPT=145
> TDC=95
> EDC=12
> Scalar 10x
> Boost override=200mhz
> 
> The screenshot posted is with the above settings. I've tinkered with EDC between 10 and 12, 12 is by far better. I also tried Ultimate Performance power plan vs AMD Ryzen High Performance, ultimate is definitely better. However, then I tried 1usmus power plan and that was even better for me than ultimate. Clocks were slightly lower, but scores were better.
> 
> 3800X
> C8H



That's normal, you can just come close to multi threaded performance of lower clock/lower voltage static OC with PBO.
You should work much more on your profile if you want better scores; these are scores very similar to mines at EDC=10.
Try to make it work with EDC=1 and consider RAM/IF clocks and timings are crucial.
There's a limit over it can't go without 1900/3800.




gerardfraser said:


> Well you can copy my settings for your 3800X and see how it goes, all voltages in video
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> Single Thread-530 score
> Multi Thread -5260 score
> Idle temperature CPU-28°C
> Max temperature CPU-71°C
> Max CPU Core Voltage (SVI2 TFN) reached-1.431v
> 
> Settings in BIOS
> MCLK/UCLK/FCLK Synced 1:1:1 1933Mhz ,that's DDR4 3866Mhz for those who do not know.
> PBO Manual
> PPT= 0 actual max limit reached 90.4%
> TDC=0 actual max limit reached 81.4%
> EDC=1 actual max limit reached 7737.7%
> Scaler 10X
> PBO Override 500Mhz



Wonderful results :thumb:
Have still to try 1933/3866, not sure my RAM can handle it.




Tweedilderp said:


> So I have a question for everyone with ryzen 3000 series but especially those with a 3900X.
> 
> Should we be worried about voltages when running CB R20 AVX loads when using scalar x10?
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> I have my voltage offset -.05v and still hit 1.325v-1.344v and thats while sucking in over 100a on the EDC (CB R20 MT). Surely this will cause degradation right? Temps are fine and under 75c but should I be worried about degradation?
> 
> Also I get 4.55ghz effective clocks while benching ST in R20 and CPU-Z but when I flick over to a game and switch on rivatuner statistics server I see 4375mhz-4400mhz across all cores with some dips on the 2nd CCD but the primary CCD max it hits is like 4450mhz even in games like farcry 5, Ark: Survival Evolved, Battlefield 5, COD: MW2....pretty much everything. Even tried 2-threaded games and it still whacks all the cores over to the previously mentioned speeds. And it doesn't seem to matter if I use ultimate power plan, 1usmus, 1usmus universal or Ryzen High Perf, Though ultimate has had more frame stuttering in a couple of titles.
> 
> Am I doing something wrong here? Also I would greatly appreciate feedback on degradation regarding scalar as I don't just benchmark I edit and trans-code video as well which means it is doing these workloads for an hour or more and even though temps are fine I am worried about stability and reliability with my future boost clocks.
> 
> Cheers.



Of course is a thing but what would be the other option?
Without PBO or a lower scalar you have to live with much less performance.
A fixed OC will give you less single core speed but much higher mullti core.
But if you consider the much higher speed, my guess is (despite what is reporting) even if running at lower clocks and lower voltages the current going through is higher; hence you have to be even more worried about degradation.


So far I haven't heard about quick degradation issues with PBO, there have been reports for static OC degrading quickly.
Ultimately it's your choice about what to give up.
In the six months running with the PBO bug I didn't notice any hint of possible degradation.
If something, is more reliable than running at stock speed.


----------



## Tweedilderp

ManniX-ITA said:


> Of course is a thing but what would be the other option?
> Without PBO or a lower scalar you have to live with much less performance.
> A fixed OC will give you less single core speed but much higher mullti core.
> But if you consider the much higher speed, my guess is (despite what is reporting) even if running at lower clocks and lower voltages the current going through is higher; hence you have to be even more worried about degradation.
> 
> 
> So far I haven't heard about quick degradation issues with PBO, there have been reports for static OC degrading quickly.
> Ultimately it's your choice about what to give up.
> In the six months running with the PBO bug I didn't notice any hint of possible degradation.
> If something, is more reliable than running at stock speed.


Thank you for the reply mate,

Yeah I was thinking degradation would likely be a lot lower, only tested this @ 1.325v 4225 all-core for about a week before changing it over and it was sporadic tests, nothing for hours on end.

So you reckon with auto LLC with auto voltage and scalar x10 I would be right? as long as I didnt do crazy benchmarks and I suppose I could set affinity's for stuff to 10 cores if the need arose to lower amps.

Also do you have any insight into the all-core 4.4ghz wall I am hitting in games? outside of games it will boost 4.55ghz under load and 4650 idle with background apps, I just don't see why it's treating games as a low intensity all-core load even when limiting it within a single CCX in CCD0.

Cheers.


----------



## Nighthog

LN2 mode makes 1933FCLK work...

Testing right now 3866/1933 on my Hynix DJR kit.

Thanks for those reporting success before, I hope there are no issues running LN2 mode in general.
I read about some bad experience for some way back but maybe it was because it was unstable.


----------



## weleh

Nighthog said:


> LN2 mode makes 1933FCLK work...
> 
> Testing right now 3866/1933 on my Hynix DJR kit.
> 
> Thanks for those reporting success before, I hope there are no issues running LN2 mode in general.
> I read about some bad experience for some way back but maybe it was because it was unstable.


Watch out for WHEA errors on HWINFO64, CPU interconnect/bus errors. Usually indicate unstable fCLK.
Happened to me, have to mess a lot with VDDG voltages and maybe SOC voltages as well.


----------



## rastaviper

weleh said:


> Hey guys, I've been using the EDC bug with some success on my 3600x (Gaming Pro Carbon AC B450 board) and I was wondering about something.
> 
> Here's my settings.
> 
> EDC bug settings:
> 
> C-States disabled
> vCore: Auto
> LLC: Auto
> 
> 
> PPT: doesn't matter as long as you don't set a low value (tested 180 to 300)
> TDC: doesn't matter as long as you don't set a low value (tested 140 to 230)
> EDC: 3 or 4. Tested 5 and 6 and both cause ST performance thorttle due to EDC dropping below the 5A limit.
> Scallar: x5 (tested all ranges, no difference).
> 
> CPU:Z ST-540-545 and MT:4250 to 4300+ which is a gigantic boost over stock figures (520 ST and 4100-4200 MT)
> CB20: ST - 509 to 519 and MT - 3850 to 3950. (500 to 3800 stock).
> 
> So I run 1866 fCLK and 3733 mCLK.
> 
> I found out that I can boot at 1900 fCLK if I use LN2 mode on my board. After adjusting VDDG voltages and SOC voltage I managed to stabilize 1900 fCLK without WHEA errors and sound crackle. Using 1.04 VDDG CCD, auto VDDG IOD(no idea since I can't measure this and run unsynced from CCD) and auto VDDP (1.1V).
> 
> My 3800 mCLK is hours stable into Kahru and my fCLK is hours stable into RandomX.
> 
> Now the problem is, LN2 mode seems to prevent EDC bug from working. I get stock performance on CB and CPU-Z no matter what I do in the bios. Has anyone tested this? Any tips? I've disabled AMD CNQ as well but it doesn't seem to help.
> 
> EDIT:
> 
> It's very strange, benchmark performance remains stock but by manually loading each core, I get the same behaviour as if the EDC bug was active.


I can't justify your results.
Something doesn't stick with your CB20 performance. It's too good to be coming from the PBO bug.

Can u post also a HWinfo screenshot during your CB20 testing? I would like to see your max cpu clocks and voltages during high load.


----------



## Nighthog

weleh said:


> Watch out for WHEA errors on HWINFO64, CPU interconnect/bus errors. Usually indicate unstable fCLK.
> Happened to me, have to mess a lot with VDDG voltages and maybe SOC voltages as well.


I noted a considerable performance drop in Cinebench R20... 

Problem was SoC voltage... I needed to increase it with a +0.050-0.075V offset to get it back into normal range.
1933FCLK needs more voltage or your performance will drop considerably if you do nothing. 

Nothing was being reported as wrong only that it was running ~slow~. Each increase in vSoC regained speed to where it should be.
Error correction? throttling? HWiNFO was not saying anything was wrong.


----------



## weleh

Nighthog said:


> I noted a considerable performance drop in Cinebench R20...
> 
> Problem was SoC voltage... I needed to increase it with a +0.050-0.075V offset to get it back into normal range.
> 1933FCLK needs more voltage or your performance will drop considerably if you do nothing.
> 
> Nothing was being reported as wrong only that it was running ~slow~. Each increase in vSoC regained speed to where it should be.
> Error correction? throttling? HWiNFO was not saying anything was wrong.


HWInfo reported WHEA error for me with unstable fCLK.
It was a PCI BUS/INTERCONECT error which is a correctable error, until it isn't and causes a reboot/bsod.
I got an error out of 5h of gaming and 0 errors from 1h of RandomX testing.


----------



## weleh

rastaviper said:


> I can't justify your results.
> Something doesn't stick with your CB20 performance. It's too good to be coming from the PBO bug.
> 
> Can u post also a HWinfo screenshot during your CB20 testing? I would like to see your max cpu clocks and voltages during high load.


My highest CB20 was 519-3939.
Usually around 510-3900 though depending on ambient temps.

I have an ALF II 360mm AIO.


----------



## jamie1073

zbug said:


> Damn 559/567 thats higher than my 3900x xD
> 
> What's the 187?



My 3900x gets 561/188/571 on ST in CPU-z.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Tweedilderp said:


> Thank you for the reply mate,
> 
> Yeah I was thinking degradation would likely be a lot lower, only tested this @ 1.325v 4225 all-core for about a week before changing it over and it was sporadic tests, nothing for hours on end.
> 
> So you reckon with auto LLC with auto voltage and scalar x10 I would be right? as long as I didnt do crazy benchmarks and I suppose I could set affinity's for stuff to 10 cores if the need arose to lower amps.
> 
> Also do you have any insight into the all-core 4.4ghz wall I am hitting in games? outside of games it will boost 4.55ghz under load and 4650 idle with background apps, I just don't see why it's treating games as a low intensity all-core load even when limiting it within a single CCX in CCD0.
> 
> Cheers.


You're welcome :thumb:
I had a lot of stability issues with LLC Auto and crazy voltages with vCore Auto; this is with an AORUS Master.
Maybe if you have a different board it works differently.
I don't think you are going to get much problems with PBO. It's annoyingly auto protecting itself too much already  

If you want to mess with Affinity, try Process Lasso.

The max boost is not all-core and not for continuous load, sorry it's good marketing...
You'll get 4650 MHz only for a single core load for a so quick moment that often HWInfo is not even able to register it.
For short bursts you can probably get 4500-4550 MHz.
But for a typical gaming workload the average clock indeed also on mine is 4400-4450 MHz, it goes often up to 4550 MHz idling in the menus.

If you want to check the scaling of your boost use CPU-z benchmark and run the stress test for 1/2/4 etc threads.
You'll get a good picture of what you can expect out of it.


----------



## Tweedilderp

ManniX-ITA said:


> You're welcome :thumb:
> I had a lot of stability issues with LLC Auto and crazy voltages with vCore Auto; this is with an AORUS Master.
> Maybe if you have a different board it works differently.
> I don't think you are going to get much problems with PBO. It's annoyingly auto protecting itself too much already
> 
> If you want to mess with Affinity, try Process Lasso.
> 
> The max boost is not all-core and not for continuous load, sorry it's good marketing...
> You'll get 4650 MHz only for a single core load for a so quick moment that often HWInfo is not even able to register it.
> For short bursts you can probably get 4500-4550 MHz.
> But for a typical gaming workload the average clock indeed also on mine is 4400-4450 MHz, it goes often up to 4550 MHz idling in the menus.
> 
> If you want to check the scaling of your boost use CPU-z benchmark and run the stress test for 1/2/4 etc threads.
> You'll get a good picture of what you can expect out of it.


Yeah I already use Process Lasso, have since my 1700 

Seems having LLC auto hurt my single core (could have been HWInfo64 polling every .5 secs too) in CB R20 which would otherwise be 530. Time Spy physics jumped up 50 points so I am happy with that and the gpu score came up too likely because the 3900X won't let a 2080 Ti fully stretch it's legs.\

Looks like the effective clocks were hurt too by me restricting hwinfo to the 2nd CCD, note I have 2c/2t underperforming in mulithreaded, would have likely been over 7500 if I had hwinfo64 closed.

EDIT: Yup did a test just now and got 527 CB R20 ST without hwinfo running, MT didn't improve (7452).


----------



## rastaviper

weleh said:


> My highest CB20 was 519-3939.
> 
> Usually around 510-3900 though depending on ambient temps.
> 
> 
> 
> I have an ALF II 360mm AIO.


Why you are not posting the full hwinfo screenshot?

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


----------



## weleh

First screen is after it completed, second screen is while it's running.

What do you want to see? I cannot run CB20 with HWINFO64 because high priority stops HWINFO64 from grabing data.


----------



## weleh

At stock, I'm pulling like 0.005V to 0.01V less than with EDC bug during AVX instructions.

I'll post a stock screenshot.


----------



## icehotshot

So this is working very good except in timespy cpu test, my cpu sits at 1500mhz. Anyone have a fix for this? Every other benchmark and gaming is seeing improvements and works great.

EDC 20
Scalar 10x
C-states Disabled
LLC High

Also doesn't seem like my rig info is updating in my sig, anyone have a fix for that too? lol
Currently running 1900fclk 3800cl15


----------



## Yuke

icehotshot said:


> So this is working very good except in timespy cpu test, my cpu sits at 1500mhz. Anyone have a fix for this? Every other benchmark and gaming is seeing improvements and works great.
> 
> EDC 20
> Scalar 10x
> C-states Disabled
> LLC High
> 
> Also doesn't seem like my rig info is updating in my sig, anyone have a fix for that too? lol
> Currently running 1900fclk 3800cl15


Try turning off Cool and Quiet in BIOS (Dont know what its called on non GB Boards)


----------



## jfrob75

jamie1073 said:


> My 3900x gets 561/188/571 on ST in CPU-z.


How do you get three different ST results from CPU-z?


----------



## jamie1073

jfrob75 said:


> How do you get three different ST results from CPU-z?



If you use the actual CPUz and not the one for specific board manufacturers you get three tests to try, there is a drop down for the tests. Someone up thread posted his so I downloaded the actual version because my MSI version did not have the dropdown for other benchs. See the pic.


----------



## icehotshot

Yuke said:


> Try turning off Cool and Quiet in BIOS (Dont know what its called on non GB Boards)


That worked, thanks.


----------



## rastaviper

weleh said:


> First screen is after it completed, second screen is while it's running.
> 
> What do you want to see? I cannot run CB20 with HWINFO64 because high priority stops HWINFO64 from grabing data.


Ok now it makes sense.
*1.47v as max vcore.*

Very interesting.
So any kind of EDC, PPT, SCALAR that it has given u the best results?
I couldn't find any working combination of these to make my 3600x score at CB20 close to my manual all core Ocing settings.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

rastaviper said:


> Ok now it makes sense.
> *1.47v as max vcore.*
> 
> Very interesting.
> So any kind of EDC, PPT, SCALAR that it has given u the best results?
> I couldn't find any working combination of these to make my 3600x score at CB20 close to my manual all core Ocing settings.


On multi-threaded workload PBO is always a notch slower than an all core OC; eg CPU-z MT 5950 vs 6100.
You loose something there for a faster single/light-threaded workload.


----------



## Farih

ManniX-ITA said:


> On multi-threaded workload PBO is always a notch slower than an all core OC; eg CPU-z MT 5950 vs 6100.
> You loose something there for a faster single/light-threaded workload.


Getting real close to all-core OC with PBO. (EDC bug doesn't work positively for me yet)
Just need more cooling 
Hoping to do 5100+ in winter season 

5038 stock PBO now, 4,3ghz is about 4162
Not to bad.


----------



## MikeS3000

I had all but given up on the EDC bug on my 3900x since I played around with it in January. I had random throttling that nothing seemed to fix and lower than expected effective clocks on weaker cores. I'm on x570 Aorus Pro Wifi BIOS f12g and things are finally working great! Here are my settings:

1usmus universal power plan on (middle on power saving slider)
Vcore offset: -0.025
CPU LLC: medium
C-states: disabled
EDC: 12
TDC and PPT: I forget but they are set about 20% higher than what they try and pull on full CB20 load at the suggestion of another forum member
Scalar: x10
No auto-overclocking and platform thermal limit on auto.

With ambient temps around 22 to 23 C and NH-D15s with dual fans, I am consistently scoring over 7500 in CB20, 8600 in CPU-z and over 3300 in CB15 with a decent number of system tray apps running. Single core CB20 I score about 525, CPU-z 552 and CB15 214. No throttling issues. Temps max around 77c under CB20.


----------



## weleh

rastaviper said:


> Ok now it makes sense.
> *1.47v as max vcore.*
> 
> Very interesting.
> So any kind of EDC, PPT, SCALAR that it has given u the best results?
> I couldn't find any working combination of these to make my 3600x score at CB20 close to my manual all core Ocing settings.


TDC and PPT can't be lower than a certain value for the bug to work.

I've decided to leave it at 300/230/3 or 4. Lower PPT and TDC than like 180, the bug doesn't work. I think it's TDC that controls the bug since the bug makes EDC read TDC so you can't have too low TDC so you actually cap performance (tested).

Scallar at x5 because, 1x and 2x do nothing, and 10x is the same as 5x. 

LLC Auto (haven't tested)

Vcore Auto (haven't tested)

Energy plan doesn't matter, all of them do the same performance (usmus, ryzen or windows).

Boost override I did +75Mhz which is the max my cores physically hit anyway so higher doesn't do anything.


----------



## jfrob75

jamie1073 said:


> If you use the actual CPUz and not the one for specific board manufacturers you get three tests to try, there is a drop down for the tests. Someone up thread posted his so I downloaded the actual version because my MSI version did not have the dropdown for other benchs. See the pic.


 Thanks for the info!!!!


----------



## ManniX-ITA

weleh said:


> TDC and PPT can't be lower than a certain value for the bug to work.
> 
> I've decided to leave it at 300/230/3 or 4. Lower PPT and TDC than like 180, the bug doesn't work. I think it's TDC that controls the bug since the bug makes EDC read TDC so you can't have too low TDC so you actually cap performance (tested).
> 
> Scallar at x5 because, 1x and 2x do nothing, and 10x is the same as 5x.
> 
> LLC Auto (haven't tested)
> 
> Vcore Auto (haven't tested)
> 
> Energy plan doesn't matter, all of them do the same performance (usmus, ryzen or windows).
> 
> Boost override I did +75Mhz which is the max my cores physically hit anyway so higher doesn't do anything.


TDC controls the continuous current draw (A) while EDC the burst current draw (A).
PPT controls the total power draw (A x V = W).
They have different effects on how PBO reacts and adjust your clocks and voltages.

Limiting too much PPT and TDC will affect everything but above a certain threshold they only limit the all-core multi-threaded workload eg. CB20 MT or Prime95.

You can "open up" and use very high values, then the FIT table will enforce its power/thermal limits sooner than them but it's not always the best choice.
Depending on silicon you can loose 50-200 MHz in clocks under CB20/Prime95 or could be just the same.


----------



## weleh

Any idea why sometimes this happens?

3600x using EDC bug


----------



## rastaviper

weleh said:


> TDC and PPT can't be lower than a certain value for the bug to work.
> 
> 
> 
> I've decided to leave it at 300/230/3 or 4. Lower PPT and TDC than like 180, the bug doesn't work. I think it's TDC that controls the bug since the bug makes EDC read TDC so you can't have too low TDC so you actually cap performance (tested).
> 
> 
> 
> Scallar at x5 because, 1x and 2x do nothing, and 10x is the same as 5x.
> 
> 
> 
> LLC Auto (haven't tested)
> 
> 
> 
> Vcore Auto (haven't tested)
> 
> 
> 
> Energy plan doesn't matter, all of them do the same performance (usmus, ryzen or windows).
> 
> 
> 
> Boost override I did +75Mhz which is the max my cores physically hit anyway so higher doesn't do anything.


My 3600x doesn't work with these settings.
Max 4217mhz for 2 cores and no important gains.
Don't know what I am doing wrong.


Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


----------



## nowarranty

New to ryzen overclocking and looking for some advice here.

I played around quite a bit with EDC, PPT, and dynamic voltage to get a reference.

At first I saw a difference in CB20 multi score from 7200 to 6800, but the 6800 had higher core frequency. 

I used -0.100 for the 6800 score and -0.050 for 7200. The 6800 score boosted to about 4300mhz while the 7200 core would sit at 4250mhz or under. I used GSAT to stress the memory and noticed that at -0.100 would have 50-75% of the threads at 4300mhz and -0.050 had 100% of the threads at 4300mhz.

From my understanding 1.32v is on the high end for load? I am trying with medium LLC and -0.050 leaves me at roughly ~1.32v load while -0.100 leaves me at ~1.29v. I want to use this overclock as a daily driver so I would like to be conservative, but does the lower dynamic core offset mean it's so low that many cores can't sustain the overclock and that's why it's behaving like this? At this point would I test with higher LLCs and lower dynamic offset or would I keep the LLC the same and try increasing scalar?

I'm using an x570 aorus board and the bios has similar settings for PBO and XFR, should I dial the EDC and PPT in both sections? It also has multiple of the same settings for dram, gets a bit confusing.

Trying all of this on a 3900x with 
EDC from 12-16
PPT from 260-340
TDC from 160-220
Scalar 1x
C-states and CnQ enabled


----------



## tcclaviger

3900x

PBO Manual
TDC - 300
PPT - 300
EDC - 10
Scalar - 10x
AutoOC - 200

Vcore - Offset (-) "Auto"
LLC - 2
BCLK - 102
RAM 37xx 15-15-15-15-30 260TRFC 4X8 BDIE
FCLK -18xx
AGESA 1006 (C7H on 3101 bios)
Performance Boost - Enabled

R20 - 543st/7780mt
CPU-Z - 565st/8780mt
R15 - 219st/3360mt
Firestrike CPU - 31,400ish

Reported single core boost of 4766 on best ccx (all 3 cores), all core boost holds a little over 4300 in prime (quick check). Gaming floats between 4475 and 4600.

While this configuration is fast, it's also N O T safe if you routinely do full load work like folding at home, encoding, etc. This is clearly visible by checking for FIT limit as Stilt outlined (1.231v avx2 prime @ 3950mhz), then apply the EDC bug and quickly check prime (1.265v avx2 prime @ 4320mhz).

Since EDC bug effectively disables FIT limiting, it's incumbent on the user to configure your PPT to a number which will trigger a drop in clock speed under prime level loads, in this way you can ensure you're not pulling insane currents (mine pulls 225 amps with EDC bug and no limits set). You won't be able to see the amperage with EDC bug as the EDC reported value mirrors TDC values (and it's erroneous). If your motherboard shows accurate VRM current, as a separate value from the bugged EDC, you'll see this, only C7/C8 and couple of MSI/GB boards I know of do this.

Happy OCing, don't blindy turn up all the knobs with EDC bug enabled, nothing will kill a Ryzen 3000 faster if done wrong.


----------



## jimpsar

tcclaviger said:


> 3900x
> 
> PBO Manual
> TDC - 300
> PPT - 300
> EDC - 10
> Scalar - 10x
> AutoOC - 200
> 
> Vcore - Offset (-) "Auto"
> LLC - 2
> BCLK - 102
> RAM 37xx 15-15-15-15-30 260TRFC 4X8 BDIE
> FCLK -18xx
> AGESA 1006 (C7H on 3101 bios)
> Performance Boost - Enabled
> 
> R20 - 543st/7780mt
> CPU-Z - 565st/8780mt
> R15 - 219st/3360mt
> Firestrike CPU - 31,400ish
> 
> Reported single core boost of 4766 on best ccx (all 3 cores), all core boost holds a little over 4300 in prime (quick check). Gaming floats between 4475 and 4600.
> 
> While this configuration is fast, it's also N O T safe if you routinely do full load work like folding at home, encoding, etc. This is clearly visible by checking for FIT limit as Stilt outlined (1.231v avx2 prime @ 3950mhz), then apply the EDC bug and quickly check prime (1.265v avx2 prime @ 4320mhz).
> 
> Since EDC bug effectively disables FIT limiting, it's incumbent on the user to configure your PPT to a number which will trigger a drop in clock speed under prime level loads, in this way you can ensure you're not pulling insane currents (mine pulls 225 amps with EDC bug and no limits set). You won't be able to see the amperage with EDC bug as the EDC reported value mirrors TDC values (and it's erroneous). If your motherboard shows accurate VRM current, as a separate value from the bugged EDC, you'll see this, only C7/C8 and couple of MSI/GB boards I know of do this.
> 
> Happy OCing, don't blindy turn up all the knobs with EDC bug enabled, nothing will kill a Ryzen 3000 faster if done wrong.


Very good findings and excellent results mate. 
Been trying to find what is the best and least harm OC for my 3900x
Manual OC however @ 1.35volts gives me the best temps and results in gaming and all synthetic benchs. 
Any suggestion? 
Thank you


----------



## ManniX-ITA

nowarranty said:


> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> New to ryzen overclocking and looking for some advice here.
> 
> I played around quite a bit with EDC, PPT, and dynamic voltage to get a reference.
> 
> At first I saw a difference in CB20 multi score from 7200 to 6800, but the 6800 had higher core frequency.
> 
> I used -0.100 for the 6800 score and -0.050 for 7200. The 6800 score boosted to about 4300mhz while the 7200 core would sit at 4250mhz or under. I used GSAT to stress the memory and noticed that at -0.100 would have 50-75% of the threads at 4300mhz and -0.050 had 100% of the threads at 4300mhz.
> 
> 
> 
> From my understanding 1.32v is on the high end for load? I am trying with medium LLC and -0.050 leaves me at roughly ~1.32v load while -0.100 leaves me at ~1.29v. I want to use this overclock as a daily driver so I would like to be conservative, but does the lower dynamic core offset mean it's so low that many cores can't sustain the overclock and that's why it's behaving like this? At this point would I test with higher LLCs and lower dynamic offset or would I keep the LLC the same and try increasing scalar?
> 
> I'm using an x570 aorus board and the bios has similar settings for PBO and XFR, should I dial the EDC and PPT in both sections? It also has multiple of the same settings for dram, gets a bit confusing.
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> Trying all of this on a 3900x with
> EDC from 12-16
> PPT from 260-340
> TDC from 160-220
> Scalar 1x
> C-states and CnQ enabled


You should try with C-states disabled first. Only enable it when you got the profile right to see if it works or not.

Yes an offset too low will block the boost and lower clocks and performances.
You have to try every single offset step to find the right one. Best if you look for it with scalar 1x and boost clock 0 MHz.
Keep the LLC in Auto and only adjust it at the end if CPU-z bench is swinging during run.

The voltage under load depends on silicon, 1.32v is in the average, it will become 1.375v with scalar at 10x.
It's the voltage I have during CB20 MT; lower than that probably you will not get a good balance between ST and MT performances.

Adjust PBO settings in AMD Overclocking, keep Auto in XFR.



tcclaviger said:


> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 3900x
> 
> PBO Manual
> TDC - 300
> PPT - 300
> EDC - 10
> Scalar - 10x
> AutoOC - 200
> 
> Vcore - Offset (-) "Auto"
> LLC - 2
> BCLK - 102
> RAM 37xx 15-15-15-15-30 260TRFC 4X8 BDIE
> FCLK -18xx
> AGESA 1006 (C7H on 3101 bios)
> Performance Boost - Enabled
> 
> R20 - 543st/7780mt
> CPU-Z - 565st/8780mt
> R15 - 219st/3360mt
> Firestrike CPU - 31,400ish
> 
> Reported single core boost of 4766 on best ccx (all 3 cores), all core boost holds a little over 4300 in prime (quick check). Gaming floats between 4475 and 4600.
> 
> While this configuration is fast, it's also N O T safe if you routinely do full load work like folding at home, encoding, etc. This is clearly visible by checking for FIT limit as Stilt outlined (1.231v avx2 prime @ 3950mhz), then apply the EDC bug and quickly check prime (1.265v avx2 prime @ 4320mhz).
> 
> Since EDC bug effectively disables FIT limiting, it's incumbent on the user to configure your PPT to a number which will trigger a drop in clock speed under prime level loads, in this way you can ensure you're not pulling insane currents (mine pulls 225 amps with EDC bug and no limits set). You won't be able to see the amperage with EDC bug as the EDC reported value mirrors TDC values (and it's erroneous). If your motherboard shows accurate VRM current, as a separate value from the bugged EDC, you'll see this, only C7/C8 and couple of MSI/GB boards I know of do this.
> 
> Happy OCing, don't blindy turn up all the knobs with EDC bug enabled, nothing will kill a Ryzen 3000 faster if done wrong.


There's no difference between EDC bug and normal PBO regarding damage from electromigration.
The bug overrides the single/light-threaded behavior, not the all core load.
All Stock/Auto/PBO settings are very strictly protected.
It'd be awesome if there was a way to circumvent FIT table protection but there isn't 

The only way to get in the area were there are less protections to cause damage is with a static OC.
Even there the thermal protections will slow down the processor if you don't have adequate cooling.


----------



## tcclaviger

ManniX-ITA said:


> You should try with C-states disabled first. Only enable it when you got the profile right to see if it works or not.
> 
> Yes an offset too low will block the boost and lower clocks and performances.
> You have to try every single offset step to find the right one. Best if you look for it with scalar 1x and boost clock 0 MHz.
> Keep the LLC in Auto and only adjust it at the end if CPU-z bench is swinging during run.
> 
> The voltage under load depends on silicon, 1.32v is in the average, it will become 1.375v with scalar at 10x.
> It's the voltage I have during CB20 MT; lower than that probably you will not get a good balance between ST and MT performances.
> 
> Adjust PBO settings in AMD Overclocking, keep Auto in XFR.
> 
> 
> 
> There's no difference between EDC bug and normal PBO regarding damage from electromigration.
> The bug overrides the single/light-threaded behavior, not the all core load.
> All Stock/Auto/PBO settings are very strictly protected.
> It'd be awesome if there was a way to circumvent FIT table protection but there isn't
> 
> The only way to get in the area were there are less protections to cause damage is with a static OC.
> Even there the thermal protections will slow down the processor if you don't have adequate cooling.


While I understand what you're saying, that is absolutely not the behavior I observe on my system, and has been reported by other owners as well. It is clearly bypassing FIT limitations and providing vastly more power to the CPU than normal, unlimited PBO would.

PBO at PPT 350-TDC 350-EDC 250 I see steady state prime95 avx2 speeds of 3950 with a voltage of 1.231.
EDC Bug PPT 350 TDC 350 EDC 10 I see steady state prime95 avx2 speeds of 4320ish with a voltage of 1.269. While .038 doesn't seem like a lot of voltage, the bump of nearly 400mhz IS a big deal, as it will be pulling quite a bit more power through the CPU, reflected in increased temperatures.

Scores and Hwinfo logs show there is indisputably a major difference in behavior between PBO and EDC bug power draw, cpu voltage, and speed. 

Just finished a round of testing various settings and I recommend for 3900x users, 100 TDC, 125 PPT, 10 EDC on Crosshair 7 Hero using bios 3101. It maintains stock like all-core behavior but still boosts single or dual thread loads quite high:


----------



## ManniX-ITA

weleh said:


> Any idea why sometimes this happens?
> 
> 3600x using EDC bug


What is this? Low scores?



rastaviper said:


> My 3600x doesn't work with these settings.
> Max 4217mhz for 2 cores and no important gains.
> Don't know what I am doing wrong.
> 
> 
> Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


It doesn't work for everyone.
Did you try starting from scratch with Load Optimized settings and a safe XMP profile for memory?


----------



## ManniX-ITA

tcclaviger said:


> While I understand what you're saying, that is absolutely not the behavior I observe on my system, and has been reported by other owners as well. It is clearly bypassing FIT limitations and providing vastly more power to the CPU than normal, unlimited PBO would.
> 
> PBO at PPT 350-TDC 350-EDC 250 I see steady state prime95 avx2 speeds of 3950 with a voltage of 1.231.
> EDC Bug PPT 350 TDC 350 EDC 10 I see steady state prime95 avx2 speeds of 4320ish with a voltage of 1.269. While .038 doesn't seem like a lot of voltage, the bump of nearly 400mhz IS a big deal, as it will be pulling quite a bit more power through the CPU, reflected in increased temperatures.
> 
> Scores and Hwinfo logs show there is indisputably a major difference in behavior between PBO and EDC bug power draw, cpu voltage, and speed.
> 
> Just finished a round of testing various settings and I recommend for 3900x users, 100 TDC, 125 PPT, 10 EDC on Crosshair 7 Hero using bios 3101. It maintains stock like all-core behavior but still boosts single or dual thread loads quite high:


You should check with EDC at 0, otherwise you'll be capped by the bug (the bad one).
I don't have any clock/voltage delta between PBO with or without EDC bug.
Anyway, it doesn't matter what is reporting; the protections are there, even if a tiny bit relaxed.
You can clearly see it from the actual bench results; if it's not lowering the clocks/voltage or the effective clock then it's capping the performances.


----------



## tcclaviger

The bench results are much higher with EDC bug than with PBO, it is definitively removing all protections from the chip.

I realize what combination is probably causing it:
Bclk overclocking along with EDC Bug along with Force OC Mode Disable (Asus only option). The Force OC Mode Disable option, does some background mystery magic with boosting already, paired with raised bclk and edc bug, I think the combo is the problem. NOPE

Going to test it real quick with Force OC Mode Disable option turned off and verify.


Also, you misunderstand my point, with PBO on, fully unlimited, as you would do it if you didn't know about the EDC bug, the clocks are 400 mhz LOWER than with EDC bug, not sure how that is not clear. The FIT is protecting with PBO but without EDC bug, as soon as I enable the EDC bug all protections come off and chip runs 400mhz faster all core avx2 load.

EDC 0 simply sets EDC to default, that helps in no way.

NOPE, its the EDC BUG, not Force OC Mode Disable, check this screenshot out, note the CPU Package Power, Vcore, Clocks and total system power (Idle is 200 watts for my rig) 100% all limits are lifted:


----------



## ManniX-ITA

tcclaviger said:


> The bench results are much higher with EDC bug than with PBO, it is definitively removing all protections from the chip.
> 
> I realize what combination is probably causing it:
> Bclk overclocking along with EDC Bug along with Force OC Mode Disable (Asus only option). The Force OC Mode Disable option, does some background mystery magic with boosting already, paired with raised bclk and edc bug, I think the combo is the problem.
> 
> Going to test it real quick with Force OC Mode Disable option turned off and verify.
> 
> 
> Also, you misunderstand my point, with PBO on, fully unlimited, as you would do it if you didn't know about the EDC bug, the clocks are 400 mhz LOWER than with EDC bug, not sure how that is not clear. The FIT is protecting with PBO but without EDC bug, as soon as I enable the EDC bug all protections come off and chip runs 400mhz faster all core avx2 load.
> 
> EDC 0 simply sets EDC to default, that helps in no way.


There's a very well known bug with EDC in all AGESA after 1.0.0.3; if you set any value that it's not low (overriding the reported value >100%) it will cripple the clocks and performances.

If you see 400 MHz difference or a huge difference in scores for multi-threaded performances is not because you are gaining something with the EDC bug.
It's because your configuration without the EDC bug is wrong.
The only gain you can get with the EDC bug is on single/light-threaded workload.
I have same scores, clocks and voltages on all-core load with EDC at 0 and EDC at 1; like everyone else.
Would be fracking awesome if it could boost also all-core scores but it's not sadly


----------



## tcclaviger

Ok so lets just do this right:

Stock:
R20 - 525 single thread, 7440 multithread

PBO: 
R20 - 533 single thread, 7680 mutlithread

EDC Bug:
R20 - 542 single thread, 7780 multithread

You're not comprehending that YOUR gigabyte X570 behaves significantly differently than MY C7H on AGESA 1006 does. It's not about the 3900x its about the motherboard. There is CLEARLY as mutlicore increase as well as single core. Why? NO MORE LIMITS...


----------



## ManniX-ITA

tcclaviger said:


> Ok so lets just do this right:
> 
> Stock:
> R20 - 525 single thread, 7440 multithread
> 
> PBO:
> R20 - 533 single thread, 7680 mutlithread
> 
> EDC Bug:
> R20 - 542 single thread, 7780 multithread
> 
> You're not comprehending that YOUR gigabyte X570 behaves significantly differently than MY C7H on AGESA 1006 does. It's not about the 3900x its about the motherboard. There is CLEARLY as mutlicore increase as well as single core. Why? NO MORE LIMITS...


Yes the mainboard doing some "optimizations" could be a factor. But this is not anywhere close of being with no limits. 100 points more in CB20 is peanuts.
If you want to see "some limits" brought down run CB20 with an all-core fixed OC: you'll get 200-300 points more, at least, with lower clocks and lower voltages.
What you see as reported is what the processor want you to see; it's like a "virtualized" overview.
What is really happening you can only desume from the behavior.
There's no reason to freak out about no limits, I'd be the first one to open a bottle to cheer up if that was the case :thumb:


----------



## tcclaviger

Mannix, you are wrong on this one sorry to have to break it to you. 

I have an 8100 CB R20 multi score. I have the TOP valid HWBOT scores in Geekbench 4. I know exactly what I'm doing.

While there may still be some level of limit imposed, it is absolutely not the normal FIT limit, not by a long shot. If I were willing I have zero doubts I could easily pull 300 watts package power on my 3900x, a simple offset + would get there really fast.

Please, set your TDC 350 PPT 350 EDC 10 and fire up Prime95 small FFTs with AVX2 and cap a screen shot of vcore and CPU Package Power (SMU).

What I see as reported has NOTHING to do with the processor. Know why? The C7H has a VRM sense directly reading from CPU DIE SENSE, not the SUPER IO like the majority of boards, so even when the CPU lies, I can see it lying because the DIE SENSE reading is external to the CPU and cannot be influenced by the CPU.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

tcclaviger said:


> Mannix, you are wrong on this one sorry to have to break it to you.
> 
> I have an 8100 CB R20 multi score. I have the TOP valid HWBOT scores in Geekbench 4. I know exactly what I'm doing.
> 
> While there may still be some level of limit imposed, it is absolutely not the normal FIT limit, not by a long shot. If I were willing I have zero doubts I could easily pull 300 watts package power on my 3900x, a simple offset + would get there really fast.
> 
> Please, set your TDC 350 PPT 350 EDC 10 and fire up Prime95 small FFTs with AVX2 and cap a screen shot of vcore and CPU Package Power (SMU).
> 
> What I see as reported has NOTHING to do with the processor. Know why? The C7H has a VRM sense directly reading from CPU DIE SENSE, not the SUPER IO like the majority of boards, so even when the CPU lies, I can see it lying because the DIE SENSE reading is external to the CPU and cannot be influenced by the CPU.


No problems, I'm always up for discussions, it's fun 

Let's start from the beginning; "it is absolutely not the normal FIT limit".
What do you mean?
Nobody knows how it works exactly, except AMD.

There's a common way to determine the FIT value with open PBO, just that.
It's a dirty way to take a reference value from what is probably a huge matrix.

Yes indeed with the EDC bug the FIT table is enforced in a different way but it's not affecting the all-core workload.
I've never seen with my 3800x better results in CB20 MT than mine from anyone, except IF 1933 and static OC:

https://hwbot.org/submission/4464000_mannix_cinebench___r20_with_benchmate_ryzen_7_3800x_5220_pts

And it's maybe 50-70 points higher than the best EDC=0 profile I had in the past.
You are making a bold statement with NO LIMITS are enforced, you would see much much higher CB20 MT score if it was.
There may be a tiny relaxing, something I can't see with my AORUS, but the limits are still there.

If you see such a big difference between EDC at 0 and 10 for me it's your profile at 0 which is wrong.
All cores at 3,9 GHz for P95 is low for the 3900x, you should see at least 4,1/4,2 GHz with EDC at 0.

About the power draw I wouldn't count too much on it.
When some limit is enforced it's not a just a matter of power draw but where that current goes.
It's the beauty and pain of all these hundreds sensors in the dies; they are gating different parts of the silicon.
You can have same or even higher power draw and worse performance with a limit engaged.
That's because different protection layers will apply specific gating where it's needed.
You may have much higher draw somewhere and much lower somewhere else; where it's needed due to thermal/node constraints there will be gating.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

I just tested brutally switching to EDC at 0 my current profile.

From this:









To this:









There's a 100 MHz difference and one core that goes down to 3.9 GHz with EDC=1.

But this is not a good profile with EDC at 0 of course.
I've lost mine, I should go back to BIOS F11 to recover it.

This is the best CB20 score with EDC at 1:









While this is the best with EDC at 0:









There's just 70 points difference between them.

Yes there's an influence using the EDC bug also on all-core but it's negligible.
Certainly it's not cause all limits are gone, it's just a bit tiny different behavior.
Which is causing a bigger power draw and higher temperatures, that's very well known.

But still nothing to be worried about possible damages.
Whatever you can do adjusting the offset/LLC and other settings with Stock/Auto/PBO modes will stay well within the "FIT limits".
Unless something really nasty is done by the mainboard vendor, like once ASRock did.
But I'd be surprised your ASUS is doing really weird stuff, they usually oblige very carefully to AMD requirements.


----------



## Nighthog

@tcclaviger

What you don't realize is PBO has "profiles" for different loads or instructions used. AVX2, AVX and regular integers have different EDC limits. This makes AVX2 use LESS current than if you use non AVX loads, it's not allowed to do so in newer agesa.
PBO only allows you to alter the non-AVX EDC limits. You don't get access to the AVX EDC limits in the algorithm. AVX is essentially gimped to stock limits at all times with some smaller adjustments allowed with PPT & scalar adjustment. This is why we often get better Cinebench results with undervolts. You are basically hitting the maximum EDC allowed for AVX and the undervolt gives you more headroom to work under it.

What this EDC Bug does is it removes these tiered limits and treats all loads the same with no EDC Limits in general. 
You can still use TDC to limit your current if you see your cooling can't handle the continuos load or PPT, We just discard the EDC targets. Temperature and all else still applies. 

The earliest BIOS didn't have "gimped" AVX EDC targets. Or some version of BIOS I noted didn't clock down as much as Agesa 1.0.0.4 versions. But you might need to go back to launch day bios to get a bios with no EDC throttling for AVX. I recall as EDC Bug allows me to run the same high 4300-4400Mhz for Cinebench & prime95 as I saw in the early days. At some point it wasn't boosting any more to those levels. EDC Bug restored the older behaviour.

All the talk about FIT values and whatnot, you where throttling under PBO & PB regular usage, no wonder it was using "less voltage" before until you remove the restriction for current allowed.


----------



## nowarranty

If I am understanding this right, PBO is going to boost to the maximum regardless of the dynamic offset voltage I choose, correct? So I should aim for either a very high negative offset with higher LLC or a lower negative offset with lower LLC? This way my non-avx loads would have more voltage for higher boosting?

-0.125v offset with high LLC vs -0.05v with low LLC 

also, I'm not seeing my SOC do anything but spike up under load, does this behavior seem normal? I have LLC on medium and tried low, but it will still jump +0.01v under load


----------



## ManniX-ITA

nowarranty said:


> If I am understanding this right, PBO is going to boost to the maximum regardless of the dynamic offset voltage I choose, correct? So I should aim for either a very high negative offset with higher LLC or a lower negative offset with lower LLC? This way my non-avx loads would have more voltage for higher boosting?
> 
> -0.125v offset with high LLC vs -0.05v with low LLC
> 
> also, I'm not seeing my SOC do anything but spike up under load, does this behavior seem normal? I have LLC on medium and tried low, but it will still jump +0.01v under load


No, to make the EDC bug work properly without drops in performance you need to find the perfect offset; it's a very long trial process.
LLC depends on your setup, could be you need it high or low. IF and memory speed and timings have a big influence too.

SOC voltage is best set to a fixed value; start with 1.100v


----------



## bgeneto

I'm trying to avoid single-thread throttle without success (at least in CB20). Any chance to eliminate throttling with C-states On? What I did so far:


 Using -0.03125 negative vcore offset in order to improve ST performance [works]
 Set LLC to Level 3 to compensate lower vcore in MT tasks [works] 
 EDC = 23 (no ST load would require more than this and EDC = 24 begins to throttle also MT). [didn't work in CB20]
 Limited PPT to 180W and TDC = 112A because my AIO 360mm is not enough to handle more than these. 

Tried 1usmus and Ultimate power plans. No throttling with cpu-z (Scored 563 points ST / 8571 MT). No throttling with y-cruncher single-threaded (just bit lower score/higher time). y-cruncher MT is blazing fast. *But CB20 ST scores are sub 500 with C-State On* (529 points when Off) Any thoughts? Just trying to improve ST performance with stability (no throttling), really don't care about better MT performance.


----------



## nowarranty

ManniX-ITA said:


> No, to make the EDC bug work properly without drops in performance you need to find the perfect offset; it's a very long trial process.
> LLC depends on your setup, could be you need it high or low. IF and memory speed and timings have a big influence too.
> 
> SOC voltage is best set to a fixed value; start with 1.100v


https://www.overclock.net/forum/13-...bo-turbo-boost-post28494360.html#post28494360

I did experience this at first, playing around with LLC and offsets I found some settings where all cores boosted to 4300mhz (non avx) and others did not. I thought it was maybe weaker cores needing more voltage or something.

I'm just curious on what you said, because I am unsure if EDC and PBO going off of voltage itself or is there something within the algorithm for each clock speed / voltage step? This is what led me to the curiosity of if I need 1.32v for the best cinebench scores if it would matter how I got to that voltage with either LLC or offset.

As for now, I'm testing in between the 6800-7200 cinebench score but have noticed the voltage / LLC that pushes 7200 scores but I'm still a clueless on the full details on the bug vs pbo. I just know with certain offset and LLC it scores a great deal better on multicore performance but I read in one of these threads that 1.32v load is not a safe zone. I just want to make sure I can gain some performance while maintaining the chip at safe voltages for the long term


----------



## ManniX-ITA

nowarranty said:


> https://www.overclock.net/forum/13-...bo-turbo-boost-post28494360.html#post28494360
> 
> I did experience this at first, playing around with LLC and offsets I found some settings where all cores boosted to 4300mhz (non avx) and others did not. I thought it was maybe weaker cores needing more voltage or something.
> 
> I'm just curious on what you said, because I am unsure if EDC and PBO going off of voltage itself or is there something within the algorithm for each clock speed / voltage step? This is what led me to the curiosity of if I need 1.32v for the best cinebench scores if it would matter how I got to that voltage with either LLC or offset.
> 
> As for now, I'm testing in between the 6800-7200 cinebench score but have noticed the voltage / LLC that pushes 7200 scores but I'm still a clueless on the full details on the bug vs pbo. I just know with certain offset and LLC it scores a great deal better on multicore performance but I read in one of these threads that 1.32v load is not a safe zone. I just want to make sure I can gain some performance while maintaining the chip at safe voltages for the long term


Well, it depends on silicon which voltage is safe. You can take as reference the voltage applied by PBO without the bug.
But consider you'll need a bit more than that to get a boost.
I wouldn't say it's safe if run most of the time all core AVX load, 24h renderings or encoding and such.
For a normal usage I'd say it's pretty safe.
If you are worried you can limit the all core load with PPT/TDC.

You need to find the correct voltage cause PBO does some realtime adjustments to reach and keep the best performance.
These adjustments are screwed up with the over 100% EDC reporting. Either you find the correct voltage or it goes worse.


----------



## bgeneto

nowarranty said:


> https://www.overclock.net/forum/13-...bo-turbo-boost-post28494360.html#post28494360
> 
> [...] how I got to that voltage with either LLC or offset.


You should consider also scalar values, it affects voltage too. 
Try Offset -0.03125V with LLC 2 and 10x scalar, should be around 1.325V vcore, but it depends on your board, cpu etc... 
-0.04375V with LLC 3 and 10x also doable. Remember to disable C-states to avoid single-thread throttling.


----------



## dansi

tcclaviger said:


> Ok so lets just do this right:
> 
> Stock:
> R20 - 525 single thread, 7440 multithread
> 
> PBO:
> R20 - 533 single thread, 7680 mutlithread
> 
> EDC Bug:
> R20 - 542 single thread, 7780 multithread
> 
> You're not comprehending that YOUR gigabyte X570 behaves significantly differently than MY C7H on AGESA 1006 does. It's not about the 3900x its about the motherboard. There is CLEARLY as mutlicore increase as well as single core. Why? NO MORE LIMITS...


did you test with ibt? 
edc bug may introduce clock stretching with certain apps like it.

but it seems edc is working 'as it should' for gigabyte boards and 3950x.


----------



## betam4x

I am currently playing around with this bug and a 103 (!) MHz bus clock. I set the voltage and voltage offset to “standard”. In CPU-Z my SC score has been as high as 577. MC Score was 8860. I have to retest Cinebench, however my Timespy CPU score was 13,458.

EDIT: Cinebench MC score was 7614.

Voltages stayed close to 1.2V when under load (1.23V Prime95 small FFTs IIRC, will check once R20 single core is done). Idle voltages were quite low, under 1V.

Every single core hits 4.5+ GHz. This CPU absolutely sings.

EDIT #2: Prime95 settles at 1.23V with the EDC bug. It normally settles at 1.175 FIT voltage. That’s ok, however, because lowering TDC and PPC didn’t drop performance much, but it dropped the voltage under load to 1.135V.

EDIT #3:
CPU-Z - https://valid.x86.fr/qnh9d9 - 578 SC / 8802 MC
Cinebench R20 - https://imgur.com/a/hSq4Wpe - 535 SC / 7657 MC
Geekbench 5.1.1 - https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/2549577 - 1302 SC / 13332 MC (Curious, scores are lower than stock: https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/2548565)


----------



## bgeneto

betam4x said:


> I am currently playing around with this bug and a 103 (!) MHz bus clock. I set the voltage and voltage offset to “standard”. In CPU-Z my SC score has been as high as 577. MC Score was 8860. I have to retest Cinebench, however my Timespy CPU score was 13,458.
> 
> EDIT: Cinebench MC score was 7614.
> 
> Voltages stayed close to 1.2V when under load (1.23V Prime95 small FFTs IIRC, will check once R20 single core is done). Idle voltages were quite low, under 1V.
> 
> Every single core hits 4.5+ GHz. This CPU absolutely sings.
> 
> EDIT #2: Prime95 settles at 1.23V with the EDC bug. It normally settles at 1.175 FIT voltage. That’s ok, however, because lowering TDC and PPC didn’t drop performance much, but it dropped the voltage under load to 1.135V.
> 
> EDIT #3:
> CPU-Z - https://valid.x86.fr/qnh9d9 - 578 SC / 8802 MC
> Cinebench R20 - https://imgur.com/a/hSq4Wpe - 535 SC / 7657 MC
> Geekbench 5.1.1 - https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/2549577 - 1302 SC / 13332 MC (Curious, scores are lower than stock: https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/2548565)


Impressive ST score! My 3900X won't boost if BCLK > 100. It stays in base clock for every load, why is that? Any ideas?


----------



## nowarranty

ManniX-ITA said:


> Well, it depends on silicon which voltage is safe. You can take as reference the voltage applied by PBO without the bug.
> But consider you'll need a bit more than that to get a boost.
> I wouldn't say it's safe if run most of the time all core AVX load, 24h renderings or encoding and such.
> For a normal usage I'd say it's pretty safe.
> If you are worried you can limit the all core load with PPT/TDC.
> 
> You need to find the correct voltage cause PBO does some realtime adjustments to reach and keep the best performance.
> These adjustments are screwed up with the over 100% EDC reporting. Either you find the correct voltage or it goes worse.





bgeneto said:


> You should consider also scalar values, it affects voltage too.
> Try Offset -0.03125V with LLC 2 and 10x scalar, should be around 1.325V vcore, but it depends on your board, cpu etc...
> -0.04375V with LLC 3 and 10x also doable. Remember to disable C-states to avoid single-thread throttling.


Thank you! :thumb: These suggestions helped a lot. I was looking at the situation backwards, as if PBO is going to boost with the bug at the voltage I wanted to stay near, but I think I understand better now. 
I was thinking that PBO would boost efficiently at the voltage I wanted it to, I was not understanding Zen architecture or the boost algorithm. I wanted to stay under 1.3v but now realize the chip would not perform under 1.3v at the higher clockspeeds it's trying to boost to.
Still trying to learn as I go, but I can see the difference with -0.31v and -0.05v, with and without scalar. Odd enough to see with -0.31v offset I had only a bit more voltage under load than with -0.125v. I was testing on cinebench and using the cinebench and cpu z scores as reference, with a bit of tweaking the points went from 7000 to 7200 and even 7450 on cinebench and from 8400 to 8600 on cpu-z. Now I will try to get a bit more boost without too much voltage.
The part I am most undecisive of is if it's worth me having great boost performance with the bug or just gimping performance by setting a ridiculous high negative offset to ensure temperatures will stay under 60C and voltage under 1.29 or 1.28 under loads.


----------



## bgeneto

nowarranty said:


> The part I am most undecisive of is if it's worth me having great boost performance with the bug or just gimping performance by setting a ridiculous high negative offset to ensure temperatures will stay under 60C and voltage under 1.29 or 1.28 under loads.


I think you lose too much performance by undervolting more than necessary. 
Just choose a proper (small) undervolt offset that maximizes your ST performance and then limit your temps with PPT values, 150 to 180W works for me. Voltage under load, on the other hand, can be controlled via LLC value. That's the strategy I'm using, but we are in the same boat here: I'm quite new to Ryzen overclocking too


----------



## ManniX-ITA

nowarranty said:


> Thank you! :thumb: These suggestions helped a lot. I was looking at the situation backwards, as if PBO is going to boost with the bug at the voltage I wanted to stay near, but I think I understand better now.
> I was thinking that PBO would boost efficiently at the voltage I wanted it to, I was not understanding Zen architecture or the boost algorithm. I wanted to stay under 1.3v but now realize the chip would not perform under 1.3v at the higher clockspeeds it's trying to boost to.
> Still trying to learn as I go, but I can see the difference with -0.31v and -0.05v, with and without scalar. Odd enough to see with -0.31v offset I had only a bit more voltage under load than with -0.125v. I was testing on cinebench and using the cinebench and cpu z scores as reference, with a bit of tweaking the points went from 7000 to 7200 and even 7450 on cinebench and from 8400 to 8600 on cpu-z. Now I will try to get a bit more boost without too much voltage.
> The part I am most undecisive of is if it's worth me having great boost performance with the bug or just gimping performance by setting a ridiculous high negative offset to ensure temperatures will stay under 60C and voltage under 1.29 or 1.28 under loads.


I don't think a very high negative offset will do any good with the bug.
You can usually get better performances and lower temperatures using EDC=0 with a moderate negative offset, without much effort.


----------



## betam4x

bgeneto said:


> I think you lose too much performance by undervolting more than necessary.
> Just choose a proper (small) undervolt offset that maximizes your ST performance and then limit your temps with PPT values, 150 to 180W works for me. Voltage under load, on the other hand, can be controlled via LLC value. That's the strategy I'm using, but we are in the same boat here: I'm quite new to Ryzen overclocking too


Don't read too much into undervolting. What helps control voltages (regardless of load) is TDC and it's relationship to PPT. You might get a limited boost, but effectively managing TDC (and bclk! my board can do 103 at least) will get you further.

Case in point, properly managing TDC (don't just set it to 300A) will allow the chip to sustain a 4.6 GHz boost (in case of the 3900X) at 100% load on 1-2 cores (typically load, not prime95, prime95 is a power virus). I've been able to significantly improve my performance by managing TDC and PPT (because we no longer have to deal with EDC). I am still experimenting, but I've hit 550 in single core Cinebench.

Ensure that PPT is low enough so it doesn't overwhelm your cooling setup. Then tweak TDC.

Right now the limits on my chip are superficial. If I had the ability to tweak the boost algorithm itself, my chip could easily do a single core boost to 4.8 GHz or possibly higher. It already hits 4.75 GHz as it is with the bclk tweak.


----------



## bgeneto

Interesting... what TDC values are you testing/using? I've fixed mine between 112 or 120A.


----------



## usoldier

Hi all i just started to try out this method iam Running offset -0.75v PTT 150 TDC 105 EDC 12 

I would like to know if its safe to run like this 24/7 cause the performance got up quite a bit i like it  

This pic is my Prime95 Load readouts.

Guys think its safe to leave it like this?


----------



## usoldier

Also this is me Running World of Warcraft its (light load game) actualy boosts to 4525 all cores :O is this safe ?


----------



## ManniX-ITA

usoldier said:


> Also this is me Running World of Warcraft its (light load game) actualy boosts to 4525 all cores :O is this safe ?


It's not much more risky than running PBO without the bug.
There's a bit more power going through but the protections are still all on.

If you check the effective clocks in your screenshot you'll see only 1 core peaked 4,5 GHz at 100% load.


----------



## usoldier

ManniX-ITA said:


> It's not much more risky than running PBO without the bug.
> There's a bit more power going through but the protections are still all on.
> 
> If you check the effective clocks in your screenshot you'll see only 1 core peaked 4,5 GHz at 100% load.


So iam safe spot then ? Maybe ill lower vcore even more ?


----------



## Nighthog

usoldier said:


> So iam safe spot then ? Maybe ill lower vcore even more ?


You can have normal Vcore if you want... I've been using more than recommended for ages and no problems yet. The voltage scare people tout is junk in my opinion. 
The only problem is proper cooling, they get hot on 7nm.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

usoldier said:


> So iam safe spot then ? Maybe ill lower vcore even more ?


Lower you go, better is for temperatures.
Obviously there's a threshold where the voltage will not be enough for the boosting and the performances will get worse.
It's all about finding the right spot, including a proper LLC setting.


----------



## usoldier

Nighthog said:


> You can have normal Vcore if you want... I've been using more than recommended for ages and no problems yet. The voltage scare people tout is junk in my opinion.
> The only problem is proper cooling, they get hot on 7nm.





ManniX-ITA said:


> Lower you go, better is for temperatures.
> Obviously there's a threshold where the voltage will not be enough for the boosting and the performances will get worse.
> It's all about finding the right spot, including a proper LLC setting.


The cooling is ok ish, cant get any higher then 76cº if i go full blast on fans it stays at 71ºc . Ill try to find the right LLC and lower the core voltage a bit more. 

Thanks for the Posts .


----------



## Marucins

I have updated UEFI (BIOS) to the latest version F20a.
The bug doesn't work anymore.


----------



## Nighthog

Marucins said:


> I have updated UEFI (BIOS) to the latest version F20a.
> The bug doesn't work anymore.


Works for me on 3800X and X570 Xtreme F20a

You might need to redo your settings. There where some changes in motherboard behaviour noted, might need different EDC/LLC values etc depending on your setup.

I for one noted the need for less LLC to get stable results from before.


----------



## Marucins

You're right.
They've changed several options on the menu - to be precise, their location.

All in all, strange is that AMD did not fix this bug.
It's a joke?
Why can't anyone fix these mistakes?
Why doesn't anyone regulate the PBO's operations properly?


----------



## Awsan

Marucins said:


> You're right.
> They've changed several options on the menu - to be precise, their location.
> 
> All in all, strange is that AMD did not fix this bug.
> It's a joke?
> Why can't anyone fix these mistakes?
> Why doesn't anyone regulate the PBO's operations properly?


Why would they? its cheaper to replace a few of the dead ones than to get lower performance.

Right now everywhere you go you see people saying just get a 3800x with nice ram and a good cooler for the PBO bug and you will have a gaming beast.


----------



## gerardfraser

usoldier said:


> Also this is me Running World of Warcraft its (light load game) actualy boosts to 4525 all cores :O is this safe ?


Your boosting is fine , no one can tell you what is safe for your CPU but there are lot's of fear mongering about Ryzen CPU voltage. I do not believe the nonsense of some of the people myself. 
Just to let you know 3800X if you have your settings dialed in, the 3800x can hit 4650 Mhz boost on default BLCK of 100 on a couple threads. Not that it matters if it does or does not hit highest boost clocks . Do not feel like you missing out LOL 

With the EDC bug/tweak you can hit all cores with 4600+ Mhz , now that would never be sustained just because AMD Ryzen shows different than Intel but there is no loss in perforce when cores turn on/off


Light Gaming load BIOSHOCK all cores 4600+ 3800X






OR you can just go for 4650Mhz all core over clock and forget the EDC bug/tweak







Awsan said:


> Why would they? its cheaper to replace a few of the dead ones than to get lower performance.
> 
> Right now everywhere you go you see people saying just get a 3800x with nice ram and a good cooler for the PBO bug and you will have a gaming beast.


I agree , I have the cheapest X470 Motherboard and 3800X . the combination is a gaming beast at 4K.


----------



## usoldier

gerardfraser said:


> Your boosting is fine , no one can tell you what is safe for your CPU but there are lot's of fear mongering about Ryzen CPU voltage. I do not believe the nonsense of some of the people myself.
> Just to let you know 3800X if you have your settings dialed in, the 3800x can hit 4650 Mhz boost on default BLCK of 100 on a couple threads. Not that it matters if it does or does not hit highest boost clocks . Do not feel like you missing out LOL
> 
> With the EDC bug/tweak you can hit all cores with 4600+ Mhz , now that would never be sustained just because AMD Ryzen shows different than Intel but there is no loss in perforce when cores turn on/off
> 
> 
> Light Gaming load BIOSHOCK all cores 4600+ 3800X
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJO_kjtrmFI&t=0s
> 
> 
> OR you can just go for 4650Mhz all core over clock and forget the EDC bug/tweak
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-1WjNscD7k
> 
> 
> 
> I agree , I have the cheapest X470 Motherboard and 3800X . the combination is a gaming beast at 4K.



Wow amazing


----------



## Alpi

Use this "bug" for a while. (known as a bug, thought as a feature) Know it's out of any official way how to use our Zen2 but I've tested it so many ways in many scenario through time and seen it's reacts to any bad or harmful situation just like the factory Pb algorythm does. Ofc can't say it's safe for sure but for a while I lost any of my worry. Wasn't serious anyway.  
For a while, I use a setting like that :
PPT : 95W
TDC : auto
EDC : 1
Scalar : auto => x2 at me I guess
Boost clck overr. : +200

Vcore : -0.062 V offset

My 3800X has pretty good temps but does mentionable better performance also than stock boosts ever did. 
Through the months I made some videos about interesting and / or useful things what I've seen.

For example I can show a very easy way to test what is the maximum negative Vcore offset what won't harm Your performance still : 



Also an interesting vcore behaviour what can used as a "feature" in some ways :


----------



## tcclaviger

So I set a world ambient cooling and US outright Geekbench 4 single core 3900x record this morning, visible at HWBOT, using EDC bug + low PPT of 150 and TDC of 105. 
https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/15571218

What the people above replying to me, don't understand or haven't been paying attention to is the whole EDC bug + bclk + force oc mode disable + PBO high values effects vs OTHER configurations. The difference is over 70 millivolts at load, not a "small difference" for 12 cores at 4.3ghz loaded.

There is absolutely a difference in C7H vs non-Asus boards in this configuration.

Would love to see a shot of your CPUs package power (SMU) with EDC bug running unlimited PBO PPT and TDC. I seriously doubt you're hitting the same power draw, at least not from the shots I've seen.

That's my point, the C7H and possibly C8H are allowing insane power in specific configurations. By tuning PPT to a reasonable level you can keep the 4.75+ghz single core boosting but pull the multithreaded loads back into a reasonable value.

It did a 7760/545 using the above unlimited power, but it pulls about 1.4 vcore steady through R20 nt test to do it. I mean, you can say that's safe all you want, but you'd be wrong saying so. 1.4v at load on an AVX workload is hardly safe, even if you can control the temps.

Temps are only ONE prong of the three prong electromigration problem. If 2 are very high, guess what happens....

From my "limited to 150 PPT" EDC settings, because really, there's no need for a great nt score than that for a gaming pc...:


----------



## gerardfraser

Alpi said:


> My 3800X has pretty good temps but does mentionable better performance also than stock boosts ever did.
> Through the months I made some videos about interesting and / or useful things what I've seen.
> 
> For example I can show a very easy way to test what is the maximum negative Vcore offset what won't harm Your performance still :
> Also an interesting vcore behaviour what can used as a "feature" in some ways :


How does your 3800X do with your setting in Cinebench20

Mine with an actual video and 4 total runs of multi and single, now Cinebench20 do not mean anything to me , cause I just do PC Gaming on Ryzen.
Posted for 3800X owners so you can get an idea what the bug/tweak can do with 3800X on Cinebench20 default settings.Which mean below normal priority. 

-Highest single run 540 SCORE
-Highest multi run 5272 SCORE

Actual recorded last run score below.

Single Thread-530 score 
Multi Thread -5260 score 
Idle temperature CPU-28°C
Max temperature CPU-71°C

Settings in BIOS

PPT= 0 actual max limit reached 90.4%
TDC=0 actual max limit reached 81.4%
EDC=1 actual max limit reached 7737.7%
Scaler 10X
PBO Override 500Mhz


----------



## VPII

Look I have tried this EDC bug various ways. With a negative vcore off-set, without a vcore off-set, with a positive vcore off-set. EDC at 1, 10, 12, 24, 32 and so on but my results are horrible at best. All core clocks would show 4.25ghz and sometimes even 4.3ghz but results is way lower than when I set in PBO the EDC to like 220 or more. I seriously tried every possible combination but my system will not run as it should. System as follow:

AMD Rynen 9 3950X
MSI Meg X570 Ace
4 x 8GB Gskill FlareX DDR4 3200 @ 3766 CL16.

I'm not sure if I am missing something, but I'm done testing. I'll just stick with my all core overclock of 4.2ghz using 1.1875vcore (hot days) or 4.35ghz using 1.2625vcore (cooler days)


----------



## Bal3Wolf

VPII said:


> Look I have tried this EDC bug various ways. With a negative vcore off-set, without a vcore off-set, with a positive vcore off-set. EDC at 1, 10, 12, 24, 32 and so on but my results are horrible at best. All core clocks would show 4.25ghz and sometimes even 4.3ghz but results is way lower than when I set in PBO the EDC to like 220 or more. I seriously tried every possible combination but my system will not run as it should. System as follow:
> 
> AMD Rynen 9 3950X
> MSI Meg X570 Ace
> 4 x 8GB Gskill FlareX DDR4 3200 @ 3766 CL16.
> 
> I'm not sure if I am missing something, but I'm done testing. I'll just stick with my all core overclock of 4.2ghz using 1.1875vcore (hot days) or 4.35ghz using 1.2625vcore (cooler days)


don't feel bad im mostly in the same boat as you my 3900x does not like PBO very much either my chip barely boosts to 4500 on a single core on effective clocks but i can do a ccd overclock of 4400 and 4300 thats stable and under 1.3 vcore.


----------



## VPII

Bal3Wolf said:


> don't feel bad im mostly in the same boat as you my 3900x does not like PBO very much either my chip barely boosts to 4500 on a single core on effective clocks but i can do a ccd overclock of 4400 and 4300 thats stable and under 1.3 vcore.


Yup I prefer the manual overclock as temps appear to be lower as well and performance much better except for single core, but I don't really care much for that.


----------



## nowarranty

Still playing with the EDC bug but I am starting to become very confused. I need some help with these scenarios. Sometimes I get higher clocks and lower scores, but my main worry is the EDC readings on hwinfo.

With PBO on auto I see edc of 140a and tdc of 90a on CB20
with ppt/tdc/edc at 0/0/1 I see the high readings like before but edc limit showing upwards of 9000% maximum
with ppt/tdc/edc at 150/100/16 I see cpu tdc/edc max around 90a and cpu package 140w with edc limit around 600%
with buildzoid settings 320/230/230 i see similar to PBO auto / 0/0/1

even when playing with offset and llc, im trying to understand, am I nuking the cpu internally when using the bug or is the ppt limit set enough to stop it? As in is it 150w with 9000% EDC current same as 150w with 600% EDC current? PBO on auto is low clockspeed of 4100 but scores almost 7200 on CB and does it with very low voltage of around 1.26v. To get these scores without PBO auto im almost at 1.3v and clocks of 4.25-4.3. 

id like the performance boost, but im not sure what I am tinkering with anymore. the more I read about voltages and edc, the more worried im becoming


----------



## Medizinmann

nowarranty said:


> Still playing with the EDC bug but I am starting to become very confused. I need some help with these scenarios. Sometimes I get higher clocks and lower scores, but my main worry is the EDC readings on hwinfo.
> 
> With PBO on auto I see edc of 140a and tdc of 90a on CB20
> with ppt/tdc/edc at 0/0/1 I see the high readings like before but edc limit showing upwards of 9000% maximum
> with ppt/tdc/edc at 150/100/16 I see cpu tdc/edc max around 90a and cpu package 140w with edc limit around 600%
> with buildzoid settings 320/230/230 i see similar to PBO auto / 0/0/1
> 
> even when playing with offset and llc, im trying to understand, am I nuking the cpu internally when using the bug or is the ppt limit set enough to stop it? As in is it 150w with 9000% EDC current same as 150w with 600% EDC current? PBO on auto is low clockspeed of 4100 but scores almost 7200 on CB and does it with very low voltage of around 1.26v. To get these scores without PBO auto im almost at 1.3v and clocks of 4.25-4.3.
> 
> id like the performance boost, but im not sure what I am tinkering with anymore. the more I read about voltages and edc, the more worried im becoming


I assume you use a 3900x? 
As stock limit is 140A for EDC and 90A for TDC – and of course 142 W for PPT…

With the bug setting EDC=1 and PPT and TDC to motherboards max. values (1300W/700A) I can easily see power draw of up to 200W and CB20 scores up to 7570ish with PBO - and z-bench SC 564.5.

Well as long as cooling is sufficient there shouldn’t be any problems.

Using buildzoids values gives me similar multicore results but bad single core…and lower values with IBT (140 vs. 148).

0/0/1 – means 142W/90A/ “no limit” – so you run in the PPT or TDC limit…

150/100/16 – caps the PPT to 150W – which is still not sufficient to see a great performance boost over stock values…

Best regards,
Medizinmann


----------



## nowarranty

Medizinmann said:


> I assume you use a 3900x?
> As stock limit is 140A for EDC and 90A for TDC – and of course 142 W for PPT…
> 
> With the bug setting EDC=1 and PPT and TDC to motherboards max. values (1300W/700A) I can easily see power draw of up to 200W and CB20 scores up to 7570ish with PBO - and z-bench SC 564.5.
> 
> Well as long as cooling is sufficient there shouldn’t be any problems.
> 
> Using buildzoids values gives me similar multicore results but bad single core…and lower values with IBT (140 vs. 148).
> 
> 0/0/1 – means 142W/90A/ “no limit” – so you run in the PPT or TDC limit…
> 
> 150/100/16 – caps the PPT to 150W – which is still not sufficient to see a great performance boost over stock values…
> 
> Best regards,
> Medizinmann


Thanks for this and yes I am using 3900x.

Sorry if I'm being redundant, I'll try again when I get back home and see what I am not understanding. If I set 150/100/16 vs 150/100/160 I am limiting the EDC to 16A or 160A vs 150/100/1 being EDC unlimited

When I see that no limit on EDC bug is it actually pulling the 9000% of it's supposed limit or is that just what the bug shows? Seeing 600% was already scary.

I will try to read a bit more into the thread because I'm still confused about EDC on PBO auto vs setting EDC to something like 16. I understand 1 is for the bug and unlimited but i dont understand the suggestions for 12-16 on 3900x if they pull less than PBO auto on CB20


----------



## ManniX-ITA

nowarranty said:


> Thanks for this and yes I am using 3900x.
> 
> Sorry if I'm being redundant, I'll try again when I get back home and see what I am not understanding. If I set 150/100/16 vs 150/100/160 I am limiting the EDC to 16A or 160A vs 150/100/1 being EDC unlimited
> 
> When I see that no limit on EDC bug is it actually pulling the 9000% of it's supposed limit or is that just what the bug shows? Seeing 600% was already scary.
> 
> I will try to read a bit more into the thread because I'm still confused about EDC on PBO auto vs setting EDC to something like 16. I understand 1 is for the bug and unlimited but i dont understand the suggestions for 12-16 on 3900x if they pull less than PBO auto on CB20


It's "unlimited", not 16A.
But it's not really unlimited 
With a very low limit it's like a turbo boost but still within control of the many protections behind.
Same when you set EDC at 540A, you will never see it pulling 540A for real.

It's called a "bug" but since it's there from AGESA 1.0.0.3 and it's still there in the latest 2 releases after it became popular I'd say we can call it a "feature" now.
If it was really unsafe AMD would have fixed it long time ago.


----------



## Medizinmann

nowarranty said:


> Thanks for this and yes I am using 3900x.
> 
> Sorry if I'm being redundant, I'll try again when I get back home and see what I am not understanding. If I set 150/100/16 vs 150/100/160 I am limiting the EDC to 16A or 160A vs 150/100/1 being EDC unlimited
> 
> When I see that no limit on EDC bug is it actually pulling the 9000% of it's supposed limit or is that just what the bug shows? Seeing 600% was already scary.
> 
> I will try to read a bit more into the thread because I'm still confused about EDC on PBO auto vs setting EDC to something like 16. I understand 1 is for the bug and unlimited but i dont understand the suggestions for 12-16 on 3900x if they pull less than PBO auto on CB20



EDC values under a certain limit still exploit this bug so the system will pull more than 16A with EDC set to 16 - the problem with 150/100/16 isn't EDC=16 it is PPT=150 and TDC=100 - you don't want these limits if you want to OC your 3900X to the max...

Something like 300/200/16 would make a lot more sense (or 190/120/1) - or look up you motherboards limits - mine is 1300/700/840 and therefore I set 1300/700/1 - and of course it will never draw 1300W - but it goes up to 205 W (seen even 235W on AGESA 1.0.0.3ABBA) - and the limit is CPU temp now - as always you need sufficient cooling! :thumb:


Best regards,
Medizinmann


----------



## Alpi

gerardfraser said:


> How does your 3800X do with your setting in Cinebench20
> 
> Mine with an actual video and 4 total runs of multi and single, now Cinebench20 do not mean anything to me , cause I just do PC Gaming on Ryzen.
> Posted for 3800X owners so you can get an idea what the bug/tweak can do with 3800X on Cinebench20 default settings.Which mean below normal priority.
> 
> -Highest single run 540 SCORE
> -Highest multi run 5272 SCORE
> 
> Actual recorded last run score below.
> 
> Single Thread-530 score
> Multi Thread -5260 score
> Idle temperature CPU-28Â°C
> Max temperature CPU-71Â°C
> 
> Settings in BIOS
> 
> PPT= 0 actual max limit reached 90.4%
> TDC=0 actual max limit reached 81.4%
> EDC=1 actual max limit reached 7737.7%
> Scaler 10X
> PBO Override 500Mhz
> 
> My setup is less aggressive and as I see Your temps in the vid, Your cooling is really efficient !
> This was made a few days earlier :


----------



## nowarranty

ManniX-ITA said:


> It's "unlimited", not 16A.
> But it's not really unlimited
> With a very low limit it's like a turbo boost but still within control of the many protections behind.
> Same when you set EDC at 540A, you will never see it pulling 540A for real.
> 
> It's called a "bug" but since it's there from AGESA 1.0.0.3 and it's still there in the latest 2 releases after it became popular I'd say we can call it a "feature" now.
> If it was really unsafe AMD would have fixed it long time ago.





Medizinmann said:


> EDC values under a certain limit still exploit this bug so the system will pull more than 16A with EDC set to 16 - the problem with 150/100/16 isn't EDC=16 it is PPT=150 and TDC=100 - you don't want these limits if you want to OC your 3900X to the max...
> 
> Something like 300/200/16 would make a lot more sense (or 190/120/1) - or look up you motherboards limits - mine is 1300/700/840 and therefore I set 1300/700/1 - and of course it will never draw 1300W - but it goes up to 205 W (seen even 235W on AGESA 1.0.0.3ABBA) - and the limit is CPU temp now - as always you need sufficient cooling! :thumb:
> 
> 
> Best regards,
> Medizinmann


Thanks so much for this, really helping me get through this process. 
I have a few more LLC and offsets to test, but now I will be able to set the ppt/tdc/edc to a range that works.
I am still having the battle of lower performance with less voltage, I think I have been reading too much about degradation


----------



## gerardfraser

Alpi said:


> My setup is less aggressive and as I see Your temps in the vid, Your cooling is really efficient !
> This was made a few days earlier :


Your Cinebench20 scores are normal and fine , as far as my CPU cooler it was the cheapest one I could find. Total cost with mail in rebate approximately $40USD.
MasterLiquid Lite ML240L RGB AIO


----------



## Israel Cohen

*x3960 issue*

Tried this with gigabyte aorus xtreme and 3960x a few variations of EDC 30 with other PPT, it works well with the new updated windows amd power settings vcores are idle at 0.8-1.1 and tops at 1.47 - 1.5 it seems like the same voltage the regular PBO is giving but im getting 4.4-4.5 on all cores and max boost of 4.6 even saw 4.65

Problem is not matter what i set PPT to even when there is no Watt limit it still does not outperform Cinebench r15 on regular PBO

bug = 5500
regular PBO = 6100

it feels like some sort of throttle limit but i dont understand i see all cores at 4.375 on HW when i R15 on bug pbo and i see a 4.1-4.2 all core on regular pbo but i get a higher score on the regular pBO???


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Israel Cohen said:


> Tried this with gigabyte aorus xtreme and 3960x a few variations of EDC 30 with other PPT, it works well with the new updated windows amd power settings vcores are idle at 0.8-1.1 and tops at 1.47 - 1.5 it seems like the same voltage the regular PBO is giving but im getting 4.4-4.5 on all cores and max boost of 4.6 even saw 4.65
> 
> Problem is not matter what i set PPT to even when there is no Watt limit it still does not outperform Cinebench r15 on regular PBO
> 
> bug = 5500
> regular PBO = 6100
> 
> it feels like some sort of throttle limit but i dont understand i see all cores at 4.375 on HW when i R15 on bug pbo and i see a 4.1-4.2 all core on regular pbo but i get a higher score on the regular pBO???


That's probably because is throttling, too much voltage.
Did you check the delta between ref and effective clocks at 100%?
Try using a negative voltage offset and limiting PPT/TDC.


----------



## Nighthog

Israel Cohen said:


> Tried this with gigabyte aorus xtreme and 3960x a few variations of EDC 30 with other PPT, it works well with the new updated windows amd power settings vcores are idle at 0.8-1.1 and tops at 1.47 - 1.5 it seems like the same voltage the regular PBO is giving but im getting 4.4-4.5 on all cores and max boost of 4.6 even saw 4.65
> 
> Problem is not matter what i set PPT to even when there is no Watt limit it still does not outperform Cinebench r15 on regular PBO
> 
> bug = 5500
> regular PBO = 6100
> 
> it feels like some sort of throttle limit but i dont understand i see all cores at 4.375 on HW when i R15 on bug pbo and i see a 4.1-4.2 all core on regular pbo but i get a higher score on the regular pBO???


Yeah throttling most likely, your settings aren't optimal for the load/application causing your CPU try to maintain your EDC limit at times. It's micro-throttling down to 30A limit at times in R15. You might need to adjust voltage settings or go for a lower EDC value in general. LLC change might fix it also. 
Changing power plan can have a worse or better effect depending which profile you currently use. Some are just better tuned to take advantage of the Bug in general. Sadly we don't have a specific Power Plan for EDC bug in specific to make it work more easy.


----------



## Israel Cohen

Nighthog said:


> Yeah throttling most likely, your settings aren't optimal for the load/application causing your CPU try to maintain your EDC limit at times. It's micro-throttling down to 30A limit at times in R15. You might need to adjust voltage settings or go for a lower EDC value in general. LLC change might fix it also.
> Changing power plan can have a worse or better effect depending which profile you currently use. Some are just better tuned to take advantage of the Bug in general. Sadly we don't have a specific Power Plan for EDC bug in specific to make it work more easy.


Thank you.

Currently LLC is on AUTO I will try the lower settings.

for voltage i set it to auto and using the windows default ryzen power plan seems to dynamically change the vcore voltages and they are running between 0.8 to 1.5, if that voltage isnt showing as fixed doesn't the mean that it cant be throttling or that has nothing to do with it? 

Should i start with an negative 0.05 offset and keep going down, leaving EDC at 30?


Edits: 

--- 0.100 voltage offset and channing EDC - 25 PPT - 355. TDC - 300
gave me an even low R15 result of 5100 
compared to 5450 without voltage offset and with EDC 30
compared to 6120 with regular PBO
compared to 6400 with all Core Overclock

also tried c-states disabled with EDC - 1
R15 - 5150

Running LLC on Low got me the best results (not overall but within the PBO bug results)
R15 5850
R15 single core - 212 (thats in pair with the 3950x)

What else can i do to try and improve all core from this point? 
more voltage negative offset with LLC on low?

Im reading others are getting this bug to post like or better then all core overclock + better single thread


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Israel Cohen said:


> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> Currently LLC is on AUTO I will try the lower settings.
> 
> for voltage i set it to auto and using the windows default ryzen power plan seems to dynamically change the vcore voltages and they are running between 0.8 to 1.5, if that voltage isnt showing as fixed doesn't the mean that it cant be throttling or that has nothing to do with it?
> 
> Should i start with an negative 0.05 offset and keep going down, leaving EDC at 30?
> 
> 
> Edits:
> 
> --- 0.100 voltage offset and channing EDC - 25 PPT - 355. TDC - 300
> gave me an even low R15 result of 5100
> compared to 5450 without voltage offset and with EDC 30
> compared to 6120 with regular PBO
> compared to 6400 with all Core Overclock
> 
> also tried c-states disabled with EDC - 1
> R15 - 5150
> 
> Running LLC on Low got me the best results (not overall but within the PBO bug results)
> R15 5850
> R15 single core - 212 (thats in pair with the 3950x)
> 
> What else can i do to try and improve all core from this point?
> more voltage negative offset with LLC on low?
> 
> Im reading others are getting this bug to post like or better then all core overclock + better single thread


It's a very long and tedious fine tuning process, otherwise as you can see you'll get worse performances.


What's your voltage during normal PBO under CB20? You want to match it with EDC low and scalar 1x.

Start with C States disabled, scalar 1x and boost 0 MHz, it'll be easier to spot the best offset.
You have to test every single step for the offset.
Usually -0.1v is already too much negative. But if you may have to test every single step up to +1.0v.
You should see a curve in scores, hopefully, the offset at the peak of this curve is the best one.
Once you are there raise boost at max and test the scalar from 1 to 10, 10x will add 50mv, you may have to compensate the offset to keep the score going up.

You have to repeat for every EDC value till you can find one where you get the best results.

PPT and TDC too high can lower performances, especially if you the cooling is not sufficient, the heat is going to increase.
If the scores are low try with default values setting them at 0.
Don't check only CB20 use CPU-z bench and watch how it progress, not only the score.


----------



## Israel Cohen

ManniX-ITA said:


> It's a very long and tedious fine tuning process, otherwise as you can see you'll get worse performances.
> 
> 
> What's your voltage during normal PBO under CB20? You want to match it with EDC low and scalar 1x.
> 
> Start with C States disabled, scalar 1x and boost 0 MHz, it'll be easier to spot the best offset.
> You have to test every single step for the offset.
> Usually -0.1v is already too much negative. But if you may have to test every single step up to +1.0v.
> You should see a curve in scores, hopefully, the offset at the peak of this curve is the best one.
> Once you are there raise boost at max and test the scalar from 1 to 10, 10x will add 50mv, you may have to compensate the offset to keep the score going up.
> 
> You have to repeat for every EDC value till you can find one where you get the best results.
> 
> PPT and TDC too high can lower performances, especially if you the cooling is not sufficient, the heat is going to increase.
> If the scores are low try with default values setting them at 0.
> Don't check only CB20 use CPU-z bench and watch how it progress, not only the score.



Thank you, yeah i figured that much, i'v been testing for hours.
My cooling is 1x 420 radiator to a 1x 360x radiator cooling only the CPU and one GPU


----------



## Israel Cohen

*3960x*

3960x

positive 0.5 voltage, LLC set to low
EDC - 30
PPT 355
TDC 300

got me 6180 R15
212 single thread R15
202 FPS

Can probably push it to 6400-6500 but im more interested in the single thread performance while keeping all thread high.


----------



## Nighthog

Israel Cohen said:


> Thank you.
> 
> Currently LLC is on AUTO I will try the lower settings.
> 
> for voltage i set it to auto and using the windows default ryzen power plan seems to dynamically change the vcore voltages and they are running between 0.8 to 1.5, if that voltage isnt showing as fixed doesn't the mean that it cant be throttling or that has nothing to do with it?
> 
> Should i start with an negative 0.05 offset and keep going down, leaving EDC at 30?
> 
> 
> Edits:
> 
> --- 0.100 voltage offset and channing EDC - 25 PPT - 355. TDC - 300
> gave me an even low R15 result of 5100
> compared to 5450 without voltage offset and with EDC 30
> compared to 6120 with regular PBO
> compared to 6400 with all Core Overclock
> 
> also tried c-states disabled with EDC - 1
> R15 - 5150
> 
> Running LLC on Low got me the best results (not overall but within the PBO bug results)
> R15 5850
> R15 single core - 212 (thats in pair with the 3950x)
> 
> What else can i do to try and improve all core from this point?
> more voltage negative offset with LLC on low?
> 
> Im reading others are getting this bug to post like or better then all core overclock + better single thread


Your not understanding the issue, your processor is under what would be considered a "low load" and the EDC bug stops applying and it starts to use PBO normally but your EDC setting is a low 30A.... You throttle down to your 30A target. Less voltage in general will make this worse, it will have a harder time to reach over the threshold for boost, You need to increase your minimum "load" for it to not consider your load a small one so it starts to boost more properly.
This is what most struggle with. They can't achieve a proper boost in the applications they use, it reverts back to normal PBO behaviour but gets then gimped by the artificially low EDC value getting worse than normal performance.
I've seen a lower EDC value usually works at the expense of single thread boost. There is a balance. It can be hard to get proper boost in all situations one would want.
What EDC value in the end works best is usually a sku difference between parts but your LLC & voltage have a major impact also your cooling. If a increase in voltage helps it to boost better might be negated by the increase in heat & bad cooling.
Your Scalar setting might help you to boost with more ease but at the expense of more heat & voltage used in the target load.
A offset for voltage can help but I've found it's usually positive offsets that make boosting better, not negative ones unless your heat constrained by not good enough cooling for target application. Some loads like AVX2 just cause so much heat that negative offset work out better because you are thermally limited rather than anything else, more voltage here just doesn't help. But the other loads that don't cause the same heat load will make use of the increased voltage and boost higher when they can.

So I would like you to test c-states disabled and a 20-30 EDC value to see if that fixes anything. You don't need to use only EDC 1 when trying out c-states disabled. Some just need c-states disabled period to get proper better boost, Otherwise they don't seem to reach the threshold where it doesn't try to use EDC as a valid target limit.


----------



## Israel Cohen

Nighthog said:


> Your not understanding the issue, your processor is under what would be considered a "low load" and the EDC bug stops applying and it starts to use PBO normally but your EDC setting is a low 30A.... You throttle down to your 30A target. Less voltage in general will make this worse, it will have a harder time to reach over the threshold for boost, You need to increase your minimum "load" for it to not consider your load a small one so it starts to boost more properly.
> This is what most struggle with. They can't achieve a proper boost in the applications they use, it reverts back to normal PBO behaviour but gets then gimped by the artificially low EDC value getting worse than normal performance.
> I've seen a lower EDC value usually works at the expense of single thread boost. There is a balance. It can be hard to get proper boost in all situations one would want.
> What EDC value in the end works best is usually a sku difference between parts but your LLC & voltage have a major impact also your cooling. If a increase in voltage helps it to boost better might be negated by the increase in heat & bad cooling.
> Your Scalar setting might help you to boost with more ease but at the expense of more heat & voltage used in the target load.
> A offset for voltage can help but I've found it's usually positive offsets that make boosting better, not negative ones unless your heat constrained by not good enough cooling for target application. Some loads like AVX2 just cause so much heat that negative offset work out better because you are thermally limited rather than anything else, more voltage here just doesn't help. But the other loads that don't cause the same heat load will make use of the increased voltage and boost higher when they can.
> 
> So I would like you to test c-states disabled and a 20-30 EDC value to see if that fixes anything. You don't need to use only EDC 1 when trying out c-states disabled. Some just need c-states disabled period to get proper better boost, Otherwise they don't seem to reach the threshold where it doesn't try to use EDC as a valid target limit.


Thanks for the detailed explanation, that is pretty much what i figured out after hours of testing.

Best results im having is with

positive 0.5 voltage, LLC set to low
EDC - 30
PPT 355
TDC 300
scaler x10
boost 200mhz

got me 6180 R15
212 single thread R15
cstate enabled.


I have not played much with PPT and TDC on those settings, but on max load PPT is right about 95% and TDC is 60-80% so i figure those should be left untouched? 
With an all core overclock i get get 6400-6500 R15 but on the expense of single core performance. 
Im not sure if i should push the pbo further, im getting single core boosts of 4550 even 4600 pretty good for a 3960x


----------



## Nighthog

Israel Cohen said:


> Thanks for the detailed explanation, that is pretty much what i figured out after hours of testing.
> 
> Best results im having is with
> 
> positive 0.5 voltage, LLC set to low
> EDC - 30
> PPT 355
> TDC 300
> scaler x10
> boost 200mhz
> 
> got me 6180 R15
> 212 single thread R15
> cstate enabled.
> 
> 
> I have not played much with PPT and TDC on those settings, but on max load PPT is right about 95% and TDC is 60-80% so i figure those should be left untouched?
> With an all core overclock i get get 6400-6500 R15 but on the expense of single core performance.
> Im not sure if i should push the pbo further, im getting single core boosts of 4550 even 4600 pretty good for a 3960x


Your using a threadripper and I don't know how well they tolerate positive offsets. Your single core voltage might reach too high. Be warned. You might have better results using Scalar to increase you multithread voltage rather than use of offsets. This keeps you from going above 1.500V maximum in single core.
There is always a risk using more than stock 1.500V on these Ryzen cpu's. I don't know how well versed or experienced you are with OC:ing but take it to consideration when you use a positive offset. 

Myself concerned I'm OK with 1.550V single core but most people around aren't.
You ask reddit they will scare you with ~1.300V limits maximum safe. I think it's ridiculous.


----------



## Israel Cohen

*3960x*



Nighthog said:


> Your using a threadripper and I don't know how well they tolerate positive offsets. Your single core voltage might reach too high. Be warned. You might have better results using Scalar to increase you multithread voltage rather than use of offsets. This keeps you from going above 1.500V maximum in single core.
> There is always a risk using more than stock 1.500V on these Ryzen cpu's. I don't know how well versed or experienced you are with OC:ing but take it to consideration when you use a positive offset.
> 
> Myself concerned I'm OK with 1.550V single core but most people around aren't.
> You ask reddit they will scare you with ~1.300V limits maximum safe. I think it's ridiculous.



Im not to worried about 1.5.

Im seeing max 1.5v but most of the times it max at 1.46 or 1.48 on HWinfo on single core (per core stats) is that accurate? basically asking if it would to go over 1.5 there is no reason it wont be shown there?
voltage for cores seems to be moving between 0.9 to max 1.5.

My cooling is pretty intense with 420 rad going into a 360 rad and NoiseBlocker eLoop X B14-P high static pressure fans, so im not to worried about the voltage.

edit:

If HWinfo live monitoring showing 1.5 and i have a positive 0.05 offset does that mean the actual voltage is 1.55 or will HWinfo take that offset into consideration and show real current voltage?


----------



## Nighthog

Israel Cohen said:


> Im not to worried about 1.5.
> 
> Im seeing max 1.5v but most of the times it max at 1.46 or 1.48 on HWinfo on single core (per core stats) is that accurate? basically asking if it would to go over 1.5 there is no reason it wont be shown there?
> voltage for cores seems to be moving between 0.9 to max 1.5.
> 
> My cooling is pretty intense with 420 rad going into a 360 rad and NoiseBlocker eLoop X B14-P high static pressure fans, so im not to worried about the voltage.
> 
> edit:
> 
> If HWinfo live monitoring showing 1.5 and i have a positive 0.05 offset does that mean the actual voltage is 1.55 or will HWinfo take that offset into consideration and show real current voltage?


LLC plays into it, it might droop lower than 1.500V to the cores, so no worries, I guess. 

I went pretty aggressive with +0.050V offset and higher LLC which delivered 1.550V under single core loads. 
So you are at a safer range with low LLC.

And LLC usually gives lower clocks if you push it higher I've noted, low or normal usually works best with PBO. But sometimes it's needed for stability reasons.


----------



## Krisztias

gerardfraser said:


> How does your 3800X do with your setting in Cinebench20
> 
> Mine with an actual video and 4 total runs of multi and single, now Cinebench20 do not mean anything to me , cause I just do PC Gaming on Ryzen.
> Posted for 3800X owners so you can get an idea what the bug/tweak can do with 3800X on Cinebench20 default settings.Which mean below normal priority.
> 
> -Highest single run 540 SCORE
> -Highest multi run 5272 SCORE
> 
> Actual recorded last run score below.
> 
> Single Thread-530 score
> Multi Thread -5260 score
> Idle temperature CPU-28°C
> Max temperature CPU-71°C
> 
> Settings in BIOS
> 
> PPT= 0 actual max limit reached 90.4%
> TDC=0 actual max limit reached 81.4%
> EDC=1 actual max limit reached 7737.7%
> Scaler 10X
> PBO Override 500Mhz
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0VjJ7nfdOw&t=1s


Hi!

What voltages do you use for VDDG CCD, VDDG IOD ans SoC? What is your memory frequency with thoose settings? Which power Plan do you use?
Thank you.


----------



## Israel Cohen

double. del


----------



## Krisztias

Hi!

I have tested this "feature" in the last two days, but it seems like I doing something wrong.
I get 1-2,5% boost (over PBO) depending on application (testing with all three test from CPU-Z, GB 3, CB20 and Passmark Memory&CPU) but it seems like I'm in margin of error, when I test different scalar and EDC values, but I would say Scalar 2x and EDC 7 gaves me the best scores so far.
C-States off (should I disable DF C-states too?)get me +3 pts in CB20 single, Ryzen Universal Power Plan (what is recommended?) CPU Vcore auto (it seems like I get worse scores if is -offset)

If somebody have a good idea why, pls let me know.
Thank you.


----------



## betam4x

Krisztias said:


> Hi!
> 
> I have tested this "feature" in the last two days, but it seems like I doing something wrong.
> I get 1-2,5% boost (over PBO) depending on application (testing with all three test from CPU-Z, GB 3, CB20 and Passmark Memory&CPU) but it seems like I'm in margin of error, when I test different scalar and EDC values, but I would say Scalar 2x and EDC 7 gaves me the best scores so far.
> C-States off (should I disable DF C-states too?)get me +3 pts in CB20 single, Ryzen Universal Power Plan (what is recommended?) CPU Vcore auto (it seems like I get worse scores if is -offset)
> 
> If somebody have a good idea why, pls let me know.
> Thank you.


What AGESA do you have?


----------



## gerardfraser

Krisztias said:


> Hi!
> 
> What voltages do you use for VDDG CCD, VDDG IOD ans SoC? What is your memory frequency with thoose settings? Which power Plan do you use?
> Thank you.


Well in the video was just default voltages, for VDDG CCD, VDDG IOD and SoC with a DRAM Voltage of 1.42v and CPU offset -0.0625. BIOS Agesa 1.0.0.4b and Windows Ultimate Power Plan

Ram timings I used in Cinebench20 video with DRAM voltage at 1.38v for mem testing for zero errors
Memory 

Normal BIOS settings I use most of the time


Spoiler



CPUConfig_00
CPUConfig by gerard fraser, on Flickr
CPUConfig_01 by gerard fraser, on Flickr


----------



## nickdoescode

*My 3950x using these settings*

PPT - 300W
TDC - 230W
EDC - 25

PBO Scalar - 10x
Global C States - Enabled

AMD Cool and Quiet - Enabled

Cinebench R20 Score - 8368

Using 1usmus Ryzen Universal Power Plan

AGESA 1.0.0.4B 

TEMPS -- 
57-61 IDLE
80-81 FULL LOAD

Finally able to hit close to 4.7 Ghz on single core boost with an average of 4.4 Ghz all core boost


----------



## KedarWolf

Do I need to enable the 25 EDC in the CBS menu and leave it the PBO on Auto in the CPU Settings menu on my MSI X570 Godlike?

I ask because I can't like set 0 or 1 in the Main menu but can in the CBS menu.

But when I do it works like stock PBO with 4.1 GHz max cores in Cinebench.

I can only do like 300-230-230 in the Main menu and PBO bug not working. Don't know how to get around it.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Krisztias said:


> Hi!
> 
> I have tested this "feature" in the last two days, but it seems like I doing something wrong.
> I get 1-2,5% boost (over PBO) depending on application (testing with all three test from CPU-Z, GB 3, CB20 and Passmark Memory&CPU) but it seems like I'm in margin of error, when I test different scalar and EDC values, but I would say Scalar 2x and EDC 7 gaves me the best scores so far.
> C-States off (should I disable DF C-states too?)get me +3 pts in CB20 single, Ryzen Universal Power Plan (what is recommended?) CPU Vcore auto (it seems like I get worse scores if is -offset)
> 
> If somebody have a good idea why, pls let me know.
> Thank you.


Not everyone got better results; what CPU do you have?

DF C-states shouldn't matter if you already set Global off.
The 1usmus Universal power plan should be good.

I'd say you have to test more offsets; it's not necessarily needed a negative offset.
You have to test all of them very carefully.
I'd try first without scalar and 0 boost clock.


----------



## nowarranty

Managed to really get some testing in, almost 50 reboots and multiple tests later I have a good reference of where my chip is boosting the most. this was for 3900x on gigabyte master board.

On hwinfo I see about 3-4 different cpu vcore and vid, I was wondering which I should be paying attention to for what the cpu is actually using. From what I understood, the VID is the voltage it's drawing and SVI 2 is the sensor of the chip/what it's using? If that's right, what is the cpu vcore under motherboard?

My score ranges have been from 6800-7500 for CB20 and 8400-8640 for cpuz. These are the combinations I've tried:
1200/540/1, 1200/540/12, 1200/540/14, 300/230/230, 300/230/1, 300/230/12, 300/230/14, 280/140/1, 280/140/12, 280/140/14
and from the -0.006 to -0.12 offset range, -0.018 to -0.03 were the best in terms of voltages/heat/scores
with llc from normal to medium ( normal, standard, low, medium ) low and medium were better for most, i now see what was meant when you guys say you have to really test every setting on each voltage step. the chip wants certain amount of vcore to boost and every llc+offset is either under/on/above making it difficult to find optimal spot 
cool n quiet seems to glitch on windows and linux for me, not sure how to benefit from it, sometimes it works, sometimes it doesnt. end up with 800mhz under load
tried a bclk overclock but over 101mhz my sata drives couldnt handle

also played around with scalar but it just seems like it is slamming extra voltage and heat for not much of a boost at all. I tried a really low offset with high scalar, 2x, 3x, 4x and what I see is the VIDs are much higher, more heat, higher vcore, higher svi2 vcore, and not much of a performance. i still keep reading about scalar but when I try to apply it I start to get confused because for me less of an offset worked better then more offset+scalar. I could not really find a zone where it was giving a good performance boost without noticeable voltage/vid difference

I did notice some odd behaviors, such as 4300mhz runs scoring less than 4225mhz runs. and at very similar voltages. motherboard vcore 1.320-1.355 is where the chip seemed to boost the most, the svi was 1.29-1.31, and vid was showing 1.31 under loads.

also tried new f20a bios but could not even boot into windows, the windows logo would come on and pc would restart. back to older beta bios f12g. I am wondering, is there anything else I can do to tweak the pbo or at this point do I just decide the amount of performance i want versus the voltage/temps I want to run at? and thanks for the multiple explanations and helps through this process, it has not been easy among some other issues i have been trying to fix.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

nowarranty said:


> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> Managed to really get some testing in, almost 50 reboots and multiple tests later I have a good reference of where my chip is boosting the most. this was for 3900x on gigabyte master board.
> 
> On hwinfo I see about 3-4 different cpu vcore and vid, I was wondering which I should be paying attention to for what the cpu is actually using. From what I understood, the VID is the voltage it's drawing and SVI 2 is the sensor of the chip/what it's using? If that's right, what is the cpu vcore under motherboard?
> 
> My score ranges have been from 6800-7500 for CB20 and 8400-8640 for cpuz. These are the combinations I've tried:
> 1200/540/1, 1200/540/12, 1200/540/14, 300/230/230, 300/230/1, 300/230/12, 300/230/14, 280/140/1, 280/140/12, 280/140/14
> and from the -0.006 to -0.12 offset range, -0.018 to -0.03 were the best in terms of voltages/heat/scores
> with llc from normal to medium ( normal, standard, low, medium ) low and medium were better for most, i now see what was meant when you guys say you have to really test every setting on each voltage step. the chip wants certain amount of vcore to boost and every llc+offset is either under/on/above making it difficult to find optimal spot
> cool n quiet seems to glitch on windows and linux for me, not sure how to benefit from it, sometimes it works, sometimes it doesnt. end up with 800mhz under load
> tried a bclk overclock but over 101mhz my sata drives couldnt handle
> 
> 
> also played around with scalar but it just seems like it is slamming extra voltage and heat for not much of a boost at all. I tried a really low offset with high scalar, 2x, 3x, 4x and what I see is the VIDs are much higher, more heat, higher vcore, higher svi2 vcore, and not much of a performance. i still keep reading about scalar but when I try to apply it I start to get confused because for me less of an offset worked better then more offset+scalar. I could not really find a zone where it was giving a good performance boost without noticeable voltage/vid difference
> 
> I did notice some odd behaviors, such as 4300mhz runs scoring less than 4225mhz runs. and at very similar voltages. motherboard vcore 1.320-1.355 is where the chip seemed to boost the most, the svi was 1.29-1.31, and vid was showing 1.31 under loads.
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> also tried new f20a bios but could not even boot into windows, the windows logo would come on and pc would restart. back to older beta bios f12g. I am wondering, is there anything else I can do to tweak the pbo or at this point do I just decide the amount of performance i want versus the voltage/temps I want to run at? and thanks for the multiple explanations and helps through this process, it has not been easy among some other issues i have been trying to fix.


Depends on you sample "intelligence" background; the scalar will help your single/light threaded boost.
A single core to boost 4.5-4.7 GHz needs 1.425-1.500v; without the scalar high it's unlikely to get it and it will not boost or either "fake" boost with effective clock lower than ref or same but worse score.

You have to go down with the offset to keep the scalar high if you don't get enough voltage.
If the voltage is not enough with multi-threaded you have to raise the LLC to keep it from dropping too much, usually goes down at least 50mv.
If instead it's too high and you get worse MT scores or too high temperature play with PPT/TDC limits, especially TDC, to keep the MT workload in check.

*Voltage added by scalar it's not linear*; in MT at 10x is 50mv but on a single core can be up to 100-150mv.

The vCore under mainboard is what the is supplied; the SVI2 is what is detected by the CPU, usually a bit lower, 25-50mv.
What you really have to check under different workloads is the single Core VIDs. Those voltages are deciding the boost clock/score.


----------



## Krisztias

betam4x said:


> What AGESA do you have?


1.0.0.4, BIOS 1302 from march 02


----------



## lxyz

bgeneto said:


> You should consider also scalar values, it affects voltage too.
> Try Offset -0.03125V with LLC 2 and 10x scalar, should be around 1.325V vcore, but it depends on your board, cpu etc...
> -0.04375V with LLC 3 and 10x also doable. Remember to disable C-states to avoid single-thread throttling.


hello bro, I have the same cpu and motherboard with you. But this edc bug did not work on my pc , So can you show me your bios setting?
This is my PC:
CPU: 3900X
Mobo: Asus TUF Gaming X570-Plus (Wi-Fi) with bios 1407
BIOS Setting:
Performance Mode: 3
Vcore: Auto + offset of -0.0125V
LLC: Auto
Scalar: 10
Overclock: 100 MHz
PPT: 200 
TDC: 120
EDC: 12
VRAM Settings to "Extreme"
CSM enable

cpuz bench results so far:
SC 536
MC 8260


----------



## Dyngsur

Hello!

I have come up with decent settings for my 3800x. My ram is 1937 ish with 15-15-15-30-40 trfc 260, geardown disable etc.

vcore -offset 0.04375v
vcore soc 1.1v
cpu vdd18 1.84v
dram 1.5
memory multi 38x
BCLK 101.99
VDDP 900
VDDG 950

135 ppt
95 tdc
1 edc

10 scalar
200mhz boost
200 thermal throttle limit

LLC
Vcore - High
Vsoc - High
Vcore current protection - Extreme
PWM Phase Control - Auto


Cpu-Z

Single 574
Multi 5900+

By doing this I can get faster memory at the same time the cpu clock is almost 4.8Ghz (4.783Ghz)

Feel free to test Im gonna tweak it some more 

Edit, I might need to lower the BCLK a bit to get better latency for the memory, havent had the time to check everything yet, I want around 61-62 Ns in Aida64.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Dyngsur said:


> Hello!
> 
> I have come up with decent settings for my 3800x. My ram is 1937 ish with 15-15-15-30-40 trfc 260, geardown disable etc.
> 
> vcore -offset 0.04375v
> vcore soc 1.1v
> cpu vdd18 1.84v
> dram 1.5
> memory multi 38x
> BCLK 101.99
> VDDP 900
> VDDG 950
> 
> 135 ppt
> 95 tdc
> 1 edc
> 
> 10 scalar
> 200mhz boost
> 200 thermal throttle limit
> 
> LLC
> Vcore - High
> Vsoc - High
> Vcore current protection - Extreme
> PWM Phase Control - Auto
> 
> 
> Cpu-Z
> 
> Single 574
> Multi 5900+
> 
> By doing this I can get faster memory at the same time the cpu clock is almost 4.8Ghz (4.783Ghz)
> 
> Feel free to test Im gonna tweak it some more
> 
> Edit, I might need to lower the BCLK a bit to get better latency for the memory, havent had the time to check everything yet, I want around 61-62 Ns in Aida64.


You have a good 3800x sample, nice results.
You can also test cpu vdd18 1.760v with high BCLK, was surprisingly improving a lot stability for me.


----------



## Dyngsur

ManniX-ITA said:


> You have a good 3800x sample, nice results.
> You can also test cpu vdd18 1.760v with high BCLK, was surprisingly improving a lot stability for me.


Hello!

Thanks gonna try that aswell, its kinda strange that I couldnt get it to boot to win10 with higher BCLK wanted to try 102, but I guess it interfearing with the memory oc, but like I wrote, I havent had the time to sit and test everything yet, but Im gonna try with lover cpu vdd18 voltage.


----------



## Nighthog

I noted a particularity with regard to the throttling issue using EDC 1-10 range on my 3800X in single threaded loads.

If you keep moving your mouse around it doesn't throttle, the moment you stop your mouse it starts to throttle. Even a split second stop makes it throttle, I wonder what it is that makes mouse movement such a high priority to make it boost properly if you keep moving it around. 

*In short:*
*Move your mouse around to stop single thread throttling**

*might be only my system, no promise it does the same for you


----------



## Yuke

Dyngsur said:


> Hello!
> 
> I have come up with decent settings for my 3800x. My ram is 1937 ish with 15-15-15-30-40 trfc 260, geardown disable etc.
> 
> vcore -offset 0.04375v
> vcore soc 1.1v
> cpu vdd18 1.84v
> dram 1.5
> memory multi 38x
> BCLK 101.99
> VDDP 900
> VDDG 950
> 
> 135 ppt
> 95 tdc
> 1 edc
> 
> 10 scalar
> 200mhz boost
> 200 thermal throttle limit
> 
> LLC
> Vcore - High
> Vsoc - High
> Vcore current protection - Extreme
> PWM Phase Control - Auto
> 
> 
> Cpu-Z
> 
> Single 574
> Multi 5900+
> 
> By doing this I can get faster memory at the same time the cpu clock is almost 4.8Ghz (4.783Ghz)
> 
> Feel free to test Im gonna tweak it some more
> 
> Edit, I might need to lower the BCLK a bit to get better latency for the memory, havent had the time to check everything yet, I want around 61-62 Ns in Aida64.



I mean nice results and all but this is 99% due to the outstanding SKU you got and not because of the settings. Pointless to tell people to might try the settings out imho. Its the reason why my next upgrade will be one the very last batches of the Zen3 refresh in two years or so. You are hitting a wall pretty fast with a trash silicon, sadly.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Yuke said:


> I mean nice results and all but this is 99% due to the outstanding SKU you got and not because of the settings. Pointless to tell people to might try the settings out imho. Its the reason why my next upgrade will be one the very last batches of the Zen3 refresh in two years or so. You are hitting a wall pretty fast with a trash silicon, sadly.


Sharing settings is not such a bad idea IMHO.
These settings are very close to mine which I share regularly.
Indeed the results are very good thanks to the binning; mine wouldn't be so so high due to my so-so sample.
Others with similar 3800x could benefit, it's a matter of luck.
Considering how much time it takes to test all the variations having a good starting template can be really helpful.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Nighthog said:


> I noted a particularity with regard to the throttling issue using EDC 1-10 range on my 3800X in single threaded loads.
> 
> If you keep moving your mouse around it doesn't throttle, the moment you stop your mouse it starts to throttle. Even a split second stop makes it throttle, I wonder what it is that makes mouse movement such a high priority to make it boost properly if you keep moving it around.
> 
> *In short:*
> *Move your mouse around to stop single thread throttling**
> 
> *might be only my system, no promise it does the same for you


Usually this means there's something wrong with the power plan.
Is it doing the same also with the Ultimate?


----------



## Dyngsur

ManniX-ITA said:


> Sharing settings is not such a bad idea IMHO.
> These settings are very close to mine which I share regularly.
> Indeed the results are very good thanks to the binning; mine wouldn't be so so high due to my so-so sample.
> Others with similar 3800x could benefit, it's a matter of luck.
> Considering how much time it takes to test all the variations having a good starting template can be really helpful.



yeah, I mean its a good starting point atleast for people that are to lazy to put time and effort to try, but like the other person said its a lottery. I am now gonna buy a 3900xt when they come out and dont uppgrade for a few years, maybe buy big navi but then I got a computer that will last for 5-7 years


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Dyngsur said:


> yeah, I mean its a good starting point atleast for people that are to lazy to put time and effort to try, but like the other person said its a lottery. I am now gonna buy a 3900xt when they come out and dont uppgrade for a few years, maybe buy big navi but then I got a computer that will last for 5-7 years


If it's really coming Zen 3 in September I'll probably take a 4900x/4950x instead.
For what I've seen till now seems the XT versions are more or less running at stock the same as the current gen with the EDC bug.
Maybe there's headroom to do better but I'm not so confident. They are probably squeezed out as much as possible already.
The big step forward will be Zen 4 with DDR5; that's where I'm going to spend some more money, but probably not the first gen.


----------



## Dyngsur

ManniX-ITA said:


> If it's really coming Zen 3 in September I'll probably take a 4900x/4950x instead.
> For what I've seen till now seems the XT versions are more or less running at stock the same as the current gen with the EDC bug.
> Maybe there's headroom to do better but I'm not so confident. They are probably squeezed out as much as possible already.
> The big step forward will be Zen 4 with DDR5; that's where I'm going to spend some more money, but probably not the first gen.


Yeah maybe will do so, but DDR5, dont you need to buy new memory aswell than?


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Dyngsur said:


> Yeah maybe will do so, but DDR5, dont you need to buy new memory aswell than?


Indeed, new board and new memory; that's why I'm going to spend again a sensible amount of money there and not before.
Didn't spend a lot for this DDR4 G.Skill kit for this reason.
But I'd feel a little bit castrated with this 3800x till late 2022... have to pick something better in between.


----------



## Bal3Wolf

anyone played with pbo bug on the new AMD AM4 AGESA PI 1.0.0.1 bios if your board has that with my asus board my all core overclock is alot more stable with that new bios havet played with pbo yet as im retuning my ram.


----------



## gerardfraser

Dyngsur said:


> Hello!
> 
> 
> 
> By doing this I can get faster memory at the same time the cpu clock is almost 4.8Ghz (4.783Ghz)


I am interested in this part 4.783Mhz , did you actually test this . IF so I am jealous J/K 
I can never get my boost over 4650Mhz when actually running a game/benchmark. Are you saying your CPU with BLCK overclock can actually run past 4650Mhz when gaming/benchmark. I would love to see a video.
Now I can manually overclock 4700+ but i have never seen over 4650Mhz on any kind of boost clock or with BLCK overclock when actually using the PC except when idle.

*MY 3800X 4700Mhz PC game, manual overclock *




3800x Boost


----------



## nowarranty

Confused about what to do here, I'm trying to use AMD CnQ so that my cpu can downclock and idle at lower voltage and multiplier. When I use it and the computer goes under load, instead of boosting to high clock speeds it drops to 2200mhz 1800mhz and to 500-800mhz. If I disable it, the computer works great, althought idles a lot higher temperature and never downclocks or changes voltages. Is there something I can test to fix this outside of minimum processor state in windows? Could it be something with my LLC or voltages?


----------



## ManniX-ITA

nowarranty said:


> Confused about what to do here, I'm trying to use AMD CnQ so that my cpu can downclock and idle at lower voltage and multiplier. When I use it and the computer goes under load, instead of boosting to high clock speeds it drops to 2200mhz 1800mhz and to 500-800mhz. If I disable it, the computer works great, althought idles a lot higher temperature and never downclocks or changes voltages. Is there something I can test to fix this outside of minimum processor state in windows? Could it be something with my LLC or voltages?


I only read once about an issue with CnQ, are you sure it's not enough to just disable Global C States?


----------



## Dyngsur

gerardfraser said:


> I am interested in this part 4.783Mhz , did you actually test this . IF so I am jealous J/K
> I can never get my boost over 4650Mhz when actually running a game/benchmark. Are you saying your CPU with BLCK overclock can actually run past 4650Mhz when gaming/benchmark. I would love to see a video.
> Now I can manually overclock 4700+ but i have never seen over 4650Mhz on any kind of boost clock or with BLCK overclock when actually using the PC except when idle.
> 
> *MY 3800X 4700Mhz PC game, manual overclock *
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uh3qUXyxwF4
> 3800x Boost


Yeah I can when I have the time fix a video. 
I got some screenshots atleast, cpu-z scores, aida64 scores etc that I can post when I come home. I think I could get it to boost even higher if I get rid of the negative offset, but for now I am kinda satisfied! 
When I play like I havent been doing for months cause of a divorce, new girlfriend, new apartment etc I just play  

I did turn the oc down a notch to bclk 101.88 so its boosting 4.740 mhz ish,

Imo try to use your settings with BCLK 101 or something and see what happends.

Maybe Im just lucky with my chip, I could run it 4.4Ghz all core clock @ 1.25 vcore voltage, by doing so it was cooler and all, but for now I feel the PBO settings is working nice


----------



## Dyngsur

ManniX-ITA said:


> Indeed, new board and new memory; that's why I'm going to spend again a sensible amount of money there and not before.
> Didn't spend a lot for this DDR4 G.Skill kit for this reason.
> But I'd feel a little bit castrated with this 3800x till late 2022... have to pick something better in between.


Dunno if you should feel that about the 3800x, I mean if you using it for gaming it will be just fine, no games atm using 8 cores anyway. 
But if you working with your cpu etc then I would buy 3900x or 3900xt, but I dunno.

Everytime you buy some new parts more new parts coming up a few months after so its kinda expensive to uppgrade all the time to have the latest.
I also want the latest stuff but its like no point unless you get 30-50 % faster cpu or gpu. 
I didnt have the money for 2080ti so I bought RX5700XT for 144p gaming and its nice so far! But big navi seems promising!


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Dyngsur said:


> Dunno if you should feel that about the 3800x, I mean if you using it for gaming it will be just fine, no games atm using 8 cores anyway.
> But if you working with your cpu etc then I would buy 3900x or 3900xt, but I dunno.
> 
> Everytime you buy some new parts more new parts coming up a few months after so its kinda expensive to uppgrade all the time to have the latest.
> I also want the latest stuff but its like no point unless you get 30-50 % faster cpu or gpu.
> I didnt have the money for 2080ti so I bought RX5700XT for 144p gaming and its nice so far! But big navi seems promising!


Mainly for gaming but I do other stuff on it sometimes and I want to be done it fast, really fast 

Lots of games are optimized for more than 4 cores now; I'm coming from a 4790k which has a single core performance like the 3800x.
The difference is absolutely huge with 8 cores now; not only in max fps but especially in average and min fps.
While it's hard to see 100% core usage over 6, more you have better the workload can spread and free the 1st core which is critical.
As an example with Escape from Tarkov there's an almost 100% usage on 8 cores and most of the latest engines average 60-80%.


----------



## Dyngsur

ManniX-ITA said:


> Mainly for gaming but I do other stuff on it sometimes and I want to be done it fast, really fast
> 
> Lots of games are optimized for more than 4 cores now; I'm coming from a 4790k which has a single core performance like the 3800x.
> The difference is absolutely huge with 8 cores now; not only in max fps but especially in average and min fps.
> While it's hard to see 100% core usage over 6, more you have better the workload can spread and free the 1st core which is critical.
> As an example with Escape from Tarkov there's an almost 100% usage on 8 cores and most of the latest engines average 60-80%.


Yeah more and more will use more cores but I think you will do just fine with your 3800x, the biggest improvement for gaming is GPU anyway, by that said a good CPU is allways nice to have but if you compare same GPU with 2 different CPU's you wont see a huge fps improvement, many tests have been done and you can see a few more FPS from changing CPU.

So if you wanna get the most out of gaming I would put my money on a new GPU if you have a bad one!


----------



## gerardfraser

Dyngsur said:


> Yeah I can when I have the time fix a video.
> I got some screenshots atleast, cpu-z scores, aida64 scores etc that I can post when I come home. I think I could get it to boost even higher if I get rid of the negative offset, but for now I am kinda satisfied!
> When I play like I havent been doing for months cause of a divorce, new girlfriend, new apartment etc I just play
> 
> I did turn the oc down a notch to bclk 101.88 so its boosting 4.740 mhz ish,
> 
> Imo try to use your settings with BCLK 101 or something and see what happends.
> 
> Maybe Im just lucky with my chip, I could run it 4.4Ghz all core clock @ 1.25 vcore voltage, by doing so it was cooler and all, but for now I feel the PBO settings is working nice


Well that is awesome,great to read.Not that I want or need higher CPU clocks but now I am curious if my 3800X can actually do over 4650Mhz while boosting and not manually overclock. I never really tried while running a PC game or benchmark because I am very happy with up to 4650Mhz. I going to try a couple BIOS and a small BLCK and try to past the 4650Mhz with the bug/tweak.


----------



## nowarranty

ManniX-ITA said:


> I only read once about an issue with CnQ, are you sure it's not enough to just disable Global C States?


I first noticed on windows when testing with some games

I did try, for windows I was able to work around with setting minimum processor to 85% and it would still downclock, but for linux I am so lost, I've tried so many different things.

The only work around I know right now is disabling CnQ but that is not really a solution I'd like to use. I wanted to try F20a bios but, as soon as windows logo appears the system restarts, so I've been hoping to wait for another bios but not sure I can manage this weird behavior until then :thumbsdow


----------



## ManniX-ITA

nowarranty said:


> I first noticed on windows when testing with some games
> 
> I did try, for windows I was able to work around with setting minimum processor to 85% and it would still downclock, but for linux I am so lost, I've tried so many different things.
> 
> The only work around I know right now is disabling CnQ but that is not really a solution I'd like to use. I wanted to try F20a bios but, as soon as windows logo appears the system restarts, so I've been hoping to wait for another bios but not sure I can manage this weird behavior until then :thumbsdow


Don't remember someone else with a similar issue.
To only try I can think about is a different EDC value, eg 30 instead of 20


----------



## nowarranty

ManniX-ITA said:


> Don't remember someone else with a similar issue.
> To only try I can think about is a different EDC value, eg 30 instead of 20


i will try this, i went down to 12 from 16 after seeing some small CB20 improvements

apparently im wrong about windows too, problem is back running 1900-2200mhz

i should maybe test without pbo enabled, or maybe turn down the autooc +mhz? anything else you think of that im missing?


----------



## ManniX-ITA

nowarranty said:


> i will try this, i went down to 12 from 16 after seeing some small CB20 improvements
> 
> apparently im wrong about windows too, problem is back running 1900-2200mhz
> 
> i should maybe test without pbo enabled, or maybe turn down the autooc +mhz? anything else you think of that im missing?


What about temperatures and voltages?
Maybe you need a negative offset or a higher one.
It could scale back in clock if it's ramping up too fast with voltage/temperature.
Test with pretty restrictive PPT/TDC values, enough to cut 10% current CB20 score.


----------



## Kildar

I have the same issue... can't figure it out.


----------



## Yuke

Guys, any suggestion for low load single core stress testing? Im getting some weird crashes sometimes when trying to type in some stuff in google search bar...i think low load boostclock might be unstable in my case.


----------



## Awsan

Yuke said:


> Guys, any suggestion for low load single core stress testing? Im getting some weird crashes sometimes when trying to type in some stuff in google search bar...i think low load boostclock might be unstable in my case.


Change the values, sometimes changing from something like 20 to 21 will drastically change everything, + experiment with other power plans (1usmus, ultimate, high performance), Try other bioses I just reverted to an older beta as its working perfectly compared to the latest one.

Mine worked fine with 230-160-25-1x and now its working a little better with 300-230-17-9x.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Yuke said:


> Guys, any suggestion for low load single core stress testing? Im getting some weird crashes sometimes when trying to type in some stuff in google search bar...i think low load boostclock might be unstable in my case.


It could be a bad VDDP/VDDG/SOC voltages combo issue.
Check if you have audio crackling playing a video in the browser; the issue comes out when the cores are going from low VID to high VID voltage.
I had to set my power plan to 30% min processor state instead of 1%.


----------



## Yuke

ManniX-ITA said:


> It could be a bad VDDP/VDDG/SOC voltages combo issue.
> Check if you have audio crackling playing a video in the browser; the issue comes out when the cores are going from low VID to high VID voltage.
> I had to set my power plan to 30% min processor state instead of 1%.


Yeah its so hard to figure it out tho...its like once in a week...

I really could need a consistent stress test tool for it


I run things like Y-Cruncher, Karhu, 1usmus V3 ... for days without problems...but this **** i cant figure out.


----------



## Nighthog

Yuke said:


> Yeah its so hard to figure it out tho...its like once in a week...
> 
> I really could need a consistent stress test tool for it
> 
> 
> I run things like Y-Cruncher, Karhu, 1usmus V3 ... for days without problems...but this **** i cant figure out.


One ore more cores might be the on the edge for stability at the clocks it's boosting, you can use a lower AutoOC +Mhz setting. 

For example I noticed I had a core that would crash if boosting above 4600Mhz. I just used the setting to limit it not going above, setting a general 4.6Ghz max boost ceiling for my processor.

You can use LLC or offset etc whatever even to try change the character of boosting behaviour, setting a lower scalar can fix it also. 
LLC can be useful if there is general instability using the EDC bug.
For example I need Medium-High-Turbo LLC if I want to run some AVX2 when using EDC=10 and 10x scalar. I can use a lower scalar if I want but then I loose lots of performance.
Higher scalar means more chance of being unstable in general, needing other adjustments.


----------



## Yuke

Nighthog said:


> One ore more cores might be the on the edge for stability at the clocks it's boosting, you can use a lower AutoOC +Mhz setting.
> 
> For example I noticed I had a core that would crash if boosting above 4600Mhz. I just used the setting to limit it not going above, setting a general 4.6Ghz max boost ceiling for my processor.
> 
> You can use LLC or offset etc whatever even to try change the character of boosting behaviour, setting a lower scalar can fix it also.
> LLC can be useful if there is general instability using the EDC bug.
> For example I need Medium-High-Turbo LLC if I want to run some AVX2 when using EDC=10 and 10x scalar. I can use a lower scalar if I want but then I loose lots of performance.
> Higher scalar means more chance of being unstable in general, needing other adjustments.


Yeah, i think so too....probably my second core that can hit 4625


----------



## nowarranty

ManniX-ITA said:


> What about temperatures and voltages?
> Maybe you need a negative offset or a higher one.
> It could scale back in clock if it's ramping up too fast with voltage/temperature.
> Test with pretty restrictive PPT/TDC values, enough to cut 10% current CB20 score.


https://community.amd.com/thread/248838
I am so upset! i've tried almost everything I can think of and also your suggestions. I don't know what to do. I played around with my soc and memory overclocks and also didnt help. I don't know why this is happening and after seeing the amd threads from searching around on google It did not help me either. It's like I have this amazing chip, but I can't use it because it wants to run at 500-1100mhz instead of 4ghz


----------



## ManniX-ITA

nowarranty said:


> https://community.amd.com/thread/248838
> I am so upset! i've tried almost everything I can think of and also your suggestions. I don't know what to do. I played around with my soc and memory overclocks and also didnt help. I don't know why this is happening and after seeing the amd threads from searching around on google It did not help me either. It's like I have this amazing chip, but I can't use it because it wants to run at 500-1100mhz instead of 4ghz


Do you have the same issue also with EDC set to 0?


----------



## nowarranty

ManniX-ITA said:


> Do you have the same issue also with EDC set to 0?


Let me try with 0, I am going to lower ram 200-400mhz as well and try that.

I read one of the users posting about ram overclocks, while I can pass stability test with my ram I'm a bit unsure if it has anything to do with this, I don't know how the soc on these chips and memory overclock tie into the cpu.

I am going to try and flash f20a bios again, if I still get reboots at windows logo I will go back to f12g and test the cpu overclock without memory overclock. I had spent so much time tweaking the cpu and memory, didn't expect to have this type of issue after all the benchmarks and stress test I ran


----------



## ManniX-ITA

nowarranty said:


> Let me try with 0, I am going to lower ram 200-400mhz as well and try that.
> 
> I read one of the users posting about ram overclocks, while I can pass stability test with my ram I'm a bit unsure if it has anything to do with this, I don't know how the soc on these chips and memory overclock tie into the cpu.
> 
> I am going to try and flash f20a bios again, if I still get reboots at windows logo I will go back to f12g and test the cpu overclock without memory overclock. I had spent so much time tweaking the cpu and memory, didn't expect to have this type of issue after all the benchmarks and stress test I ran


The RAM is tightly tied but I'd be surprised; usually it only hurts performances, I've never seen down clocking.


----------



## nowarranty

ManniX-ITA said:


> The RAM is tightly tied but I'd be surprised; usually it only hurts performances, I've never seen down clocking.


Alright, I managed to go through the list trying to figure it out but the only thing that worked was what you told me on trying EDC 0. Either that or PBO disabled(or auto, whichever the optimized bios defaults on my board were)

I tried f20a again but that bios has major issues, I can't boot into OS with optimized defaults and I noticed with optimized defaults it asks about my changes to an option i never touched. Reset cmos before and after flashing. 

Also, stock settings, system was very responsive, surprisingly high CB20 score of 7260 without PBO on.

Followed with stock with PBO on and got worse scores, did not make sense to me. But windows and linux both did not get stuck at low frequency.

I set the PBO bug without any memory overclocks and auto voltages and the problem happened on linux but not windows, but if I change the windows power plan under 85% minimum frequency it does happen. Windows its either chip stays above 3000mhz or if it goes lower than that and load is put on cpu then it will go to 500-1100mhz under load, typically gets stuck 500mhz or 900mhz.

Followed that with removing PBO and testing memory overclock, this worked fine. So after all of this I started trying PBO, i did really restrictive with 100/90/12. Still saw bug on linux and windows. Also had tried before 150/100/12, 200/100/12, but when I set 150/100/0 the bug seemed to go away. In linux it would not go under 2200mhz, where as before if it went under 2200mhz and load was applied it would start downclocking and under load would lock at 500mhz.

Things I am genuinely confused is, without the PBO bug, PBO gives me terrible results? I think without PBO i was boosting to 4150mhz in windows and with PBO i was stuck at ~4ghz with lower scores. I tried then negative offset and llc, as well as autooc, and it was still crappy results. At this point I'm happy I can set edc to 0 and not have the problem (as of yet, hopefully this was it), but im confused if I even benefit from pbo on or off... With pbo off I saw cores boosting to 4.5 or 4.6 single threaded a lot of the time, but of course load with multi cores is low. I would like to take advantage of this PBO, I still need to try EDC=1 or maybe even lower than 12? Just not happy overall with the new bios being weird, and PBO enabled performing worse than load optimized defaults


----------



## R0CK3T

Marucins said:


> I have updated UEFI (BIOS) to the latest version F20a.
> The bug doesn't work anymore.


it Still Works for me on X570 Master with 3950X, I tried to mimic the color scheme you have to make it easier to read.

I noticed you have your FCLK and memory running at 1900, would you mind sharing your settings?


----------



## ManniX-ITA

R0CK3T said:


> it Still Works for me on X570 Master with 3950X


 @Marucins
The bug works, usually, it's the BIOS which is unstable.
Very different experience for everyone. Go back to F12/F11.



nowarranty said:


> Alright, I managed to go through the list trying to figure it out but the only thing that worked was what you told me on trying EDC 0. Either that or PBO disabled(or auto, whichever the optimized bios defaults on my board were)
> 
> I tried f20a again but that bios has major issues, I can't boot into OS with optimized defaults and I noticed with optimized defaults it asks about my changes to an option i never touched. Reset cmos before and after flashing.
> 
> Also, stock settings, system was very responsive, surprisingly high CB20 score of 7260 without PBO on.
> 
> Followed with stock with PBO on and got worse scores, did not make sense to me. But windows and linux both did not get stuck at low frequency.
> 
> I set the PBO bug without any memory overclocks and auto voltages and the problem happened on linux but not windows, but if I change the windows power plan under 85% minimum frequency it does happen. Windows its either chip stays above 3000mhz or if it goes lower than that and load is put on cpu then it will go to 500-1100mhz under load, typically gets stuck 500mhz or 900mhz.
> 
> Followed that with removing PBO and testing memory overclock, this worked fine. So after all of this I started trying PBO, i did really restrictive with 100/90/12. Still saw bug on linux and windows. Also had tried before 150/100/12, 200/100/12, but when I set 150/100/0 the bug seemed to go away. In linux it would not go under 2200mhz, where as before if it went under 2200mhz and load was applied it would start downclocking and under load would lock at 500mhz.
> 
> Things I am genuinely confused is, without the PBO bug, PBO gives me terrible results? I think without PBO i was boosting to 4150mhz in windows and with PBO i was stuck at ~4ghz with lower scores. I tried then negative offset and llc, as well as autooc, and it was still crappy results. At this point I'm happy I can set edc to 0 and not have the problem (as of yet, hopefully this was it), but im confused if I even benefit from pbo on or off... With pbo off I saw cores boosting to 4.5 or 4.6 single threaded a lot of the time, but of course load with multi cores is low. I would like to take advantage of this PBO, I still need to try EDC=1 or maybe even lower than 12? Just not happy overall with the new bios being weird, and PBO enabled performing worse than load optimized defaults


BIOS F20a is unstable.
You have are already issue without it, go back to F12, maybe F11 too.

If you don't get down-clocking with EDC at 0 is the vCore voltage and LLC.
But bear in mind that sometimes, even if rarely, it doesn't work at all in some cases. It's not a "supported" feature.
So far I've seen mostly 3600x/3700x not having success at all, usually with a 3950x it can be done.

Consider that I had to spend months of testing to find the correct settings, it's not an easy task.
Seems to me you need a very specific offset to make it work and probably a very specific combination of LLC and PPT/TDC/EDC combo.
It's unlikely that a lower EDC will help, I'll check maybe if you it works better with a higher EDC and a lower offset.

Are you using Ryzen Master to set the values or the BIOS?


----------



## nowarranty

ManniX-ITA said:


> @*Marucins*
> The bug works, usually, it's the BIOS which is unstable.
> Very different experience for everyone. Go back to F12/F11.
> 
> 
> 
> BIOS F20a is unstable.
> You have are already issue without it, go back to F12, maybe F11 too.
> 
> If you don't get down-clocking with EDC at 0 is the vCore voltage and LLC.
> But bear in mind that sometimes, even if rarely, it doesn't work at all in some cases. It's not a "supported" feature.
> So far I've seen mostly 3600x/3700x not having success at all, usually with a 3950x it can be done.
> 
> Consider that I had to spend months of testing to find the correct settings, it's not an easy task.
> Seems to me you need a very specific offset to make it work and probably a very specific combination of LLC and PPT/TDC/EDC combo.
> It's unlikely that a lower EDC will help, I'll check maybe if you it works better with a higher EDC and a lower offset.
> 
> Are you using Ryzen Master to set the values or the BIOS?


just setting everything through bios directly

i will try to work around 0/1 EDC again and do ppt/tdc in steps of 10 or 20. just going to need to find more time to do the testing. i tried edc 10 and it didnt work so im not sure i should even bother with 9 or 8.

i was using cpuz and cinebench to get scores of performance, but i wasnt experiencing the clockspeed lockups on there, then in linux i would see it and testing on windows game it would happen too. i tried all the suggestions on the threads about disabling c6 and zenstates on linux but that had no effect and edc 0/1 did so i guess that may just have been it. 

thanks again for helping me with this, hope if someone searching around has same issue they will be able to find on this thread. im still confused about this behavior though, the settings working fine under high load benchmark scenarios, then crashing to 500mhz starting a game or alt tabbing in and out while cpu changes states  a lot for me to learn on this platform


----------



## ManniX-ITA

nowarranty said:


> just setting everything through bios directly
> 
> i will try to work around 0/1 EDC again and do ppt/tdc in steps of 10 or 20. just going to need to find more time to do the testing. i tried edc 10 and it didnt work so im not sure i should even bother with 9 or 8.
> 
> i was using cpuz and cinebench to get scores of performance, but i wasnt experiencing the clockspeed lockups on there, then in linux i would see it and testing on windows game it would happen too. i tried all the suggestions on the threads about disabling c6 and zenstates on linux but that had no effect and edc 0/1 did so i guess that may just have been it.
> 
> thanks again for helping me with this, hope if someone searching around has same issue they will be able to find on this thread. im still confused about this behavior though, the settings working fine under high load benchmark scenarios, then crashing to 500mhz starting a game or alt tabbing in and out while cpu changes states  a lot for me to learn on this platform


You're welcome 

You need to test with more granularity; every single EDC step, PPT/TDC at least with steps of 5. 
When you have the feeling it could be a good config, a lot of testing for the offset, scalar and at the end how LLC behavior is impacting it.

If it happens as you said never under load but when start a game or alt tabbing then it's for sure the delta between the min and max VID for the cores.
You should eventually able to fix it with a lower offset or scalar; if you can't in any way playing with those you need a different EDC value, probably a higher one.
I guess you already have C States disabled, double check it. Try changing the min processor state to 100% to see if it still happens or not.

You can try modding the 1usmus Universal power plan with these instructions:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/eng1y8/ryzen_3700x_high_iddle_temps_and_fan_speed/

Just select the 1usmus ID in the list from step 2 and use it in step 4.


----------



## Tweedilderp

**Big shout out to Mannix on this one for mention many times through the thread that you can limit via PPT**


So it appears I have found my perfect power consumption and heat setup with the edc bug.

Using PPT 145 TDC 230 EDC 1 scalar x10

After updating to the most recent chipset drivers I noticed a lot of my benchmarks were also being assigned to my 2nd chiplet instead of the faster 1st.

I was scratching my head for ages wondering what it could be, So I thought with ryzen balanced I get the USB audio pop bug but with 1usmus' plans and high performance plans I get no popping at all (narrowed this down to balanced causing high latency with over 1000 nanoseconds!).

I settled on running ryzen high performance and I get MT 7448 and SC 529 in R20, This is with as many background apps closed as possible with defender disabled through gpedit.msc and CB R20 on "normal" priority, not high or real time.

Clocks mostly stick around 4.2ghz in MT and 4.5ghz in ST with super low/idle loads spiking to 4675Mhz on a few cores. However I know I am choking the 2nd chiplet because 1 core during MT shows 4ghz and the other shows 3.9ghz. This doesn't affect scores that much for me with the low power and heat (145w pegged 100% and temps under 71c with voltage maxing at 1.28v but mostly sticking to 1.25v-1.26v). Very happy with this outcome as I can enjoy my PBO bug and not risk degradation.

About to test p95 small fft and will post here 2 secs...

small fft 4.2ghz all core with the afforementioned 2 cores sitting just over 4ghz, 69c max temps with 1.331v-1.36v.

smallest fft is in the screen cap below during the test, you can see the 2 slower choked cores in the 2nd chiplet.

I am really happy with this outcome and I am glad the newest chipset driver has finally sorted out the core speeds when using the PBO bug and scalar with ryzen high performance and no longer having to rely on 1usmus plans (he even said they're useless now with windows and chipset updates). I also tried using a + offset for the voltage but it never increased, tried up to +.04v and it did nada, p95 volts never increased either, only llc low did that and it was insane heat and voltage (like around 1.38v on small fft's). 

To also improve some gaming benchmarks I decided to watch a few vids from 2 youtube channels and they had interesting stuff like using msi util v2 to put my nvidia gpu in line mode with high interrupts and the affinity process tool from microsoft to assign the nvidia driver process to the 1st CCD CCX 1 to improve latency (pretty good for online shooters).

This was done on my current motherboard and cpu in my sig and I used the F12f bios on the mobo.

Also here is a result from the Time Spy run tonight, highest score I have had in a few months of testing I think - https://www.3dmark.com/spy/12676999

Cheers.

P.S. This CPU is also from the first batch that came into Australia last year in August, So it isn't a new, more efficient batch. It is also using auto vcore and all auto LLC's.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Tweedilderp said:


> **Big shout out to Mannix on this one for mention many times through the thread that you can limit via PPT**
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> So it appears I have found my perfect power consumption and heat setup with the edc bug.
> 
> Using PPT 145 TDC 230 EDC 1 scalar x10
> 
> After updating to the most recent chipset drivers I noticed a lot of my benchmarks were also being assigned to my 2nd chiplet instead of the faster 1st.
> 
> I was scratching my head for ages wondering what it could be, So I thought with ryzen balanced I get the USB audio pop bug but with 1usmus' plans and high performance plans I get no popping at all (narrowed this down to balanced causing high latency with over 1000 nanoseconds!).
> 
> I settled on running ryzen high performance and I get MT 7448 and SC 529 in R20, This is with as many background apps closed as possible with defender disabled through gpedit.msc and CB R20 on "normal" priority, not high or real time.
> 
> Clocks mostly stick around 4.2ghz in MT and 4.5ghz in ST with super low/idle loads spiking to 4675Mhz on a few cores. However I know I am choking the 2nd chiplet because 1 core during MT shows 4ghz and the other shows 3.9ghz. This doesn't affect scores that much for me with the low power and heat (145w pegged 100% and temps under 71c with voltage maxing at 1.28v but mostly sticking to 1.25v-1.26v). Very happy with this outcome as I can enjoy my PBO bug and not risk degradation.
> 
> About to test p95 small fft and will post here 2 secs...
> 
> small fft 4.2ghz all core with the afforementioned 2 cores sitting just over 4ghz, 69c max temps with 1.331v-1.36v.
> 
> smallest fft is in the screen cap below during the test, you can see the 2 slower choked cores in the 2nd chiplet.
> 
> I am really happy with this outcome and I am glad the newest chipset driver has finally sorted out the core speeds when using the PBO bug and scalar with ryzen high performance and no longer having to rely on 1usmus plans (he even said they're useless now with windows and chipset updates). I also tried using a + offset for the voltage but it never increased, tried up to +.04v and it did nada, p95 volts never increased either, only llc low did that and it was insane heat and voltage (like around 1.38v on small fft's).
> 
> To also improve some gaming benchmarks I decided to watch a few vids from 2 youtube channels and they had interesting stuff like using msi util v2 to put my nvidia gpu in line mode with high interrupts and the affinity process tool from microsoft to assign the nvidia driver process to the 1st CCD CCX 1 to improve latency (pretty good for online shooters).
> 
> This was done on my current motherboard and cpu in my sig and I used the F12f bios on the mobo.
> 
> Also here is a result from the Time Spy run tonight, highest score I have had in a few months of testing I think - https://www.3dmark.com/spy/12676999
> 
> Cheers.
> 
> P.S. This CPU is also from the first batch that came into Australia last year in August, So it isn't a new, more efficient batch. It is also using auto vcore and all auto LLC's.


Nice, happy to see you nailed it :specool:

I still use with ProcessLasso as a base power plan the 1usmus Universal, I get better power draw in idle.
But only cause I'm controlling when to switch to Ultimate for selected processes. Otherwise the High Performance is the best choice overall.
I've seen already a lot of complaints about the Balanced plan about latency.


----------



## Tweedilderp

Adding farcry 5 bench and CB R20 MT Scores here along with my RAM OC settings. Had to enabled CnQ, C-States and CPPC+CPPC Preferred Cores, apparently not doing so breaks the windows scheduler. 

as shown here:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/ds1hoq/wrong_cppc_preferred_cores_information_might_lead/

With the new chipset drivers and ryzen power plans (which now include 1 usmus power tweaks as you can see from my max core speeds in hwinfo64 image from previous post) I have not gotten a downclock as of yet and likely won't as all feedback even as lately as a month ago points to downclocking and stuck low clocks have been from a combination of (edit: old) chipset drivers and custom power plans.

Benchmarks attached.


----------



## Marucins

R0CK3T said:


> it Still Works for me on X570 Master with 3950X, I tried to mimic the color scheme you have to make it easier to read.
> 
> I noticed you have your FCLK and memory running at 1900, would you mind sharing your settings?


There is nothing magical there.
Everything set up with a calculator


----------



## R0CK3T

Marucins said:


> There is nothing magical there.
> Everything set up with a calculator


I use the calculator too but it's not working that great for me, I went from a 3900X to the 3950, changed b-die kits and it always caps at 3766, the only constant so far is the motherboard but I think it's user error.

Thanks for the screenshot =)


----------



## gerardfraser

R0CK3T said:


> I use the calculator too but it's not working that great for me, I went from a 3900X to the 3950, changed b-die kits and it always caps at 3766, the only constant so far is the motherboard but I think it's user error.
> 
> Thanks for the screenshot =)


What are you doing wasting money for zero improvement, your RAM is fine at MCLK/UCLK/FCLK Synced 1:1:1 3733Mhz . The best you can do is tighten the Ram timings for best performance.
Going any higher will make zero difference but of course I am sure there may be a program that may change by a second or 2 over a period of hours rendering or something but I doubt it.
I can run my ram at 3866Mhz MCLK/UCLK/FCLK Synced 1:1:1 but makes no difference in PC gaming or applications from 3733Mhz.

If you want a better chance of hitting 3800Mhz Synced 1:1:1,then you need to buy a 3600X/3700X/3800X and still no guarantee .With 3900X/3950X you have a great chance of getting a crap CCD/CCX . Then you are only guaranteed 3600Mhz by AMD.

3950X is a beast be happy with it.


My Ram B-Die settings 3866Mhz Synced 1:1:1


Spoiler



Memory


----------



## Tweedilderp

R0CK3T said:


> I use the calculator too but it's not working that great for me, I went from a 3900X to the 3950, changed b-die kits and it always caps at 3766, the only constant so far is the motherboard but I think it's user error.
> 
> Thanks for the screenshot =)


Indeed as gerard said, make the most of the RAM and cpu you have, tighten timings, here is a picture from a german article relating to certain improvements in tightening timings.

Also here is the full url for the article, though you will need to translate if you don't read german.

https://www.hardwareluxx.de/communi...nd-anwendungen-amd-update-23-05-2020.1269156/


----------



## Yuke

Well, seems that i degraded my first release, bottom of the barrel, 3800x. 4600Mhz Boostclocks that were stable before, crash now when doing easy stuff like YT decoding or Google searches. Very unlikely that i got lucky for so long as YT and Chrome is literally 75% of my PC usage and i would have experience the crashes way earlier.

I ran 10x scalar, +50Mhz, 0.00625Mhz +Offset since the EDC thing was discovered. Trying out +25Mhz 10x scalar out now, if it crashes i will probably have to set Scalar back to a less aggressive value.


----------



## mongoled

Yuke said:


> Well, seems that i degraded my first release, bottom of the barrel, 3800x. 4600Mhz Boostclocks that were stable before, crash now when doing easy stuff like YT decoding or Google searches. Very unlikely that i got lucky for so long as YT and Chrome is literally 75% of my PC usage and i would have experience the crashes way earlier.
> 
> I ran 10x scalar, +50Mhz, 0.00625Mhz +Offset since the EDC thing was discovered. Trying out +25Mhz 10x scalar out now, if it crashes i will probably have to set Scalar back to a less aggressive value.


I do find that very unlikely its the CPU... now if you were hammering the CPU with multithreaded work loads since you had it I could understand there could be a possibility, but not from using youtube/chrome...


----------



## Yuke

mongoled said:


> I do find that very unlikely its the CPU... now if you were hammering the CPU with multithreaded work loads since you had it I could understand there could be a possibility, but not from using youtube/chrome...


I was stress testing it for stability of course (usually over night runs). Y-Cruncher for example. As i said, i didnt change anything for months and suddenly the YT and Chrome crashes.


----------



## Tweedilderp

Yuke said:


> I was stress testing it for stability of course (usually over night runs). Y-Cruncher for example. As i said, i didnt change anything for months and suddenly the YT and Chrome crashes.


Is your CPU using the windows scheduler or is it just random what threads get assigned? If preferred cores isn't working properly and are getting assigned to a weaker, more unstable core then it could be that the instability was there all along and it was just pure luck the scheduler didn't stuff up til now.

You can tell by going into event viewer>windows logs>system and look for evenid 55 (it pops up for each core on boot). 

Should see something like this

Performance state type: ACPI Collaborative Processor Performance Control
Nominal Frequency (MHz): 3800
Maximum performance percentage: 138
Minimum performance percentage: 58
Minimum throttle percentage: 15

If acpi isnt there then preferred cores aren't being used and workloads are being randomly assigned because all the cores are equal, if acpi IS preset but the percentage numbers are all the same then preferred cores are enabled but CnQ is disabled and that is also causing the cores/threads to be assigned randomly by the OS.

Hope this is the case and not instability caused by degradation.


----------



## Tweedilderp

I also find it hard to believe that degradation will snowball out of control, you can still test FIT and keep below that target, but you will have to find that FIT rating.

Keeping below that should stop further damage if it is degradation, it just means having lower than desired core speeds.


----------



## Yuke

Tweedilderp said:


> .... if acpi IS preset but the percentage numbers are all the same then preferred cores are enabled but CnQ is disabled and that is also causing the cores/threads to be assigned randomly by the OS.
> 
> Hope this is the case and not instability caused by degradation.


This is my setup indeed. What i dont understand is that i've been running this from the first day 1usmus gave us his powerplan + his BIOS settings. So why would it start doing problems now? Did the latest Windows Updates change something? 

Regarding CnQ. I think i had Single Core throttle when activating it, so i had to deactivate it.


----------



## Tweedilderp

Yuke said:


> This is my setup indeed. What i dont understand is that i've been running this from the first day 1usmus gave us his powerplan + his BIOS settings. So why would it start doing problems now? Did the latest Windows Updates change something?
> 
> Regarding CnQ. I think i had Single Core throttle when activating it, so i had to deactivate it.


A lot of people on reddit threads and amd forums have recommended to uninstall all non-ryzen power plans and even uninstall and reinstall the amd chipset drivers thoroughly. I had been using 1usmus/universal without watching the core assignments because performance was good.

But because I limit my 3900X with PPT of 145w I get a couple of underperforming cores (they always did if I was using scalar and no LLC) on my 2nd chiplet. I started seeing some benchmarks go downhill and then it clicked that it was because the OS was randomly assigning work to those poorly performing threads.

I heard about the horrors of CnQ idle bug and even experienced it myself in February this year and switched back to my 8700K for a few months. Now that I understand the CPPC properly and what can cause the downclock I uninstalled the power plans and ryzen master and reinstalled it from scratch as I haven't reinstalled windows on this drive....ever lol and refuse to do it again until I am replacing the drive as I am not down with cloud backups or even my NAS cloning features.

I enabled CnQ and even c-states with PBO bug 145/230/1 and scalar x10 and installed the new chipset from early june and still am running 1909 (for some reason windows update says I have to wait until they iron out the 2004 bugs) and have had no downclocks. A lot of people scoffed at having to restart to fix the static low clock bug but if it does pop up you only have to switch the power plan and back again to fix it. I have not had to do that in the last few days of testing and as you can see from my screenshot below, the 1usmus power plans no longer are needed and he even tweeted that recently as well as AMD has improved idle/load boosting (the hwinfo64 screenshot is from just being idle with only chrome open for hours).

I like the fact I get to enjoy properly assigned cores now because it was pissing me off that some programs were being swapped between the chiplets and they just performed horribly without having to resort to micromanaging with process lasso.

The power plan I am currently using is Ryzen High Performance because balanced gives me sound latency issues on my USB headset, what a strange bug that is.

Hope this info helps mate.


----------



## Yuke

Tweedilderp said:


> A lot of people on reddit threads and amd forums have recommended to uninstall all non-ryzen power plans and even uninstall and reinstall the amd chipset drivers thoroughly. I had been using 1usmus/universal without watching the core assignments because performance was good.
> 
> But because I limit my 3900X with PPT of 145w I get a couple of underperforming cores (they always did if I was using scalar and no LLC) on my 2nd chiplet. I started seeing some benchmarks go downhill and then it clicked that it was because the OS was randomly assigning work to those poorly performing threads.
> 
> I heard about the horrors of CnQ idle bug and even experienced it myself in February this year and switched back to my 8700K for a few months. Now that I understand the CPPC properly and what can cause the downclock I uninstalled the power plans and ryzen master and reinstalled it from scratch as I haven't reinstalled windows on this drive....ever lol and refuse to do it again until I am replacing the drive as I am not down with cloud backups or even my NAS cloning features.
> 
> I enabled CnQ and even c-states with PBO bug 145/230/1 and scalar x10 and installed the new chipset from early june and still am running 1909 (for some reason windows update says I have to wait until they iron out the 2004 bugs) and have had no downclocks. A lot of people scoffed at having to restart to fix the static low clock bug but if it does pop up you only have to switch the power plan and back again to fix it. I have not had to do that in the last few days of testing and as you can see from my screenshot below, the 1usmus power plans no longer are needed and he even tweeted that recently as well as AMD has improved idle/load boosting (the hwinfo64 screenshot is from just being idle with only chrome open for hours).
> 
> I like the fact I get to enjoy properly assigned cores now because it was pissing me off that some programs were being swapped between the chiplets and they just performed horribly without having to resort to micromanaging with process lasso.
> 
> The power plan I am currently using is Ryzen High Performance because balanced gives me sound latency issues on my USB headset, what a strange bug that is.
> 
> Hope this info helps mate.


Thanks for the reply. So let me get this straight...you fixed CnQ downclock by using the high performance plan? I am also using C-States without any issue. Only thing that i had to do after setting the 0, 0, 1 bug was deactivating CnQ because i couldnt figure out how to fix downclocking otherwise (and i didnt want to fall down another rabit hole because i was figuring out my RAM timings at that point). Fixing the Scheduling to finally be able to benchmark CPU-Z on my best core would be indeed really nice...rightnow it always runs on my worst core...


----------



## Tweedilderp

Yuke said:


> Thanks for the reply. So let me get this straight...you fixed CnQ downclock by using the high performance plan? I am also using C-States without any issue. Only thing that i had to do after setting the 0, 0, 1 bug was deactivating CnQ because i couldnt figure out how to fix downclocking otherwise (and i didnt want to fall down another rabit hole because i was figuring out my RAM timings at that point). Fixing the Scheduling to finally be able to benchmark CPU-Z on my best core would be indeed really nice...rightnow it always runs on my worst core...


I don't have the downclock issue, i uninstalled the 1usmus plans and set to ryzen high performance and haven't had the issue crop up since doing so. Make sure you have the latest chipset drivers, some people have said having ryzen master open during the session has caused it but I don't run ryzen master unless I am taking a screenshot of my settings so I can't confirm that.

Try it out and see if it works, if it doesn't go back to CnQ disabled but I can confirm 1usmus plans aren't needed now as 1usmus stated that AMD has sorted all the boosting issues.

Though IF it doesn't work I wonder if it's the 0 PPT and TDC settings that may help cause it? doubt it as it just uses motherboard defaults and I use PBO bug and it doesn't cause downclocking/idle frequency bugs.


----------



## Tweedilderp

So yeah to recap:

I uninstalled my chipset and ryzen master, rebooted, entered the BIOS and re-enabled CnQ (I did the 2 CPPC settings and C-States on a prior reboot).

Restarted with CnQ enabled and installed the new AMD chipset for X570 (my previous version was from earlier in the year) and ryzen master. After that I rebooted again and switched to Ryzen High Performance and haven't experienced any locked lower clocks since.


----------



## Yuke

Tweedilderp said:


> So yeah to recap:
> 
> I uninstalled my chipset and ryzen master, rebooted, entered the BIOS and re-enabled CnQ (I did the 2 CPPC settings and C-States on a prior reboot).
> 
> Restarted with CnQ enabled and installed the new AMD chipset for X570 (my previous version was from earlier in the year) and ryzen master. After that I rebooted again and switched to Ryzen High Performance and haven't experienced any locked lower clocks since.


After some reboots and testing, CnQ works with Nighthogs' settings for me (EDC = 10 instead of 1). It didnt work by just changing the powerplan. Sadly, its still not worth using for me because now multicore benchmark is 100 lower than before. I will tryout my old PBO settings with the new powerplan...maybe scheduling was indeed an issue and causing the crashes.


----------



## Awsan

Hey today I did some testing with the latest chip-set drivers and as I have my cooler mounted with zipties most of these results are cooler limited as I hit nearly 90 degrees on cinebench.

So after testing several settings (considering the thermal threshold) everything under 17 crashes and my cpu wont use anything over 210-145 (So that is the limiting factor for now) tried everything from 17-25 with C-states enabled and disabled and auto , and similarly with CnQ, everything scored similarly and ran @ 4.2 MT and 4.5 ST with the exception of one outlier CnQ enabled will kill the the ST performance dramatically.

Newest chip-set drivers with the ryzen performance plan it comes with seems to perform better than anything else. (1usmus plan wont go above 4.35st and 4.15mt for some reason)

I am just waiting for my cooler bracket to arrive because somehow feel this chip will clock really high  .


----------



## nowarranty

@*ManniX-ITA* I have been testing testing and testing, I need some input.

I've gotten to that marginal ~50-100 CB20 performance difference is a lot of voltage. I'm using CB20 / CPU-Z / Battlefield to test voltages, wattage, and clock frequency. I'm wondering which approach I should take for a more conservative long term use, I'm still not knowledgeable about what these chips can handle heat/voltage wise and every other forum/thread seems to have different opinions.

For example, without manual PBO the chip does around 7200 CB20 with 1.296v under load. To get 7400-7500 I need 1.35-1.38v
Around -0.018v the VID is still low at around 1.311 but vcore around 1.35-1.368 and at -0.025 is same thing. I will get ~7400 here

Should I push it down until vcore is under 1.344 or 1.320 and accept just accept the lower performance? In game like battlefield I'm seeing a ~25-50mhz difference between 1.368 and 1.38v with scalar settings. From what I recall, the 1.32v voltage was Stilts 95C testing, and some other threads mentioned 1.35v and 70C? I can't remember, but I'm just confused at what numbers to completely avoid and which to go by. I don't want to add 0.05v extra if its literally 100 synthetic benchmark points and 50mhz unnoticeable game difference. My temps are under around and under 70C for all the testing. I'm also not sure how the voltage in games acts as the cores arent under full load, so I don't understand if 1.38v 4375mhz is the same as 1.38 4375mhz under load


----------



## Tweedilderp

Awsan said:


> Hey today I did some testing with the latest chip-set drivers and as I have my cooler mounted with zipties most of these results are cooler limited as I hit nearly 90 degrees on cinebench.
> 
> So after testing several settings (considering the thermal threshold) everything under 17 crashes and my cpu wont use anything over 210-145 (So that is the limiting factor for now) tried everything from 17-25 with C-states enabled and disabled and auto , and similarly with CnQ, everything scored similarly and ran @ 4.2 MT and 4.5 ST with the exception of one outlier CnQ enabled will kill the the ST performance dramatically.
> 
> Newest chip-set drivers with the ryzen performance plan it comes with seems to perform better than anything else. (1usmus plan wont go above 4.35st and 4.15mt for some reason)
> 
> I am just waiting for my cooler bracket to arrive because somehow feel this chip will clock really high  .


NICE! Yeah the new AMD high performance plan I was shocked performed better than the 1usmus plan. I am just glad they finally got it together over the last year and fixed it. Hope it's not another "aged like fine wine" with Zen 3 and it's boosting/power plans lol. 

Also...zipties?!? haha you mad man 

Also I found with my AIO cooler I got better thermals placing a small blobs of paste (kryonaut) over where the IO die and chiplets would be, got about 4-6c cooler than X or blob in the middle.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

nowarranty said:


> @*ManniX-ITA* I have been testing testing and testing, I need some input.
> 
> I've gotten to that marginal ~50-100 CB20 performance difference is a lot of voltage. I'm using CB20 / CPU-Z / Battlefield to test voltages, wattage, and clock frequency. I'm wondering which approach I should take for a more conservative long term use, I'm still not knowledgeable about what these chips can handle heat/voltage wise and every other forum/thread seems to have different opinions.
> 
> For example, without manual PBO the chip does around 7200 CB20 with 1.296v under load. To get 7400-7500 I need 1.35-1.38v
> Around -0.018v the VID is still low at around 1.311 but vcore around 1.35-1.368 and at -0.025 is same thing. I will get ~7400 here
> 
> Should I push it down until vcore is under 1.344 or 1.320 and accept just accept the lower performance? In game like battlefield I'm seeing a ~25-50mhz difference between 1.368 and 1.38v with scalar settings. From what I recall, the 1.32v voltage was Stilts 95C testing, and some other threads mentioned 1.35v and 70C? I can't remember, but I'm just confused at what numbers to completely avoid and which to go by. I don't want to add 0.05v extra if its literally 100 synthetic benchmark points and 50mhz unnoticeable game difference. My temps are under around and under 70C for all the testing. I'm also not sure how the voltage in games acts as the cores arent under full load, so I don't understand if 1.38v 4375mhz is the same as 1.38 4375mhz under load


Like you said; to be conservative you need to give up some performances.
Everyone has its own opinion about what is really dangerous and what not.
Yes there have been reports of degraded samples due to high voltage but AFAIK not a single one running only with PBO overclock.
All those that degraded quickly have been overclocked statically. You still have some thermal protections but they are limited.

PBO has its own multiple layers of protection; even with the most aggressive settings is never going close to the temps of a static oc.
There's no predefined FIT voltage, it is specific for each unit.
Statistically is very often around 1.32v; good samples can have it at 1.27v, bad ones at 1.37v, etc

You can find your sample FIT voltages with "open PBO"; stock settings, manual PBO with scalar at 1x and no boost clock, set PPT and TDC at their max value. EDC either at max level or at 0, depending on AGESA. Latest v2 1.0.0.2 should have EDC level working properly, maybe also 1.0.0.5.
Then you can record the voltages applied during CPU-z stress, CB20 MT and Prime95 at their 100% load.
These are the 3 main workloads the processor will react differently.

The FIT voltages are of course quite conservative; you either try to stick to these or accept the 25-50mv the scalar will add to boost.
AMD has always been intentionally not clear about this topic; but they repeated many times up to 1.5v is safe if the temperature is kept under control.
Degradation will always occur; but to significantly speed up the rate you need a lot of current, for a long time, under a high temperature.

These are all parameters you can control with PBO.
I'm personally worried only about long duration workloads at max load around 90c.
If you want to be conservative but keep the boost, my advice is to limit with PPT/TDC.
1.38v 4375mhz without load is not the same under load; it's not the same under load with 1 or 2 or more cores.
If you want to see how PBO scales under "open pbo"; test with CPU-z stress test with different threads: 1 thread, then 2, 3, 4, etc.
Take note of clocks and voltages. Then check you have the same scaling with your final settings.

If you limit the base voltage or the scalar, PBO will boost clock with a slower ramp-up, limited duration and lower clocks.
Not only for a single core boost but more importantly for the light threaded workload; gaming and other programs which will have 40-60% usage peaks.
There's quite a difference in responsiveness and speed. In gaming when you are not GPU bound is quite a hit.

If you use PPT and/or TDC to limit, you'll retain all the boost advantages but you can control how far you want to go under 100% load.
About 70c is probably an already ideal condition for a Ryzen 3000, considering the stock coolers can't keep it often below 80c.
I'd just avoid the base voltage to have the core VIDs go over 1.5v in idle; it doesn't help and it's what AMD said it's not safe zone.


----------



## Bal3Wolf

anyone tested the pbo bug on the new AMD AGESA-ComboAM4 PI 1.0.0.1 beta bios that a lot of boards have out now i know my ccd overclock is better but havet played with pbo i never had great luck with it myself.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Bal3Wolf said:


> anyone tested the pbo bug on the new AMD AGESA-ComboAM4 PI 1.0.0.1 beta bios that a lot of boards have out now i know my ccd overclock is better but havet played with pbo i never had great luck with it myself.


It works on the V2 1.0.0.2 so I assume it should work also with the 1.0.0.1.
But I haven't see anyone reporting success explicitly.


----------



## mongoled

nowarranty said:


> @*ManniX-ITA* I have been testing testing and testing, I need some input.
> 
> I've gotten to that marginal ~50-100 CB20 performance difference is a lot of voltage. I'm using CB20 / CPU-Z / Battlefield to test voltages, wattage, and clock frequency. I'm wondering which approach I should take for a more conservative long term use, I'm still not knowledgeable about what these chips can handle heat/voltage wise and every other forum/thread seems to have different opinions.
> 
> For example, without manual PBO the chip does around 7200 CB20 with 1.296v under load. To get 7400-7500 I need 1.35-1.38v
> Around -0.018v the VID is still low at around 1.311 but vcore around 1.35-1.368 and at -0.025 is same thing. I will get ~7400 here
> 
> Should I push it down until vcore is under 1.344 or 1.320 and accept just accept the lower performance? In game like battlefield I'm seeing a ~25-50mhz difference between 1.368 and 1.38v with scalar settings. From what I recall, the 1.32v voltage was Stilts 95C testing, and some other threads mentioned 1.35v and 70C? I can't remember, but I'm just confused at what numbers to completely avoid and which to go by. I don't want to add 0.05v extra if its literally 100 synthetic benchmark points and 50mhz unnoticeable game difference. My temps are under around and under 70C for all the testing. I'm also not sure how the voltage in games acts as the cores arent under full load, so I don't understand if 1.38v 4375mhz is the same as 1.38 4375mhz under load


Im sorry but nobody can tell you how safe taking advantage of the EDC bug is simply because we have not been using our CPUs for enough time to determine what really is safe or not.

If you ask this question in a year or so there will be more data available to cover this.

I am in the same boat as yourself, for example (3600 is my CPU) ive got it tweaked so that TM5 is running at over 4500 mhz using PBO, EDC bug and BCLK. Im using a 10x scaler and +0.05v offset, but also im using vdroop.

TM5 voltage is hovering from 1.45v to 1.48v, temps are in low 60s and TDC/PPT are far from triggering their limits.

And I ask myself the same question.

If I remove the EDC bug, then TM5 drops to a little over 4400 mhz, but voltages do not drop and temps are again low 60s.

Time is the only thing that will answer our questions regarding degradation ......


----------



## Awsan

Tweedilderp said:


> NICE! Yeah the new AMD high performance plan I was shocked performed better than the 1usmus plan. I am just glad they finally got it together over the last year and fixed it. Hope it's not another "aged like fine wine" with Zen 3 and it's boosting/power plans lol.
> 
> Also...zipties?!? haha you mad man
> 
> Also I found with my AIO cooler I got better thermals placing a small blobs of paste (kryonaut) over where the IO die and chiplets would be, got about 4-6c cooler than X or blob in the middle.


Yea its gonna age well for sure, I am waiting for that BIOS/Chip-set update that will give it a big boost in single core performance ;p (I am sure AMD is hiding it somewhere >.> )

Its been on zip ties for the past 4 months due to a lot of fook ups, DHL lost it in feb, so I ordered another one with a traveler that was coming to Yemen on the first of April (From NYC) but covid struck then now I just ordered a second set yesterday, until it arrives to my P.O box in Sarasota (Myus.com) then gets sorted is at least 2 weeks then another 50-60 days for it to arrive to Yemen (3 days to arrive to dubai and depart from there, then on wheel to Sana'a/Yemen through Oman which takes the rest of the 50-60 days, thanks for this war) mentioning this my case has been 400km away since 2 months because of some stupid rebels closing the merchants way.

Sorry for the ramble  , my aim right now is to lower the voltage offset from -0.025 to 0.05 and the VDDP under 0.9 VDDG under 0.95 and last thing is the VRAM to anything under 1.4.


----------



## Tweedilderp

Awsan said:


> Yea its gonna age well for sure, I am waiting for that BIOS/Chip-set update that will give it a big boost in single core performance ;p (I am sure AMD is hiding it somewhere >.> )
> 
> Its been on zip ties for the past 4 months due to a lot of fook ups, DHL lost it in feb, so I ordered another one with a traveler that was coming to Yemen on the first of April (From NYC) but covid struck then now I just ordered a second set yesterday, until it arrives to my P.O box in Sarasota (Myus.com) then gets sorted is at least 2 weeks then another 50-60 days for it to arrive to Yemen (3 days to arrive to dubai and depart from there, then on wheel to Sana'a/Yemen through Oman which takes the rest of the 50-60 days, thanks for this war) mentioning this my case has been 400km away since 2 months because of some stupid rebels closing the merchants way.
> 
> Sorry for the ramble  , my aim right now is to lower the voltage offset from -0.025 to 0.05 and the VDDP under 0.9 VDDG under 0.95 and last thing is the VRAM to anything under 1.4.


Yeah I am thinking their secret AGESA/Chipset weapon will come out just around the XT cpu launch or maybe just before Zen 3.

Wow that is a crazy situation mate, hope no more delays due to the battles being fought! It's a shame when things like that happen, it's a thing a lot of people in the other parts of the world take for granted.

Out of everyone here I would say you probably rank pretty high up there for perseverance. Apparently SoC also cuts into into the power budget and heat target for the CPU too, so if you can get that any lower and stable that will lower temps as well but may affect your memory overclock if you have a high overclock set.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Tweedilderp said:


> NICE! Yeah the new AMD high performance plan I was shocked performed better than the 1usmus plan. I am just glad they finally got it together over the last year and fixed it. Hope it's not another "aged like fine wine" with Zen 3 and it's boosting/power plans lol.
> 
> Also...zipties?!? haha you mad man
> 
> Also I found with my AIO cooler I got better thermals placing a small blobs of paste (kryonaut) over where the IO die and chiplets would be, got about 4-6c cooler than X or blob in the middle.


The 1usmus power plan still holds a consistent power saving advantage over the AMD HP if you need C States disabled.
But I'd recommend only with ProcessLasso to switch to HP or Ultimate when needed.
This is the power draw difference, about 10-15W:









For even better efficiency of the AIO, if it fits, you should consider Roman's OC custom brackets:

http://der8auer.com/ryzen-3000-oc-bracket/



Tweedilderp said:


> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah I am thinking their secret AGESA/Chipset weapon will come out just around the XT cpu launch or maybe just before Zen 3.
> 
> Wow that is a crazy situation mate, hope no more delays due to the battles being fought! It's a shame when things like that happen, it's a thing a lot of people in the other parts of the world take for granted.
> 
> 
> Out of everyone here I would say you probably rank pretty high up there for perseverance. Apparently SoC also cuts into into the power budget and heat target for the CPU too, so if you can get that any lower and stable that will lower temps as well but may affect your memory overclock if you have a high overclock set.


Yes it does save something; what will be affected first is probably the IF clock.
Depends on silicon but mine can do 1900/3800 with SOC 1.100v and VDDG 950mv.


----------



## nowarranty

ManniX-ITA said:


> Like you said; to be conservative you need to give up some performances.
> Everyone has its own opinion about what is really dangerous and what not.
> Yes there have been reports of degraded samples due to high voltage but AFAIK not a single one running only with PBO overclock.
> All those that degraded quickly have been overclocked statically. You still have some thermal protections but they are limited.
> 
> PBO has its own multiple layers of protection; even with the most aggressive settings is never going close to the temps of a static oc.
> There's no predefined FIT voltage, it is specific for each unit.
> Statistically is very often around 1.32v; good samples can have it at 1.27v, bad ones at 1.37v, etc
> 
> You can find your sample FIT voltages with "open PBO"; stock settings, manual PBO with scalar at 1x and no boost clock, set PPT and TDC at their max value. EDC either at max level or at 0, depending on AGESA. Latest v2 1.0.0.2 should have EDC level working properly, maybe also 1.0.0.5.
> Then you can record the voltages applied during CPU-z stress, CB20 MT and Prime95 at their 100% load.
> These are the 3 main workloads the processor will react differently.
> 
> The FIT voltages are of course quite conservative; you either try to stick to these or accept the 25-50mv the scalar will add to boost.
> AMD has always been intentionally not clear about this topic; but they repeated many times up to 1.5v is safe if the temperature is kept under control.
> Degradation will always occur; but to significantly speed up the rate you need a lot of current, for a long time, under a high temperature.
> 
> These are all parameters you can control with PBO.
> I'm personally worried only about long duration workloads at max load around 90c.
> If you want to be conservative but keep the boost, my advice is to limit with PPT/TDC.
> 1.38v 4375mhz without load is not the same under load; it's not the same under load with 1 or 2 or more cores.
> If you want to see how PBO scales under "open pbo"; test with CPU-z stress test with different threads: 1 thread, then 2, 3, 4, etc.
> Take note of clocks and voltages. Then check you have the same scaling with your final settings.
> 
> If you limit the base voltage or the scalar, PBO will boost clock with a slower ramp-up, limited duration and lower clocks.
> Not only for a single core boost but more importantly for the light threaded workload; gaming and other programs which will have 40-60% usage peaks.
> There's quite a difference in responsiveness and speed. In gaming when you are not GPU bound is quite a hit.
> 
> If you use PPT and/or TDC to limit, you'll retain all the boost advantages but you can control how far you want to go under 100% load.
> About 70c is probably an already ideal condition for a Ryzen 3000, considering the stock coolers can't keep it often below 80c.
> I'd just avoid the base voltage to have the core VIDs go over 1.5v in idle; it doesn't help and it's what AMD said it's not safe zone.


Thank you!:thumb::thumb::thumb: I have one more for you

It looks like my second chiplet is a dud, won't break 4.4ghz but my first chiplet peaked at 4.675/4.625 on every core. In games the second chiplet is constantly crashing and downclocking to 3600 then back up to 4350. Should I just focus on scalar to offset? Even at -0.018 it flakes out.

Is the core VID something I should worry at all? with double the negative offset, I can lower maximum VID from 1.5 to 1.488 but the vcore voltages under load are practically the same. Vcore maximum at 1.452v max after tests and games

I really want to keep seeing 4675 and 4650 maximum clocks! Even if it was for a second or so


----------



## polar

Not much of a tweaker these days but this looked interesting. Doing the original 0,0,1 global CQ disabled netted me a small gain. After I fiddled abit more I ended up doing pretty well.
Few hundred points in Time spy and few points in R20.Stock bios config only 1,2 cores would hit 4363mhz the rest 4100 something, I am on the stock cooler so not much room from here.

Previous time spy CPU 10,008
New time spy CPU 10,203


3700x stock cooler
GB B550 master
4x8 lpx 3600 Micron E
evga 2060s
windows 10 2004
latest amd chipset drivers
Ryzen performance plan


----------



## ManniX-ITA

nowarranty said:


> Thank you!:thumb::thumb::thumb: I have one more for you
> 
> It looks like my second chiplet is a dud, won't break 4.4ghz but my first chiplet peaked at 4.675/4.625 on every core. In games the second chiplet is constantly crashing and downclocking to 3600 then back up to 4350. Should I just focus on scalar to offset? Even at -0.018 it flakes out.
> 
> Is the core VID something I should worry at all? with double the negative offset, I can lower maximum VID from 1.5 to 1.488 but the vcore voltages under load are practically the same. Vcore maximum at 1.452v max after tests and games
> 
> I really want to keep seeing 4675 and 4650 maximum clocks! Even if it was for a second or so


You need to find the right offset; what is better, a lower negative offset or a higher negative/positive offset?
Normally the cores needs 1.35-1.38v to keep 4.2-4.4 GHz speeds.
If the max vCore is 1.452v you are missing 50mv to keep the maximum boost.
An indicator that something is not right is when the max vCore is higher than the max core VID.
You need to have the temperature in control to get a good boosting; at 70c it will slow down a bit, over 75c a lot.

What are you using for scalar and boost clock? I'd aim for the max if possible.
If you have to go down with the offset and they are crashing up the CPU LLC; it should avoid the cores crashing going from light to heavy threaded.
The core VIDs are important; you need to check how voltage is applied.
Use CPU-z stress test with threads control.

If you still get crashing or your temps are too high under 100% CPU usage then limit with PPT and TDC.
They are not blunt limits; they control the ramp-up curve for the boosting algorithm and thermal protections.
If you set them right for your CPU, not too low and not too high, you can get better performances and better thermals.


----------



## Awsan

Tested all night and its stable so far, What do you people think I will be able to lower?

CB R20 9760MT/528ST


----------



## Yuke

Is there any downside in using AMDs high performance profile? It seems to have fixed my crash problems when browsing/watching YT...

I can still see it using P-States in HWinfo, so im wondering whats different.


----------



## Awsan

Yuke said:


> Is there any downside in using AMDs high performance profile? It seems to have fixed my crash problems when browsing/watching YT...
> 
> I can still see it using P-States in HWinfo, so im wondering whats different.


With the new chip-set its running amazingly.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Yuke said:


> Is there any downside in using AMDs high performance profile? It seems to have fixed my crash problems when browsing/watching YT...
> 
> I can still see it using P-States in HWinfo, so im wondering whats different.


It really depends on your settings.
Apart from the higher power draw, yesterday after a while running with AMD HP got a BSOD.
Had to power off to make it work again.
It doesn't play nicely with the EDC bug and C States disabled on mine.


----------



## Marucins

Yuke said:


> Well, seems that i degraded my first release, bottom of the barrel, 3800x. 4600Mhz Boostclocks that were stable before, crash now when doing easy stuff like YT decoding or Google searches. Very unlikely that i got lucky for so long as YT and Chrome is literally 75% of my PC usage and i would have experience the crashes way earlier.
> 
> I ran 10x scalar, +50Mhz, 0.00625Mhz +Offset since the EDC thing was discovered. Trying out +25Mhz 10x scalar out now, if it crashes i will probably have to set Scalar back to a less aggressive value.


A lot of people forget about the ambient temperature.
Summer has come.

These settings were stable for a given temperature. Ryzen is sensitive to the ambient temperature.
That's why I recommend you let go a little and it will be okay.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Yuke said:


> After some reboots and testing, CnQ works with Nighthogs' settings for me (EDC = 10 instead of 1). It didnt work by just changing the powerplan. Sadly, its still not worth using for me because now multicore benchmark is 100 lower than before. I will tryout my old PBO settings with the new powerplan...maybe scheduling was indeed an issue and causing the crashes.


You should try with a negative offset instead of positive and raise the scalar.
What is you max voltage for vCore and core VIDs not under load?


----------



## Yuke

Marucins said:


> A lot of people forget about the ambient temperature.
> Summer has come.
> 
> These settings were stable for a given temperature. Ryzen is sensitive to the ambient temperature.
> That's why I recommend you let go a little and it will be okay.


It cooled down yesterday and sadly im still crashing if i set my old PBO setting: +0.00625Mhz offset +25Mhz or +50Mhz Boostclock overdrive.

have to now use Auto settings for voltage or use +0.00625Mhz and no boostclock overdrive.

I set the one without boostclock overdrive because it gives me better boosting in gaming after testing:



Code:


[B]+0.00625V/+0Mhz 			        3x 4550Mhz 5x 4500Mhz
+0V/+50Mhz					1x 4575 7x 4500
+0V/+25Mhz					1x 4550 1x 4500 6x 4475[/B]

Tested in Ryzen optimized Borderlands 3 - same scene 10minutes each. Max Core+Thread load 98.7%.


----------



## Yuke

ManniX-ITA said:


> You should try with a negative offset instead of positive and raise the scalar.
> What is you max voltage for vCore and core VIDs not under load?


VID sensor caps out at 1.5V 

SVI2 TFN and VR VOUT show spikes up to 1.534V-1.55V in idle

Also i forgot to mention:

my SKU is really trashy, -offset doesnt work at all and kills my boosting completly...gotta manage somehow until Zen3 refresh i guess...hopefully this time companies will also sell pretested 4800XTs...not gonna play lottery again.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Yuke said:


> VID sensor caps out at 1.5V
> 
> SVI2 TFN and VR VOUT show spikes up to 1.534V-1.55V in idle
> 
> Also i forgot to mention:
> 
> my SKU is really trashy, -offset doesnt work at all and kills my boosting completly...gotta manage somehow until Zen3 refresh i guess...hopefully this time companies will also sell pretested 4800XTs...not gonna play lottery again.


I'd try again looking for a working negative offset. You should avoid over 1.5v for SVI2 Core.
Usually if boosting is not working with a negative offset it's because of other settings not right.
You need to compensate with a higher scalar, higher LLC and use at least 100-150 MHz boost clock, different EDC value.
It may be that your sample has a very bad binning but I'm not so sure; it shouldn't boost at all with these settings either if so.


----------



## Yuke

ManniX-ITA said:


> I'd try again looking for a working negative offset. You should avoid over 1.5v for SVI2 Core.
> Usually if boosting is not working with a negative offset it's because of other settings not right.
> You need to compensate with a higher scalar, higher LLC and use at least 100-150 MHz boost clock, different EDC value.
> It may be that your sample has a very bad binning but I'm not so sure; it shouldn't boost at all with these settings either if so.


Maybe i will test it again at some point. All i can say is that my sample is so bad that i needed 1.46V for an 4.4Ghz All Core OC.


----------



## Yuke

ManniX-ITA said:


> I'd try again looking for a working negative offset. You should avoid over 1.5v for SVI2 Core.
> Usually if boosting is not working with a negative offset it's because of other settings not right.
> You need to compensate with a higher scalar, higher LLC and use at least 100-150 MHz boost clock, different EDC value.
> It may be that your sample has a very bad binning but I'm not so sure; it shouldn't boost at all with these settings either if so.


-0.01875V and LLC High caps me at max 1.501V.

Not sure if i grill my CPU under load with these settings tho. I got performance increase in CPU-Z Benchmark. Single and Multi! But Again, i cant remember my Voltages under load anymore, lol. What voltage should i expect under lets say CB20 multicore?

Im getting 1.375V max under CB20, which seems fine to me?

I lost 25 points in CB20 multicore run due to clockspeeds dropping down to even 4250Mhz (i had 4275-4300Mhz with my old settings). What could be the reason for it? Powerlimits? I still have mine set to 0/0/1


----------



## Fight Game

do you have c-states disabled


----------



## Yuke

Fight Game said:


> do you have c-states disabled


no, they are active


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Yuke said:


> -0.01875V and LLC High caps me at max 1.501V.
> 
> Not sure if i grill my CPU under load with these settings tho. I got performance increase in CPU-Z Benchmark. Single and Multi! But Again, i cant remember my Voltages under load anymore, lol. What voltage should i expect under lets say CB20 multicore?
> 
> Im getting 1.375V max under CB20, which seems fine to me?
> 
> I lost 25 points in CB20 multicore run due to clockspeeds dropping down to even 4250Mhz (i had 4275-4300Mhz with my old settings). What could be the reason for it? Powerlimits? I still have mine set to 0/0/1


Seems more right, 1.375v is where ti should be. I get around 4.300-4.350 Ghz at 1.388v.
You could get better results if you tune PPT/EDC limits; my PPT is at 135 and TDC at 90.
Play with them; I had to test all combinations between PPT 115-145 and TDC 80-100 to find the right combo.
Took me a couple of days... bit less or bit more and the scores are going down.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Yuke said:


> no, they are active


Keep it disabled till you find a working configuration, enable it only afterwards.
It's one of the main source of issues with the EDC bug and it's sneaky, hard to pinpoint sometimes.
At the end it could work as much as it couldn't.


----------



## Fight Game

very first post where they talk about 0-0-1 EDC, it says c-states disabled


----------



## Yuke

Im starting to think that Nighthog and I have both a 3800x cut out from the same silicon wafer. Nothing works for me besides the things he figured out for his own 3800x.

Im back to +Offset and hopefully fixing random crash by changing overvoltage protection and LLC settings. I just cant match the performance otherwise. Throw freaking Voltage at it and hope for the best...


----------



## Bal3Wolf

Yuke said:


> Im starting to think that Nighthog and I have both a 3800x cut out from the same silicon wafer. Nothing works for me besides the things he figured out for his own 3800x.
> 
> Im back to +Offset and hopefully fixing random crash by changing overvoltage protection and LLC settings. I just cant match the performance otherwise. Throw freaking Voltage at it and hope for the best...


Have you tried a all core or ccd overclock my 3900x does not seem to like pbo but i get a decent ccd overclock on 1.26-.1.30 volts for 4400 if i do 4300 i can do 1.23-1.26. When i work on pbo/pbo bug i only get 1 core to 4500 on effive clocks no idea why i spent hrs trying myself.


----------



## Yuke

Bal3Wolf said:


> Have you tried a all core or ccd overclock my 3900x does not seem to like pbo but i get a decent ccd overclock on 1.26-.1.30 volts for 4400 if i do 4300 i can do 1.23-1.26. When i work on pbo/pbo bug i only get 1 core to 4500 on effive clocks no idea why i spent hrs trying myself.


Yeah, was the first thing i tried when i got it back in september 2019. Needed 1.46V for a 4.4Ghz All Core OC.


----------



## Bal3Wolf

Yuke said:


> Yeah, was the first thing i tried when i got it back in september 2019. Needed 1.46V for a 4.4Ghz All Core OC.



ouch yea sounds like you got the bottom of the barrel cpu, if you have the funds i might would throw that up on ebay and preorder a 3800xt.


----------



## usoldier

How can one stop the cpu being stuck at low clocks all of a suden ?


----------



## gerardfraser

usoldier said:


> How can one stop the cpu being stuck at low clocks all of a suden ?


Use a good power plan like AMD Ryzen powerplan


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Yuke said:


> Im starting to think that Nighthog and I have both a 3800x cut out from the same silicon wafer. Nothing works for me besides the things he figured out for his own 3800x.
> 
> Im back to +Offset and hopefully fixing random crash by changing overvoltage protection and LLC settings. I just cant match the performance otherwise. Throw freaking Voltage at it and hope for the best...


Maybe it's really a terrible binning but I'm surprised you can boost with a slightly positive offset and 1x scalar.
In theory you should be able to achieve the same or better with a slightly negative offset and 10x scalar.
Have the feeling there's something else which is crippling the boost... but I've seen pretty weird stuff with mine too so everything is possible.


----------



## Yuke

ManniX-ITA said:


> Maybe it's really a terrible binning but I'm surprised you can boost with a slightly positive offset and 1x scalar.
> In theory you should be able to achieve the same or better with a slightly negative offset and 10x scalar.
> Have the feeling there's something else which is crippling the boost... but I've seen pretty weird stuff with mine too so everything is possible.


My usual settings that were working until recently are:

Skalar 10x
Offset: +0.00625Mhz
Overdrive: +50Mhz
EDC = 1/0/0

I dont know why i suddenly had the crash/reboot thing...i recently upgraded to the F12 BIOS and new Chipset drivers. Maybe thats the reason. I played around with overvoltage protection today and havent had a reboot. Maybe its fixed now, i dunno...

Its not like the negative offset isnt working, it does infact work pretty decent...maybe even within margin of error compared to my old settings. Problem is my windows installation is so littered that its hard to bench consistant.


----------



## Bal3Wolf

Yuke said:


> My usual settings that were working until recently are:
> 
> Skalar 10x
> Offset: +0.00625Mhz
> Overdrive: +50Mhz
> EDC = 1/0/0
> 
> I dont know why i suddenly had the crash/reboot thing...i recently upgraded to the F12 BIOS and new Chipset drivers. Maybe thats the reason. I played around with overvoltage protection today and havent had a reboot. Maybe its fixed now, i dunno...
> 
> Its not like the negative offset isnt working, it does infact work pretty decent...maybe even within margin of error compared to my old settings. Problem is my windows installation is so littered that its hard to bench consistant.



did your amb temps change ryzen is very picky about those.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Yuke said:


> My usual settings that were working until recently are:
> 
> Skalar 10x
> Offset: +0.00625Mhz
> Overdrive: +50Mhz
> EDC = 1/0/0
> 
> I dont know why i suddenly had the crash/reboot thing...i recently upgraded to the F12 BIOS and new Chipset drivers. Maybe thats the reason. I played around with overvoltage protection today and havent had a reboot. Maybe its fixed now, i dunno...
> 
> Its not like the negative offset isnt working, it does infact work pretty decent...maybe even within margin of error compared to my old settings. Problem is my windows installation is so littered that its hard to bench consistant.


Ok, maybe I read it wrong earlier or it was a typo, thought you were using scalar 1x.

It may be the new power plan; I got a BSOD with the latest AMD High Performance plan ver 5.0 in the latest chipset drivers. Pretty sure the earlier one was working fine for me.
I'd give a try to the 1usmus Universal plan, still works the best for me.

If you want to test and bench use a USB stick:
https://www.easyuefi.com/wintousb/

You need a decent one, quite fast, but it's worth it.
Quick and repeatable benchmarking; you don't risk to mess the main installation.
It's also much more robust to crashes, especially at boot.
Yes, sometimes settings which does work on it will crash the main install on boot.
But it's rare, still the best way to shield the main install and avoid bricking it.

About your settings, seems pretty messy.
Did you try to find good settings with EDC at 0?
It could be better considering the silicon limitations; I was doing pretty good with 125/80/0.
I'ts going to need much less voltage and lower 5-6c degrees the cpu temp.

Otherwise maybe you could try a fixed voltage.
Something like 1.425v (1.4-1.45v range), with a lower scalar between 1x-6x.
Maybe this way you could also try increasing the boost clock; below 100 MHz is very limiting.
Usually under load the voltage drops 50mv; you should end up with 1.375v with all core load.
You can compensate with LLC High if it goes down too much, LLC Low to smooth it.


----------



## Nighthog

Yuke said:


> Yeah, was the first thing i tried when i got it back in september 2019. Needed 1.46V for a 4.4Ghz All Core OC.


Very similar to my launch day 3800X. Need more than 1.450V for 4.4Ghz clocks stability. In the end was more a hassle than worth it as you could not run AVX with that voltage and had to avoid them.

I can report the new *Ryzen High Performance* causes BSOD with EDC bug. Didn't have such issues with the 1usmus power plans using EDC bug before. 
High Performance seems ok with regular PBO but not the EDC tweaked one.

I was thinking it was my MEM OC settings but the BSOD went away the moment I used PBO normally with the Ryzen High Performance plan. I kept getting BSOD even with stock memory settings which prompted me to investigate.


----------



## Yuke

Nighthog said:


> Very similar to my launch day 3800X. Need more than 1.450V for 4.4Ghz clocks stability. In the end was more a hassle than worth it as you could not run AVX with that voltage and had to avoid them.
> 
> I can report the new *Ryzen High Performance* causes BSOD with EDC bug. Didn't have such issues with the 1usmus power plans using EDC bug before.
> High Performance seems ok with regular PBO but not the EDC tweaked one.
> 
> I was thinking it was my MEM OC settings but the BSOD went away the moment I used PBO normally with the Ryzen High Performance plan. I kept getting BSOD even with stock memory settings which prompted me to investigate.


Thats so weird. It was the other way around for me. After i upgraded from F11 to F12 + new Chipset Drivers, 1Usmus Powerplan was crashing my PC when i was even watching YT videos. I switched to high performance and at least the YT reboot thing is gone for now.

Downside is that i cant match my old performance anymore sadly. Which i probably have to live with as long as i dont crash anymore. Maybe at some point i will find the magical settings again that will give me back my 100points in CB20 multicore runs...5250 was my best run before and now im around 5150.


----------



## Kildar

gerardfraser said:


> Use a good power plan like AMD Ryzen powerplan


That doesn't work.

I have the same problem.

The system will drop down to 0.994v and not boost back up.

Seems random. I can go a day or two no issue, then get up one morning and it's at low v and won't boost back up without a reboot.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

You can try modifying the AMD HP or 1usmus Universal according to this post:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/eng1y8/ryzen_3700x_high_iddle_temps_and_fan_speed/

It may fix problems in idle.


----------



## Yuke

Ok, so it seems that im closing in performance wise.

Using:

Offset: -0.01875V
LLC: High
EDC: 1
PPT: 135
TDC: 90
Override: 75Mhz
Skalar: 10

Im maybe like 20 multicore points behind what im used to see in CB20. Should i decrease or increase values?

Dont know if it helps but when i was doing CB20 runs with my OLD settings i was capping out at 128W.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Yuke said:


> Ok, so it seems that im closing in performance wise.
> 
> Using:
> 
> Offset: -0.01875V
> LLC: High
> EDC: 1
> PPT: 135
> TDC: 90
> Override: 75Mhz
> Skalar: 10
> 
> Im maybe like 20 multicore points behind what im used to see in CB20. Should i decrease or increase values?
> 
> Dont know if it helps but when i was doing CB20 runs with my OLD settings i was capping out at 128W.


Very good, 20 points it's almost nothing!
Did you give a try with a higher boost clock?
Try what happens maybe with a 6-8x scalar.
About PPT it was probably higher due to the higher voltage.
Check with a bit higher or lower value.
I got the best CB20 results with PPT around 70-75% and TDC around 80-85% limit.


----------



## Yuke

ManniX-ITA said:


> Very good, 20 points it's almost nothing!
> Did you give a try with a higher boost clock?
> Try what happens maybe with a 6-8x scalar.
> About PPT it was probably higher due to the higher voltage.
> Check with a bit higher or lower value.
> I got the best CB20 results with PPT around 70-75% and TDC around 80-85% limit.


Ill try it, thanks!

Regarding Boost override: Everything over +50-75Mhz is getting ignored, regardless of Scalar.

I just hope the random crashes are gone with this...it seems there is also a connection to the "Vcore Current Protection" setting...my old settings almost immediately crash if i set it to Turbo/Extreme and seems to survive longer if set to Auto/Low level.


----------



## Yuke

I cant change the fact that my CPU just scales with insane voltage...

Tried out:

Offset: +0.01875V
LLC: Very Low
Current Protection: Low
EDC: 1
PPT: 0
TDC: 0
Override: 50Mhz
Skalar: 10

4 Cores at 4600Mhz

and destroyed my scores ._. + draw only 121W in CB20

It will probably crash anyway ._. 1.55V when PBO overdrive kicks in at lighty threaded loads.


----------



## gerardfraser

Yuke said:


> It will probably crash anyway ._. 1.55V when PBO overdrive kicks in at lighty threaded loads.


That would be the actual voltage in light work loads with PBO on and it is 100% fine. AMD engineers know what they are doing, I am 100% sure of this.

What exactly are you trying to achieve with the tweak/bug, what do you think you are actually missing running Cinebench, Cinebench is really not a good metric on how your process works.
I highly doubt you got a bad 3800X.


----------



## Yuke

gerardfraser said:


> That would be the actual voltage in light work loads with PBO on and it is 100% fine. AMD engineers know what they are doing, I am 100% sure of this.
> 
> What exactly are you trying to achieve with the tweak/bug, what do you think you are actually missing running Cinebench, Cinebench is really not a good metric on how your process works.
> I highly doubt you got a bad 3800X.


Im trying to achieve stability again after switchting to F12 BIOS, installing the latest Chipset drivers and changing to high performance powerplan. Best case without losing too much performance.

My 3800x is bad...the second i set PBO to boost over 4600 it crashes almost instantly. I have to limit it to +50Mhz PBO so it never goes over 4600Mhz on the 4 cores that are kinda okish. 

I use CB20 for medium-high AVX loads. Those are about the same as the ones Borderlands3 uses when streaming in textures and in loading screens (as i mentioned before BL3 is Ryzen optimized i get up to 97% core+thread loads while gaming - outside loading screens).

Next to gaming i like using Geekbench for scores....its the only benchmark that shows consistent scores for me (less than 1% deltas). I cant use CPU-Z Benchmark as it gets scheduled on my weakest core...CB20 single core takes ages so i dont bother using it.


----------



## gerardfraser

Gigabyte Motherboard on there BIOS have a setting to set PBO boost as in over 4600Mhz and it crashes. This to me is confusing. I do not think motherboards have this kind of feature. Of course I could be wrong but I never seen this on a motherboard.

It sounds to me you have unstable motherboard with settings you are trying to achieve on the BIOS. 
EG: Your PPT/TDC/EDC setting are not capable of running on your motherboard BIOS without crashing. Doubt it is the CPU. You can tell me to go pound sand and I will be fine with that also.Start over get a good base on what your CPU and Motherboard can do.

I suggest set everything to default and use the BIOS built in performance modes and check what the limits are in Ryzen Master. Then test your settings with Ryzen Master turned off before jumping to EDC tweak/bug. So establish a base for PPT/TDC/EDC then go from there.

I also suggest set your DDR4 Ram to a setting such as 2133Mhz for testing the enhanced/performance modes on the motherboard and also EDC tweak/bug.

EG: Screenshot I circled the differences on Ryzen Master between what the motherboard sets from default to enhanced/performance mode 4 for PPT/TDC/EDC

Default setting Blue Marks vs Enhanced mode 4 Red Marks -Setting in BIOS but shown in Ryzen Master what the values actually are.

OC mode
Setting=Default - Auto Overclocking

Boost override CPU
Default 0Mhz - 300Mhz

PPT-
Default 142w - 1000W

TCD-
Default 95A - 114A

EDC-
Default 140A - 180A

Scaler 
Default -0X - 10X

Enhanced 4


----------



## Yuke

gerardfraser said:


> Gigabyte Motherboard on there BIOS have a setting to set PBO boost as in over 4600Mhz and it crashes. This to me is confusing. I do not think motherboards have this kind of feature. Of course I could be wrong but I never seen this on a motherboard.
> 
> It sounds to me you have unstable motherboard with settings you are trying to achieve on the BIOS.
> EG: Your PPT/TDC/EDC setting are not capable of running on your motherboard BIOS without crashing. Doubt it is the CPU. You can tell me to go pound sand and I will be fine with that also.Start over get a good base on what your CPU and Motherboard can do.
> 
> I suggest set everything to default and use the BIOS built in performance modes and check what the limits are in Ryzen Master. Then test your settings with Ryzen Master turned off before jumping to EDC tweak/bug. So establish a base for PPT/TDC/EDC then go from there.
> 
> I also suggest set your DDR4 Ram to a setting such as 2133Mhz for testing the enhanced/performance modes on the motherboard and also EDC tweak/bug.
> 
> EG: Screenshot I circled the differences on Ryzen Master between what the motherboard sets from default to enhanced/performance mode 4 for PPT/TDC/EDC
> 
> Default setting Blue Marks vs Enhanced mode 4 Red Marks -Setting in BIOS but shown in Ryzen Master what the values actually are.
> 
> OC mode
> Setting=Default - Auto Overclocking
> 
> Boost override CPU
> Default 0Mhz - 300Mhz
> 
> PPT-
> Default 142w - 1000W
> 
> TCD-
> Default 95A - 114A
> 
> EDC-
> Default 140A - 180A
> 
> Scaler
> Default -0X - 10X
> 
> Enhanced 4



If i set boost override to +75Mhz two cores boost up to 4625Mhz and it crashes very fast. If i set it to +50Mhz it goes max 4600Mhz and doesnt crash, easy as that....i could try out lower scalar but i want to avoid this at all costs. This SKU is bottom of the barrel, pile of first release dog**** that needed 1.46V to even boot a 4.4Ghz all Core OC. It hardly passes as an 3800x, would be sold as 3700x today.


----------



## gerardfraser

Yuke said:


> If i set boost override to +75Mhz two cores boost up to 4625Mhz and it crashes very fast. If i set it to +50Mhz it goes max 4600Mhz and doesnt crash, easy as that....i could try out lower scalar but i want to avoid this at all costs. This SKU is bottom of the barrel, pile of first release dog**** that needed 1.46V to even boot a 4.4Ghz all Core OC. It hardly passes as an 3800x, would be sold as 3700x today.


Maybe I did not explain myself well enough for you to catch what I was trying to suggest, just trying to help you out. 

AM4 Motherboards have performance modes ,which will run without adjusting anything in the BIOS. All adjustments are preset by Motherboard manufacture and will act according to the BIOS and Agesa you have installed,without crashing.
You can reread what I wrote and give it a shot,up to you.

My Motherboard has these performance modes,yours will be similar.


----------



## Medizinmann

gerardfraser said:


> Maybe I did not explain myself well enough for you to catch what I was trying to suggest, just trying to help you out.
> 
> AM4 Motherboards have performance modes ,which will run without adjusting anything in the BIOS. All adjustments are preset by Motherboard manufacture and will act according to the BIOS and Agesa you have installed,without crashing.
> You can reread what I wrote and give it a shot,up to you.
> 
> My Motherboard has these performance modes,yours will be similar.


Well Gigabyte has only 3 possible "Auto" settings...Auto (that is default settings for the CPU). Motherboards max. (set max. values for PPT, TDC and EDC) - which doesn't work properly with current AGESA (that’s why we are writing in the EDC-Bug thread) and ECO-Mode(setting PPT to 65W for my 3900x) - besides that you have to set values by hand…

So - yes you can run Auto or Eco - it will work without crashing - but also without the performance we would like to see…

Best regards,
Medizinmann


----------



## Nighthog

gerardfraser said:


> Maybe I did not explain myself well enough for you to catch what I was trying to suggest, just trying to help you out.
> 
> AM4 Motherboards have performance modes ,which will run without adjusting anything in the BIOS. All adjustments are preset by Motherboard manufacture and will act according to the BIOS and Agesa you have installed,without crashing.
> You can reread what I wrote and give it a shot,up to you.
> 
> My Motherboard has these performance modes,yours will be similar.


Those are pretty much "VENDOR" specific options. ASUS & MSI do their own tweaks, Gigabyte sticks to the basic AMD provided options only. You can only adjust the PPT/TDC/EDC. There is a general ECO mode option elsewhere in the AMD_CBS options menu but why would one want to be gimped by 45/65 watts though using PBO.


----------



## Medizinmann

Yuke said:


> I cant change the fact that my CPU just scales with insane voltage...
> 
> Tried out:
> 
> Offset: +0.01875V
> LLC: Very Low
> Current Protection: Low
> EDC: 1
> PPT: 0
> TDC: 0
> Override: 50Mhz
> Skalar: 10
> 
> 4 Cores at 4600Mhz
> 
> and destroyed my scores ._. + draw only 121W in CB20
> 
> It will probably crash anyway ._. 1.55V when PBO overdrive kicks in at lighty threaded loads.


You should also look in to your RAM OC - as this also might contribute to instabilities...
I had to lower LLC for the CPU (I use Turbo right now) and raise it for DRAM (also Turbo right now) - might be diffrent for you as I am using an Aorus Xtreme and a 3900x.
Also look into SoC Vcore etc.
I use current protection on Auto.

Overboost never did anything for me. 
Scalar 5x - as higher values also didn't give me any benefit.

BTW: PPT/TDC in my case are set to motherboards max. values…EDC=1.

PPT and EDC set to 0 limit you to factory defaults of the CPU.

And look into cooling - for high Boosts you need good cooling - may be you need to ram up your fan profile.

Best regards,
Medizinmann


----------



## Yuke

Medizinmann said:


> You should also look in to your RAM OC - as this also might contribute to instabilities...
> I had to lower LLC for the CPU (I use Turbo right now) and raise it for DRAM (also Turbo right now) - might be diffrent for you as I am using an Aorus Xtreme and a 3900x.
> Also look into SoC Vcore etc.
> I use current protection on Auto.
> 
> Overboost never did anything for me.
> Scalar 5x - as higher values also didn't give me any benefit.
> 
> BTW: PPT/TDC in my case are set to motherboards max. values…EDC=1.
> 
> PPT and EDC set to 0 limit you to factory defaults of the CPU.
> 
> And look into cooling - for high Boosts you need good cooling - may be you need to ram up your fan profile.
> 
> Best regards,
> Medizinmann


Yeah, i guess ill have to drop scalar as Nighthog mentioned could be possible that one of the cores just "cant go over the whole distance". I had to change my last settings because my CPU suddenly started to bug out like crazy with them haha, 500Mhz on all Cores anyone? 

Back to the drawing board.


----------



## Yuke

Offset: +0.01275V
LLC: Low
Current Protection: Low
EDC: 1
PPT: 0
TDC: 0
Override: 50Mhz
Skalar: 10

4 Cores max 4600Mhz (with the negative offset settings i can only get max 1 or 2 cores up to 4600 boostclock)

Lets see if i can prevent the weird 500Mhz all core bug from before...and especially if i can prevent the reboot/crash thingy. Regarding RAM OC...not sure what else to test here...i've run 1usmusV3, Karhu and Y-Cruncher for what feels like ages without errors.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Yuke said:


> Offset: +0.01275V
> LLC: Low
> Current Protection: Low
> EDC: 1
> PPT: 0
> TDC: 0
> Override: 50Mhz
> Skalar: 10
> 
> 4 Cores max 4600Mhz (with the negative offset settings i can only get max 1 or 2 cores up to 4600 boostclock)
> 
> Lets see if i can prevent the weird 500Mhz all core bug from before...and especially if i can prevent the reboot/crash thingy. Regarding RAM OC...not sure what else to test here...i've run 1usmusV3, Karhu and Y-Cruncher for what feels like ages without errors.


Did you test with the previous config with a negative offset to raise the boost clock to 100-150 MHz?
A slight less allowance for PPT/TDC could actually improve the boosting, with default values you should be at 142/95.

Also how do you verify the boost clocks? Did you reach 4.6 GHz with the effective clock speed at 100%?
Consider on mine I have 2 cores reaching 4,55 and other 2 up to 4.5 GHz.

An higher max ref clock doesn't guarantee higher performances.
It's better if it can boost 4,55 GHz and keep a continuous load at 4,4 GHz instead boosting to 4,6 GHz but then dropping to 4,3 GHz in continuous.
The peak clock it's contributing very little to average performances, how behaves with the steps below it's much more important.


----------



## Yuke

ManniX-ITA said:


> Did you test with the previous config with a negative offset to raise the boost clock to 100-150 MHz?
> A slight less allowance for PPT/TDC could actually improve the boosting, with default values you should be at 142/95.
> 
> Also how do you verify the boost clocks? Did you reach 4.6 GHz with the effective clock speed at 100%?
> Consider on mine I have 2 cores reaching 4,55 and other 2 up to 4.5 GHz.
> 
> An higher max ref clock doesn't guarantee higher performances.
> It's better if it can boost 4,55 GHz and keep a continuous load at 4,4 GHz instead boosting to 4,6 GHz but then dropping to 4,3 GHz in continuous.
> The peak clock it's contributing very little to average performances, how behaves with the steps below it's much more important.


Im using the "BoostTester" that was coded by an user on reddit that does an array shuffle with 100% load on the specific core. I get the max boosts of my cores within 20seconds with it.

I can get the same boostclocks only when playing games that are not hard on the CPU (ESO for example). But i get them eventually...

My test consists of:

- 5x Geekbench5
- Borderlands 3 same scene for 10minutes and checking the average coreclocks + boostclocks

Borderlands 3 is very, very hard on the CPU for a game. I usually get boostclocks between 4500Mhz and 4575Mhz...between 4400Mhz and 4450Mhz without boostclocks and down to 4250Mhz - 4300Mhz when the aforementioned AVX loads kick in.


----------



## Tweedilderp

Kildar said:


> That doesn't work.
> 
> I have the same problem.
> 
> The system will drop down to 0.994v and not boost back up.
> 
> Seems random. I can go a day or two no issue, then get up one morning and it's at low v and won't boost back up without a reboot.





usoldier said:


> How can one stop the cpu being stuck at low clocks all of a suden ?


Ok so more AMD users in the last week or 2 have narrowed it down a bit, some people were saying to remove old power plans (still recommended as 1usmus fixes are including in the new ryzen plans with the updated chipset driver!) and uninstalling ryzen master. 

I myself have not tested ryzen master uninstallation but I have run into the issue once a couple of days ago and went looking for an answer. 

Users were reporting that they would boot up and be stuck at ~500MHz on a few or all of their cores, a reboot or switching power plans fixes this. However people have been report that fast boot in BIOS and fast startup in windows is causing issues, I have always had fast boot disabled but I had fast startup enabled.

See below for a screenshot of the option before I disabled (unticked) it. A lot of people including myself, now think that due to this windows feature it is screwing with AMD power plans as the OS starts and is borking the power plans and core speeds in the process.

Look up how to disable fast boot/startup and see if it sorts out your issues


----------



## Bal3Wolf

Tweedilderp said:


> Ok so more AMD users in the last week or 2 have narrowed it down a bit, some people were saying to remove old power plans (still recommended as 1usmus fixes are including in the new ryzen plans with the updated chipset driver!) and uninstalling ryzen master.
> 
> I myself have not tested ryzen master uninstallation but I have run into the issue once a couple of days ago and went looking for an answer.
> 
> Users were reporting that they would boot up and be stuck at ~500MHz on a few or all of their cores, a reboot or switching power plans fixes this. However people have been report that fast boot in BIOS and fast startup in windows is causing issues, I have always had fast boot disabled but I had fast startup enabled.
> 
> See below for a screenshot of the option before I disabled (unticked) it. A lot of people including myself, now think that due to this windows feature it is screwing with AMD power plans as the OS starts and is borking the power plans and core speeds in the process.
> 
> Look up how to disable fast boot/startup and see if it sorts out your issues


Im not using pbo right now and wierd enough i noticed i had a error in event log today related to fastboot.


----------



## Yuke

Yuke said:


> Offset: +0.01275V
> LLC: Low
> Current Protection: Low
> EDC: 1
> PPT: 0
> TDC: 0
> Override: 50Mhz
> Skalar: 10
> 
> 4 Cores max 4600Mhz (with the negative offset settings i can only get max 1 or 2 cores up to 4600 boostclock)
> 
> Lets see if i can prevent the weird 500Mhz all core bug from before...and especially if i can prevent the reboot/crash thingy. Regarding RAM OC...not sure what else to test here...i've run 1usmusV3, Karhu and Y-Cruncher for what feels like ages without errors.


Crashed after half a day, R.I.P.

I guess its back to negative offset or just stick to PBO without overdrive...single core performance suffers with the latter.


----------



## Medizinmann

Nighthog said:


> Those are pretty much "VENDOR" specific options. ASUS & MSI do their own tweaks, Gigabyte sticks to the basic AMD provided options only. You can only adjust the PPT/TDC/EDC. There is a general ECO mode option elsewhere in the AMD_CBS options menu but why would one want to be gimped by 45/65 watts though using PBO.


Well there are good reasons for using ECO-mode sometimes - but we aren't the target group...
I mean on ocn mostly with water loops or bigger aircoolers and such and then ECO mode?

But i.e. some Laptop barebones that can use Desktop CPU can be fixed to 65W or 45W when running on battery and set to another PPT when running of a power brick.

Best regards,
Medizinmann


----------



## Yuke

Im not sure i understand why you guys have to limit the PPT and TDC limits? Is it because your SKUs have so much potential that it would exceed its limitation and start doing weird stuff like throttle the clockspeeds?

Would explain why im not seeing any difference regardless what i set there.

0 0 1
142 95 0/1
135 90 0/1
300 150 0/1
1000 1000 10

Are all the same for me...even when hammering with P95 it just clocks down the cores to 4050-4100 Mhz and no weird stuff happens.

Anyway...

I let my PC idle over night without crashes/reboots...

stock voltage, stock LLC, current protection low works it seems...last setting did the trick it seems as my PC had the crashes/reboots with same settings but this on Auto or Extreme.

PBO as alway just +50Mhz because anything above that is getting ignored, even when i undervolt to -0.4xxxx


----------



## Alpi

A well choosen ppt gives improvements at some ways without being harmful.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Yuke said:


> Im not sure i understand why you guys have to limit the PPT and TDC limits? Is it because your SKUs have so much potential that it would exceed its limitation and start doing weird stuff like throttle the clockspeeds?
> 
> Would explain why im not seeing any difference regardless what i set there.
> 
> 0 0 1
> 142 95 0/1
> 135 90 0/1
> 300 150 0/1
> 1000 1000 10
> 
> Are all the same for me...even when hammering with P95 it just clocks down the cores to 4050-4100 Mhz and no weird stuff happens.
> 
> Anyway...
> 
> I let my PC idle over night without crashes/reboots...
> 
> stock voltage, stock LLC, current protection low works it seems...last setting did the trick it seems as my PC had the crashes/reboots with same settings but this on Auto or Extreme.
> 
> PBO as alway just +50Mhz because anything above that is getting ignored, even when i undervolt to -0.4xxxx


It's about the ramping up; it should be a curve and limiting PPT/TDC will determine for a specific workload at a specific load how PBO will let the processor churn IPC or not.
I think your problem is that your silicon is so limited that this curve instead it's a flat line.
You should look for settings that can allow you to use at least +100/150 MHz of boost clock.
IMO it's the only way to get something more than that.

Limiting the PPT/TDC can throttle the ramp-up and allow you to get more IPC.
With more headroom PBO will try to ramp-up faster and will brake earlier due to other constraints; usually thermal.
But it can be also too much voltage or too high clock.
If you match that curve through the limits to what actually your silicon can do, you'll get the highest IPC possible.


----------



## Nitethorn

Ok guys, I have a request for 3800X owners on this thread who have had very good success with this. I know every chip and setup is different, and what works for one person does not work for another necessarily. That being said, I really don't have a whole lot of free time to trouble-shoot/test all of the various settings/setups that I need to in order to really dial this stuff in. I've actually had pretty good luck with other stuff, RAM timings, etc, copying other peoples successful settings and then tweaking from there. My current settings are PPT 160, TDC 100, EDC 12. Voltage on Auto, though I have tried + and - up to 0.1 both ways. SoC voltage 1.125. Running CPU-Z bench/CB20, I've found that 12 EDC is the sweet spot. Any higher or any lower any my scores suffer. I have scalar at 10x, boost override at +200 mhz. Using a C8H, so 200 mhz is max. (latest bios 2103). I've tried it both with c-states enabled and disabled. Didn't really make much difference, but enabled generally had a slightly higher score. FCLK is 1900, RAM 3800. 1:1:1 ratio. CPU LLC is currently at level 2, (tried lvl 1 through 5, 2 is sweetspot it seems). I have tried to up FCLK and mem to the next step up as I've seen some people do, but I couldn't boot. Even with a lot more voltage and very loose timings. I'm using a 3200mhz kit, so 3800 cl14 is the absolute max I can push it (though I have tried much looser timings, up to cl19) So.... all that being said, can someone who has had great success with EDC bug with a 3800x post their exact settings for me? Just to give me a better idea of where to start to try and get the most out of this thing.... Thank you in advance.

ManniX-ITA I'm most interested in your settings...


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Nitethorn said:


> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> Ok guys, I have a request for 3800X owners on this thread who have had very good success with this. I know every chip and setup is different, and what works for one person does not work for another necessarily. That being said, I really don't have a whole lot of free time to trouble-shoot/test all of the various settings/setups that I need to in order to really dial this stuff in. I've actually had pretty good luck with other stuff, RAM timings, etc, copying other peoples successful settings and then tweaking from there. My current settings are PPT 160, TDC 100, EDC 12. Voltage on Auto, though I have tried + and - up to 0.1 both ways. SoC voltage 1.125. Running CPU-Z bench/CB20, I've found that 12 EDC is the sweet spot. Any higher or any lower any my scores suffer. I have scalar at 10x, boost override at +200 mhz. Using a C8H, so 200 mhz is max. (latest bios 2103). I've tried it both with c-states enabled and disabled. Didn't really make much difference, but enabled generally had a slightly higher score. FCLK is 1900, RAM 3800. 1:1:1 ratio. CPU LLC is currently at level 2, (tried lvl 1 through 5, 2 is sweetspot it seems). I have tried to up FCLK and mem to the next step up as I've seen some people do, but I couldn't boot. Even with a lot more voltage and very loose timings. I'm using a 3200mhz kit, so 3800 cl14 is the absolute max I can push it (though I have tried much looser timings, up to cl19) So.... all that being said, can someone who has had great success with EDC bug with a 3800x post their exact settings for me? Just to give me a better idea of where to start to try and get the most out of this thing.... Thank you in advance.
> 
> 
> ManniX-ITA I'm most interested in your settings...


Sure  these are the latest settings I shared.
I have to check what I'm running now but it's almost the same.


----------



## tcclaviger

Nitethorn said:


> Ok guys, I have a request for 3800X owners on this thread who have had very good success with this. I know every chip and setup is different, and what works for one person does not work for another necessarily. That being said, I really don't have a whole lot of free time to trouble-shoot/test all of the various settings/setups that I need to in order to really dial this stuff in. I've actually had pretty good luck with other stuff, RAM timings, etc, copying other peoples successful settings and then tweaking from there. My current settings are PPT 160, TDC 100, EDC 12. Voltage on Auto, though I have tried + and - up to 0.1 both ways. SoC voltage 1.125. Running CPU-Z bench/CB20, I've found that 12 EDC is the sweet spot. Any higher or any lower any my scores suffer. I have scalar at 10x, boost override at +200 mhz. Using a C8H, so 200 mhz is max. (latest bios 2103). I've tried it both with c-states enabled and disabled. Didn't really make much difference, but enabled generally had a slightly higher score. FCLK is 1900, RAM 3800. 1:1:1 ratio. CPU LLC is currently at level 2, (tried lvl 1 through 5, 2 is sweetspot it seems). I have tried to up FCLK and mem to the next step up as I've seen some people do, but I couldn't boot. Even with a lot more voltage and very loose timings. I'm using a 3200mhz kit, so 3800 cl14 is the absolute max I can push it (though I have tried much looser timings, up to cl19) So.... all that being said, can someone who has had great success with EDC bug with a 3800x post their exact settings for me? Just to give me a better idea of where to start to try and get the most out of this thing.... Thank you in advance.
> 
> ManniX-ITA I'm most interested in your settings... /forum/images/smilies/smile.gif


On C8H you don't need EDC bug to boost way over stock limit. Use bclk and force OC mode disabled options to increase boost levels.

Without force OC mode disabled, board will reduce multiplier to compensate for raised bclk to keep CPU boosting to stock limit and base clock near stock limit.

With force OC mode disabled turned to enabled, it won't compensate for raised bclk. So if stock base clock is 39 multiplier, at 103 base becomes 4017, if stock max boost multiplier is 45.5, with 103 it will boost to 4686.

This will require good chip to work to max ability, I top out at 103.8 w/3900x, so max single core observed so far is 4748, scores in testing commensurate with average peak boost of 4730 (549 R20 single, 1435 gb5 single, 571 cpu-z).

EDC is one way, Asus gives you another way, just need to use tools correctly.

103.6 bclk + 1833 fclk and ram divider gives 3798 ram 1898 fclk, and high boost levels.


----------



## Nitethorn

tcclaviger said:


> On C8H you don't need EDC bug to boost way over stock limit. Use bclk and force OC mode disabled options to increase boost levels.
> 
> Without force OC mode disabled, board will reduce multiplier to compensate for raised bclk to keep CPU boosting to stock limit and base clock near stock limit.
> 
> With force OC mode disabled turned to enabled, it won't compensate for raised bclk. So if stock base clock is 39 multiplier, at 103 base becomes 4017, if stock max boost multiplier is 45.5, with 103 it will boost to 4686.
> 
> This will require good chip to work to max ability, I top out at 103.8 w/3900x, so max single core observed so far is 4748, scores in testing commensurate with average peak boost of 4730 (549 R20 single, 1435 gb5 single, 571 cpu-z).
> 
> EDC is one way, Asus gives you another way, just need to use tools correctly.
> 
> 103.6 bclk + 1833 fclk and ram divider gives 3798 ram 1898 fclk, and high boost levels.


For some reason, my setup does not like BCLK overclocks. I dunno if it's my m.2 drive or what, but any level I try and the whole system becomes very sluggish and scores go way, way down. hwinfo does show very high boost clocks though lol. I'm still tinkering with various settings. 

Tried exactly copying mannix settings, but as soon as the cpu is put under any kind of load the pc instantly reboots. Tried tweaking and then I couldn't even boot, had to reset cmos. About 5 times of that and I reverted back to my old settings. Thanks for the help guys, think I'll stick with what I've been running for now though.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Nitethorn said:


> For some reason, my setup does not like BCLK overclocks. I dunno if it's my m.2 drive or what, but any level I try and the whole system becomes very sluggish and scores go way, way down. hwinfo does show very high boost clocks though lol. I'm still tinkering with various settings.
> 
> Tried exactly copying mannix settings, but as soon as the cpu is put under any kind of load the pc instantly reboots. Tried tweaking and then I couldn't even boot, had to reset cmos. About 5 times of that and I reverted back to my old settings. Thanks for the help guys, think I'll stick with what I've been running for now though.


Don't know if could work for you too but to stabilize BCLK oc and avoid the same issues you described I was successful with CPU VDD18 at 1.760v.
Not more, not less, exactly that value. Try some.

Consider my 3800x is a binning that scores better at -0.5v with EDC at 0; if yours isn't similar my settings are probably not good and needs adjustment.


----------



## Sagic

Hey people!

I had found this thread and decided to fiddle with this on my 3600X

I'm running it on a MSI MPG X570 Gaming plus, with BIOS revision A50 which I believe it based on 1.0.0.4

But I can't seem to get this to work as other people are getting it to.

I've fiddled with most of the settings, using high PPT, TDC settings, and varying EDC from 1-8A and changing the PBO clock offset from 0-200Mhz 

So far when I run Cinebench R20, the clocks still max out at around 4175-4200Mhz. If I run single core and set the affinity to 1 core, I get higher boost clocks than before, pushing 4380 or so.

Anyone have any idea why multicore is misbehaving? 

Thanks


----------



## Nitethorn

ManniX-ITA said:


> Don't know if could work for you too but to stabilize BCLK oc and avoid the same issues you described I was successful with CPU VDD18 at 1.760v.
> Not more, not less, exactly that value. Try some.
> 
> Consider my 3800x is a binning that scores better at -0.5v with EDC at 0; if yours isn't similar my settings are probably not good and needs adjustment.


There is no option for VDD18 on the C8H. I can raise the pll voltage but it didn't make any difference. I've tried 100.3 all the way up to 103.6, always adjusting to keep fclk/mem at 1900/3800. It will sometimes actually let me into windows, but as soon as I do anything at all it crashes so hard I have to reset cmos. 

Also figured out the reason your settings weren't working for me is because of uncore mode. If I have it enabled, with any amount (0 - 48) system either won't boot or crashes under load. So I got frustrated, loaded my previous, stable profile and decided to play no man's sky for a little while... 10 minutes in, crashed. Tried ESO, crashed so hard my pc rebooted. So now I'm having to dial things back even further than I was before I started trying all this.

I'm seriously considering selling my c8h/3800x and going intel. Ugh

*frustrated*


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Nitethorn said:


> There is no option for VDD18 on the C8H. I can raise the pll voltage but it didn't make any difference. I've tried 100.3 all the way up to 103.6, always adjusting to keep fclk/mem at 1900/3800. It will sometimes actually let me into windows, but as soon as I do anything at all it crashes so hard I have to reset cmos.
> 
> Also figured out the reason your settings weren't working for me is because of uncore mode. If I have it enabled, with any amount (0 - 48) system either won't boot or crashes under load. So I got frustrated, loaded my previous, stable profile and decided to play no man's sky for a little while... 10 minutes in, crashed. Tried ESO, crashed so hard my pc rebooted. So now I'm having to dial things back even further than I was before I started trying all this.
> 
> I'm seriously considering selling my c8h/3800x and going intel. Ugh
> 
> *frustrated*


Not sure what is exactly Uncore mode on C8H; 0-48 seems values to set SOC voltage.
Can't you set it somewhere else?

BCLK oc is very though but I've seen a lot getting good results on the C8H with the EDC bug.
Try Load Optimized and start a profile from scratch if you haven't already.


----------



## Yuke

Yuke said:


> I let my PC idle over night without crashes/reboots...
> 
> stock voltage, stock LLC, current protection low works it seems...last setting did the trick it seems as my PC had the crashes/reboots with same settings but this on Auto or Extreme.
> 
> PBO as alway just +50Mhz because anything above that is getting ignored, even when i undervolt to -0.4xxxx


RIP me, after three days we got our first YT crash into reboot.

Guess +50Mhz and 10x Skalar is done in my case. Two choices now, tryout with less skalar or go down to +25Mhz and hope for the best. Dont think performance will change that much between those options...


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Yuke said:


> RIP me, after three days we got our first YT crash into reboot.
> 
> Guess +50Mhz and 10x Skalar is done in my case. Two choices now, tryout with less skalar or go down to +25Mhz and hope for the best. Dont think performance will change that much between those options...


With these kind of issue it's usually better to go down with the scalar.

Consider that with offset at -0.4 and scalar 10x, my VIDs at light threading settle at 1.420v and on CB20 MT around 1.380v.
While with offset at -0.3 and scalar 10x, my VIDs at light threading settle at 1.450v and on CB20 MT around 1.350v.
If you end up forcing a too high voltage with the scalar it will actually drop lower instead than going higher.
This will cause instability if your silicon can't keep the boost speed at that voltage.
Or like in my case worse performances.

I'd try with a notch below offset and scalar and a bump up in boost MHz.
Check what voltages you get with and without load with different values and try to keep them as close as possible.
For stability is ideal from 1.420v to 1.480v in light threading.
If it's not stable raise the LLC; I had to set High you may need even more.


----------



## rastaviper

Sagic said:


> Hey people!
> 
> 
> 
> I had found this thread and decided to fiddle with this on my 3600X
> 
> 
> 
> I'm running it on a MSI MPG X570 Gaming plus, with BIOS revision A50 which I believe it based on 1.0.0.4
> 
> 
> 
> But I can't seem to get this to work as other people are getting it to.
> 
> 
> 
> I've fiddled with most of the settings, using high PPT, TDC settings, and varying EDC from 1-8A and changing the PBO clock offset from 0-200Mhz
> 
> 
> 
> So far when I run Cinebench R20, the clocks still max out at around 4175-4200Mhz. If I run single core and set the affinity to 1 core, I get higher boost clocks than before, pushing 4380 or so.
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone have any idea why multicore is misbehaving?
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks


No worries, you are not alone in this.

Also with my 3600x couldn't get some good results as other people with similar cpu are getting.

So I am mostly using stock boosting for every day use.
When it's time for benchmarks, I get my top results with manual OCing.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


----------



## dvnx

Anyone getting good results with 3700x + X570 Aorus Pro Wifi?

Mine is one of the early batch CPU's (maybe bad batch?). Boost doesn't seem to go beyond 4050 MHz. Without PBO, my max boost is 3.9-3.95

Scalar 1x [Tried 5x but my sc tanked to 369]
OC +200Mhz
Offset -0.025v

SC 499 / MT 4789

Using bullzoid's 333/230/230. Running on 360 AIO + F20a


----------



## Dyngsur

Someone tryed the new F20B bios yet?, Is it still as broken as F20A? Kinda hard to see changelogs etc.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

dvnx said:


> Anyone getting good results with 3700x + X570 Aorus Pro Wifi?
> 
> Mine is one of the early batch CPU's (maybe bad batch?). Boost doesn't seem to go beyond 4050 MHz. Without PBO, my max boost is 3.9-3.95
> 
> Scalar 1x [Tried 5x but my sc tanked to 369]
> OC +200Mhz
> Offset -0.025v
> 
> SC 499 / MT 4789
> 
> Using bullzoid's 333/230/230. Running on 360 AIO + F20a


I'd switch to F20b first, seems better.
What's your Core VIDs voltage and clocks during CB20 MT load?
Did you try with a larger negative offset?
Any testing setting a low EDC value?



Dyngsur said:


> Someone tryed the new F20B bios yet?, Is it still as broken as F20A? Kinda hard to see changelogs etc.


Still broken for me but way better than F20a. Virtualization fixed.


----------



## dvnx

ManniX-ITA said:


> I'd switch to F20b first, seems better.
> What's your Core VIDs voltage and clocks during CB20 MT load?
> Did you try with a larger negative offset?
> Any testing setting a low EDC value?


I tried 230/230/10 with -0.0125v. MC went to 4811, boost around 4.1-4.2 iirc
However SC went down to 360+

Haven't gotten the chance to play with larger offset as of yet.

CB20 MT Clocks = 4050 all core
Core VID 1.47-1.48

What I tried so far --



Code:


PBO +200mhz (the rest auto)
499 / 4711 9.45x

360-ish / 4811 [-0.0125 @ 230/230/10 5x 200mhz] -- could be one time off, not sure

499 / 4779 [-0.0125 @ 333/230/230 1x 200mhz]
494 / 4712 [-0.0125 @ 333/230/230 10x 100mhz]

499 / 4769 [10x 50mhz]

-0.025v
499/4789 [1x 200mhz]


----------



## ManniX-ITA

dvnx said:


> I tried 230/230/10 with -0.0125v. MC went to 4811, boost around 4.1-4.2 iirc
> However SC went down to 360+
> 
> Haven't gotten the chance to play with larger offset as of yet.
> 
> CB20 MT Clocks = 4050 all core
> Core VID 1.47-1.48
> 
> What I tried so far --
> 
> 
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> PBO +200mhz (the rest auto)
> 499 / 4711 9.45x
> 
> 360-ish / 4811 [-0.0125 @ 230/230/10 5x 200mhz] -- could be one time off, not sure
> 
> 499 / 4779 [-0.0125 @ 333/230/230 1x 200mhz]
> 494 / 4712 [-0.0125 @ 333/230/230 10x 100mhz]
> 
> 499 / 4769 [10x 50mhz]
> 
> -0.025v
> 499/4789 [1x 200mhz]


Core VIDs at 1.47 during CB20 MT? Should be around 1.35v-1.39v.
That's way too high, that would be the right voltage for light threaded/single core.
Probably the reason the clocks are going down.
Test with a much larger offset, like -0.5.

Also disable Global C-States to avoid SC falling down.


----------



## dvnx

ManniX-ITA said:


> Core VIDs at 1.47 during CB20 MT? Should be around 1.35v-1.39v.
> That's way too high, that would be the right voltage for light threaded/single core.
> Probably the reason the clocks are going down.
> Test with a much larger offset, like -0.5.
> 
> Also disable Global C-States to avoid SC falling down.


Weird.. HWInfo reports that the core clocks are at 4.3 range; however, effective clock paints a different story -- Core 0 & 1 boosts up to 4.25-4.31 while the rest hovers around 4.05.

Is it because I'm using the german sz Ryzen balanced instead of 1usmus?


----------



## Sagic

rastaviper said:


> No worries, you are not alone in this.
> 
> Also with my 3600x couldn't get some good results as other people with similar cpu are getting.
> 
> So I am mostly using stock boosting for every day use.
> When it's time for benchmarks, I get my top results with manual OCing.
> 
> Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


Yeh, I figured that it may just not be as effective on the 3600X because its boost behavior isn't that stingy in the first place compared to the higher core count models. I would assume that the 3900X for example has far more hampered core clocks at full load because of significantly more power draw, which gets limited by the EDC. 

As it is, I tested what I could of the higher boost clock, because I was able to actually have single core boost to about 4411Mhz, where before it would only reach maybe 4375Mhz. But despite that, with more than 1 thread running, the clocks still drop pretty quick.

I can run mostly Prime95 AVX stable at 4300 CCX0 4275 CCX1, but its still a little unstable under AVX2 workload. But for normal use, no crashing occurs or anything so I'm not worried about it. I tested some single core dependent emulators and saw no difference in performance with the EDC bug vs my normal per CCX overclock.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

dvnx said:


> Weird.. HWInfo reports that the core clocks are at 4.3 range; however, effective clock paints a different story -- Core 0 & 1 boosts up to 4.25-4.31 while the rest hovers around 4.05.
> 
> Is it because I'm using the german sz Ryzen balanced instead of 1usmus?


Effective clocks need 100% usage; if you want to see how high the other cores are boosting start a single core thread load, like CPU-z set to 1 thread, and set affinity.
Better 1usmus plan for the EDC bug, the Ryzen balanced is not good.


----------



## Yuke

ManniX-ITA said:


> With these kind of issue it's usually better to go down with the scalar.
> 
> Consider that with offset at -0.4 and scalar 10x, my VIDs at light threading settle at 1.420v and on CB20 MT around 1.380v.
> While with offset at -0.3 and scalar 10x, my VIDs at light threading settle at 1.450v and on CB20 MT around 1.350v.
> If you end up forcing a too high voltage with the scalar it will actually drop lower instead than going higher.
> This will cause instability if your silicon can't keep the boost speed at that voltage.
> Or like in my case worse performances.
> 
> I'd try with a notch below offset and scalar and a bump up in boost MHz.
> Check what voltages you get with and without load with different values and try to keep them as close as possible.
> For stability is ideal from 1.420v to 1.480v in light threading.
> If it's not stable raise the LLC; I had to set High you may need even more.


I went for:

-0.0125 offset
LLC Turbo
+75Mhz

and performance seems pretty good so far.

Its been a long time since i saw geekbench over 1380 with my crap CPU... https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/2831386

especially average clocks in gaming seem good...about 40Mhz more than i usually had on average:


----------



## Yuke

What voltages should i expect when doing AIDA64 stresstest?

VID shows 1.281V - 1.381V which seems like a pretty big gap?

SVI2 TFN shows 1.312V - 1.400V...

Turbo LLC maybe too high?


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Yuke said:


> What voltages should i expect when doing AIDA64 stresstest?
> 
> VID shows 1.281V - 1.381V which seems like a pretty big gap?
> 
> SVI2 TFN shows 1.312V - 1.400V...
> 
> Turbo LLC maybe too high?


Yes the gap seems too high.
Try different LLC settings and see the effect.
My core VIDs fluctuate between 1.320v and 1.380v with an average of 1.330v-1.340v.
The SVI2 TFN between 1.320v and 1.350v with an average of 1.330v.


----------



## Yuke

ManniX-ITA said:


> Yes the gap seems too high.
> Try different LLC settings and see the effect.
> My core VIDs fluctuate between 1.320v and 1.380v with an average of 1.330v-1.340v.
> The SVI2 TFN between 1.320v and 1.350v with an average of 1.330v.


Hmm, my average is 1.327V-1.331V (VID)

and SVI2: 1.349V


Well, i have to drop offset AND LLC extremely to match VID with SVI2 like yours...not gonna bother, i dont wanna lose performance (also went over 5900 consistently in CPU-Z with my settings)....if it dies it dies...has to only survive only until Zen3 refresh anyway.


----------



## maxbzz

Hi all, just thought I'd share my experience with this bug. Firstly I'd just like to thank @Nighthog for this as it's been very beneficial to myself and other users on the forum. 

I have a 3600x purchased over 6 months ago. I tried tirelessly to overclock my chip to 4.2 which is what other people with the older batches seemed to achieve but was unable to do so, even with 1.35v it was unstable. My chip did boost to 4.4 on one core at stock (pbo enabled) but in games etc it's boosting behaviour was pretty underwhelming. After coming across this bug I decided to give it a try.

After trying multiple different configurations this worked best for me.

ppt = 95
tdc = 55
edc= 3
max boost 100mhz
scalar x 5

With an undervolt of -0.0018.

I was also able to set the baseclock to 101.

This netted me a cpuz score of ST=540 and MT= 4358 (tested p95 for 10 mins stable)

Before the bug and with pbo set to enabled my scores were around ST=520 and MT= 4200. 

In games such as CS:GO it now holds around 4350mhz all core.

Under a single core load using boost tester 
2 cores hit 4494mhz
2 hit 4469mhz
2 hit 4444mhz

Things I noted. 

EDC higher than 3 gave worse scores
Cpu voltage on auto or normal were too high for my liking so an undervolt is the way to go.


----------



## Yuke

******* hell, 6 days without any problems whatsoever and suddenly out of nowhere PC freeze while watching a 1080p movie in VLC player.

I will never get this **** 100% stable...only crashes at absolute minuscule tasks....runs Y-Cruncher and Games for ages like ***

Hopefully final release of latest BIOS will bring me back to my old stable build without any more performance loss.


----------



## tcclaviger

Yuke said:


> What voltages should i expect when doing AIDA64 stresstest?
> 
> VID shows 1.281V - 1.381V which seems like a pretty big gap?
> 
> SVI2 TFN shows 1.312V - 1.400V...
> 
> Turbo LLC maybe too high?


If you're running CPU/FPU/Cache/Mem, the default configuration in AIDA stress testing, the reason it swings all over is that the tests load the cores in different ways. The CPU test is a moderate work load, allows higher speed and higher voltage, FPU hammers the CPU and cuts voltage and speed like prime95, cache is a moderate load similar to CPU, and MEM is a very light load that allows it to scale up to very highs speeds all core and high voltage because it's drawing so little power. See the spikes in this graph? Those are the memory test.

Run them 1 at a time and you'll see a more steady VID. AIDA in particular hammers Ryzen 3000 because it works all cores and IOD to the limit at the same time.


----------



## Yuke

tcclaviger said:


> If you're running CPU/FPU/Cache/Mem, the default configuration in AIDA stress testing, the reason it swings all over is that the tests load the cores in different ways. The CPU test is a moderate work load, allows higher speed and higher voltage, FPU hammers the CPU and cuts voltage and speed like prime95, cache is a moderate load similar to CPU, and MEM is a very light load that allows it to scale up to very highs speeds all core and high voltage because it's drawing so little power. See the spikes in this graph? Those are the memory test.
> 
> Run them 1 at a time and you'll see a more steady VID. AIDA in particular hammers Ryzen 3000 because it works all cores and IOD to the limit at the same time.



Yeah, i saw it jump around too thats why i decided to also add average clock numbers. At the end thats not much of a problem for me right now....miniscule single core load is crashing my pc once a week...thats my problem...im afraid 4600Mhz/10skalar combo is just a no go for my silicon...it wasnt with old BIOS versions ... so not sure if they added more restrictions to later BIOS releases or my CPU just degraded over time (release 3800x).

And no, i dont want to go back to older BIOS versions because i can run better RAM timings with newer versions.

Those are my Voltages/Temps when doing P95 small FFTs:

Should be fine i guess?

SVI2 shows a max of 1.325V which was max voltage the Stilt mentioned if i remember correctly.

I probably have to live with some random crashes once a week when doing basically nothing (low single thread loads)...maybe il try out Skalar 9 instead of 10 at some point...seems to be like on the edge of stability...


----------



## MikeS3000

Seeing some different behavior on AGESA ComboV2 1.0.0.2 on my x570 Gigabyte board. To get any kind of decent single core boosting using Cpu-z I have to enable c-states. On previous AGESA versions I would get major throttling pretty quickly with c-states enabled. Now, not so much. With c-states disabled I do not get any single core boost benefits like I used to on other AGESA versions. Here is the odd thing. With c-states enabled I tried a CB20 single core run and Geekbench and got really low single core scores like it was throttling. Multi-core scores are producing high scores. HWINFO doesn't show any throttling behavior when I run the benchmarks. Boosts are 4500 mhz or higher. As soon as I disable C-states then I don't get any increased boost to single core scores on benchmarks compared to stock or regular PBO. I'm running a 3900x with -0.025 vcore offset and LLC set to medium to avoid effective clock throttling during multi-core benchmarks. Anyone else experience this?

Edit: Lowering scalar to x6 caused the bug to work again and my scores are back to normal with c-states disabled.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

MikeS3000 said:


> Seeing some different behavior on AGESA ComboV2 1.0.0.2 on my x570 Gigabyte board. To get any kind of decent single core boosting using Cpu-z I have to enable c-states. On previous AGESA versions I would get major throttling pretty quickly with c-states enabled. Now, not so much. With c-states disabled I do not get any single core boost benefits like I used to on other AGESA versions. Here is the odd thing. With c-states enabled I tried a CB20 single core run and Geekbench and got really low single core scores like it was throttling. Multi-core scores are producing high scores. HWINFO doesn't show any throttling behavior when I run the benchmarks. Boosts are 4500 mhz or higher. As soon as I disable C-states then I don't get any increased boost to single core scores on benchmarks compared to stock or regular PBO. I'm running a 3900x with -0.025 vcore offset and LLC set to medium to avoid effective clock throttling during multi-core benchmarks. Anyone else experience this?


Are you using the latest F20 version on the TT page?

I've seen others reporting a similar issue.
With F20b my 3800x behaves similarly with the EDC bug, just a bit less peak clock boost, 50 MHz.


----------



## MikeS3000

Yes. Using "official" f20 from TT forum.


----------



## tcclaviger

So I have a 3600xt arriving Wednesday, but I'm on a work trip until the 22nd.

When I get back I'm setting up my chiller and will be testing out the 3600xt using EDC and some cool water. Time to find out "just" how much it will boost in in ideal conditions

Hoping/expecting 4800 at a minimum when pairing bug with 13c water (dew point is 11c). Should be easy considering my 3900x does 4747 with 22c water.


----------



## Fight Game

look'n forward to your results


----------



## zbug

When setting the thermal limit setting (forgot the exact real name sorry) under PBO to a high value (like 200), does the cpu still "limit" itself in getting to high boost clocks? for a 3900x

Been trying to get it to 4700mhz or above but no luck so far (used to constantly see it reach that on ryzen master/hwinfo), just wondering if it is due to the current hot weather and general higher temps I have or maybe was just on the edge and very lucky before and something I could tweak even further to push those extra mhz.


For those that manage 4700 or above on a 3900x, what "stable" settings are you using?


----------



## Alpi

Setting that limit higher is hardly not recommended by me !
One side zen2 is really can harmed by high temps. I mean (ofc not alone !!) a bad scenario and a high voltage.
Other side, high boost clocks absolutely can't be forced. Couldn't force anything what your chip absolutely don'zt want. Can alternate a bit this way, that way, but can't rape. To see 4700 mhz you need very good temp and some "perfect" scenario even by other core loads. With many and / or high loaded cores it will hardly occur.


----------



## jamie1073

zbug said:


> When setting the thermal limit setting (forgot the exact real name sorry) under PBO to a high value (like 200), does the cpu still "limit" itself in getting to high boost clocks? for a 3900x
> 
> Been trying to get it to 4700mhz or above but no luck so far (used to constantly see it reach that on ryzen master/hwinfo), just wondering if it is due to the current hot weather and general higher temps I have or maybe was just on the edge and very lucky before and something I could tweak even further to push those extra mhz.
> 
> 
> For those that manage 4700 or above on a 3900x, what "stable" settings are you using?





Most people will not ever see 4.7Ghz from a 3900X. They are rated at 4.6Ghz and don't hit that unless you run the EDC bug and then the highest HWInfo64 has ever given me is 4.65Ghz on 2 cores. In Ryzen Master the best I have seen is 4.55Ghz. The new 3900Xt is supposed to be able to hit 4.7Ghz though.


----------



## zbug

jamie1073 said:


> Most people will not ever see 4.7Ghz from a 3900X. They are rated at 4.6Ghz and don't hit that unless you run the EDC bug and then the highest HWInfo64 has ever given me is 4.65Ghz on 2 cores. In Ryzen Master the best I have seen is 4.55Ghz. The new 3900Xt is supposed to be able to hit 4.7Ghz though.




Yup I get that. Since mine (with the right setting) has always been able to hit 4.7 easily until recently (but I guess it is as said above, a mix of heat and timing or other stuff) I was wondering if I could tinker with it even more to grabd a few more mhz


----------



## Medizinmann

zbug said:


> When setting the thermal limit setting (forgot the exact real name sorry) under PBO to a high value (like 200), does the cpu still "limit" itself in getting to high boost clocks? for a 3900x
> 
> Been trying to get it to 4700mhz or above but no luck so far (used to constantly see it reach that on ryzen master/hwinfo), just wondering if it is due to the current hot weather and general higher temps I have or maybe was just on the edge and very lucky before and something I could tweak even further to push those extra mhz.
> 
> 
> For those that manage 4700 or above on a 3900x, what "stable" settings are you using?


Define "stable"...

I use BCLK 100.5, EDC=1 and PPT/TDC to motherboards max.(Aorus Xtreme 1300/700) + scalar 5x.

But cooling is important. I use a waterloop and LM as TIM.



jamie1073 said:


> Most people will not ever see 4.7Ghz from a 3900X. They are rated at 4.6Ghz and don't hit that unless you run the EDC bug and then the highest HWInfo64 has ever given me is 4.65Ghz on 2 cores. In Ryzen Master the best I have seen is 4.55Ghz. The new 3900Xt is supposed to be able to hit 4.7Ghz though.


With EDC-Bug I see 2 cores hitting 4.67 GHz on my 3900x.

With BCLK 102.5 I can get it stable a little above 4,7 GHz - but with more cooling and therefore more noise.

The chip was bought two weeks after launch date...

Best regards,
Medizinmann


----------



## kuutale

hello,

how i use soc vid value, if i want soc is 1,1v what is that vid value or how that calculate?


----------



## ManniX-ITA

kuutale said:


> hello,
> 
> how i use soc vid value, if i want soc is 1,1v what is that vid value or how that calculate?


Not sure but maybe this one still works:

http://www.mediafire.com/file/u7l54s89dri3e4y/RyZenPstateCalc.xlsx/file

Otherwise on some boards you can set it manually and check the Hex value in the OC menu.
1.1v should be VID 48.


----------



## nick name

kuutale said:


> hello,
> 
> how i use soc vid value, if i want soc is 1,1v what is that vid value or how that calculate?


Wait, what board are you using that you can't just key in the value?


----------



## tcclaviger

zbug said:


> When setting the thermal limit setting (forgot the exact real name sorry) under PBO to a high value (like 200), does the cpu still "limit" itself in getting to high boost clocks? for a 3900x
> 
> Been trying to get it to 4700mhz or above but no luck so far (used to constantly see it reach that on ryzen master/hwinfo), just wondering if it is due to the current hot weather and general higher temps I have or maybe was just on the edge and very lucky before and something I could tweak even further to push those extra mhz.
> 
> 
> For those that manage 4700 or above on a 3900x, what "stable" settings are you using?



I'm not sure this can be duplicated on anything besides C6/C7/C8 boards.

3900x
C7H BIOS 3101 AGESA 1006
101 BCLK
Force Overclock Mode Disabled "Enabled"
LLC 3
TDC - 130
PPT - 230
Auto OC 0mhz
SCALAR 6X
Offset Voltage - 0.0125
Hits 4747 single sometimes, usually 4712
More frequently juggles 1 thread between core 5 and 4 @ 4696

3x480, push pull using all ML-120s @ 1100 RPM.
Optimus Foundation with conductonaut, water held at 23-25c with AC.

Dead stable.

Single core boost SVI2TFN - up to 1.46v
R20 Voltage - 1.29 - 1.337 @ 4281 mhz

Scalar DOES have an effect IF you can keep the CPU under 60c and you're using the EDC bug for higher peak boost. Negative offset + raised scalar negate each other for voltage and allow lower LLC setting. Essentially exploiting the Guard Band for OC headroom.

Like this I get
R20 sT- 546-549
R20 nT-7650-7700
GB4 - 6560ish/53750ish
GB5 - 1430ish/14300ish

No clock stretching here...


----------



## MikeS3000

tcclaviger said:


> I'm not sure this can be duplicated on anything besides C6/C7/C8 boards.
> 
> 3900x
> C7H BIOS 3101 AGESA 1006
> 101 BCLK
> Force Overclock Mode Disabled "Enabled"
> LLC 3
> TDC - 130
> PPT - 230
> Auto OC 0mhz
> SCALAR 6X
> Offset Voltage - 0.0125
> Hits 4747 single sometimes, usually 4712
> More frequently juggles 1 thread between core 5 and 4 @ 4696
> 
> 3x480, push pull using all ML-120s @ 1100 RPM.
> Optimus Foundation with conductonaut, water held at 23-25c with AC.
> 
> Dead stable.
> 
> Single core boost SVI2TFN - up to 1.46v
> R20 Voltage - 1.29 - 1.337 @ 4281 mhz
> 
> Scalar DOES have an effect IF you can keep the CPU under 60c and you're using the EDC bug for higher peak boost. Negative offset + raised scalar negate each other for voltage and allow lower LLC setting. Essentially exploiting the Guard Band for OC headroom.
> 
> Like this I get
> R20 sT- 546-549
> R20 nT-7650-7700
> GB4 - 6560ish/53750ish
> GB5 - 1430ish/14300ish
> 
> No clock stretching here...


What EDC value are you using?


----------



## Medizinmann

tcclaviger said:


> I'm not sure this can be duplicated on anything besides C6/C7/C8 boards.


It should works with all boards that have a decent enough VRM...



> 3900x
> C7H BIOS 3101 AGESA 1006
> 101 BCLK
> Force Overclock Mode Disabled "Enabled"
> LLC 3
> TDC - 130
> PPT - 230
> Auto OC 0mhz
> SCALAR 6X
> Offset Voltage - 0.0125
> Hits 4747 single sometimes, usually 4712
> More frequently juggles 1 thread between core 5 and 4 @ 4696


I use a pretty similar settings right now... 

EDC=1
TDC=160
PPT=230
Auto OC 0mhz
SCALAR 5X
Offset -0.0125V
LLC set to Turbo which is 2 below max setting.

MoBo is an Aorus Xtreme X570 still on BIOS F12a(AGESA 1.0.0.4) 



> 3x480, push pull using all ML-120s @ 1100 RPM.
> Optimus Foundation with conductonaut, water held at 23-25c with AC.


That is a lot of cooling…. :thumb:



> Dead stable.


Would hope so with this cooling setup...



> Single core boost SVI2TFN - up to 1.46v
> R20 Voltage - 1.29 - 1.337 @ 4281 mhz
> 
> Scalar DOES have an effect IF you can keep the CPU under 60c and you're using the EDC bug for higher peak boost. Negative offset + raised scalar negate each other for voltage and allow lower LLC setting. Essentially exploiting the Guard Band for OC headroom.
> 
> Like this I get
> R20 sT- 546-549
> R20 nT-7650-7700
> GB4 - 6560ish/53750ish
> GB5 - 1430ish/14300ish
> 
> No clock stretching here...


I assume you use EDC=1?

I also could get 4,7ish GHz stable but with a lot of noise(only have 120+240+360 rads with Noctuas in push/pull) and only with lower ambient temps like 15-17°C(open window in winter )

I settled for 4,67GHz - which is even stable on a "low noise" profile with "normal" temps (up to 23°C ambient with AC) with water temps around 28-30C°.

Best regards,
Medizinmann


----------



## Medizinmann

ManniX-ITA said:


> Ok, maybe I read it wrong earlier or it was a typo, thought you were using scalar 1x.
> 
> It may be the new power plan; I got a BSOD with the latest AMD High Performance plan ver 5.0 in the latest chipset drivers. Pretty sure the earlier one was working fine for me.
> I'd give a try to the 1usmus Universal plan, still works the best for me.
> 
> If you want to test and bench use a USB stick:
> https://www.easyuefi.com/wintousb/
> 
> You need a decent one, quite fast, but it's worth it.
> Quick and repeatable benchmarking; you don't risk to mess the main installation.
> It's also much more robust to crashes, especially at boot.
> Yes, sometimes settings which does work on it will crash the main install on boot.
> But it's rare, still the best way to shield the main install and avoid bricking it.
> 
> About your settings, seems pretty messy.
> Did you try to find good settings with EDC at 0?
> It could be better considering the silicon limitations; I was doing pretty good with 125/80/0.
> I'ts going to need much less voltage and lower 5-6c degrees the cpu temp.
> 
> Otherwise maybe you could try a fixed voltage.
> Something like 1.425v (1.4-1.45v range), with a lower scalar between 1x-6x.
> Maybe this way you could also try increasing the boost clock; below 100 MHz is very limiting.
> Usually under load the voltage drops 50mv; you should end up with 1.375v with all core load.
> You can compensate with LLC High if it goes down too much, LLC Low to smooth it.


BTW: Finally took the time and created a USB Stick - bought a Samsung Fit 128 GB for that purpose. 

But the free version of WinToUSB only creates Windows Home - my first bench results were below my current setup with my quick and dirty kill unnecessary processes in task manager approach...
Of course also killing skype, Edge etc. in the Windows Home setup booted from the usb stick…

Best regards,
Medizinmann


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Medizinmann said:


> BTW: Finally took the time and created a USB Stick - bought a Samsung Fit 128 GB for that purpose.
> 
> But the free version of WinToUSB only creates Windows Home - my first bench results were below my current setup with my quick and dirty kill unnecessary processes in task manager approach...
> Of course also killing skype, Edge etc. in the Windows Home setup booted from the usb stick…
> 
> Best regards,
> Medizinmann


Yep, I paid for the Pro version...
Did you try AOMEI Partition Assistant Standard?
It should have the same function and not limited to the Home version:

https://www.diskpart.com/free-partition-manager.html?from=en.nav.for-home


----------



## Medizinmann

ManniX-ITA said:


> Yep, I paid for the Pro version...
> Did you try AOMEI Partition Assistant Standard?
> It should have the same function and not limited to the Home version:
> 
> https://www.diskpart.com/free-partition-manager.html?from=en.nav.for-home


Already bought the PRO Version - but didn't have time till then to create/test a new Win Pro install - but Win 10 home seems actually to be slower - intresting…:thinking::headscrat
Or Win 2004 is slower than 1909 - as for some reason my main install can't upgrade right now - didn't have time to look into this...

Best regards,
Medizinmann


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Medizinmann said:


> Already bought the PRO Version - but didn't have time till then to create/test a new Win Pro install - but Win 10 home seems actually to be slower - intresting…:thinking::headscrat
> Or Win 2004 is slower than 1909 - as for some reason my main install can't upgrade right now - didn't have time to look into this...
> 
> Best regards,
> Medizinmann


Weird, it shouldn't be slower. Unless 2004 is really much slower than 1909... me as well I still have the update blocked. Not planning to rush out 

I'd check you have installed all the drivers and maybe missed same optimizations you did already on the main install.
Once I had both in sync, except the slow system disk access being a USB stick, it's been steadily faster.


----------



## Medizinmann

ManniX-ITA said:


> Weird, it shouldn't be slower. Unless 2004 is really much slower than 1909... me as well I still have the update blocked. Not planning to rush out
> 
> I'd check you have installed all the drivers and maybe missed same optimizations you did already on the main install.
> Once I had both in sync, except the slow system disk access being a USB stick, it's been steadily faster.


But what Drivers?

I mean GPU Drivers same, Chipset Drivers same, Power Plan the same - all other optimisations are done in BIOS...:headscrat

CPU-Z and Cinebench are slower - didn't test Firestrike/Timespy till now...

Best regards,
Medizinmann


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Medizinmann said:


> But what Drivers?
> 
> I mean GPU Drivers same, Chipset Drivers same, Power Plan the same - all other optimisations are done in BIOS...:headscrat
> 
> CPU-Z and Cinebench are slower - didn't test Firestrike/Timespy till now...
> 
> Best regards,
> Medizinmann


Well those are the main ones and the most important.
But LAN/WiFi and everything else could also have an impact.
Maybe some standard Windows driver is causing the drop in performance?
I try to keep all of them in sync with the main install, including all the tools and utilities to test and benchmark.
You have to disable everything that starts at boot otherwise the I/O on the USB drive will bring down the performances for 10-15 minutes after boot.
I can start testing after 2-3 minutes now.
Use O&O ShutUP10 to disable all telemetry and avoid installing Geforce Experience if you have nVidia.


----------



## nfshp253

Hi, noob here. I have a 3900X and have set the following limits in the BIOS: PPT 225, TDC 140 and EDC 18, with a voltage offset of -0.0250V. How do I get more performance out of PBO? It seems like these limits are not reached even when running Cinebench R20. Temperatures are maxxing out at 82 degrees.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

nfshp253 said:


> Hi, noob here. I have a 3900X and have set the following limits in the BIOS: PPT 225, TDC 140 and EDC 18, with a voltage offset of -0.0250V. How do I get more performance out of PBO? It seems like these limits are not reached even when running Cinebench R20. Temperatures are maxxing out at 82 degrees.


Compare benchmarks scores to see how it's going.
During Cinebench R20 you should be at 70-80% of set limits.


----------



## nfshp253

R20 scores went up from around 7250 to 7500. PPT is around 180, TDC at 115 and EDC is actually at 18.4. Should I increase the limits? I have my fan curves set quite low so there's actually more headroom for overclocking. The cooler is a Corsair H115i RGB PRO XT with swapped 3000rpm Noctua fans, which I think should be enough for a lot more.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

nfshp253 said:


> R20 scores went up from around 7250 to 7500. PPT is around 180, TDC at 115 and EDC is actually at 18.4. Should I increase the limits? I have my fan curves set quite low so there's actually more headroom for overclocking. The cooler is a Corsair H115i RGB PRO XT with swapped 3000rpm Noctua fans, which I think should be enough for a lot more.


You'll get better performances with lower temperature. The main gates are 70 and 75; if you can get keep it lower than that at 100% it's already a big hit.

What do you mean with EDC at 18.4? During CB20 single thread bench?


----------



## nfshp253

I see, so I have to ramp up the fan curve earlier to get better performance? Sorry, EDC actually reads the same as TDC. Something that's close to 18A is the SoC current during CB20 Multicore bench.


----------



## Medizinmann

nfshp253 said:


> R20 scores went up from around 7250 to 7500. PPT is around 180, TDC at 115 and EDC is actually at 18.4. Should I increase the limits? I have my fan curves set quite low so there's actually more headroom for overclocking. The cooler is a Corsair H115i RGB PRO XT with swapped 3000rpm Noctua fans, which I think should be enough for a lot more.


That sounds perfectly fine….

You could try lower values for EDC - which don't mean lower EDC in the end - thats why it is a trick/bug…:thumb:

If the CPU draws like 190-200W you are at the max you can reach with normal cooling.

CB20 around 7500-7650 is fine!

Max. reported values are around 7700-7800 - but sometimes with questinable stability… 

Always remember to deactivate backround clutter like Skype, Yourphone.exe, Edge etc. And set process CB20 to high under details!

You should get 7600ish results.

Best regards,
Medizinmann


----------



## ManniX-ITA

nfshp253 said:


> I see, so I have to ramp up the fan curve earlier to get better performance? Sorry, EDC actually reads the same as TDC. Something that's close to 18A is the SoC current during CB20 Multicore bench.


Then it's fine. Yes you have to adjust the fan curve to be more aggressive, possibly keeping it lower than 75c or even better 70c.
But it's always a trade off between cooling capacity and noise. Even if Noctua those fans at 3000rpm are very noisy.


----------



## Vultix

Hi, I have an 3700x. did the EDC bug with EDC set to 10, scalar x2 and disabling c-states I saw that I got a nice boost in multicore and basically the same singlecore but, While doing a random aida64 test, I noticed that my RAM latency was higher than normal. I normally had 65.5/65.7 and with those settings I have 67. Have you guys encountered this same problem?


----------



## nfshp253

Medizinmann said:


> That sounds perfectly fine….
> 
> You could try lower values for EDC - which don't mean lower EDC in the end - thats why it is a trick/bug…:thumb:
> 
> If the CPU draws like 190-200W you are at the max you can reach with normal cooling.
> 
> CB20 around 7500-7650 is fine!
> 
> Max. reported values are around 7700-7800 - but sometimes with questinable stability…
> 
> Always remember to deactivate backround clutter like Skype, Yourphone.exe, Edge etc. And set process CB20 to high under details!
> 
> You should get 7600ish results.
> 
> Best regards,
> Medizinmann





ManniX-ITA said:


> Then it's fine. Yes you have to adjust the fan curve to be more aggressive, possibly keeping it lower than 75c or even better 70c.
> But it's always a trade off between cooling capacity and noise. Even if Noctua those fans at 3000rpm are very noisy.


Thanks for both your answers. I've tried changing the EDC values to between 12-18 but there's really no difference in performance. I've also tried setting the scalar to Auto, 6x and 10x and again there's no performance difference. I'm getting around 7500 in CB20 so I guess I should be happy.


----------



## alasdairvfr

Not having any luck with C6H trying this out.

Best config so far: I can hit CB20 7300 multicore just by setting vcore/soc offset by -0.1v, manual memory timings, all settings in PBO to auto/enabled.

Tried the EDC to 10-20, everything auto, scalar auto/2-10x... voltages 0.1-0.01 - offset maybe 15-20 combinations. It all has a negative effect, losing 5-7%.


This board tends to overvolt even under load (pinned all cores would give 1.35v left to its own devices) and best effective clock/performance i can get is in the 4.1 all-core by leaving all the PBO menu settings on auto and the .1 undervolt.

Adjustment away from the 'best-config-so-far' either it clocks lower due to thermals or undervolt clock stretching (high core clock with low effective clock due to voltage starvation). I'm using an h110i aio and think that my performance is fine - just not receiving this "free lunch" from the EDC bug. Bios 7803. I'm not sure if theres an idiot switch i need to toggle to get this working


----------



## samgu

I feel like I am late for the party, but I just finished my gaming build with a 3600 + 5700XT. I was reading about OC and PBO and all that good stuff, and found this tread, because I am more favor of keeping things as core as possible. So, does this tutorial can be applied to a 3600 non-X CPU? If yes, what limits should I use?

I am sorry if that has been asked before, but the search tool didn't help much.

Thank you!


----------



## zbug

What's the advised "best" power plan to use when using tweaked settings from this thread (pbo etc)? Are there any big differences?
Between these:

1usmus universal
AMD Ryzen High Performance
AMD Ryzen Balanced
Ultimate Performance

I'm a bit at loss when it comes to those power profiles.

ps: I don't really care about power saving or what not, my PC isn't on 24/7, only 4/5 hours per day when gaming.


----------



## Dyngsur

3900xt PBO Bug settings

I am wounder if someone knows some start settings for get this to work.

I had a 3800x before and could use negative offset 0.0435 with edc 1, scalar 10, 200mhz etc. 

Tried different settings but can't fet it to boost as I want.

Need some guidelines, should I lower negative offset to like 0.03125 or what settings do you guys use for 3900x pbo bug.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

samgu said:


> I feel like I am late for the party, but I just finished my gaming build with a 3600 + 5700XT. I was reading about OC and PBO and all that good stuff, and found this tread, because I am more favor of keeping things as core as possible. So, does this tutorial can be applied to a 3600 non-X CPU? If yes, what limits should I use?
> 
> I am sorry if that has been asked before, but the search tool didn't help much.
> 
> Thank you!


Can only say I've seen very few having luck with 3600/3700.
I've seen some having limited success with low boost clock and scalar at 1x.
About the limits it's better you do some testing yourself.



zbug said:


> What's the advised "best" power plan to use when using tweaked settings from this thread (pbo etc)? Are there any big differences?
> Between these:
> 
> 1usmus universal
> AMD Ryzen High Performance
> AMD Ryzen Balanced
> Ultimate Performance
> 
> I'm a bit at loss when it comes to those power profiles.
> 
> ps: I don't really care about power saving or what not, my PC isn't on 24/7, only 4/5 hours per day when gaming.


Didn't test the latest Ryzen High Performance v6, the previous v5 was causing BSOD.
I'm using Process Lasso with 1usmus base and Ultimate for specific applications.
Ultimate gives me the best results but it's very stressing for the processor, keeps the VIDs almost always at 1.4-1.5v in idle.
The Balanced is the worst performer of course.
Try the Ryzen High Performance v6, latest chipset drivers.



Dyngsur said:


> 3900xt PBO Bug settings
> 
> I am wounder if someone knows some start settings for get this to work.
> 
> I had a 3800x before and could use negative offset 0.0435 with edc 1, scalar 10, 200mhz etc.
> 
> Tried different settings but can't fet it to boost as I want.
> 
> Need some guidelines, should I lower negative offset to like 0.03125 or what settings do you guys use for 3900x pbo bug.


You should search the thread; there have been a lot reporting success with the 3900x.
You probably need to use a much higher EDC between 16 and 25.
Start with offset at 0 an test raising it.
As with the offset, it really depends on your specific sample; it may not like a high scalar, start with 1x.


----------



## Awsan

zbug said:


> What's the advised "best" power plan to use when using tweaked settings from this thread (pbo etc)? Are there any big differences?
> Between these:
> 
> 1usmus universal
> AMD Ryzen High Performance
> AMD Ryzen Balanced
> Ultimate Performance
> 
> I'm a bit at loss when it comes to those power profiles.
> 
> ps: I don't really care about power saving or what not, my PC isn't on 24/7, only 4/5 hours per day when gaming.


Trial and error is your best answer test multi core and single core performance in Cinebench, geekbench and CPUz test and see which one will give you the best, some will lower the ST scores and some will raise the MT scores.

But with the latest chip set drivers from AMD The AMD Ryzen High Performance has been the best for me personally.


----------



## Dyngsur

Dyngsur said:


> 3900xt PBO Bug settings
> 
> I am wounder if someone knows some start settings for get this to work.
> 
> I had a 3800x before and could use negative offset 0.0435 with edc 1, scalar 10, 200mhz etc.
> 
> Tried different settings but can't fet it to boost as I want.
> 
> Need some guidelines, should I lower negative offset to like 0.03125 or what settings do you guys use for 3900x pbo bug.


You should search the thread; there have been a lot reporting success with the 3900x.
You probably need to use a much higher EDC between 16 and 25.
Start with offset at 0 an test raising it.
As with the offset, it really depends on your specific sample; it may not like a high scalar, start with 1x.[/QUOTE]



Yeah I know, read a lot about different settings but I just wanted some guidelines. I am at my phone and have a hard time scrolling many posts back, but it's kinda strange cause I get good results with cpu-z benchmark, but CR20 doesn't give good results, I will try to tinker some more but main question I have is if you can use same amount of negative offset for a 3900x as a 3800x or does the 3900x need more voltage etc? Than about the edc I feel that I will try different but it the voltage I am curious about to start with!


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Dyngsur said:


> Yeah I know, read a lot about different settings but I just wanted some guidelines. I am at my phone and have a hard time scrolling many posts back, but it's kinda strange cause I get good results with cpu-z benchmark, but CR20 doesn't give good results, I will try to tinker some more but main question I have is if you can use same amount of negative offset for a 3900x as a 3800x or does the 3900x need more voltage etc? Than about the edc I feel that I will try different but it the voltage I am curious about to start with!


You need some input from 3900x owners.
Offset is specific to the sample; my 3800x likes -0.05v, others -0.1v or even 0.0v.
From what I remember about others posting the 3900x seems to like less offset, around -0.02v, if not at all.
CB20 is more intensive than CPU-z, you may need to adjust the offset, can be more or less, or lower the scalar.

This post maybe can be useful to start:

https://www.overclock.net/forum/13-amd-general/1741052-edc-1-pbo-turbo-boost-93.html#post28474156


----------



## Dyngsur

ManniX-ITA said:


> Dyngsur said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah I know, read a lot about different settings but I just wanted some guidelines. I am at my phone and have a hard time scrolling many posts back, but it's kinda strange cause I get good results with cpu-z benchmark, but CR20 doesn't give good results, I will try to tinker some more but main question I have is if you can use same amount of negative offset for a 3900x as a 3800x or does the 3900x need more voltage etc? Than about the edc I feel that I will try different but it the voltage I am curious about to start with!
> 
> 
> 
> You need some input from 3900x owners.
> Offset is specific to the sample; my 3800x likes -0.05v, others -0.1v or even 0.0v.
> From what I remember about others posting the 3900x seems to like less offset, around -0.02v, if not at all.
> CB20 is more intensive than CPU-z, you may need to adjust the offset, can be more or less, or lower the scalar.
> 
> This post maybe can be useful to start:
> 
> https://www.overclock.net/forum/13-amd-general/1741052-edc-1-pbo-turbo-boost-93.html#post28474156
Click to expand...


Thanks, gonna try some but still dunno if I got a bad ex of the cpu, might return it and take another one.


----------



## samgu

Thank you.



ManniX-ITA said:


> samgu said:
> 
> 
> 
> I feel like I am late for the party, but I just finished my gaming build with a 3600 + 5700XT. I was reading about OC and PBO and all that good stuff, and found this tread, because I am more favor of keeping things as core as possible. So, does this tutorial can be applied to a 3600 non-X CPU? If yes, what limits should I use?
> 
> I am sorry if that has been asked before, but the search tool didn't help much.
> 
> Thank you!
> 
> 
> 
> Can only say I've seen very few having luck with 3600/3700.
> I've seen some having limited success with low boost clock and scalar at 1x.
> About the limits it's better you do some testing yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> zbug said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's the advised "best" power plan to use when using tweaked settings from this thread (pbo etc)? Are there any big differences?
> Between these:
> 
> 1usmus universal
> AMD Ryzen High Performance
> AMD Ryzen Balanced
> Ultimate Performance
> 
> I'm a bit at loss when it comes to those power profiles.
> 
> ps: I don't really care about power saving or what not, my PC isn't on 24/7, only 4/5 hours per day when gaming.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Didn't test the latest Ryzen High Performance v6, the previous v5 was causing BSOD.
> I'm using Process Lasso with 1usmus base and Ultimate for specific applications.
> Ultimate gives me the best results but it's very stressing for the processor, keeps the VIDs almost always at 1.4-1.5v in idle.
> The Balanced is the worst performer of course.
> Try the Ryzen High Performance v6, latest chipset drivers.
> 
> 
> 
> Dyngsur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 3900xt PBO Bug settings
> 
> I am wounder if someone knows some start settings for get this to work.
> 
> I had a 3800x before and could use negative offset 0.0435 with edc 1, scalar 10, 200mhz etc.
> 
> Tried different settings but can't fet it to boost as I want.
> 
> Need some guidelines, should I lower negative offset to like 0.03125 or what settings do you guys use for 3900x pbo bug.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You should search the thread; there have been a lot reporting success with the 3900x.
> You probably need to use a much higher EDC between 16 and 25.
> Start with offset at 0 an test raising it.
> As with the offset, it really depends on your specific sample; it may not like a high scalar, start with 1x.
Click to expand...


----------



## makatech

Hmmmm, I got a huge boost with EDC = 1 on my Asus X370 Prime Pro board together with my 3700X, now suddenly scoring 5050 in multicore (Cinebench R20).

(I am running 5406 beta bios, Agesa 1.0.0.4B on my Asus X370 Prime Pro board)

What is EDC = 1 doing?

Is it true EDC = 1 disables the FIT table, thus the processor does not take into account the quality of the silicon when it adjusts voltage and more.

Could this negatively affect lifespan etc of the CPU? Some of you are mentioning c-states settings, I should verify these are disabled if running EDC = 1?


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Dyngsur said:


> Thanks, gonna try some but still dunno if I got a bad ex of the cpu, might return it and take another one.


If you have this feeling and you can, why not.



makatech said:


> Hmmmm, I got a huge boost with EDC = 1 on my Asus X370 Prime Pro board together with my 3700X, now suddenly scoring 5050 in multicore (Cinebench R20).
> 
> (I am running 5406 beta bios, Agesa 1.0.0.4B on my Asus X370 Prime Pro board)
> 
> What is EDC = 1 doing?
> 
> Is it true EDC = 1 disables the FIT table, thus the processor does not take into account the quality of the silicon when it adjusts voltage and more.
> 
> Could this negatively affect lifespan etc of the CPU? Some of you are mentioning c-states settings, I should verify these are disabled if running EDC = 1?


No it's not disabling it. Just works differently, allowing higher boost clocks and higher voltages.
Still working upon the FIT table but in a bit more unconstrained way.
The thermal protections are kicking in as without the EDC bug.
It's unlikely the bug affects lifespan much more than normal PBO vs stock.
Unless typical usage is P95 over 24/7 but then that would affect lifespan even with stock.

In some cases c-states must be disabled and also CnQ; depends on your setup.
If you see bench scores crashing, especially single thread, and core clocks stuck below normal then it's that.


----------



## zbug

ManniX-ITA said:


> Didn't test the latest Ryzen High Performance v6, the previous v5 was causing BSOD.
> I'm using Process Lasso with 1usmus base and Ultimate for specific applications.
> Ultimate gives me the best results but it's very stressing for the processor, keeps the VIDs almost always at 1.4-1.5v in idle.
> The Balanced is the worst performer of course.
> Try the Ryzen High Performance v6, latest chipset drivers.


Thanks for the input. I have actually been using the ryzen high performance so i'll stick to that 

slightly OT 
I am also using process lasso, have it set in Performance mode.
apps like icue etc like to hog a lot of cpu and use the first cores so i have them forced on all the latest threads/cores, is that good?
Do you also keep ProBalance on?
If you have any other good suggestions to get the best out of it + ryzen i'll be happy to hear  cheers!


----------



## makatech

ManniX-ITA said:


> If you have this feeling and you can, why not.
> 
> 
> 
> No it's not disabling it. Just works differently, allowing higher boost clocks and higher voltages.
> Still working upon the FIT table but in a bit more unconstrained way.
> The thermal protections are kicking in as without the EDC bug.
> It's unlikely the bug affects lifespan much more than normal PBO vs stock.
> Unless typical usage is P95 over 24/7 but then that would affect lifespan even with stock.
> 
> In some cases c-states must be disabled and also CnQ; depends on your setup.
> If you see bench scores crashing, especially single thread, and core clocks stuck below normal then it's that.


Hmmm, yes, I had poor single core score in Cinebench R20 with c-states enabled, back to normal when disabling it.

It is possible finding a sweetspot for EDC making it possible to still have c-states enabled? Many in this thread seem to have c-states enabled and still getting great single core scores?


----------



## ManniX-ITA

zbug said:


> Thanks for the input. I have actually been using the ryzen high performance so i'll stick to that
> 
> slightly OT
> I am also using process lasso, have it set in Performance mode.
> apps like icue etc like to hog a lot of cpu and use the first cores so i have them forced on all the latest threads/cores, is that good?
> Do you also keep ProBalance on?
> If you have any other good suggestions to get the best out of it + ryzen i'll be happy to hear  cheers!


Yes force as much as possible to use the latest cores, single ccx/ccd; I've almost all 8-15 on my 3800x.
But be careful about setting affinity for Windows services and components; critical not to force DWM and nVidia/AMD GPU drivers.
Designate carefully the process excluded from Probalance and those inducing Performance mode; otherwise you risk end up hindering performances instead.
I get a bit more speed with Ultimate power plan so that's what I use in Performance mode.



makatech said:


> Hmmm, yes, I had poor single core score in Cinebench R20 with c-states enabled, back to normal when disabling it.
> 
> It is possible finding a sweetspot for EDC making it possible to still have c-states enabled? Many in this thread seem to have c-states enabled and still getting great single core scores?


Sometimes but usually not. I didn't find any setting that could allow me to use c-states.


----------



## alasdairvfr

alasdairvfr said:


> Not having any luck with C6H trying this out.
> 
> Best config so far: I can hit CB20 7300 multicore just by setting vcore/soc offset by -0.1v, manual memory timings, all settings in PBO to auto/enabled.
> 
> Tried the EDC to 10-20, everything auto, scalar auto/2-10x... voltages 0.1-0.01 - offset maybe 15-20 combinations. It all has a negative effect, losing 5-7%.
> 
> 
> This board tends to overvolt even under load (pinned all cores would give 1.35v left to its own devices) and best effective clock/performance i can get is in the 4.1 all-core by leaving all the PBO menu settings on auto and the .1 undervolt.
> 
> Adjustment away from the 'best-config-so-far' either it clocks lower due to thermals or undervolt clock stretching (high core clock with low effective clock due to voltage starvation). I'm using an h110i aio and think that my performance is fine - just not receiving this "free lunch" from the EDC bug. Bios 7803. I'm not sure if theres an idiot switch i need to toggle to get this working



Gave up on edc bug for now but will keep checking this thread.

Manual oc 4.4/4.3 at 1.262v can get around 7780 cb20, which is great but ppl here seem to be getting close to what they can achieve manually oc'ing via edc bug.

I never disabled cstates maybe ill try that. Doing this tho might as well just lock voltage in and manually oc so whats the point.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

alasdairvfr said:


> Gave up on edc bug for now but will keep checking this thread.
> 
> Manual oc 4.4/4.3 at 1.262v can get around 7780 cb20, which is great but ppl here seem to be getting close to what they can achieve manually oc'ing via edc bug.
> 
> I never disabled cstates maybe ill try that. Doing this tho might as well just lock voltage in and manually oc so whats the point.


It's not the same, you should try with c-states disabled.
I'm actually very happy I got rid of it; only a source of lag and stuttering.
Never had much problems with Intel Speedstep, AMD stuff is still immature.

You will loose fine granularity of clocks and voltages; it's actually better, much less prone to stuttering and BSOD.
Core parking also is lost but with the EDC bug it's not affecting the max boost clock, quite the opposite.
Core un-parking it's noticeable and on the long run the lag when a process is assigned to a parked core gets annoying.

With the modded 1usmus power plan I have much lower temp and power consumption than I had with EDC at 0 and c-states on.


----------



## Dyngsur

ManniX-ITA said:


> alasdairvfr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gave up on edc bug for now but will keep checking this thread.
> 
> Manual oc 4.4/4.3 at 1.262v can get around 7780 cb20, which is great but ppl here seem to be getting close to what they can achieve manually oc'ing via edc bug.
> 
> I never disabled cstates maybe ill try that. Doing this tho might as well just lock voltage in and manually oc so whats the point.
> 
> 
> 
> It's not the same, you should try with c-states disabled.
> I'm actually very happy I got rid of it; only a source of lag and stuttering.
> Never had much problems with Intel Speedstep, AMD stuff is still immature.
> 
> You will loose fine granularity of clocks and voltages; it's actually better, much less prone to stuttering and BSOD.
> Core parking also is lost but with the EDC bug it's not affecting the max boost clock, quite the opposite.
> Core un-parking it's noticeable and on the long run the lag when a process is assigned to a parked core gets annoying.
> 
> With the modded 1usmus power plan I have much lower temp and power consumption than I had with EDC at 0 and c-states on.
Click to expand...

What modded powerplan do you use? Does it work with 3900x to?


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Dyngsur said:


> What modded powerplan do you use? Does it work with 3900x to?


1usmus Universal, modded following this post:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/eng1y8/ryzen_3700x_high_iddle_temps_and_fan_speed/

You have to replace the id with the one for 1usmus plan of course
Should work for 3900x as well


----------



## Alpi

https://valid.x86.fr/0ich4h
https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/3060178

Had some fun today !


----------



## KedarWolf

Did anyone get a 3950x and the PBO bug working on an MSI X570 board? I've had zero luck getting it to work, never goes above stock boosts around 4.1 GHz each core.


----------



## Alpi

4.1 is far from stock boost with a 3950X ! You should see much higher boosting cores even at very base, stock setup.


----------



## makatech

ManniX-ITA said:


> 1usmus Universal, modded following this post:
> 
> https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/eng1y8/ryzen_3700x_high_iddle_temps_and_fan_speed/
> 
> You have to replace the id with the one for 1usmus plan of course
> Should work for 3900x as well


Hmmm, tweaking the 1usmus Universal or AMD Ryzen High Performance profiles doesn't work at all for me. In Cinebench R20 I get awful multicore scores, my system can't handle it. ;-)

Anyway, 3700X on a Asus Prime X370 board.

Testing with Geekbench 5 right now, this is my best score so far but still testing and playing around:

Single core: 1332
Multicore: 10017

Using these settings:
ppt 122W
tdc 86
edc 10
100MHz
Scalar = 5x
auto throttle limit

Using AMD Ryzen High Performance from latest AMD chipset drivers.

C-states disabled

If anybody have any ideas for higher score I would appreciate it.


----------



## alasdairvfr

makatech said:


> Hmmm, tweaking the 1usmus Universal or AMD Ryzen High Performance profiles doesn't work at all for me. In Cinebench R20 I get awful multicore scores, my system can't handle it. ;-)
> 
> Anyway, 3700X on a Asus Prime X370 board.
> 
> Testing with Geekbench 5 right now, this is my best score so far but still testing and playing around:
> 
> Single core: 1332
> Multicore: 10017
> 
> Using these settings:
> ppt 122W
> tdc 86
> edc 10
> 100MHz
> Scalar = 5x
> auto throttle limit
> 
> Using AMD Ryzen High Performance from latest AMD chipset drivers.
> 
> C-states disabled
> 
> If anybody have any ideas for higher score I would appreciate it.


That's a good GB5 score for a 3700x, what you getting in CB20? Your temps and voltages in good shape?

I had to manually OC (new chip) to actually see what I can achieve on a good day. I had to rule out bad sand. EDC bug didn't do anything for me so far, I can get a reasonable CCX OC for my 3900XT - this is supposed to be binned so I'd be pissed if I couldn't. I didn't push it hard yet because I like to run [email protected] and running an intensive compute workload 24/7 isn't something you really want to do with a ridiculous OC. Temps and voltage at load, all that jazz.

Anyways, I realized that a manual OC to 4.4/4.3 @ 1.262v can yield me reasonable temps and about 4-500 points higher on CB20 than any combo of settings in the PBO menu. Tried EDC 1/10/15/20/25/etc with various values for the scalar, PPT and TDC including auto. Played with different voltages, no dice.
My BIOS is from last month though C6H 7803 so maybe this bug has been "patched"? I could probably get another 150-200mhz with a little more voltage (and heat) but can't be bothered. I really wanted this EDC bug to work, .

I have tried a few powerplans - you really want to reboot after changing as some settings don't really apply right away. The "ultimate" one works well for my OC but none of them, Windows/Ryzen/Ultimate did much to help or hinder PBO/EDC performance.

I am going to have another crack at it with 1usmus and c-states disabled as suggested by others in this thread. That and try to find out how far the chip can go by CCX/CCD and establish a target.


----------



## KedarWolf

Alpi said:


> 4.1 is far from stock boost with a 3950X ! You should see much higher boosting cores even at very base, stock setup.


This is with everything at default settings except LLC at 2. And memory overclocked. I manually set SoC etc. for the memory overclock though, while running Cinebench R20 I get 4.1GHz.


----------



## makatech

alasdairvfr said:


> That's a good GB5 score for a 3700x, what you getting in CB20? Your temps and voltages in good shape?
> 
> I had to manually OC (new chip) to actually see what I can achieve on a good day. I had to rule out bad sand. EDC bug didn't do anything for me so far, I can get a reasonable CCX OC for my 3900XT - this is supposed to be binned so I'd be pissed if I couldn't. I didn't push it hard yet because I like to run [email protected] and running an intensive compute workload 24/7 isn't something you really want to do with a ridiculous OC. Temps and voltage at load, all that jazz.
> 
> Anyways, I realized that a manual OC to 4.4/4.3 @ 1.262v can yield me reasonable temps and about 4-500 points higher on CB20 than any combo of settings in the PBO menu. Tried EDC 1/10/15/20/25/etc with various values for the scalar, PPT and TDC including auto. Played with different voltages, no dice.
> My BIOS is from last month though C6H 7803 so maybe this bug has been "patched"? I could probably get another 150-200mhz with a little more voltage (and heat) but can't be bothered. I really wanted this EDC bug to work, .
> 
> I have tried a few powerplans - you really want to reboot after changing as some settings don't really apply right away. The "ultimate" one works well for my OC but none of them, Windows/Ryzen/Ultimate did much to help or hinder PBO/EDC performance.
> 
> I am going to have another crack at it with 1usmus and c-states disabled as suggested by others in this thread. That and try to find out how far the chip can go by CCX/CCD and establish a target.


5065 in CB20 multi core.

Anyway, good benchmarks but system is not 100% stable and I don't have the energy to stabilize right now (it should be possible). Perhaps I need to play around with LLC settings or trying an offset value for auto vcore, maybe I will try again later but not now. ;-)

Only power plan which is working well for me when playing around with this and having c-states disabled is the AMD Ryzen High Performance. Balanced and the custom power plan giving me awful multicore performance.


----------



## KedarWolf

ManniX-ITA said:


> 1usmus Universal, modded following this post:
> 
> https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/eng1y8/ryzen_3700x_high_iddle_temps_and_fan_speed/
> 
> You have to replace the id with the one for 1usmus plan of course
> Should work for 3900x as well


I made a .bat file that does all that for you. Unzip it, run in PowerShell


Code:


powercfg -list

 get the GUID of the plan you want to tweak. 

Right-click on the .bat file, Edit, and change the 9897998c-92de-4669-853f-b7cd3ecb2790 to the GUID of the plan you want to set the tweaks.


----------



## Alpi

KedarWolf said:


> This is with everything at default settings except LLC at 2. And memory overclocked. I manually set SoC etc. for the memory overclock though, while running Cinebench R20 I get 4.1GHz.


Ahh, You mean under high, all-threaded loads ! There won't be much higher boost revealing, that's pretty normal behaviour. Temps and voltage what most defining the clocks there.
Try to neg. offsetting vcore and see how the performance changes more than the core clocks because sometimes You could be tricked by the clocks. Core consumptions should be close to each other. If You see a 4 core group starting to consume less, You have too low vcore. But finally I think You shouldn't bother too seriously if can't push really higher at full load because You have a serious powerful, 16 core cpu. Never would use such way at real life cases I think. If You have good boosts at lower loaded cases, I would accept that situation. 
(Cpu min. percent in the win power scheme settings should be checked ! If its at 99% it worth a try to set it lower. That could be harmful even to boosting)


----------



## Dyngsur

Shouldn't the SV12 voltage, be low when the cpu is idling? My Vcore is low but the SV12 voltage jumps around...3900xt.

C-states enable

The modified plan, doesn't work with higher EDC cause of its not made for that, atleats not for 3900x or xt, it works with edc 10 etc..but will start to throttle with higher EDC


----------



## Alpi

Just because the settings can be seen at the start. (Only benching after, not really interesting)


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Dyngsur said:


> Shouldn't the SV12 voltage, be low when the cpu is idling? My Vcore is low but the SV12 voltage jumps around...3900xt.
> 
> C-states enable
> 
> The modified plan, doesn't work with higher EDC cause of its not made for that, atleats not for 3900x or xt, it works with edc 10 etc..but will start to throttle with higher EDC


I didn't personally test with high EDC values but a lot of people uses with it.
It may not play well with global c-states enabled. Also you may have to find a good spot for min processor state, I have mine at 80%.
Also better to disable PCIe Link State PM and Hybrid-sleep.

My CPU vCore SVI2 doesn't fluctuate on Idle, stays 50mv below core VIDs.

What do you mean that it does throttle?


----------



## Dyngsur

ManniX-ITA said:


> I didn't personally test with high EDC values but a lot of people uses with it.
> It may not play well with global c-states enabled. Also you may have to find a good spot for min processor state, I have mine at 80%.
> Also better to disable PCIe Link State PM and Hybrid-sleep.
> 
> My CPU vCore SVI2 doesn't fluctuate on Idle, stays 50mv below core VIDs.
> 
> What do you mean that it does throttle?



yeah but i mean vcore voltage is very low but SV12 is higher, but maybe thats normal.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Dyngsur said:


> yeah but i mean vcore voltage is very low but SV12 is higher, but maybe thats normal.


Higher yes but not very much; 6-12mV.
This is how it looks on mine:


----------



## Dyngsur

ManniX-ITA said:


> Higher yes but not very much; 6-12mV.
> This is how it looks on mine:
> 
> View attachment 362440


I had to fix and trix some with win10 and powerplan etc, now with 3900xt with pbo bug i get around 7450 MT CR20, and around 540 in ST CR20.

Dunno if its good, but the best core is nr6, so I guess I got a ****ty ex and prolly gonna return it and try another one.


----------



## alasdairvfr

> I had to fix and trix some with win10 and powerplan etc, now with 3900xt with pbo bug i get around 7450 MT CR20, and around 540 in ST CR20.
> 
> Dunno if its good, but the best core is nr6, so I guess I got a ****ty ex and prolly gonna return it and try another one.


IDK if you got a bad example based on poor bug perf. I got nothing out of EDC bug so far but can push mine to 520/7900 on a per CCX oc. I'm hearing EDC bug doesnt work well for the xt


----------



## Dyngsur

alasdairvfr said:


> IDK if you got a bad example based on poor bug perf. I got nothing out of EDC bug so far but can push mine to 520/7900 on a per CCX oc. I'm hearing EDC bug doesnt work well for the xt


could you give me a headstart by sharing your settings?


----------



## alasdairvfr

Dyngsur said:


> could you give me a headstart by sharing your settings?


Sorry for late reply, after work I ended up cloning my SSD to a bigger one and ran into some weird issues! fkn computers heh... 

So if you have been really deep in all kinds of different configs, I'd suggest you greenfield with an old fashioned flashback. Especially in the days of Zen pstate OC on my board, the settings would often do weird things.


I did manual per CCX OC and have achieved a reasonably cool and stable 44-45-43-43 at 1.262 however I did get to 45-45-44-43 1.275 for almost decent temps, just sustained blender caused it to linger in the 90s after like 5 min. I think better cooling and airflow, maybe LM on the IHS I could do it. I find anything after 4.2ghz the voltage for stability becomes geometric, thus the ability to sustain full throttle at such frequencies is limited by thermals.

My recommendation for a starting point:
Memory - (Do NOT use DOCP/XMP nonsense) set timings manually and start with the clocks that come on the package, I use the Ryzen DRAM calc to boost mine up with the tightest timings suggested by a little bit. But stick with stock to get a solid system before worrying about memory
VCORE - Set to 1.2x - 1.3 manual. I started lower to see what clock I could get and work up, you could start higher and see how low you can go. I think I set to 1.28v for my first attempt
SoC - I set to 1.05v
CCX - You may already know which chiplet is the stronger one so I'd start giving 100-150 above the weaker side and keep em even for simplicity. (i.e. 44-44-41.5-41.5)
(thats it)

Then what I do is run benches; seems solid either raise clocks or lower voltage. I like to have a baseline where I can run [email protected] using 33% CPU hovering around 70C.

I am getting about 7850 CB20 multi and 520 SC at the 1.262v. The slightly higher clock/voltage I mentioned above I was over 7900; I might be able to push it over 8000 but that config would have me worried for thermals on any sustained workload. If I run Blender or anything intensive for like 10m I'll see mid 80s now but I haven't done and HPC workloads in years on a local PC, so 10 mins of torture is my happy place. I like the cores for VMs and insane multitasking but I am not one to pin my CPU @ 100% for hours on end.


----------



## Dyngsur

alasdairvfr said:


> Sorry for late reply, after work I ended up cloning my SSD to a bigger one and ran into some weird issues! fkn computers heh...
> 
> So if you have been really deep in all kinds of different configs, I'd suggest you greenfield with an old fashioned flashback. Especially in the days of Zen pstate OC on my board, the settings would often do weird things.
> 
> 
> I did manual per CCX OC and have achieved a reasonably cool and stable 44-45-43-43 at 1.262 however I did get to 45-45-44-43 1.275 for almost decent temps, just sustained blender caused it to linger in the 90s after like 5 min. I think better cooling and airflow, maybe LM on the IHS I could do it. I find anything after 4.2ghz the voltage for stability becomes geometric, thus the ability to sustain full throttle at such frequencies is limited by thermals.
> 
> My recommendation for a starting point:
> Memory - (Do NOT use DOCP/XMP nonsense) set timings manually and start with the clocks that come on the package, I use the Ryzen DRAM calc to boost mine up with the tightest timings suggested by a little bit. But stick with stock to get a solid system before worrying about memory
> VCORE - Set to 1.2x - 1.3 manual. I started lower to see what clock I could get and work up, you could start higher and see how low you can go. I think I set to 1.28v for my first attempt
> SoC - I set to 1.05v
> CCX - You may already know which chiplet is the stronger one so I'd start giving 100-150 above the weaker side and keep em even for simplicity. (i.e. 44-44-41.5-41.5)
> (thats it)
> 
> Then what I do is run benches; seems solid either raise clocks or lower voltage. I like to have a baseline where I can run [email protected] using 33% CPU hovering around 70C.
> 
> I am getting about 7850 CB20 multi and 520 SC at the 1.262v. The slightly higher clock/voltage I mentioned above I was over 7900; I might be able to push it over 8000 but that config would have me worried for thermals on any sustained workload. If I run Blender or anything intensive for like 10m I'll see mid 80s now but I haven't done and HPC workloads in years on a local PC, so 10 mins of torture is my happy place. I like the cores for VMs and insane multitasking but I am not one to pin my CPU @ 100% for hours on end.



Thanks a lot. 
Do you change everything in Bios or do you use ryzenmaster as some does? 

I dont like ryzen master, its buggy and can **** up bios.


----------



## alasdairvfr

Dyngsur said:


> Thanks a lot.
> Do you change everything in Bios or do you use ryzenmaster as some does?
> 
> I dont like ryzen master, its buggy and can **** up bios.


Agreed. I do it all via BIOS


----------



## Medizinmann

Dyngsur said:


> I had to fix and trix some with win10 and powerplan etc, now with 3900xt with pbo bug i get around 7450 MT CR20, and around 540 in ST CR20.
> 
> Dunno if its good, but the best core is nr6, so I guess I got a ****ty ex and prolly gonna return it and try another one.


First of all - did you deactivate background Windows clutter when benching? Kill processes like i.e. Skype. Edge and Yourphone.exe...

Set priority of CB20 to high.

Try a very slight OC on BCLK like 100,5 Mhz.

Using PBO I get 7700-7750ish scores with my 3900x using EDC 1, PPT 230, TDC 160, Scalar 5x and an Offset -0.0125V. C states enabled by the way…

I never took the patients to run SC on CB20 lately – I remember numbers around 530 with old AGESA before EDC-bug– I use z-Bench right now and get around 557-566 in SC.

And cooling, cooling, cooling!

Best regards,
Medizinmann


----------



## makatech

Asus X370 Prime pro (new bios 5601)
CPU 3700X
RAM 3600 MT/s

AIO: Corsair Hydro Series H115i RGB Platinum
(thinking about reinstalling the AIO, it's a good one though).

I am only getting good results running AMD High Performance profile and c-states disabled.

Single core performance is not good with other energy profiles or with c-states enabled which is confusing me. I should be able to run other energy profile but so far getting worse results.

ppt 122W
tdc 86
edc 9
100MHz
Scalar = 5x
auto throttle limit

c-states: disabled
energy mode: AMD High Performance

Geekbench 5:
Single core: 1340
Multicore: 10178

Cinebench R20:
Single core: 513
Multicore: 5117

I get almost 10200 in Geekbench 5 if running EDC 9 but then single core performance is suffering.


----------



## RWBY FNDM

Only way I can score 5K is in Safe Mode, priority to highest. 

Only boosts to 4.14ghz. I’ve tried messing around with this edc big. No avail


----------



## Yuke

Fixed my random crashes/reboots at idle by changing my Skalar from 10 to 6.

Maybe useful information for someone with similar problems.


Final Specs with F20 BIOS:

- Voltage/LLC: Auto
- EDC:1
- PBT/TDC: uncapped
- Skalar: 6
- Overdrive: +150Mhz
- C&Q: Disabled

Gonna do some final benches when my room temp isn't 33°C anymore...


----------



## Martin778

Going back to normal PBO, breaking EDC does bad things to core voltage under extreme loads like SmallFFT AVX2. Normal PBO limits it to 1.28Vcore @ ~3900MHz at 1.28-1.29V and dropping further to 3.85GHz @ 1.25V as the temperature creeps up but with EDC=40 bug it tries to go 1.36-1.40V and cook the CPU, shooting up to 95*C right away.


----------



## jcpq

A doubt
Should these settings, on an asus motherboard, be applied to the Ai Tweaker tab or Advanced?


----------



## Fight Game

theres 3 places to do it in my bios. I've seen it suggested, and I myself, always just leave 2 of them alone, and only do it via the cbs or whatever in the advanced


----------



## Martin778

Yes, only in AMD CBS.


----------



## Yuke

Yuke said:


> Fixed my random crashes/reboots at idle by changing my Skalar from 10 to 6.
> 
> Maybe useful information for someone with similar problems.
> 
> 
> Final Specs with F20 BIOS:
> 
> - Voltage/LLC: Auto
> - EDC:1
> - PBT/TDC: uncapped
> - Skalar: 6
> - Overdrive: +150Mhz
> - C&Q: Disabled
> 
> Gonna do some final benches when my room temp isn't 33°C anymore...


Well, took me longer because of heatwave and still having idle crashes once a week. It seems that i have a core that is totally at the limit, so i changed Skalar back to Auto to be finally ******* done with it (i mean *** we are already close to Zen3 release and i am still trying to figure this **** out).

But whatever, performance hit wasn't that hard after switching to Auto. Lost a bit of single core score but other than that it seems okay.

24°C ambient temperature:

PBO scaling seems good as ever. CB20 score between 4.3Ghz and 4.35Ghz all Core OC and P95 small FFTs boosting up to 4.2 Ghz. 

Fingers crossed that random reboot is fixed now.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

I have just upgraded my niece's PC with a 3600XT on an ASUS TUF Gaming B550-Plus.
Nice board wasn't for the ASUS BIOS... 
Did want to compare with my GB X570 Master.
The ASUS while not being perfect is much better, almost every aspect.

Impressive how smooth and snappy is the system while being less than half spec than mine.
Dunno if it's the B550 against the X570... the SATA bug is fixed indeed, boot is from an old 840 EVO and it rocks.

At first I had ordered a plain 3600 since this PC will inherit my 3800X sooner.
But it was a real shame, pouring heat like hell 50-70 in idle with low voltage.
Not terrible in performances but skyrocketing to 90c at full load below 4ghz.
I tried to re-use an AIO kit Eisabaer LT but it the pump was faulty.
So I went for the 3600XT and bought a Corsair H115i Platinum.

Not a bad tandem; Balanced profile keeps it at 75c at full load.
This is with an optimized configuration with PBO Auto and ASUS Perf Enhancement, etc.
The max boosts are in excess of 4.5 GHz, RM ccx max is 4.825 but I've never seen it above 4.625.
All core can sustain OCCT for 1 minute at 4.4 GHz and then drops to regular 4.2-4.3 GHz.

It's not a bad performer at all and scores in CB20 about 520/3860.
The only defect is the IF bus limit at 1733 MHz.
Didn't want to send back this one too so I kept it anyway.
The only real problem with this ASUS board is I couldn't find any way to alter the VCORE voltage.
Any change and it doesn't boot; I can't be sure till there's a new BIOS.

I did try some other PBO configurations and I always got worse results than just all in Auto.
Obviously I tried also the PBO bug and it kinda works but with a drawback.
The Single Thread score goes a little up, from CB20 520 to 529.
The CB20 MT score goes much lower, from 3800 to 3600.

Couldn't find any way to at least regain the lost perf in MT.
Wonder if anyone with with CPU/Board has some hints.


----------



## Dyngsur

ManniX-ITA said:


> I have just upgraded my niece's PC with a 3600XT on an ASUS TUF Gaming B550-Plus.
> Nice board wasn't for the ASUS BIOS...
> Did want to compare with my GB X570 Master.
> The ASUS while not being perfect is much better, almost every aspect.
> 
> Impressive how smooth and snappy is the system while being less than half spec than mine.
> Dunno if it's the B550 against the X570... the SATA bug is fixed indeed, boot is from an old 840 EVO and it rocks.
> 
> At first I had ordered a plain 3600 since this PC will inherit my 3800X sooner.
> But it was a real shame, pouring heat like hell 50-70 in idle with low voltage.
> Not terrible in performances but skyrocketing to 90c at full load below 4ghz.
> I tried to re-use an AIO kit Eisabaer LT but it the pump was faulty.
> So I went for the 3600XT and bought a Corsair H115i Platinum.
> 
> Not a bad tandem; Balanced profile keeps it at 75c at full load.
> This is with an optimized configuration with PBO Auto and ASUS Perf Enhancement, etc.
> The max boosts are in excess of 4.5 GHz, RM ccx max is 4.825 but I've never seen it above 4.625.
> All core can sustain OCCT for 1 minute at 4.4 GHz and then drops to regular 4.2-4.3 GHz.
> 
> It's not a bad performer at all and scores in CB20 about 520/3860.
> The only defect is the IF bus limit at 1733 MHz.
> Didn't want to send back this one too so I kept it anyway.
> The only real problem with this ASUS board is I couldn't find any way to alter the VCORE voltage.
> Any change and it doesn't boot; I can't be sure till there's a new BIOS.
> 
> I did try some other PBO configurations and I always got worse results than just all in Auto.
> Obviously I tried also the PBO bug and it kinda works but with a drawback.
> The Single Thread score goes a little up, from CB20 520 to 529.
> The CB20 MT score goes much lower, from 3800 to 3600.
> 
> Couldn't find any way to at least regain the lost perf in MT.
> Wonder if anyone with with CPU/Board has some hints.


Hey, tried edc bug aswell with 3900xt, they act strange compared vs the normal ones. 
You have to change ppt, tdc to lowe values than normal and change edc to maybe a different value than before, the XT versions doesnt give u much headroom with edc bug and can be tricky to get it to work.
You will be throttling so you might need to use a different powerplan aswell and see wich one that works the best.

I gave up with the edc bug on my xt! I didnt earn so much for it to be worth it! More headache than fun!

So the thing that worked the best for me was to undervolt it alot, and change PPT, TDC and EDC to values that will be around 75-80% for PPT, TDC 75-80% and EDC 99,8-100% when running CR20 MT that made the boost better and was trying to have the cpu temps around 70 degree celcius for best performance! 

With edc bug more heat, better mt scores but throttling at st atleast for my 3900xt!


----------



## Fight Game

again, as stated several times, and not sure if you did or not, but for many, the pbo bug trick only works with c-states, aka cool n' quiet turned off


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Dyngsur said:


> Hey, tried edc bug aswell with 3900xt, they act strange compared vs the normal ones.
> You have to change ppt, tdc to lowe values than normal and change edc to maybe a different value than before, the XT versions doesnt give u much headroom with edc bug and can be tricky to get it to work.
> You will be throttling so you might need to use a different powerplan aswell and see wich one that works the best.
> 
> I gave up with the edc bug on my xt! I didnt earn so much for it to be worth it! More headache than fun!
> 
> So the thing that worked the best for me was to undervolt it alot, and change PPT, TDC and EDC to values that will be around 75-80% for PPT, TDC 75-80% and EDC 99,8-100% when running CR20 MT that made the boost better and was trying to have the cpu temps around 70 degree celcius for best performance!
> 
> With edc bug more heat, better mt scores but throttling at st atleast for my 3900xt!


Thanks, I remember your feedback and was expecting something similar.
Instead for me worse MT scores and no throttling at all with SC.
Not sure if it's the 3600XT or the mainboard but I suspect more the board...

Adjusting PPT/TDC does not help, only gets worse at some point.
But it's the same behavior also without the bug.
The system is pretty smooth and snappy but not a champion of performances.
CB20 MT at 3800 is right where it should be without PBO from what I've seen.
Hopefully a new BIOS will improve it.



Fight Game said:


> again, as stated several times, and not sure if you did or not, but for many, the pbo bug trick only works with c-states, aka cool n' quiet turned off


Thanks, I did check. On this system C States can be enabled without issues or throttling.

Wondering, did anyone tried the 1usmus RTC tool with the EDC bug?


----------



## Medizinmann

ManniX-ITA said:


> Thanks, I remember your feedback and was expecting something similar.
> Instead for me worse MT scores and no throttling at all with SC.
> Not sure if it's the 3600XT or the mainboard but I suspect more the board...
> 
> Adjusting PPT/TDC does not help, only gets worse at some point.
> But it's the same behavior also without the bug.
> The system is pretty smooth and snappy but not a champion of performances.
> CB20 MT at 3800 is right where it should be without PBO from what I've seen.
> Hopefully a new BIOS will improve it.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks, I did check. On this system C States can be enabled without issues or throttling.
> 
> Wondering, did anyone tried the 1usmus RTC tool with the EDC bug?


Do you mean this one?

https://wccftech.com/1usmus-unveils-clocktuner-performance-boosting-utility-for-amd-ryzen-3000-cpus/

AFAIK it isn't publicly available yet….LTT made a video about it, but didn't really go in depth...

Best regards,
Medizinmann


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Medizinmann said:


> Do you mean this one?
> 
> https://wccftech.com/1usmus-unveils-clocktuner-performance-boosting-utility-for-amd-ryzen-3000-cpus/
> 
> AFAIK it isn't publicly available yet….LTT made a video about it, but didn't really go in depth...
> 
> Best regards,
> Medizinmann


Yes this one, I have seen the LTT video and thought more reviewers got their hands on it.
But so far couldn't find nothing more.


----------



## Dyngsur

ManniX-ITA said:


> Thanks, I remember your feedback and was expecting something similar.
> Instead for me worse MT scores and no throttling at all with SC.
> Not sure if it's the 3600XT or the mainboard but I suspect more the board...
> 
> Adjusting PPT/TDC does not help, only gets worse at some point.
> But it's the same behavior also without the bug.
> The system is pretty smooth and snappy but not a champion of performances.
> CB20 MT at 3800 is right where it should be without PBO from what I've seen.
> Hopefully a new BIOS will improve it.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks, I did check. On this system C States can be enabled without issues or throttling.
> 
> Wondering, did anyone tried the 1usmus RTC tool with the EDC bug?



Yeah, the XT versions aint clocking good with edc bugg, I stopped using it cause of throttling etc, I did manage to get it to work okey! but 200 more MT scores aint worth all the hassle for trying to set it up with different powerplan etc etc! My 3900xt does 44.50,44.50,43.50,43.50 @ 1.256 vcore voltage or an allcore 44 @ same voltage so then i boost my MT scores a bit 

I managed to break 8000 in CR20 MT @1.275 vcore wich is nice but now I just use regular PBO with tweaked settings!

But when 1usumus new tool releases then I will se what that can do compared what I have done, I dont expect much more benefits at all but I guess the tool is nice for people that dont wanna spend hours of testing/tweaking etc.


----------



## Martin778

I had the same experience on 3960X, MT increased, ST decreased and it was pumping too much voltage to the CPU.


----------



## Joseph_89

Wrong Thread. Sry guys.


----------



## Snoop05

Setting EDC to 1 (or other value) doesnt affect PPT and TDC so boosting is still limited by those, but setting VddcrVddfull_Scale_Current to 0 will disable TDC completely (it even disappears for HWiNFO64) and also minimizes reported PPT to very small values so in combination with the EDC bug this is effectively no power limits, even allows Prime95 AVX2/FMA3 128K FFT inplace to pull in excess of 160W and holding 4.2GHz on my 3900X (no offset, just droopy LLC), and after suffocating the AIO intake, it still held over 4GHz till it reached 95C and shut down. Setting the Platform throttle limit to 90C is effective workaround to prevent such behavior.

It is also very consistent compared to setting PBO limits the usual way. For me doing that was very random as in i could have the same settings and get vastly different performance results depending on rng at the time of saving bios. Rebooting/powering off wouldnt change if the state it was in, entering bios to just save and exist could get it to work (again randomly, 1 out of 3 tries usually). But just EDC and the fullscale current was working consistently every time so far. - PBO Scalar still works

Btw board is Asrock B550 PG ITX/ax, BIOS P1.20 (AGESA Combo-AM4 V2 1.0.8.0 Patch A)

I also noticed there are some interesting settings not visible in the bios called Curve optimizer for tweaking the V/F curve, i will try to mod the bios to unlock it and play with that too.


----------



## Dyngsur

Snoop05 said:


> Setting EDC to 1 (or other value) doesnt affect PPT and TDC so boosting is still limited by those, but setting VddcrVddfull_Scale_Current to 0 will disable TDC completely (it even disappears for HWiNFO64) and also minimizes reported PPT to very small values so in combination with the EDC bug this is effectively no power limits, even allows Prime95 AVX2/FMA3 128K FFT inplace to pull in excess of 160W and holding 4.2GHz on my 3900X (no offset, just droopy LLC), and after suffocating the AIO intake, it still held over 4GHz till it reached 95C and shut down. Setting the Platform throttle limit to 90C is effective workaround to prevent such behavior.
> 
> It is also very consistent compared to setting PBO limits the usual way. For me doing that was very random as in i could have the same settings and get vastly different performance results depending on rng at the time of saving bios. Rebooting/powering off wouldnt change if the state it was in, entering bios to just save and exist could get it to work (again randomly, 1 out of 3 tries usually). But just EDC and the fullscale current was working consistently every time so far. - PBO Scalar still works
> 
> Btw board is Asrock B550 PG ITX/ax, BIOS P1.20 (AGESA Combo-AM4 V2 1.0.8.0 Patch A)
> 
> I also noticed there are some interesting settings not visible in the bios called Curve optimizer for tweaking the V/F curve, i will try to mod the bios to unlock it and play with that too.


Interesting reading, but what do mean with "VddcrVddfull_Scale_Current to 0" is this a bios settings somewhere?


----------



## Snoop05

Yes, that variable is used for adjusting current draw reported from VRM measurements to the CPU, Asrock leave the option accesible in AMD PBS menu. (for SoC as well)

"Power reporting deviation" should ring a bell (when its not properly set by the mobo vendor)


----------



## Fight Game

any idea where this setting is, or what its called in an asus bios


----------



## Dyngsur

Snoop05 said:


> Yes, that variable is used for adjusting current draw reported from VRM measurements to the CPU, Asrock leave the option accesible in AMD PBS menu. (for SoC as well)
> 
> "Power reporting deviation" should ring a bell (when its not properly set by the mobo vendor)



hmm okey, gonna check that one out! 

But what does it do exactly for the cpu?

For example my 3900Xt with a negativ offset -0.1, I use PPT 185, TDC 120 and EDC 165. Scalar *5 with 50Mhz overide boost.

CR20 Mt run around 7400-7500 with those settings.

Any benefits what I can achive.


----------



## jcpq

My 3700X


----------



## Yuke

Its me again, the guy that had the weird Idle/light load crashes with EDC=1.

I let my PC idle over the past three days (whole night and half the day) and i am happy to report that so far my Issue seems to be resolved.

Hopefully final stats:


Power Supply Idle Mode: Typical
C-State Control: Enabled
AMD CnQ: Disabled


CPU-Voltage: -0.03125
CPU-LLC: High
CPU-VCore Protection: 400mV
CPU-VCORE SOC Protection: 400mV
CPU Vcore Current Protection: Extreme
PWM Phase Control: Extreme


EDC=1, TDC = 0, PPT = 0
Skalar: 6
Overdrive: +200Mhz

CB20 Benchmark ("Bloaty" system with Discord, Wallpaper-Engine, RGB-Fusion) 22°C ambient, Day1 3800X


----------



## Yuke

Yuke said:


> Its me again, the guy that had the weird Idle/light load crashes with EDC=1.
> 
> I let my PC idle over the past three days (whole night and half the day) and i am happy to report that so far my Issue seems to be resolved.
> 
> Hopefully final stats:
> 
> 
> Power Supply Idle Mode: Typical
> C-State Control: Enabled
> AMD CnQ: Disabled
> 
> 
> CPU-Voltage: -0.03125
> CPU-LLC: High
> CPU-VCore Protection: 400mV
> CPU-VCORE SOC Protection: 400mV
> CPU Vcore Current Protection: Extreme
> PWM Phase Control: Extreme
> 
> 
> EDC=1, TDC = 0, PPT = 0
> Skalar: 6
> Overdrive: +200Mhz
> CB20 Benchmark ("Bloaty" system with Discord, Wallpaper-Engine, RGB-Fusion) 22°C ambient, Day1 3800X
> 
> View attachment 2460044


Today is cold as ****. 18°C ambient. Took the opportunity and cramped up my Noctua fans to 1400RPM. Results are disgustingly good. This is similar to setting your GPU under water...


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Yuke said:


> Today is cold as ****. 18°C ambient. Took the opportunity and cramped up my Noctua fans to 1400RPM. Results are disgustingly good. This is similar to setting your GPU under water...
> 
> View attachment 2460107


Nice score 
You can probably get something more fine-tuning PPT/TDC instead of default values.
Give it a try with 135/90. Experiment with bit higher/lower values to find the perfect spot.


----------



## Yuke

ManniX-ITA said:


> Nice score
> You can probably get something more fine-tuning PPT/TDC instead of default values.
> Give it a try with 135/90. Experiment with bit higher/lower values to find the perfect spot.


Is there any benefit of limiting those if i didn't see any form of throttle?


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Yuke said:


> Is there any benefit of limiting those if i didn't see any form of throttle?


Yes there is a lot.
With the right settings the performances will likely be higher, up to 100-200 points more in CB20 MT.
Depends on your CPU sample and setup with the right conditions works.
With your setup which seems quite brilliant it can be rewarding.
PBO scales up throughput according to a curve defined by PPT/TDC/EDC; you give the right parameters it will settle at the highest efficient spot.


----------



## Yuke

ManniX-ITA said:


> Yes there is a lot.
> With the right settings the performances will likely be higher, up to 100-200 points more in CB20 MT.
> Depends on your CPU sample and setup with the right conditions works.
> With your setup which seems quite brilliant it can be rewarding.
> PBO scales up throughput according to a curve defined by PPT/TDC/EDC; you give the right parameters it will settle at the highest efficient spot.


Interesting. 

I dont know about the "brilliant" part but it sure is temperature sensitive...

I remember that i could not get a 4.4Ghz all core OC to boot with less than 1.46V.

I will try out TDC/EDC values after i confirmed stability in idle with 100% certainty, not gonna take any chances there anymore...


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Yuke said:


> Interesting.
> 
> I dont know about the "brilliant" part but it sure is temperature sensitive...
> 
> I remember that i could not get a 4.4Ghz all core OC to boot with less than 1.46V.
> 
> I will try out TDC/EDC values after i confirmed stability in idle with 100% certainty, not gonna take any chances there anymore...


Well, over 5300 is a very good result! 
I have a Dark Rock Pro 4 and could never go beyond ~5250.
I'm scoring around 5210 now with full speed and 5150-5180 with the silent profile.
These are results above the average, means with a good cooling PBO can drive your CPU very well.

The all core OC seems a bit off considering how PBO scores.
But it's a whole different story if different variables and the AGESA version plays a crucial role.
With the latest AGESA versions I have problems too with 4.4/4.3 per-ccx; need a lot of voltage and it gets really hot.
But I remember with F7b version I could get it working at less than 1.4v with much more reasonable temperatures.

Yes, first check it's really stable.
Then I really recommend to try your luck with the limits 

A lot of people reported good results like mine.
I think I couldn't get past 5050 something with default values.
Yours is probably already around the right values but fine-tuning can be worth, it is usually.

Take a note with different settings not only about CB20 MT score.
Run it again afterwards with HWInfo open.
While in the middle of the rendering take note of the Core VID voltages, die temperature, CPU package power, CPU TDC/EDC amperes.
You'll get a picture on what are/if there are effects changing the limits.


----------



## Yuke

ManniX-ITA said:


> Well, over 5300 is a very good result!
> I have a Dark Rock Pro 4 and could never go beyond ~5250.
> I'm scoring around 5210 now with full speed and 5150-5180 with the silent profile.
> These are results above the average, means with a good cooling PBO can drive your CPU very well.
> 
> The all core OC seems a bit off considering how PBO scores.
> But it's a whole different story if different variables and the AGESA version plays a crucial role.
> With the latest AGESA versions I have problems too with 4.4/4.3 per-ccx; need a lot of voltage and it gets really hot.
> But I remember with F7b version I could get it working at less than 1.4v with much more reasonable temperatures.
> 
> Yes, first check it's really stable.
> Then I really recommend to try your luck with the limits
> 
> A lot of people reported good results like mine.
> I think I couldn't get past 5050 something with default values.
> Yours is probably already around the right values but fine-tuning can be worth, it is usually.
> 
> Take a note with different settings not only about CB20 MT score.
> Run it again afterwards with HWInfo open.
> While in the middle of the rendering take note of the Core VID voltages, die temperature, CPU package power, CPU TDC/EDC amperes.
> You'll get a picture on what are/if there are effects changing the limits.


Silent profile with normal ambient is also around 5180-5210 for me (see yesterdays benchmark). Today is just very cold. 10°C outside, 17°C in my room (bad insulation). I also cranked up fans to 1400rpm, which i normally wouldnt run, like ever....but was suprised to see the performance gains for sure.


----------



## kuutale

Asus crosshair viii pbo fmax feature from TheStilt do same things, but i think single core performance is much better than bug and thermals


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Have the feeling ASUS studied the EDC bug and made a feature of it 
Not being compatible with it looks like a strong hint in this direction...
Hopefully more manufacturers will follow the steps.
Too early to say but I didn't see direct improvements in performances but better thermals instead of worse.
Which will inevitably result in better performances if the cooling is a constraint.


----------



## zbug

Anyone around here with an X470 board (maybe prime pro) and a 3900x with all latest windows updates etc able to hit 4700mhz boost? I "think" ever since the latest win updates, I have never been able to hit above 4675 now, even with the colder temps


----------



## rambosbff

I'll have to try this, I've been frustrated with PBO in general. I have a 3800x. I have messed around with overclocking the ccx's at different values and have found something that is solid somehow. I'm at 4425 on ccx0 and 4400 on ccx1 @ 1.275v. I crash at 4475 on ccx0 with this voltage, so I backed off the frequency a bit. This has been way more successful for me so far then messing with PBO. Thoughts?!


----------



## ManniX-ITA

rambosbff said:


> I'll have to try this, I've been frustrated with PBO in general. I have a 3800x. I have messed around with overclocking the ccx's at different values and have found something that is solid somehow. I'm at 4425 on ccx0 and 4400 on ccx1 @ 1.275v. I crash at 4475 on ccx0 with this voltage, so I backed off the frequency a bit. This has been way more successful for me so far then messing with PBO. Thoughts?!
> 
> View attachment 2461440


It's a good result.
I can do the same but I need 1.380v for my 3800x...
Problem is the single core which is going to suffer considerably.


----------



## rambosbff

ManniX-ITA said:


> It's a good result.
> I can do the same but I need 1.380v for my 3800x...
> Problem is the single core which is going to suffer considerably.


It will suffer because single core can boost to 4600? I don't play any single core games atm, so I'm pretty happy with these settings.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

rambosbff said:


> It will suffer because single core can boost to 4600? I don't play any single core games atm, so I'm pretty happy with these settings.


If you don't care about single core performances is better for multithreaded and more stable


----------



## rambosbff

ManniX-ITA said:


> If you don't care about single core performances is better for multithreaded and more stable


For sure, I'm curious though. Are you saying without this setup a single core could clock higher than 4425?


----------



## ManniX-ITA

rambosbff said:


> For sure, I'm curious though. Are you saying without this setup a single core could clock higher than 4425?


Sure depends on the workload.
Under very light workloads my 3800x can keep up to 4500-4550 MHz sustained.
Mostly will drop around 4400-4450 MHz.

But don't forget this is a Ryzen, it's not like an Intel where IPC is 1:1 with clock speed.
PBO can get better performances than manual overclocking at the same clocks.
But it's "enhancing" only for light threaded workloads while hand braking the multi core workload.


----------



## Yuke

rambosbff said:


> It will suffer because single core can boost to 4600? I don't play any single core games atm, so I'm pretty happy with these settings.


Its a no brainer at that voltage. Just stick with it...i would need 1.38V to get a 4.4Ghz all core OC CB20 stable. PBO/EDC is my only option...


----------



## Yuke

rambosbff said:


> For sure, I'm curious though. Are you saying without this setup a single core could clock higher than 4425?


In games like Borderlands3, that have decent multicore support, i am averaging around 4400-4450 but with higher boostclocks to 4600...so basically no difference to your OC.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Yuke said:


> In games like Borderlands3, that have decent multicore support, i am averaging around 4400-4450 but with higher boostclocks to 4600...so basically no difference to your OC.
> 
> View attachment 2461549


To check your sustained boost clock (which is different from the peak boost clock) you need to use CPU-z and monitor the Effective Clock counters.

Set the CPU-z threads to 2 and start a Stress Test (not Bench).

My sustained boost clock is 4500 MHz on 2 cores at 1.456-1.463V.
With 4 threads is 4466MHz, 6 threads starts at 4415 MHz and goes down to 4400 MHz due to thermal limits.

Consider that a game with a decent multithreading is almost never using more than 1-2 cores at 100%.
Very few games are using more than 6-8 cores and above 4 usually half of them at 50%.

When I'm playing a game usually the clocks are at around 4500-4525, down to 4400-4450 under load.
Doesn't seem much but as I said clock =! IPC; it feels much better for gaming.

My sample too is really bad so with static OC I'm forced to use at least 1.360-1.380v.
The temperatures are much higher than PBO and the risks running AVX workloads is pretty high.
With PBO it goes down to 4150 MHz and 1.250v when needed.


----------



## Yuke

ManniX-ITA said:


> To check your sustained boost clock (which is different from the peak boost clock) you need to use CPU-z and monitor the Effective Clock counters.
> 
> Set the CPU-z threads to 2 and start a Stress Test (not Bench).
> 
> My sustained boost clock is 4500 MHz on 2 cores at 1.456-1.463V.
> With 4 threads is 4466MHz, 6 threads starts at 4415 MHz and goes down to 4400 MHz due to thermal limits.
> 
> Consider that a game with a decent multithreading is almost never using more than 1-2 cores at 100%.
> Very few games are using more than 6-8 cores and above 4 usually half of them at 50%.
> 
> When I'm playing a game usually the clocks are at around 4500-4525, down to 4400-4450 under load.
> Doesn't seem much but as I said clock =! IPC; it feels much better for gaming.
> 
> My sample too is really bad so with static OC I'm forced to use at least 1.360-1.380v.
> The temperatures are much higher than PBO and the risks running AVX workloads is pretty high.
> With PBO it goes down to 4150 MHz and 1.250v when needed.
> 
> 
> View attachment 2461551


Hmm for me its:

2: 4473
4: 4447
6: 4423
8: 4382

:/


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Yuke said:


> Hmm for me its:
> 
> 2: 4473
> 4: 4447
> 6: 4423
> 8: 4382
> 
> :/


Did you compare the Core VIDs?
Maybe you need a slight bump.


----------



## Yuke

ManniX-ITA said:


> Did you compare the Core VIDs?
> Maybe you need a slight bump.


hmmm, yes, im way below the VID. Maybe i should to Turbo LLC from High.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Yuke said:


> hmmm, yes, im way below the VID. Maybe i should to Turbo LLC from High.


Maybe but it could be a little too strong.
On "idle", very little load before dropping 1.000v, my cores are ranging from 1.456v to 1.500v, with an average of 1.488v.
If it doesn't work try a little bump with the offset.
Could be the Scalar? I'm at 10x maybe yours is lower.


----------



## Yuke

ManniX-ITA said:


> Maybe but it could be a little too strong.
> On "idle", very little load before dropping 1.000v, my cores are ranging from 1.456v to 1.500v, with an average of 1.488v.
> If it doesn't work try a little bump with the offset.
> Could be the Scalar? I'm at 10x maybe yours is lower.


Hmm, i just matched VID and SVI2 when testing but things didnt change. My best guess is differences in silicon quality. 

:edit: ah yes, skalar only on 5 because of the idle crashes i had.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Yuke said:


> Hmm, i just matched VID and SVI2 when testing but things didnt change. My best guess is differences in silicon quality.


Matched how?
You may need to match with the Scalar at 10x to get more speed.
But also there the difference in silicon could not make it boost as well.
And we are talking about clocks... if I remember correctly you had good scores.
What's your CPU-z bench single thread bench score?


----------



## jcpq

After several attempts to explore the edc / ppt / tdc combination, I decided to explore static overclocking.

CCX0 @ 4300Mhz
CCX1 @ 4275Mhz
[email protected]

Handbrake, blender and aida64 stable.

What do you think


----------



## Yuke

ManniX-ITA said:


> Matched how?
> You may need to match with the Scalar at 10x to get more speed.
> But also there the difference in silicon could not make it boost as well.
> And we are talking about clocks... if I remember correctly you had good scores.
> What's your CPU-z bench single thread bench score?


i changed offset voltage and LLC so it matches as close as possible when running the 2t 4t 6t 8t test you mentioned.

my CPU-Z results are probably too high atm because its cold again in my room (18°C) 










Also the 1T test runs on my weakest core sadly...


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Yuke said:


> i changed offset voltage and LLC so it matches as close as possible when running the 2t 4t 6t 8t test you mentioned.
> 
> my CPU-Z results are probably too high atm because its cold again in my room (18°C)
> 
> View attachment 2461576
> 
> 
> Also the 1T test runs on my weakest core sadly...


There's a trick 
Open Task Manager go to details, find cpu-z and open the context menu with the right mouse button.
Select Set Affinity, Deselect all processors and check the core/thread you want to test.
Don't click OK. CPU-z will reset the Affinity at bench start.
Set threads to 1, click Bench CPU.
It will run the multi thread on the preferred core; while it's running the MT click OK in Set affinity window.
The Single Thread will run on the core/thread you have chosen.


----------



## Yuke

ManniX-ITA said:


> There's a trick
> Open Task Manager go to details, find cpu-z and open the context menu with the right mouse button.
> Select Set Affinity, Deselect all processors and check the core/thread you want to test.
> Don't click OK. CPU-z will reset the Affinity at bench start.
> Set threads to 1, click Bench CPU.
> It will run the multi thread on the preferred core; while it's running the MT click OK in Set affinity window.
> The Single Thread will run on the core/thread you have chosen.


lol, nice trick..its 554.6 on my good core


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Yuke said:


> lol, nice trick..its 554.6 on my good core


That's good then, mine is 556-559 so we are in-line 
Whatever are the clocks saying we are getting the same performances.


----------



## polkfan

You guys are so lucky that have newer chips my day one 3700x barely touches 4375mhz on a single core lol and with the EDC trick it goes to 4425mhz max. 

Now you guys are hitting 4700mhz or so heck 3600XT owners are getting 4.6Ghz on ALL CORES!


----------



## Yuke

polkfan said:


> You guys are so lucky that have newer chips my day one 3700x barely touches 4375mhz on a single core lol and with the EDC trick it goes to 4425mhz max.
> 
> Now you guys are hitting 4700mhz or so heck 3600XT owners are getting 4.6Ghz on ALL CORES!


At least we can get somehow good performance with EDC1...imagine what we had to deal with without it...i could probably only run a maximum of a 4300Mhz All Core OC on my 3800X...

Its the price to pay as an early adopter....but i will hit them back hard when Zen3 refresh releases in 6-8 months, lmao.


----------



## Delphi

Has anyone done consistent long loads on the cpu like some handbrake with these settings? This what mine looks like, using a 360 aio. Under heavier loads like prime voltage 1.27 is at what I recall to be CPU FIT Limit for some reason, probably read it somewhere.


----------



## Alpi

rambosbff said:


> It will suffer because single core can boost to 4600? I don't play any single core games atm, so I'm pretty happy with these settings.


Ofc. not, I guess no one does but Your clocks under common games are closer what You get Cb single than the multi I think.  Core clocks dropped hugely over a load level, far from linear. A little lighter scenario gives lot higher clocks so if we searching for any real-life connections, single test not makes less sense than multi. In fact, it could be more informative.


----------



## Alpi

ManniX-ITA said:


> Yes there is a lot.
> With the right settings the performances will likely be higher, up to 100-200 points more in CB20 MT.
> Depends on your CPU sample and setup with the right conditions works.
> With your setup which seems quite brilliant it can be rewarding.
> PBO scales up throughput according to a curve defined by PPT/TDC/EDC; you give the right parameters it will settle at the highest efficient spot.


👍
Exactly, thats the main thing not just here but basically with every smarter, boost-curve based thing. (some gpus for example) You can't force ! Just optimalize ! And if You does it well, the chip shows better clocks and / or less cons. Can't force or choose higher clocks on the price of cons. for example. (at least over a very tiny and narrow line but it's falling over usually very fast)
Scalar is the very same. Still I can read "set scalar to 10" to get better perf. Not true, scalar also a variable that has to be set to Your cpu, silicone characteristic !
Same thing with voltage offset however luckily its pretty rare but still revealing as an advice "shouldnt set neg. offset because it hurts perf. !! " ..... -.-
It's the best thing how You can gain perf. at real... If Your chip gets too much on auto. (I can undersdtand, partly, how this started, it happened really the mentioned way in the past with some boards but I hope it's not that common now ! 🤔)


----------



## Nighthog

Alpi said:


> 👍
> Exactly, thats the main thing not just here but basically with every smarter, boost-curve based thing. (some gpus for example) You can't force ! Just optimalize ! And if You does it well, the chip shows better clocks and / or less cons. Can't force or choose higher clocks on the price of cons. for example. (at least over a very tiny and narrow line but it's falling over usually very fast)
> Scalar is the very same. Still I can read "set scalar to 10" to get better perf. Not true, scalar also a variable that has to be set to Your cpu, silicone characteristic !
> Same thing with voltage offset however luckily its pretty rare but still revealing as an advice "shouldnt set neg. offset because it hurts perf. !! " ..... -.-
> It's the best thing how You can gain perf. at real... If Your chip gets too much on auto. (I can undersdtand, partly, how this started, it happened really the mentioned way in the past with some boards but I hope it's not that common now ! 🤔)


I wrote my experience using this on my system, it hasn't changed, 10x scalar and more voltage gives better results with exclusion from AVX.
Do mind I have it all under a water cooling loop.
Increased voltage is only a issue because it causes so much extra heat to be produced under AVX it's clocking down to maintain thermals but otherwise there is more frequency to be had when temperatures aren't peaking.
99% of what I do is not AVX, and is so for many others, games don't use AVX instructions from what I'm aware.

When you undervolt these CPU's, great it will run cooler and thus run closer to the "limit" for that specific voltage but you cap your maximum possible frequency limits.
These are "starved" for voltage with regard to the frequency they run at. That is as long as you do not run into the thermal limit.

Voltage & scalar are entirely dependent on your cooling rather than silicon quality! The better quality the lower the voltage requirements improving the experience overall, keeping it below thermal limits much easier.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Alpi said:


> 👍
> Exactly, thats the main thing not just here but basically with every smarter, boost-curve based thing. (some gpus for example) You can't force ! Just optimalize ! And if You does it well, the chip shows better clocks and / or less cons. Can't force or choose higher clocks on the price of cons. for example. (at least over a very tiny and narrow line but it's falling over usually very fast)
> Scalar is the very same. Still I can read "set scalar to 10" to get better perf. Not true, scalar also a variable that has to be set to Your cpu, silicone characteristic !
> Same thing with voltage offset however luckily its pretty rare but still revealing as an advice "shouldnt set neg. offset because it hurts perf. !! " ..... -.-
> It's the best thing how You can gain perf. at real... If Your chip gets too much on auto. (I can undersdtand, partly, how this started, it happened really the mentioned way in the past with some boards but I hope it's not that common now ! 🤔)


Well the matter about the Scalar is a bit different.
The "set scalar to 10 to get best perf" sentence is not entirely wrong.
The *goal *is to set it to the highest value possible; as I explained it many times this can be achieved, but not always, playing with the vCore offset.

Why the highest scalar can give you better performances?

Because all other parameters (PPT/TDC/EDC/Max boost clock) are influencing or limiting the algorithm.
The primary key for the FIT table, or matrix as I prefer, is the voltage.
Everything else is a secondary driver but vCore and Scalar are *primary drivers*.
They are both linked to the FIT and the specific silicon and they are the key to unlock whatever can be gained.

The Scalar is critical for PBO because is dynamic; vCore offset is static.
Scalar at 10 means a dynamic offset of 50mV more under light threaded workload and 20-25mV under all core workload.
If you make it work right it's the only way to get the boost clock closer to the fMAX value while still keeping good multi threaded scores.

If you don't set it right together with the offset you'll end up with a voltage too low or too high.
So either you'll get worse performances in light or multi threaded workloads (or both) or the cores will crash in frequency.

If you get better scores with a Scalar lower than 10, no matter what, either the silicon is outstanding or terribly bad or your settings are wrong.


----------



## Yuke

I could not get anything over skalar 5 idle stable...and i tried offsets between -0,031 and +0,025....imho this seems to be a silicon limitation in my case.


----------



## Nighthog

Yuke said:


> I could not get anything over skalar 5 idle stable...and i tried offsets between -0,031 and +0,025....imho this seems to be a silicon limitation in my case.


Depends on BIOS & Power plan etc how that will go and probably motherboard/cpu.
New chipset drivers & power plan is more hard to contain with the newer bios than older ones.
They have tuned the profiles to better match the new batches of cpu's I would guess as they are better behaved overall in regard to voltage requirements. 

Try increasing LLC settings to higher and you can increase your scalar.
I find LLC has more effect on stability issues if you can't increase scalar rather than tweaking voltage up or down. But it also helps if you find a good combo.


----------



## Yuke

Nighthog said:


> Depends on BIOS & Power plan etc how that will go and probably motherboard/cpu.
> New chipset drivers & power plan is more hard to contain with the newer bios than older ones.
> They have tuned the profiles to better match the new batches of cpu's I would guess as they are better behaved overall in regard to voltage requirements.
> 
> Try increasing LLC settings to higher and you can increase your scalar.
> I find LLC has more effect on stability issues if you can't increase scalar rather than tweaking voltage up or down. But it also helps if you find a good combo.


I tried LLC High/Turbo with all the offset values i mentioned...not sure if i should go even higher...Turbo already went over 1.325V in P95 with some offset values, so i was hesitant.


----------



## Nighthog

Yuke said:


> I tried LLC High/Turbo with all the offset values i mentioned...not sure if i should go even higher...Turbo already went over 1.325V in P95 with some offset values, so i was hesitant.


Depends on your cooling but I'm right now testing Extreme LLC & +0.050V (peak 1.550V SVI2 TFN)
Prior High/Turbo was enough but latest updates changed that around and I needed to increase LLC to maintain stability with newest BIOS/chipset drivers if I want to keep using EDC bug with a high scalar.
It was apparent right away when I updated my BIOS to AGESA 1.0.8.1 old settings weren't working any more. 
High setting only allows like 3x scalar now when earlier I could use 10x without much issues before the change.
The new XT cpu's are so much better they seem to have tweaked the bios/drivers for those. Meaning my launch day 3800X is struggling now with the changes.
I've been using on & off 1.525-1.550V as peak for the whole year soon.

I'm prioritizing games/ regular application boost. AVX doesn't like the extra voltage but other stuff does.


----------



## Yuke

Nighthog said:


> Depends on your cooling but I'm right now testing Extreme LLC & +0.050V (peak 1.550V SVI2 TFN)
> Prior High/Turbo was enough but latest updates changed that around and I needed to increase LLC to maintain stability with newest BIOS/chipset drivers if I want to keep using EDC bug with a high scalar.
> It was apparent right away when I updated my BIOS to AGESA 1.0.8.1 old settings weren't working any more.
> High setting only allows like 3x scalar now when earlier I could use 10x without much issues before the change.
> The new XT cpu's are so much better they seem to have tweaked the bios/drivers for those. Meaning my launch day 3800X is struggling now with the changes.
> I've been using on & off 1.525-1.550V as peak for the whole year soon.
> 
> I'm prioritizing games/ regular application boost. AVX doesn't like the extra voltage but other stuff does.


In what applications did you see the performance increase? Did a quick try with your settings but CPU-Z pretty much shows the same scores as with my undervolted settings.


----------



## Nighthog

The voltage increase isn't necessary per-say, it's just a slight peak & stability boost on my sample. It's the LLC setting that's more important.
If I want benchmark scores I don't really need to increase voltage but with the voltage increase I get a extra 25-50Mhz sustained if I keep HWiNFO running and checking speeds when I put a sustained load on my cpu. (games/Tm5)
CPU-Z uses AVX so it's not optimal to test it, it's for non-AVX applications that want the increased voltage to give more frequency.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Nighthog said:


> The voltage increase isn't necessary per-say, it's just a slight peak & stability boost on my sample. It's the LLC setting that's more important.
> If I want benchmark scores I don't really need to increase voltage but with the voltage increase I get a extra 25-50Mhz sustained if I keep HWiNFO running and checking speeds when I put a sustained load on my cpu. (games/Tm5)
> CPU-Z uses AVX so it's not optimal to test it, it's for non-AVX applications that want the increased voltage to give more frequency.


Sadly Yuke has a terrible binning, even worse than mine.
Couldn't find any setting that break the silicon limitations.
He can get already very decent performances with the current settings despite the lower clocks.


----------



## Nighthog

ManniX-ITA said:


> Sadly Yuke has a terrible binning, even worse than mine.
> Couldn't find any setting that break the silicon limitations.
> He can get already very decent performances with the current settings despite the lower clocks.


I also have a bad bin, initial release day testing and such showed that I had absolute bottom tier bin on my 3800X, using silicon lottery data.
Barely above launch day 3700X samples. 
I've been brute forcing it since to get it to perform to a minimum expectation I wanted from it. Been holding up well considering the torture I have put it through.


----------



## Yuke

Nighthog said:


> I also have a bad bin, initial release day testing and such showed that I had absolute bottom tier bin on my 3800X, using silicon lottery data.
> Barely above launch day 3700X samples.
> I've been brute forcing it since to get it to perform to a minimum expectation I wanted from it. Been holding up well considering the torture I have put it through.


I was doing the same thing as you intially. +Offset with a 1.325V vdroop target for heavy loads...

But at some point (i mentioned here months ago) i started crashing in idle and was afraid that it is because of degradation. Now that you mentioned that it is most likely due to BIOS changes, i am considering the brute force method again.

Not sure if i can comply to my 1.325V rule again tho....


----------



## Nighthog

Yuke said:


> I was doing the same thing as you intially. +Offset with a 1.325V vdroop target for heavy loads...
> 
> But at some point (i mentioned here months ago) i started crashing in idle and was afraid that it is because of degradation. Now that you mentioned that it is most likely due to BIOS changes, i am considering the brute force method again.
> 
> Not sure if i can comply to my 1.325V rule again tho....


I've been using a 1.350V-1.400V in that respect. 
There is a risk but I've not encountered a issue thus far. Stock still is stable when I try new BIOS versions as I take opportunity to check things over.


----------



## Alpi

ManniX-ITA said:


> Well the matter about the Scalar is a bit different.
> The "set scalar to 10 to get best perf" sentence is not entirely wrong.
> The *goal *is to set it to the highest value possible; as I explained it many times this can be achieved, but not always, playing with the vCore offset.
> 
> Why the highest scalar can give you better performances?
> 
> Because all other parameters (PPT/TDC/EDC/Max boost clock) are influencing or limiting the algorithm.
> The primary key for the FIT table, or matrix as I prefer, is the voltage.
> Everything else is a secondary driver but vCore and Scalar are *primary drivers*.
> They are both linked to the FIT and the specific silicon and they are the key to unlock whatever can be gained.
> 
> The Scalar is critical for PBO because is dynamic; vCore offset is static.
> Scalar at 10 means a dynamic offset of 50mV more under light threaded workload and 20-25mV under all core workload.
> If you make it work right it's the only way to get the boost clock closer to the fMAX value while still keeping good multi threaded scores.
> 
> If you don't set it right together with the offset you'll end up with a voltage too low or too high.
> So either you'll get worse performances in light or multi threaded workloads (or both) or the cores will crash in frequency.
> 
> If you get better scores with a Scalar lower than 10, no matter what, either the silicon is outstanding or terribly bad or your settings are wrong.


If You think the Fmax with the +200 Mhz that opened with Edc, Yes, You are right, it needs pretty sharp settings. When I used Edc : 1, I used it with neg. offset for example and for sure, my max boost was cut, it was only around 100 Mhz more than without this boost override but I found that setup acceptable only for 24/7. Being nearly every other state overvolted just to get the very max boost wasn't a deal for me. For daily use ofc. And that +100 Mhz is can be named a 100 Mhz loss but also a 100 Mhz gain. Depend from what way we see. )
By the way, I'm not use Edc : 1 for a while because the latest bioses bringed back bclk oc ability again and also works very - very good use the bclk with other things. Now I haven't nearly use Pbo even, chip acts like a dream close to stock limits.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Alpi said:


> If You think the Fmax with the +200 Mhz that opened with Edc, Yes, You are right, it needs pretty sharp settings. When I used Edc : 1, I used it with neg. offset for example and for sure, my max boost was cut, it was only around 100 Mhz more than without this boost override but I found that setup acceptable only for 24/7. Being nearly every other state overvolted just to get the very max boost wasn't a deal for me. For daily use ofc. And that +100 Mhz is can be named a 100 Mhz loss but also a 100 Mhz gain. Depend from what way we see. )
> By the way, I'm not use Edc : 1 for a while because the latest bioses bringed back bclk oc ability again and also works very - very good use the bclk with other things. Now I haven't nearly use Pbo even, chip acts like a dream close to stock limits.


So what are you using now, static oc?


----------



## Alpi

Nahh, no ! After such nice boosts what Edc : 1 does, what static oc could be acceptable ? 
Use bclk oc now. Its working again and works at really cool way. 
It cause something like You lift the whole boost diagram a bit higher clockwise. No other things affected. Why is it any good, You could ask ! Because its the most perfect way to place my chip on the voltage, clock diagram where its really close to ideal without any other hurting affection.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

I had a brief moment of happiness using bclk oc with the EDC bug 
Lasted half a day then the amazing scores want down to what were before plus just a little bit on top...
Tried to keep something but isn't worth it, I have too many SATA drives. Not stable enough.


----------



## mongstradamus

Yuke said:


> I could not get anything over skalar 5 idle stable...and i tried offsets between -0,031 and +0,025....imho this seems to be a silicon limitation in my case.


I also have had probelms getting my 3800x to be stable with edc 10 scalar 10x. I think a lot of it has to do with my subpar b350 board that has vrms that can't keep up with edc 10. I have had to settle for edc 1 with scalar at 4x. It allows for only 4.2 all core and boosts up to 4.625 on two cores. My board also doesn't have a lot of features like LLC, offset voltage, etc so that is probably another reason why it cant reach its full potential.


----------



## Yuke

mongstradamus said:


> I also have had probelms getting my 3800x to be stable with edc 10 scalar 10x. I think a lot of it has to do with my subpar b350 board that has vrms that can't keep up with edc 10. I have had to settle for edc 1 with scalar at 4x. It allows for only 4.2 all core and boosts up to 4.625 on two cores. My board also doesn't have a lot of features like LLC, offset voltage, etc so that is probably another reason why it cant reach its full potential.


I am trying out a thing i've read on r/overclocking ... someone said he had the same problems and fixed it by turning off C-States. Sadly i need 1-2 weeks to see if this does anything because of the randomness of the idle reboots.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Yuke said:


> I am trying out a thing i've read on r/overclocking ... someone said he had the same problems and fixed it by turning off C-States. Sadly i need 1-2 weeks to see if this does anything because of the randomness of the idle reboots.


Yes I've never been able to use the C-States with the EDC bug.
Clocks crashing or reboots.


----------



## Yuke

ManniX-ITA said:


> Yes I've never been able to use the C-States with the EDC bug.
> Clocks crashing or reboots.


I havent had problems on early BIOS versions...but this seems to be a theme in general


----------



## mongstradamus

Yuke said:


> I am trying out a thing i've read on r/overclocking ... someone said he had the same problems and fixed it by turning off C-States. Sadly i need 1-2 weeks to see if this does anything because of the randomness of the idle reboots.


I don’t think my board has the option to turn on or of c-states. I have thought about upgrading my board to a decent x570 board that has things that I can mess with llc and offset voltage. Something like x570 tomahawk.
Recently when I have been messing with edc10 scalar 10x and auto 200 if I would run a benchmark the voltage would stay really high and temperatures would be around sixty c doing nothing. Looks like computer would be throttling and sometimes would not go more than 1.5 ghz so not sure exactly what’s going on with it.


----------



## Yuke

mongstradamus said:


> I don’t think my board has the option to turn on or of c-states. I have thought about upgrading my board to a decent x570 board that has things that I can mess with llc and offset voltage. Something like x570 tomahawk.
> Recently when I have been messing with edc10 scalar 10x and auto 200 if I would run a benchmark the voltage would stay really high and temperatures would be around sixty c doing nothing. Looks like computer would be throttling and sometimes would not go more than 1.5 ghz so not sure exactly what’s going on with it.


I dont have any experience with B350 boards...but this kind of throttling can usually be fixed by deactivating a "Cool & Quiet" option, if available...VRMs should be good enough for a 3800x.


----------



## mongstradamus

Yuke said:


> I dont have any experience with B350 boards...but this kind of throttling can usually be fixed by deactivating a "Cool & Quiet" option, if available...VRMs should be good enough for a 3800x.


cool and quiet seemed to have been removed from bios in later bios revisions I went through bios and checked it a few times. Maybe if I lower the auto oc to maybe 150 won’t throttle as much. I am unsure what else I can do to eek out last bit of performance. With zen 5000 cpu coming out make my 3800x feel inadequate lol


----------



## Nighthog

Ryzen 5000 will most likely allow us to run 5.00Ghz or above with PBO, shall be seen if similar bug is available with them to unlock AMD restrictions.


----------



## Yuke

mongstradamus said:


> cool and quiet seemed to have been removed from bios in later bios revisions I went through bios and checked it a few times. Maybe if I lower the auto oc to maybe 150 won’t throttle as much. I am unsure what else I can do to eek out last bit of performance. With zen 5000 cpu coming out make my 3800x feel inadequate lol


Should be a different name for non-Gigaybte boards, maybe someone can ask this question in the related motherboard topic.


----------



## mongstradamus

Yuke said:


> Should be a different name for non-Gigaybte boards, maybe someone can ask this question in the related motherboard topic.


I googled my board cool and quiet it’s used to be under cpu configuration when I go there on the latest bios it’s no longer there. I wonder if edc is causing the board to stay hot and it looks like cpu is continually trying to stay 4.4 all core the most concerning is voltage is 1.45 and not fluctuating at all


----------



## Yuke

mongstradamus said:


> I googled my board cool and quiet it’s used to be under cpu configuration when I go there on the latest bios it’s no longer there. I wonder if edc is causing the board to stay hot and it looks like cpu is continually trying to stay 4.4 all core the most concerning is voltage is 1.45 and not fluctuating at all


If you move your mouse around it should go into "boost mode" expecting work. Without mouse movement you should see at least a few cores down to 3600Mhz and below...


----------



## ManniX-ITA

mongstradamus said:


> I googled my board cool and quiet it’s used to be under cpu configuration when I go there on the latest bios it’s no longer there. I wonder if edc is causing the board to stay hot and it looks like cpu is continually trying to stay 4.4 all core the most concerning is voltage is 1.45 and not fluctuating at all


Seems a C-States issue.
You should definitely try to find the option.
Isn't an option a downgrade to a previous release?


----------



## mongstradamus

Yuke said:


> If you move your mouse around it should go into "boost mode" expecting work. Without mouse movement you should see at least a few cores down to 3600Mhz and below...


not moving my mouse or anything just have either hwinfo or ryzen master open to monitor temps and clock speeds in second monitor window.


----------



## mongstradamus

ManniX-ITA said:


> Seems a C-States issue.
> You should definitely try to find the option.
> Isn't an option a downgrade to a previous release?


I double checked my bios guess I missed disable global c-states I will try and do some testing hopefully I will see clocks and temp drop while idle.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

mongstradamus said:


> I double checked my bios guess I missed disable global c-states I will try and do some testing hopefully I will see clocks and temp drop while idle.


You need to change the minimum processor state in the power plan.
By default is 100 like the max to let the AMD C-States handle the power down and core parking.
It's not always working properly with 1 so consider testing with 30/50/.. if you have issues at idle.


----------



## Alpi

Global c states turned on was an interesting thing at me too. I hadnt crashes but a very strange clock falling happened at some level of loads. This thing is told be me from a lot ppl who used edc:1 thing. Many of them had to be turn it off unless they can't get any performance.
As MannyX written above, setting Cpu min in the ower plan was nominal not to drop clocks even !


----------



## mongstradamus

I have been wondering are there any major differences between agesa 1.0.0.6, 1.0.0.4 b , 1.0.0.3 abba and 1.0.0.3 a as far as performance with edc1 or edc 10 guess I can do some testing this weekend on the different agesa versions. I noticed on 1.0.0.6 my ram oc is no longer stable. So may want to go back to an earlier version.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

mongstradamus said:


> I have been wondering are there any major differences between agesa 1.0.0.6, 1.0.0.4 b , 1.0.0.3 abba and 1.0.0.3 a as far as performance with edc1 or edc 10 guess I can do some testing this weekend on the different agesa versions. I noticed on 1.0.0.6 my ram oc is no longer stable. So may want to go back to an earlier version.


Never noticed any difference.
But the latest AGESA versions have been all very iffy with the IF and OC.
Not related to the bug but old profiles doesn't work stable.


----------



## ColdDeckEd

Been testing this out on my 3800x+x570 tomahawk. My best settings so far seem to be scalar 3x, llc level 7. Gives CPUZ scores of 551-554 st (compared to 530s with regular PBO/Auto OC), 5750s mt. CB20 524 st, 5070s mt. Temps around 80 when folding, compared to 85s with other settings.


----------



## mongstradamus

ManniX-ITA said:


> Never noticed any difference.
> But the latest AGESA versions have been all very iffy with the IF and OC.
> Not related to the bug but old profiles doesn't work stable.


I have noticed my ram oc from previous bios via saved profiles just flat doesn’t work and will crash system. Couldn’t even get to bios had to do jumper reset of bios. The edc overclock is about the same for me so far on 1.0.0.6 but overall it’s sub par because can’t get my ram to oc


----------



## ManniX-ITA

mongstradamus said:


> I have noticed my ram oc from previous bios via saved profiles just flat doesn’t work and will crash system. Couldn’t even get to bios had to do jumper reset of bios. The edc overclock is about the same for me so far on 1.0.0.6 but overall it’s sub par because can’t get my ram to oc


Yes, I had to raise my VDDG to 1050 and still my memory profile which was fine with the previous AGESA was unstable.
Test with SVM mode enabled to be sure it's rock solid.


----------



## Nighthog

F31b BIOS with AGESA ComboAM4v2PI 1.1.0.0 seems to be better than F20-F30 versions on Gigabyte X570 Xtreme.

I could go back down to only Turbo LLC and is fully stable again running EDC bug. Had a little trouble with it on F30a 1.0.8.1 and F20 versions where it would want minimum turbo but seemed to like Extreme setting for stability to be viable with a positive offset.
Now I have just auto voltage and it is working without hassle thus far for 2 days.
I will have to test more, will check if I can go lower again (medium/high was usually enough way back on F1x versions)

EDIT: Medium LLC seems to be OK again. 1hour prime95 blend already passed, was hard to even do minutes on F30a without failure.


----------



## Alpi

Load the earlier profile after flashed to another rev. is strictly forbidden since it could even kill the hw. Usually its not happening but every time has chance for basically any type and / or ammount of issues.
Shouldnt do that !! The thing, you had to clr cmos because it couldnt boot is not any bad more indeed lucky since something was very different after load earlier profile. It could be worse. Just think if vsoc would go to 1.6v or smthg.


----------



## mongstradamus

Alpi said:


> Load the earlier profile after flashed to another rev. is strictly forbidden since it could even kill the hw. Usually its not happening but every time has chance for basically any type and / or ammount of issues.
> Shouldnt do that !! The thing, you had to clr cmos because it couldnt boot is not any bad more indeed lucky since something was very different after load earlier profile. It could be worse. Just think if vsoc would go to 1.6v or smthg.


Ok I am going to take a look at ram oc again when I can get my cpu with edc 10 stable . right now it is a struggle for me. I am not sure if its the fact using edc 10 or windows power plan that causing my cpu to clock at 4.4 ghz non stop with a voltage of 1.45, doesn't seem like it downclocks. I don't have amd cool and quiet in Bios . I have tried on multiple different bios versions so it must be something else perhaps something in my settings within the bios will need to look it over again .


----------



## Yuke

mongstradamus said:


> Ok I am going to take a look at ram oc again when I can get my cpu with edc 10 stable . right now it is a struggle for me. I am not sure if its the fact using edc 10 or windows power plan that causing my cpu to clock at 4.4 ghz non stop with a voltage of 1.45, doesn't seem like it downclocks. I don't have amd cool and quiet in Bios . I have tried on multiple different bios versions so it must be something else perhaps something in my settings within the bios will need to look it over again .


Some RGB softwares like iCUE were known to make Zen2 boost 24/7 in the early days...dont know if the issue got fixed over time, tho. Maybe try to deactivate some unnecessary stuff and check systematically.


----------



## mongstradamus

Yuke said:


> Some RGB softwares like iCUE were known to make Zen2 boost 24/7 in the early days...dont know if the issue got fixed over time, tho. Maybe try to deactivate some unnecessary stuff and check systematically.


I found it it was my icue software all along. Had to shut it down and looks like everything is working better. Felt stupid that’s all it was. Now have to work on finding which setting is best for me with scalar and auto oc setting


----------



## Yuke

mongstradamus said:


> I found it it was my icue software all along. Had to shut it down and looks like everything is working better. Felt stupid that’s all it was. Now have to work on finding which setting is best for me with scalar and auto oc setting


Glad i could help. Was a big issue back on r/AMD i just remembered on the ****ter, lmao. 

Definitely start with C-States and C&Q off when trying out EDC-PBO, it will help avoiding some headaches...AMD high-performance plan is also good, was even approved by 1usmus on twitter if i remember correctly.


----------



## mongstradamus

Yuke said:


> Glad i could help. Was a big issue back on r/AMD i just remembered on the ****ter, lmao.
> 
> Definitely start with C-States and C&Q off when trying out EDC-PBO, it will help avoiding some headaches...AMD high-performance plan is also good, was even approved by 1usmus on twitter if i remember correctly.


Thanks for the tip on icue , as far as bios settings go I don’t have cool and quiet my board seemed to have removed it a while ago. I think I checked all bios variations that support my chip and none of them have it unfortunately.

I am trying to figure out why my all core in cinebench gives some wonky scores my scores should be in the 5190-5200 range but I am getting numbers way below that


----------



## Yuke

mongstradamus said:


> Thanks for the tip on icue , as far as bios settings go I don’t have cool and quiet my board seemed to have removed it a while ago. I think I checked all bios variations that support my chip and none of them have it unfortunately.
> 
> I am trying to figure out why my all core in cinebench gives some wonky scores my scores should be in the 5190-5200 range but I am getting numbers way below that


Could be because of the two features that i mentioned but could also be that your unit needs additional PPT/TDC values.

I assume temperatures are in check...

Also, monitoring sucks up around 50-100 points when bencharking.


----------



## mongstradamus

Yuke said:


> Could be because of the two features that i mentioned but could also be that your unit needs additional PPT/TDC values.
> 
> I assume temperatures are in check...
> 
> Also, monitoring sucks up around 50-100 points when bencharking.


Temperatures from what I can tell look to be ok doesn’t go above seventy as far as I can tell.
Scores are like five hundred below that is part that’s baffling me. I will look at around messing ppt/tdc to see what’s going on.
May try to run stability tests as well maybe edc 10 isn’t as stable as I thought it was


----------



## Yuke

mongstradamus said:


> Temperatures from what I can tell look to be ok doesn’t go above seventy as far as I can tell.
> Scores are like five hundred below that is part that’s baffling me. I will look at around messing ppt/tdc to see what’s going on.
> May try to run stability tests as well maybe edc 10 isn’t as stable as I thought it was


Also try undervolting (PBO voltage spike should not go over 1.5V...not because of safety issues but because it showed increased performance)

I am running -0.03125V on mine its the last voltage that gives me stability...adjust LLC accordingly (high/turbo...3/4)


----------



## mongstradamus

Yuke said:


> Also try undervolting (PBO voltage spike should not go over 1.5V...not because of safety issues but because it showed increased performance)
> 
> I am running -0.03125V on mine its the last voltage that gives me stability...adjust LLC accordingly (high/turbo...3/4)


I have neither voltage offset or llc on my board so may have to drop pbo scalar a lot maybe to 3x or 4x. I used to run edc 1 with pbo scalar 4 but thought running ten would be more efficient with voltages guess not.


----------



## Yuke

mongstradamus said:


> I have neither voltage offset or llc on my board so may have to drop pbo scalar a lot maybe to 3x or 4x. I used to run edc 1 with pbo scalar 4 but thought running ten would be more efficient with voltages guess not.


***...are you sure you dont have to activate some form of "Advanced Settings"?

I cant believe all those basic settings are missing somehow....maybe ask someone with the same B350 board in the Motherboard section of this forum...


----------



## mongstradamus

Yuke said:


> ***...are you sure you dont have to activate some form of "Advanced Settings"?
> 
> I cant believe all those basic settings are missing somehow....maybe ask someone with the same B350 board in the Motherboard section of this forum...


I am almost 100 percent sure it has neither voltage offset and llc. I had an old 1600 with this board that was sort of a backup computer so Didn’t look for a top end board. After my 6700k I decided to upgrade my cpu to 3800x from 1600. Since my board has no features I have contemplated upgrading to a x570 board.


----------



## Nighthog

Just a short update on the F31b results:

AUTO LLC works if I stay on 7x scalar. 
Auto seems more stable than medium LLC also. Medium returned some infrequent memory errors in TM5 but AUTO doesn't.
Can't recall AUTO LLC really ever worked this well before.


----------



## Yuke

Deactivating C-States allowed me to go back to Scalar 10...at least its working for almost a week now, without the idle crashes.

Few days before my CPU gets obliterated by Zen3, i finally found my inner peace.


----------



## KedarWolf

Yuke said:


> Deactivating C-States allowed me to go back to Scalar 10...at least its working for almost a week now, without the idle crashes.
> 
> Few days before my CPU gets obliterated by Zen3, i finally found my inner peace.
> 
> View attachment 2463641
> View attachment 2463642
> View attachment 2463643





Yuke said:


> Deactivating C-States allowed me to go back to Scalar 10...at least its working for almost a week now, without the idle crashes.
> 
> Few days before my CPU gets obliterated by Zen3, i finally found my inner peace.
> 
> View attachment 2463641
> View attachment 2463642
> View attachment 2463643


What are your PBO settings? I think PBO is bugged with MSI, no matter what I set I get like 4.2Ghz max multicore in Cinebench. I mean I get that on stock settings, can't get PBO to work at all.


----------



## Yuke

KedarWolf said:


> What are your PBO settings? I think PBO is bugged with MSI, no matter what I set I get like 4.2Ghz max multicore in Cinebench. I mean I get that on stock settings, can't get PBO to work at all.


Most of my settings are still relics from when i was trying to fix my Idle crashes with C-States enabled...and can probably just be set to Auto now.

Power Supply Idle Mode: Typical
C-State Control: Disabled
AMD CnQ: Disabled
CPU-Voltage: -0.03125
CPU-LLC: High
CPU-VCore Protection: 400mV
CPU-VCORE SOC Protection: 400mV
CPU Vcore Current Protection: Extreme
PWM Phase Control: Extreme
EDC=1, TDC = 0, PPT = 0
Skalar: 10
Overdrive: +200Mhz


----------



## mongstradamus

Yuke said:


> Most of my settings are still relics from when i was trying to fix my Idle crashes with C-States enabled...and can probably just be set to Auto now.
> 
> Power Supply Idle Mode: Typical
> C-State Control: Disabled
> AMD CnQ: Disabled
> CPU-Voltage: -0.03125
> CPU-LLC: High
> CPU-VCore Protection: 400mV
> CPU-VCORE SOC Protection: 400mV
> CPU Vcore Current Protection: Extreme
> PWM Phase Control: Extreme
> EDC=1, TDC = 0, PPT = 0
> Skalar: 10
> Overdrive: +200Mhz


I am curious how important do you think quality of motherboard is when it comes to getting the most out of your chip. I don’t have llc or offset voltage which I think is preventing me from maxing out scalar and auto oc.
I have had to settle for +125 with scalar 4x. If I go higher I don’t find it as stable as the boosts are not as high. 

my cpuz only gets as high as 553/5830, and r20 is 526/5200


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Yuke said:


> Deactivating C-States allowed me to go back to Scalar 10...at least its working for almost a week now, without the idle crashes.
> 
> Few days before my CPU gets obliterated by Zen3, i finally found my inner peace.
> 
> View attachment 2463641
> View attachment 2463642
> View attachment 2463643


It's very good; except the first core which for me is one of the best, your binning is definitely superior than mine.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

mongstradamus said:


> I am curious how important do you think quality of motherboard is when it comes to getting the most out of your chip. I don’t have llc or offset voltage which I think is preventing me from maxing out scalar and auto oc.
> I have had to settle for +125 with scalar 4x. If I go higher I don’t find it as stable as the boosts are not as high.
> 
> my cpuz only gets as high as 553/5830, and r20 is 526/5200


Pretty decent results, don't complain.
I had to do miracles and sacrifices to get these results with my Master.


----------



## Alpi

4.2 Ghz under Cb isn't any bad, however we don't know temps but possibly it's far not bad. Core clocks under such constant, full threaded, high load happens only under Cb or other benchmarks. Should focus to lighter, more daily like loads I think. If there, You have nice clocks, so what, I'm sure I wouldn't mess about Cb clocks or any comparable, high loaded scenario.
Board components and quality of those made changes over Prec. boost behaviour ofc. Just like bioses, settings, and so. Unfortunatelly it's far from any consistent. Enough to think over how big "cry" was in the "first days" about never reached boost clocks for example. Now, it's uncomparable better (should), that's only a bios / Agesa dev. thing, but ofc it could behave more or less different compared board and board, bios and bios. :/

ManniX-ITA was right, cpuz single could highly influenced on actual core-quality. If Your first core is from the worst ones, You would be "penalized", if one of the best ones, Your score should be correct. Unfortunatelly its running always on the core 0....


----------



## Yuke

mongstradamus said:


> I am curious how important do you think quality of motherboard is when it comes to getting the most out of your chip. I don’t have llc or offset voltage which I think is preventing me from maxing out scalar and auto oc.
> I have had to settle for +125 with scalar 4x. If I go higher I don’t find it as stable as the boosts are not as high.
> 
> my cpuz only gets as high as 553/5830, and r20 is 526/5200


Those are very good results...when ambient temperature will rise again, ill probably match your scores.


----------



## mongstradamus

ManniX-ITA said:


> Pretty decent results, don't complain.
> I had to do miracles and sacrifices to get these results with my Master.


I am sorry I didn't mean to whine or complain about my results, just want to see what else i can do to eek out some additional performance from my 3800x.


----------



## mongstradamus

Yuke said:


> Those are very good results...when ambient temperature will rise again, ill probably match your scores.


I am wondering if i have met my limit with my board and cpu combination, tried pushing scalar a bit but it dropped my boosts and didn't really affect my multicore much.


----------



## Yuke

mongstradamus said:


> I am wondering if i have met my limit with my board and cpu combination, tried pushing scalar a bit but it dropped my boosts and didn't really affect my multicore much.


We wont know until you try it out on a better board. But for a B350 board this looks pretty good to me...difference in scores could also be due to RAM overclock, i run my sticks at 1.5V.


----------



## mongstradamus

Yuke said:


> We wont know until you try it out on a better board. But for a B350 board this looks pretty good to me...difference in scores could also be due to RAM overclock, i run my sticks at 1.5V.


I guess it should do well for next few years I am tempted to get a zen 3 cpu but would have to replace motherboard also. I guess shouldn’t be too greedy and take what I can with this combination of motherboard and cpu


----------



## ManniX-ITA

mongstradamus said:


> I guess it should do well for next few years I am tempted to get a zen 3 cpu but would have to replace motherboard also. I guess shouldn’t be too greedy and take what I can with this combination of motherboard and cpu


Sorry, it wasn't meant to sound like a "don't complain!" 

I think considering the very limited options you have it's already a great result.
If you want to spend some time looking for some easy bits more try using a vCore offset and rising the Scalar.
If you are lucky It could give you something more.

Start with the first negative offset setting and put the scalar one up.
If going down with the offset or up with the scalar you start dropping performance instead of gaining, it's not helping.


----------



## mongstradamus

ManniX-ITA said:


> Sorry, it wasn't meant to sound like a "don't complain!"
> 
> I think considering the very limited options you have it's already a great result.
> If you want to spend some time looking for some easy bits more try using a vCore offset and rising the Scalar.
> If you are lucky It could give you something more.
> 
> Start with the first negative offset setting and put the scalar one up.
> If going down with the offset or up with the scalar you start dropping performance instead of gaining, it's not helping.


No offset voltage sadly for me. So I was trying to inch my scalar up slowly. I didn’t think was getting same single core boost as hwinfo was only showing 4.6 on two cores as opposed to 4.625 on those cores, but surprisingly to me got higher single core in r20 , geekbench single and multicolored was about same maybe slightly lower. Got a slight improvement in Cpuz 553/5850.

I guess need more testing. I did notice that all core was hitting 4.4 as opposed to 4.35 before. Doesn’t look like my motherboard likes auto oc set to +200


----------



## ManniX-ITA

mongstradamus said:


> No offset voltage sadly for me. So I was trying to inch my scalar up slowly. I didn’t think was getting same single core boost as hwinfo was only showing 4.6 on two cores as opposed to 4.625 on those cores, but surprisingly to me got higher single core in r20 , geekbench single and multicolored was about same maybe slightly lower. Got a slight improvement in Cpuz 553/5850.
> 
> I guess need more testing. I did notice that all core was hitting 4.4 as opposed to 4.35 before. Doesn’t look like my motherboard likes auto oc set to +200


Not even the offset?
What is that, an Apple motherboard? 

Yes very often the boost clock above 100/150 MHz is making things worse.


----------



## mongstradamus

ManniX-ITA said:


> Not even the offset?
> What is that, an Apple motherboard?
> 
> Yes very often the boost clock above 100/150 MHz is making things worse.


Haha I get what I paid for at the time i think I paid less than fifty usd for this board. No llc or offset voltage options and no cool n quiet either. Should be happy was able to oc ram and cpu a fair amount.

was just curious as I see most people running scalar 10x +200 auto that combo wouldn’t work for me sadly. Right now testing 7x and +125 and see how that goes


----------



## Alpi

Offset could be decent, and the lack of it just the very same but also temp are very-very important ! Even 5-10 degree can cause possible even 100 Mhz fluctuations, depends on where are that 5-10 degree revealed. (I mean 50 degree +5-10 not makes such loss like 85 degree +5-10)
I made a test earlier where I boil  my coolant up to 40 degree, then cooled down to 20 degree. Did Cinebench R15 runs at a few points and seen how perf. / clocks react. Also set a 105W PPT limit not to move higher consumption area as temp became better so even more strictly hang on basic, silicon characteristic change and boost behaviour. I think it's pretty interesting to see how big the affection.


----------



## mongstradamus

Alpi said:


> Offset could be decent, and the lack of it just the very same but also temp are very-very important ! Even 5-10 degree can cause possible even 100 Mhz fluctuations, depends on where are that 5-10 degree revealed. (I mean 50 degree +5-10 not makes such loss like 85 degree +5-10)
> I made a test earlier where I boil  my coolant up to 40 degree, then cooled down to 20 degree. Did Cinebench R15 runs at a few points and seen how perf. / clocks react. Also set a 105W PPT limit not to move higher consumption area as temp became better so even more strictly hang on basic, silicon characteristic change and boost behaviour. I think it's pretty interesting to see how big the affection.


In my particular situation not sure cpu temp was getting overly hot but need to keep an eye next time I stress test it. I want to say around seventy c but I can definitely see temps being a problem for why I can’t get any more performance.

I am wondering in grand scheme for gaming at 1440p how much it matters since it’s probably my gpu that’s holding me back


----------



## Alpi

Well it's a secret for me too 😀 just mentioned, it could be easily cause some affection to Your boost cloks. At some worse cases not even such slight affections. As You can see, even 5 degree can cause clearly spottable more / less clocks.


----------



## mongstradamus

Alpi said:


> Well it's a secret for me too 😀 just mentioned, it could be easily cause some affection to Your boost cloks. At some worse cases not even such slight affections. As You can see, even 5 degree can cause clearly spottable more / less clocks.


I was able to push my pbo a bit by lowering the auto oc to 100 and raising scalar temps seem to be in mid seventies so a bit toasty. Wondering if cpuz is too short a benchmark for longer benchmarks maybe temps may cause boosting to Not be as good. Was able to get cpuz to boost 554/5880 news to test on longer benchmarks maybe timespy or something


----------



## ManniX-ITA

mongstradamus said:


> I was able to push my pbo a bit by lowering the auto oc to 100 and raising scalar temps seem to be in mid seventies so a bit toasty. Wondering if cpuz is too short a benchmark for longer benchmarks maybe temps may cause boosting to Not be as good. Was able to get cpuz to boost 554/5880 news to test on longer benchmarks maybe timespy or something


Timespy is not really CPU intensive.
You can use Cinebench to test all-core or download blender and make some renderings of the BMW or Classroom examples.
With single/light-thread workloads the temperature is going to be lower than that so if you can keep around 75c with heavy loads you are fine.


----------



## Alpi

75 area is quite good for all-core load, no problem with temps it seems.


----------



## mongstradamus

ManniX-ITA said:


> Timespy is not really CPU intensive.
> You can use Cinebench to test all-core or download blender and make some renderings of the BMW or Classroom examples.
> With single/light-thread workloads the temperature is going to be lower than that so if you can keep around 75c with heavy loads you are fine.


did some cinebench runs multicore was sitting around 5230 and single core at 528 . Is 80c when thermal throttle starts to happen?


----------



## ManniX-ITA

mongstradamus said:


> did some cinebench runs multicore was sitting around 5230 and single core at 528 . Is 80c when thermal throttle starts to happen?


The massive one, yes.
In Cinebench would be ideal not to go over 76-77c, better below 75c.


----------



## mongstradamus

ManniX-ITA said:


> The massive one, yes.
> In Cinebench would be ideal not to go over 76-77c, better below 75c.


 blender bmw was where i was hitting 80 so wondering if its starting to thermal throttle, cinebench didn't seem to have that much issue. Hmm maybe i need to reduce scalar a bit where i am not thermal throttling


----------



## ManniX-ITA

mongstradamus said:


> blender bmw was where i was hitting 80 so wondering if its starting to thermal throttle, cinebench didn't seem to have that much issue. Hmm maybe i need to reduce scalar a bit where i am not thermal throttling


It's fine 80c under Blender and 75c with Cinebench, it will throttle but the single-light threaded will not be capped


----------



## mongstradamus

ManniX-ITA said:


> It's fine 80c under Blender and 75c with Cinebench, it will throttle but the single-light threaded will not be capped


I tried doing some folding to test some temperatures its about 70-72 c at around 4.35 ghz. Decent i suppose


----------



## ManniX-ITA

mongstradamus said:


> I tried doing some folding to test some temperatures its about 70-72 c at around 4.35 ghz. Decent i suppose


Pretty good, depends on the settings but usually folding is quite though


----------



## mongstradamus

ManniX-ITA said:


> Pretty good, depends on the settings but usually folding is quite though


I think folding and handbrake is about as hard as i hit my cpu, so should be a valid test I think.


----------



## Yuke

So.....whats the EDC=1 verdict for Zen3 CPUs?


----------



## ManniX-ITA

I'd be curious as well


----------



## Yuke

ManniX-ITA said:


> I'd be curious as well


Its weird how calm OCN is. I was expecting more feedback about Zen3 and overclock. Raw performance increase seems insane and i am wondering what is possible with maxed out PBO and RAM timings...


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Yuke said:


> Its weird how calm OCN is. I was expecting more feedback about Zen3 and overclock. Raw performance increase seems insane and i am wondering what is possible with maxed out PBO and RAM timings...


Still too few out there... everybody is playing its favorites instead of posting


----------



## Alpi

Because it's a funeral.


----------



## KedarWolf

Hey, when I get my preorder I'll post benches and stuff of my 5950x. It might take two or three months to get it is all. :/


----------



## ManniX-ITA

KedarWolf said:


> Hey, when I get my preorder I'll post benches and stuff of my 5950x. It might take two or three months to get it is all. :/


Yeah, I'm starting to have the same feeling...


----------



## KedarWolf

ManniX-ITA said:


> Yeah, I'm starting to have the same feeling...


When I went to the local store, all their stores in Toronto only received one each. The store guy came out, said the 5950x supply line here in Canada is really really bad and they can't even guarantee they'll get any by Xmas.

Reports have it the next shipment is Nov. 12th though, so here's hoping.


----------



## Marucins

I guess I'll have 5950X faster. Vermeer is packed, shipped on Monday.

The question of the BIOS remains. What will they change in future updates....
My X570 Gigabyte Aorus Extreme motherboard is not as polished for OC as for example Asus.


----------



## Mullcom

Hello. I can't get this to work.

When I run cb20 all cores go to 4100.

I have tried many different values now.


0 0 1 10x 200+

100 100 1 10x 200+

150 100 5 5x 100+

300 180 6 5x 200+

300 180 10 1x 200+

And so own.

Nothing is getting this to boost.
I am doing something wrong but what?

Forgot mention cpu ^_^
Ryzen 3600x

Skickat från min SM-G973F via Tapatalk


----------



## KedarWolf

Mullcom said:


> Hello. I can't get this to work.
> 
> When I run cb20 all cores go to 4100.
> 
> I have tried many different values now.
> 
> 
> 0 0 1 10x 200+
> 
> 100 100 1 10x 200+
> 
> 150 100 5 5x 100+
> 
> 300 180 6 5x 200+
> 
> 300 180 10 1x 200+
> 
> And so own.
> 
> Nothing is getting this to boost.
> I am doing something wrong but what?
> 
> 
> 
> Skickat från min SM-G973F via Tapatalk


I tried a bunch of different things on my X570 MSI board, nothing worked, same trouble.


----------



## gerardfraser

Nothing last forever meet the new AMD Curve Optimizer coming soon to all,guess AMD got pissed at the bug and did there own thing to give us that 5000+Mhz sweetness we all desire

5800X Boost set to 5050 Mhz all cores with AMD Curve Optimizer


Spoiler


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Mullcom said:


> Hello. I can't get this to work.
> 
> When I run cb20 all cores go to 4100.
> 
> I have tried many different values now.
> 
> 
> 0 0 1 10x 200+
> 
> 100 100 1 10x 200+
> 
> 150 100 5 5x 100+
> 
> 300 180 6 5x 200+
> 
> 300 180 10 1x 200+
> 
> And so own.
> 
> Nothing is getting this to boost.
> I am doing something wrong but what?
> 
> Forgot mention cpu ^_^
> Ryzen 3600x
> 
> Skickat från min SM-G973F via Tapatalk


Very few could make it work with 3600/3700 cpus.

Did you disable Global C States and DF C states?


----------



## Yuke

gerardfraser said:


> Nothing last forever meet the new AMD Curve Optimizer coming soon to all,guess AMD got pissed at the bug and did there own thing to give us that 5000+Mhz sweetness we all desire
> 
> 5800X Boost set to 5050 Mhz all cores with AMD Curve Optimizer
> 
> 
> Spoiler


did you try EDC bug wth it too?


----------



## Mullcom

ManniX-ITA said:


> Very few could make it work with 3600/3700 cpus.
> 
> Did you disable Global C States and DF C states?


When I disable global C States it seams to working but when I check HWInfo under EDC limit I get 2500% sometimes 3700

Skickat från min SM-G973F via Tapatalk


----------



## gerardfraser

Yuke said:


> did you try EDC bug wth it too?


Of course I tried it ,not good on 3600XT/3800XT,5800X. I rather have 5800X that can hold all core overclock 4750 and run single thread at 5100Mhz


----------



## Yuke

gerardfraser said:


> Of course I tried it ,not good on 3600XT/3800XT,5800X. I rather have 5800X that can hold all core overclock 4750 and run single thread at 5100Mhz


I am curious...what was the issue with EDC on the 5800X?


----------



## gerardfraser

On all 3 CPU's 3600Xt/3800XT/5800X EDC bug does not work good at all. On 3600X/3800X worked fine.
So one would call it clock streching with high clocks without any benefit . 
So take 5800X would record let's 4800 all core clock and in a benchmark like cinebench would be 1000-2000 points lower on multi and 100 points lower on single thread compared to default settings


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Mullcom said:


> When I disable global C States it seams to working but when I check HWInfo under EDC limit I get 2500% sometimes 3700
> 
> Skickat från min SM-G973F via Tapatalk


Yes that's how is supposed to work.
Do you get better scores?


----------



## Nighthog

gerardfraser said:


> On all 3 CPU's 3600Xt/3800XT/5800X EDC bug does not work good at all. On 3600X/3800X worked fine.
> So one would call it clock streching with high clocks without any benefit .
> So take 5800X would record let's 4800 all core clock and in a benchmark like cinebench would be 1000-2000 points lower on multi and 100 points lower on single thread compared to default settings


Do you notice that it might be trying to clock down to the EDC limit with those cpu's? Like suddenly clocks just crash down hard or EDC is kept at target rather than letting it roam free?


----------



## gerardfraser

I tried EDC multiple times on 3600XT/3800XT and once on 5800X. No clocking down just bad results. I am just saying AMD is releasing proper fixes that is all. I will not be using EDC anymore.Only AMD curve optimizer from now on,it is a better choice now over the tweak/bug EDC.

Here is why I will not be using EDC anymore. Running benches I get stuff like this


----------



## ManniX-ITA

gerardfraser said:


> I tried EDC multiple times on 3600XT/3800XT and once on 5800X. No clocking down just bad results. I am just saying AMD is releasing proper fixes that is all. I will not be using EDC anymore.
> 
> Here is why I will not be using EDC anymore. Running benches I get stuff like this


I guess with like this you mean the core 0/1/2 effective clocks crashing.
Thanks, promising. Means it's probably still working then.

It's a classic issue and should be not that difficult to fix.
We have to see if it yields gains like before.


----------



## gerardfraser

No crashing on effective clock I just hit screen shot button too quick,benchmark ran fine.I just could not be bother upping another shot.If you need me too I can and will ,I have an epeen just as much as the next guy.Your tools does look awesome and in no way did that translate well in my head writing that lol.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

gerardfraser said:


> No crashing on effective clock I just hit screen shot button too quick,benchmark ran fine.I just could not be bother upping another shot.If you need me too I can and will ,I have an epeen just as much as the next guy.Your tools does look awesome and in no way did that translate well in my head writing that lol.


Hope you'll like it 

But then if the cores are not crashing I don't understand what do you mean with "I will not be using EDC anymore. Running benches I get stuff like this".
Is it that is already so good it's not worth to look for more?
Can you tell me if the EDC limit still "overdrives" above 100% with a low EDC setting?


----------



## gerardfraser

I am using AMD curve optimizer only,not EDC bug anymore on the new AMD CPU's. that is all ,just letting people know there is a better choice now.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

gerardfraser said:


> I am using AMD curve optimizer only,not EDC bug anymore on the new AMD CPU's. that is all ,just letting people know there is a better choice now.


Understood. But if you could just make a test to see if it still works would be nice 
I'm also wondering if it could work together with the curve, you know... fine-tuning with scalar and vcore offset was often required to get the best.
Seems to me the curve would be a really nice complement to it.


----------



## gerardfraser

Cinebench20 test. Same temperatures
4800Mhz-AMD curve + EDC bug 5300 score
4800Mhz-All core 6300 score

test curve EDC


----------



## Yuke

I dont understand what you are comparing there?

An All Core OC at 4.8Ghz vs. an EDC=1 + Curve Optimizer?

No one asked for that...but maybe i am just tired...

We just wanna know if plain and simple EDC bug without anything else can deal results. Finetuning would be with undervolt and/or TDC/PPT values adjusted (if weird **** is going on).


----------



## gerardfraser

Yuke said:


> I dont understand what you are comparing there?
> 
> An All Core OC at 4.8Ghz vs. an EDC=1 + Curve Optimizer?
> 
> No one asked for that...but maybe i am just tired...
> 
> We just wanna know if plain and simple EDC bug without anything else can deal results. Finetuning would be with undervolt and/or TDC/PPT values adjusted (if weird **** is going on).


Maybe you are tired. My post #1508,read post #1507. I do not care if you do not understand what I wrote


----------



## ManniX-ITA

gerardfraser said:


> Cinebench20 test. Same temperatures
> 4800Mhz-AMD curve + EDC bug 5300 score
> 4800Mhz-All core 6300 score
> 
> test curve EDC


Thanks for testing!
So the clocks are crashing... did you disable Global C State and DF C states?


----------



## gerardfraser

I have with 3600XT/3800XT but the 5800X I did not. I should give it a fair shake but to be honest I can clock the 5800X up to 5200Mhz and still have great single/multi ,I just see no need to waste my time on a bug.I will happily test if if you want,I am just working on overclocking stability for various CPU clocks and it is going to take me a month to verify all CLock speeds.So I am not trying to be a dick and AMD curve optimizer is the tool all people will or should use woth AMD Ryzen 5000 CPU's and eventually it will move to the others


----------



## ManniX-ITA

gerardfraser said:


> I have with 3600XT/3800XT but the 5800X I did not. I should give it a fair shake but to be honest I can clock the 5800X up to 5200Mhz and still have great single/multi ,I just see no need to waste my time on a bug.I will happily test if if you want,I am just working on overclocking stability for various CPU clocks and it is going to take me a month to verify all CLock speeds.So I am not trying to be a dick and AMD curve optimizer is the tool all people will or should use woth AMD Ryzen 5000 CPU's and eventually it will move to the others


Don't worry if you are busy with something else.
From what I've seen it's very likely normal PBO with curve optimizer will be more than enough to push it to the limits.
Hopefully one day I'll test it myself


----------



## gerardfraser

Yes AMD is going to be releasing better options. 

*Beyond AGESA 1.1.0.0 for Ryzen 5000 Series:*


Returning support for negative core voltage offsets (“undervolting”) with all-new AMD functionality for better frequency, voltage, and performance tweaking
Additional AMD optimization for performance and stability at ~2000MHz fabric clock. While not all processors are innately capable of reaching this frequency, our tuning is intended to help stabilize the overclock on capable samples2 —good luck!
Additional functionality tuning for benchmarking under extreme OC conditions (e.g. LN2)


----------



## Tweedilderp

My 5950X is being received by the retailer I purchased from within 24hrs. 12-24hrs after that it should ship so should have it by this weekend (hoorah for courier postage!). 

I have managed to get my 3900x on x570 aorus xtreme to 4.65GHz boost (light load) and 4.4 all-core with 3800MHz ram and 1900fclk on the F21 BIOS. I am relishing the opportunity to fiddle with PBO on my 5950x when it arrives.

I will post updates etc.... when I get it. Also my 3900x sample on a new 20h2 win 10 install with basic games/apps installed is giving me ~7500pts in CB R20.


----------



## nangu

Tweedilderp said:


> My 5950X is being received by the retailer I purchased from within 24hrs. 12-24hrs after that it should ship so should have it by this weekend (hoorah for courier postage!).
> 
> I have managed to get my 3900x on x570 aorus xtreme to 4.65GHz boost (light load) and 4.4 all-core with 3800MHz ram and 1900fclk on the F21 BIOS. I am relishing the opportunity to fiddle with PBO on my 5950x when it arrives.
> 
> I will post updates etc.... when I get it. Also my 3900x sample on a new 20h2 win 10 install with basic games/apps installed is giving me ~7500pts in CB R20.


Hi, may I ask for your PBO bug settings? Also, 7500 CBr20 score, is it stock or PBO bug?

Thank you!


----------



## wirx

I tried different EDC bug with Aorus x570 and 5900x, tried EDC 1, 5, 10, 12, 20. Best results was with 10. I saw allcore boost 4900Mhz and because of 90c temp it goes down to 4700, so with better cooling than AIO KrakenX73 (quite hard to find better) I will get better results than Allcore(at moment Allcore multi [email protected]). But single core was tricky, after single core start, 2 best cores remain steady 5050Mhz, sadly after about 30-50 sec. All cores goes to 3000Mhz or lower, also CPU voltage drops lower than 1V. After Cinebench restart all thing were back ok, but 30sec later, cores speed drops down again. CPU temp was about 45-50c. I tried disabling C states, what causes EDC10 in real life, so speed was really low. Single core was much more unstable with lower EDC and when more than 10 EDC then, bug doesn't work. Also tried to disabling AMD quiet and lots of other stuff, but cant get stable one core with 5900x and EDC bug.


----------



## Mullcom

What DO you have on the other values?



Skickat från min SM-G973F via Tapatalk


----------



## wirx

You can find them here, this test settings were PT 500W, TDC 240A, EDC 240A, all other stuff same as EDC10 test.


----------



## Awsan

wirx said:


> You can find them here, this test settings were PT 500W, TDC 240A, EDC 240A, all other stuff same as EDC10 test.
> View attachment 2467378


Thats a damn impressive score all around, Nice.


----------



## wirx

Thnx, but allcore was still better in games, than PBO with curve optimization -








(Gigabyte X570 AORUS Owners Thread)


Quick question, does this seem about right for 5900x? I think I have all my settings down just want to make sure it's running good




www.overclock.net


----------



## konspiracy

Do any of yall have some prime95 stable results?


----------



## jomama22

konspiracy said:


> Do any of yall have some prime95 stable results?


My curve is completely stable under p95. Pbo will downclock and lower voltage when run under p95 since it is so power hungry.


----------



## konspiracy

jomama22 said:


> My curve is completely stable under p95. Pbo will downclock and lower voltage when run under p95 since it is so power hungry.


Ya my 3700x has never hit 4400mhz but with playing around with the above setting I had one core finally hit 4420mhz. I tested about 30min under p95 but she was chilling at 82C 1.31vcore and holding 4100mhz solid. I'm on linux and have the performance governor set, might have to go back at some point and try the default schedutil. Thanks for the thread I learned how to snuff out some performance.


----------



## Yuke

konspiracy said:


> Do any of yall have some prime95 stable results?


What results are you looking for?

I use

+0.05V offset
LLC5
Skalar 10
+100Mhz

and P95 is stable averaging around 1.32V and 4200Mhz boost clocks on my 3800X.


----------



## Nighthog

EDC BUG doesn't work on a Ryzen 5 4650G Pro.

It accepts and keeps the 1A limit, doesn't exceed it.


----------



## drotaru

Will I see a difference with the EDC bug on my 3600x by switching from my msi b450 tomahawk max to a asus tuf x570 plus ?
EDC bug seems to be working sort off .. I'm getting an all core boost of 4.45ghz , same for the single core ( better than default pbo)
Tho some high vcore .( In games about 1.43v but temp never goes above 57C with AIO)
I have 0 0 1(EDC) 200 mhz boost and scalar 10x


----------



## KedarWolf

Deleted, wrong thread.


----------



## Nighthog

drotaru said:


> Will I see a difference with the EDC bug on my 3600x by switching from my msi b450 tomahawk max to a asus tuf x570 plus ?
> EDC bug seems to be working sort off .. I'm getting an all core boost of 4.45ghz , same for the single core ( better than default pbo)
> Tho some high vcore .( In games about 1.43v but temp never goes above 57C with AIO)
> I have 0 0 1(EDC) 200 mhz boost and scalar 10x


I would not change motherboards to expect better stuff using EDC. It will be a negligible effect with a different VRM configuration and settings but more than that it's like why would you bother if you can get it to do it's thing on your current motherboard?
It's a bonus feature with some caveats and limits. Not something to go and throw more money at to get it to do better if you already are using it.

It's most likely limited to the 3000 series cpu's this bug/feature anyway. If you upgrade the CPU later, you can no longer take advantage of it.


----------



## VPII

I have not tried the EDC bug with my 5950X but I did with my 3950X but it did not work. I found that normal PBO without even changing manually the PPT, EDC etc just enabling PBO works pretty well. Stock in CB20 I will get at most around 9800 or there about but with PBO enabled I'll get 11200 which is a pretty drastic jump. I've seen that at stock you get all core just below 4ghz all core, but with PBO you get 4.375ghz.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

VPII said:


> I have not tried the EDC bug with my 5950X but I did with my 3950X but it did not work. I found that normal PBO without even changing manually the PPT, EDC etc just enabling PBO works pretty well. Stock in CB20 I will get at most around 9800 or there about but with PBO enabled I'll get 11200 which is a pretty drastic jump. I've seen that at stock you get all core just below 4ghz all core, but with PBO you get 4.375ghz.


Doesn't work with the 5950x, tried it


----------



## VPII

ManniX-ITA said:


> Doesn't work with the 5950x, tried it


It works pretty well for me.... MSI Meg X570 Ace motherboard.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

VPII said:


> It works pretty well for me.... MSI Meg X570 Ace motherboard.


With the 3950x or 5950x?
I tried it and it was limiting EDC to a low value, not overriding it.


----------



## VPII

ManniX-ITA said:


> With the 3950x or 5950x?
> I tried it and it was limiting EDC to a low value, not overriding it.


My EDC went up to 215amp just enabling PBO no limits set for EDC, TDC or PPT......


----------



## joaoameixa

Farih said:


> Getting real close to all-core OC with PBO. (EDC bug doesn't work positively for me yet)
> Just need more cooling
> Hoping to do 5100+ in winter season
> 
> 5038 stock PBO now, 4,3ghz is about 4162
> Not to bad.


Hey man, how did u get that values in CB without EDC bug?

Im using right now that settings on my 3700x:

EDC 10
Scalar 5x
Offset -0,0750

I can get ~5000/5050 at CB, i can reach 4450 in single core.

BUT, i have a problem, with EDC 10 i cant use Glocal c States, with that on my single core score decrease A LOT.

I tryed all the power plans and no one works.

I just wanted the Global C states cause i have better latencys/read/write speeds in memorys (i dont know why) ,and at idle, cores stay in sleep with a much lower voltage and its good for me cause sometimes im away from PC, 1 example is at night sometimes i leave my PC donwloading some things, and with EDC 10 and global states off, voltage is always "high"and i think its not good.


----------



## VPII

ManniX-ITA said:


> With the 3950x or 5950x?
> I tried it and it was limiting EDC to a low value, not overriding it.


Oh sorry it is with the 5950X


----------



## Audioboxer

3900xt here, asked about this in the overclocking topic for the 3900x/3900xt, but it's gone a bit quiet now.

I tried to get the Fmax Enhancer on my Asus board stable before this, and while it worked fine in multitasking/gaming, I kept getting random desktop reboots. This is with LLC tweaking/votlage offset tweaking.

I've got the "edc bug" stable (even on desktop) with scalar x10, auto PBO and I'm seeing more single core boosts to 4.717~4.74 and when gaming 4.3~4.375ghz. This is around my stable all core overclock (it was either 4.3 all cores stables, or two of them could hit 4.4/nearer 4.4 with extra voltage).

I'd prefer to stay away from an all core clock on Ryzen due to sustained voltage and my chip being silver binned, so requiring a bit more voltage than the best chips.

Edc tweaking is stable but my temps are now higher and watching my voltage readings in HWINFO and Ryzen Master is a bit worrying. 60~70 degrees under load in gaming, which seems fine, but the voltage spikes and over 1.3 being sustained when gaming is a bit worrying. I do have a negative 0.025 offset, but the EDC tweaking, LLC at 3 and PBO seem to be allowing the chip to be at an all you can eat buffet.

Anyone with a 3900x/3900xt been running this for a while and still being OK with it? Or reports from other Ryzen 2nd gen, is it just normal with this to see it being far more voltage hungry?

I'm running 1usmus Ryzen Universal powerplan and I opted just to leave bios on default settings for c-states and such (auto).


----------



## Medizinmann

VPII said:


> My EDC went up to 215amp just enabling PBO no limits set for EDC, TDC or PPT......


But that isn't using the "EDC=1 Bug"...

That is how is also used to work with Zen2 - I disabled all limits in BIOS and boom the CPU(a 3900x that is) goes up to 230W (and values like 200+ A for EDC) - but that stopped after AGESA 1.0.0.3ABBA - the EDC was capped at 95A or 140A and 140W - that was when the EDC=1 Bug became interesting...

Best regards,
Medizinmann


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Audioboxer said:


> 3900xt here, asked about this in the overclocking topic for the 3900x/3900xt, but it's gone a bit quiet now.
> 
> I tried to get the Fmax Enhancer on my Asus board stable before this, and while it worked fine in multitasking/gaming, I kept getting random desktop reboots. This is with LLC tweaking/votlage offset tweaking.
> 
> I've got the "edc bug" stable (even on desktop) with scalar x10, auto PBO and I'm seeing more single core boosts to 4.717~4.74 and when gaming 4.3~4.375ghz. This is around my stable all core overclock (it was either 4.3 all cores stables, or two of them could hit 4.4/nearer 4.4 with extra voltage).
> 
> I'd prefer to stay away from an all core clock on Ryzen due to sustained voltage and my chip being silver binned, so requiring a bit more voltage than the best chips.
> 
> Edc tweaking is stable but my temps are now higher and watching my voltage readings in HWINFO and Ryzen Master is a bit worrying. 60~70 degrees under load in gaming, which seems fine, but the voltage spikes and over 1.3 being sustained when gaming is a bit worrying. I do have a negative 0.025 offset, but the EDC tweaking, LLC at 3 and PBO seem to be allowing the chip to be at an all you can eat buffet.
> 
> Anyone with a 3900x/3900xt been running this for a while and still being OK with it? Or reports from other Ryzen 2nd gen, is it just normal with this to see it being far more voltage hungry?
> 
> I'm running 1usmus Ryzen Universal powerplan and I opted just to leave bios on default settings for c-states and such (auto).


Read the first post in this thread on how to "exploit" the EDC bug.

The voltage spikes are more than normal.
PBO will spike till 1.5V to boost the clock.
Consider that with the EDC bug your speed will increase but also your temperatures and power consumption.


----------



## Audioboxer

ManniX-ITA said:


> Read the first post in this thread on how to "exploit" the EDC bug.
> 
> The voltage spikes are more than normal.
> PBO will spike till 1.5V to boost the clock.
> Consider that with the EDC bug your speed will increase but also your temperatures and power consumption.


Sure, I did, I've got it working great, I guess my post was more of a "is everyone's chips still doing fine months later?".

If I could get Fmax Enhancer stable I'd probably stick with it due to lower temps/voltage and only a small loss in speed. Struggling though lol. Its the idle reboots killing me, though I'm having a bit of luck increasing stability by upping scalar with Fmax enabled.


----------



## Medizinmann

Audioboxer said:


> Sure, I did, I've got it working great, I guess my post was more of a "is everyone's chips still doing fine months later?".


Well, I can report, that my chip(3900X) is doing well - after 10-11 months or so on EDC=1 - cooled with waterloop and LM as TIM.

PPT=500
TDC=230
EDC=1
Scalar=5X
Overboost=0 MHz

Boots up to 4,65 GHz on two and up to 4,6 GHz on the other 4-core ot the first CCX.

CB20 multi is around 7700 with these settings...

Best regards,
Medizinmann


----------



## Yuke

Audioboxer said:


> Sure, I did, I've got it working great, I guess my post was more of a "is everyone's chips still doing fine months later?".


I can't complain...after watching "der8auers" Video where he cooled his CPU down to 5-10°C and the algorithm was auto applying 1.76V, i completely lost my fear that Zen CPUs are fragile...

Running +0.05V offset with EDC now, boost voltages up to 1.6V in low load scenarios...no issues over the past months (and was using EDC=1 from first day on, before).

Did you try disabling C-States regarding your Idle reboots? I had the same issue for a long time.


----------



## Alpi

Yuke said:


> I can't complain...after watching "der8auers" Video where he cooled his CPU down to 5-10°C and the algorithm was auto applying 1.76V, i completely lost my fear that Zen CPUs are fragile...
> 
> Running +0.05V offset with EDC now, boost voltages up to 1.6V in low load scenarios...no issues over the past months (and was using EDC=1 from first day on, before).
> 
> Did you try disabling C-States regarding your Idle reboots? I had the same issue for a long time.


It's not any common or even "normal" behaviour if it happened it was some serious bug or some bios issue. I can't imagine it was triggered by the cpu, heard pretty nonsense to me.
I did some low temp tests in the past and never seen anything, just partly similar, crazy voltage growth for decreasing temps. 
Used the EDC bug for pretty long period, however a bit different point of view. Used it because the more aggressive boosting behaviour but not the fully max-out way. Positive offset wasn't acceptable for me as 24/7, not for such a small gain, like another 50 Mhz. It was boosting far higher and better than stock with negative offset even. That was the way I prefferred those days. My cpu lived all its life more or less above stock specs. When I ended up the EDC trick, I did that because bclk oc was corrected and enabled again. So I was moving to another way of tune but the main thing is my cpu is still working just as it did in the first moments. Nothing harmful can be seen and I still used to say, You can hardly harm your Ryzen till not cutting off from responding to really harmful situations. All the disasters what I've heard happened fixed clocks, fixed voltages. Still haven't seen posts / news about cpus died or degraded with boost settings. Ok, I'm sure if You trying real hard it can be harmful somehow but I think it's pretty not easy. As I've found my cpu even with a more aggressive EDC setting was clearly reacted to really high loads just like high temps. It's far not early and not such an extent but clearly did it and if things would be more critical, more safety reactions could be seen. Sometimes it's fully enough if You solve "just" a single serious factor and wouldn't be any trouble. Cpu degradations always need a few bad things happening the very same time. High temp, High current, high load and a higher voltage just made this even worse but without high current or high temps ( I mean really highm, dangerously high) usually nothing happens. 

Cpu on cold :


----------



## Yuke

Alpi said:


> It's not any common or even "normal" behaviour if it happened it was some serious bug or some bios issue. I can't imagine it was triggered by the cpu, heard pretty nonsense to me.
> I did some low temp tests in the past and never seen anything, just partly similar, crazy voltage growth for decreasing temps.
> Used the EDC bug for pretty long period, however a bit different point of view. Used it because the more aggressive boosting behaviour but not the fully max-out way. Positive offset wasn't acceptable for me as 24/7, not for such a small gain, like another 50 Mhz. It was boosting far higher and better than stock with negative offset even. That was the way I prefferred those days. My cpu lived all its life more or less above stock specs. When I ended up the EDC trick, I did that because bclk oc was corrected and enabled again. So I was moving to another way of tune but the main thing is my cpu is still working just as it did in the first moments. Nothing harmful can be seen and I still used to say, You can hardly harm your Ryzen till not cutting off from responding to really harmful situations. All the disasters what I've heard happened fixed clocks, fixed voltages. Still haven't seen posts / news about cpus died or degraded with boost settings. Ok, I'm sure if You trying real hard it can be harmful somehow but I think it's pretty not easy. As I've found my cpu even with a more aggressive EDC setting was clearly reacted to really high loads just like high temps. It's far not early and not such an extent but clearly did it and if things would be more critical, more safety reactions could be seen. Sometimes it's fully enough if You solve "just" a single serious factor and wouldn't be any trouble. Cpu degradations always need a few bad things happening the very same time. High temp, High current, high load and a higher voltage just made this even worse but without high current or high temps ( I mean really highm, dangerously high) usually nothing happens.
> 
> Cpu on cold :


Yeah, maybe it is because of the 5950X he was using...i rewatched the video tho and have to correct myself a bit...max voltage drawn was 1.675V Auto...but still pretty nice.


----------



## Audioboxer

Been playing around with this again on a 3900XT with 330 / 220 / 16. Scalar at 10x is stable and in games all cores seem to boost to 4.375ghz. LLC auto, voltage auto.

But what I've noticed is SVI2 TFN voltage under a heavy load like using the stability test in CTR can sit at like 1.33~1.36v. From my experiencing doing manual overclocking most would say that is too high.

Scalar at 2~4x drops the voltage a bit, but clocks are worse.

If it's not recommended to allow load voltages that high with manual overclocks struggling to see how safe it can be allowing the EDC bug to do it.

*edit* - I stuck PBO/scalar on auto and did the CTR stability check and SVI2 TFN voltage is around the same lol. Presume its due to an AVX light workload.


----------



## Fight Game

mines been spiking up to 1.45v for years. doesn't stay there long though. I wouldn't worry about it.


----------



## Audioboxer

Fight Game said:


> mines been spiking up to 1.45v for years. doesn't stay there long though. I wouldn't worry about it.


Yeah I made a mistake above.

I was watching this video to get a bit more help working with the EDC bug - 



 One of my M2 drives doesn't like BCLK overclocking so I'm giving it a miss. Can boot fine at 101/102, but the drive went missing.

Anyway, next question, my Cinebench r20 runs with 160 / 113 / 16 seems to constantly get to 85~90 degrees and results in what looks to be throttling and a score of 7182 points.

I'm running a 360mm AIO cooler and idle temps for example tend to be around 36~40 degrees. 3900xt. LLC is at auto just now as is voltage.

Is there something else causing Cinebench to run this hot for me? I see a lot of other people at 70~80 degrees. HWiNFO seems to suggest 160w and 113a is a reasonable limit in terms of the chip coming close to maxing that. I know if I drop it lower temps should come down a bit but many people in this topic run upwards of 200.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Audioboxer said:


> Yeah I made a mistake above.
> 
> I was watching this video to get a bit more help working with the EDC bug -
> 
> 
> 
> One of my M2 drives doesn't like BCLK overclocking so I'm giving it a miss. Can boot fine at 101/102, but the drive went missing.
> 
> Anyway, next question, my Cinebench r20 runs with 160 / 113 / 16 seems to constantly get to 85~90 degrees and results in what looks to be throttling and a score of 7182 points.
> 
> I'm running a 360mm AIO cooler and idle temps for example tend to be around 36~40 degrees. 3900xt. LLC is at auto just now as is voltage.
> 
> Is there something else causing Cinebench to run this hot for me? I see a lot of other people at 70~80 degrees. HWiNFO seems to suggest 160w and 113a is a reasonable limit in terms of the chip coming close to maxing that. I know if I drop it lower temps should come down a bit but many people in this topic run upwards of 200.


Seems definitely too high, those are temps you should get only with Prime95...

PPT and TDC seems to be in the right spot.

Check how it goes with Scalar 1x or a slight negative vCore offset.


----------



## Audioboxer

ManniX-ITA said:


> Seems definitely too high, those are temps you should get only with Prime95...
> 
> PPT and TDC seems to be in the right spot.
> 
> Check how it goes with Scalar 1x or a slight negative vCore offset.


Still hitting 88~89 degrees in HWiNFO (CPU package temp)



















Scores










It's weird because gaming with the EDC bug is like 50~65 degrees depending on the game. Idle temps tend to be 38~43 degrees. Using the ryzen balanced power profile, but I have tried the 1USMUS as well (its said its OK with EDC bug).

*edit* - LOL just noticed AI Suite had buggered up my AIO pump fan curve and it was capped at 50%. Should have been able to hear the fans weren't totally ramping up. Still, even at 100% I'm at 84~85 degrees. Still seems a bit hot, but at least its not 89~90. Cinebench score now 7279.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Audioboxer said:


> Still hitting 88~89 degrees in HWiNFO (CPU package temp)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scores
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's weird because gaming with the EDC bug is like 50~65 degrees depending on the game. Idle temps tend to be 38~43 degrees. Using the ryzen balanced power profile, but I have tried the 1USMUS as well (its said its OK with EDC bug).
> 
> *edit* - LOL just noticed AI Suite had buggered up my AIO pump fan curve and it was capped at 50%. Should have been able to hear the fans weren't totally ramping up. Still, even at 100% I'm at 84~85 degrees. Still seems a bit hot, but at least its not 89~90. Cinebench score now 7279.


What about with a high EDC settings?
Not sure I remember correctly but I think mine was around 75-78c with the 3800x.
With air cooling but I remember the 3800xt runs much hotter, it could fit.


----------



## Audioboxer

ManniX-ITA said:


> What about with a high EDC settings?
> Not sure I remember correctly but I think mine was around 75-78c with the 3800x.
> With air cooling but I remember the 3800xt runs much hotter, it could fit.


I'm OK with 83~84 degrees in Cinebench, as long as its away from 89~90. I guess anyone getting 77~78 degrees with a 3900XT just has better cooling than me.

Playing intensive games seems to go 60~65 degrees which is also acceptable. As you said it seems the XT chips can run a bit hotter.

160 / 113 / 16 for settings seems good enough for me, it still allows c-states to be used


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Audioboxer said:


> I'm OK with 83~84 degrees in Cinebench, as long as its away from 89~90. I guess anyone getting 77~78 degrees with a 3900XT just has better cooling than me.
> 
> Playing intensive games seems to go 60~65 degrees which is also acceptable. As you said it seems the XT chips can run a bit hotter.
> 
> 160 / 113 / 16 for settings seems good enough for me, it still allows c-states to be used


Out of curiosity, which AIO it is?

I used 135/90/1 on the 3800x so the settings seems well balanced against mine considering the number of cores.
You could probably go a bit higher if you weren't constrained by the AIO.


----------



## Audioboxer

ManniX-ITA said:


> Out of curiosity, which AIO it is?
> 
> I used 135/90/1 on the 3800x so the settings seems well balanced against mine considering the number of cores.
> You could probably go a bit higher if you weren't constrained by the AIO.


Fractal Design Celsius S36, so maybe not the best, but I bought it when getting this Fractal Meshify S2.

I was lazy though and didn't change built in pump paste lol, I could probably knock a few degrees off switching over to kryonaut.

On a side note I actually found out today how to get Fmax Enhancer stable on my Asus board with this 3900xt. Just needed some positive voltage offset. That video I posted earlier made my dumb arse understand LLC is more about heavy load stability, vcore offsets tend to be more about idle/lower workload.

I quite like Fmax Enhancer, bit less "hacky" feeling from EDC and it still gets better boost clocks and multi-core clock speeds. Not quite as high as EDC, but a wee bit cooler.

But it is an Asus board exclusive from The Stilt, so obviously if you don't have an Asus mobo you aren't getting Fmax Enhancer.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Audioboxer said:


> Fractal Design Celsius S36, so maybe not the best, but I bought it when getting this Fractal Meshify S2.
> 
> I was lazy though and didn't change built in pump paste lol, I could probably knock a few degrees off switching over to kryonaut.
> 
> On a side note I actually found out today how to get Fmax Enhancer stable on my Asus board with this 3900xt. Just needed some positive voltage offset. That video I posted earlier made my dumb arse understand LLC is more about heavy load stability, vcore offsets tend to be more about idle/lower workload.
> 
> I quite like Fmax Enhancer, bit less "hacky" feeling from EDC and it still gets better boost clocks and multi-core clock speeds. Not quite as high as EDC, but a wee bit cooler.
> 
> But it is an Asus board exclusive from The Stilt, so obviously if you don't have an Asus mobo you aren't getting Fmax Enhancer.


It's not an exceptional AIO, the water pump is slow, but probably the biggest issue is that it's old and looking at CPU block it has the water flow only in the middle.

I'll have check the Fmax Enchancer, got an ASUS board for my niece.
But it's going to take at least 2 months before I can go back home...


----------



## Audioboxer

ManniX-ITA said:


> It's not an exceptional AIO, the water pump is slow, but probably the biggest issue is that it's old and looking at CPU block it has the water flow only in the middle.
> 
> I'll have check the Fmax Enchancer, got an ASUS board for my niece.
> But it's going to take at least 2 months before I can go back home...


I'll probably replace it at some point, it runs fine in general, like if I just left this chip alone to do things as built 

Fmax is really good for more frequent single core boosts but more importantly a higher sustained multicore boost. All without any messing around needed for anyone with decent silicon. In my case it just needed a fairly small positive voltage offset to help in idle.

More explanation here if you haven't seen it already ASUS ROG X570 Crosshair VIII Overclocking &amp...


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Audioboxer said:


> I'll probably replace it at some point, it runs fine in general, like if I just left this chip alone to do things as built
> 
> Fmax is really good for more frequent single core boosts but more importantly a higher sustained multicore boost. All without any messing around needed for anyone with decent silicon. In my case it just needed a fairly small positive voltage offset to help in idle.
> 
> More explanation here if you haven't seen it already ASUS ROG X570 Crosshair VIII Overclocking &amp...


Yes it's not strictly needed... but at least you know you have an option for improvement 

I've read a bit the whole thread but not having the board here made it a bit pointless, I've already forgot most of it.


----------



## Medizinmann

Audioboxer said:


> Fractal Design Celsius S36, so maybe not the best, but I bought it when getting this Fractal Meshify S2.
> 
> I was lazy though and didn't change built in pump paste lol, I could probably knock a few degrees off switching over to kryonaut.


Well you really should try a repaste/remount...something is pretty fishy...or this AIO is really bad.

I got similar up to 88°C and a similar CB20-Score multi with my 3900X - when I was using the stock cooler with kryonaut as TIM - of course ramped up to 100%.

With watercooling and LM as TIM...I don't see any temps higher than 78°C - with EDC=1 (500/230/1) that is...and not that much throtteling in CB20 of course with scores around 7600.

Best regards,
Medizinmann


----------



## Audioboxer

Medizinmann said:


> Well you really should try a repaste/remount...something is pretty fishy...or this AIO is really bad.
> 
> I got similar up to 88°C and a similar CB20-Score multi with my 3900X - when I was using the stock cooler with kryonaut as TIM - of course ramped up to 100%.
> 
> With watercooling and LM as TIM...I don't see any temps higher than 78°C - with EDC=1 (500/230/1) that is...and not that much throtteling in CB20 of course with scores around 7600.
> 
> Best regards,
> Medizinmann


Probably a combo of a poor AIO and its paste being bad. I'll redo the paste at some point and maybe replace the AIO one day. I got it new for pretty cheap due to store selling it phasing it out as old stock (2017 model).

As I said its fine with normal use and runs quiet on my fan curve for keeping gaming at 50-65 degrees depending on title.

It's an asetek 6 pump I believe but the construction of the overall AIO is clearly on the cheaper side than some.

I've settled on using Fmax Enhancer over the EDC trick anyway, due to me finally getting it stable.


----------



## weleh

Does this work on Zen 3? 

I'm trying to get around the hardcap on override introduced with AGESA 1.2.0.0 on some boards.


----------



## Nighthog

weleh said:


> Does this work on Zen 3?
> 
> I'm trying to get around the hardcap on override introduced with AGESA 1.2.0.0 on some boards.


As far as I've understood it's only for Ryzen 3000 series this works on, they fixed the issue that was causing the override with later CPU's.

Even Ryzen 4000 APU can't use the EDC bug, they adhere and keep the limit, Ryzen 5000 should be similar.


----------



## Audioboxer

I'm back at this having a go again as I've finally switched over to a watercooling loop, so no more 80+ degree temperatures lol.

Am I correct to say Asus (or some Asus boards) stop precision boost if you overclock BCLK? I can go above 100 but when I do my 3900XT stops boosting, just runs at 3.8ghz max.

7417 seems to be the highest cinebench score I can get. This is with 170 / 113 / 1 and Cstates disabled. 

HWINFO64 says the cores run mostly at 4.225, sometimes 4.250. 

Unfortunately a bit off the 7700 mark others seem to be getting.


----------



## buddywh

Yuke said:


> Yeah, maybe it is because of the 5950X he was using...i rewatched the video tho and have to correct myself a bit...max voltage drawn was 1.675V Auto...but still pretty nice.


I still have to think 1.67V is hazardous to your CPU. We know they're safe up to 1.5V (as that's what AMD says to expect) but going upwards of 1.7V it's just too close to punching through a dielectric with instant death. LN2 doesn't help with dielectric break-down; only with electron migration since it's thermally driven


----------



## Medizinmann

buddywh said:


> I still have to think 1.67V is hazardous to your CPU. We know they're safe up to 1.5V (as that's what AMD says to expect) but going upwards of 1.7V it's just too close to punching through a dielectric with instant death. LN2 doesn't help with dielectric break-down; only with electron migration since it's thermally driven


I don't think user Yuke wants to imply that 1,67V is save in the long run....just that in that short test the CPU could withstand relatively high Voltages without immediately failing... 

A much more interesting test from der8auer in this regard is his long-term OC-Test...
(217) AMD Ryzen 5000 Long Term OC Testing - Will the 7nm CPUs degrade over time? - YouTube

Best regards,
Medizinmann


----------



## buddywh

Medizinmann said:


> I don't think user Yuke wants to imply that 1,67V is save in the long run....just that in that short test the CPU could withstand relatively high Voltages without immediately failing...
> 
> A much more interesting test from der8auer in this regard is his long-term OC-Test...
> (217) AMD Ryzen 5000 Long Term OC Testing - Will the 7nm CPUs degrade over time? - YouTube
> 
> Best regards,
> Medizinmann


I understand that (about not running 1.67V for long periods). What I'm saying, though, is it 'might' be unsafe anyway. Dielectric breakdown is a different mechanism from electron migration. Specifically: it can happen instantly while degradation happens over time with high temp at high core current. I really, honestly think AMD stops at 1.5V for a reason.

der8auer's tests seem focused on degradation by running heavy loads 24/7 at elevated voltage. Also, much less interesting (to me, at least) because he's not using an accelerated testing methodology. Result in 1-2 years which is too long for me to wait for overclocking choices. A properly designed experiment in a thermal chamber could get results in 1-2 weeks.

And in even 1 year I can see the argument going something like "OMG, 7nm process changes are so extensive the dies coming out now are much (more/less) (your choice) sensitive to over-volting!"

But then: TL/DW LOL. I may have missed something about useful results coming sooner!


----------



## byDenoso

Is That bug safe for a bad R5 3600?


----------



## Medizinmann

byDenoso said:


> Is That bug safe for a bad R5 3600?


Define bad...

Define safe...

As always - as long as cooling and power deliver is sufficient - nothing bad should happen...

Best regards,
Medizinmann


----------



## byDenoso

Medizinmann said:


> Define bad...
> 
> Define safe...
> 
> As always - as long as cooling and power deliver is sufficient - nothing bad should happen...
> 
> Best regards,
> Medizinmann


Bad: Not hitting 4.2ghz in single core even with my 240mm AIO. a reach ~3,95ghz at full load with 70°C (yes, my 3600 is THAT BAD)
Safe: for 24 / 7 long term use (gaming only).

Should i apply a positive offset? i get BSOD's with stock + negative offset (-0,024v is enough for bluescreen).


----------



## Nighthog

byDenoso said:


> Bad: Not hitting 4.2ghz in single core even with my 240mm AIO. a reach ~3,95ghz at full load with 70°C (yes, my 3600 is THAT BAD)
> Safe: for 24 / 7 long term use (gaming only).
> 
> Should i apply a positive offset? i get BSOD's with stock + negative offset (-0,024v is enough for bluescreen).


I need usually stronger LLC and a positive offset to get use from the PBO BUG on my 3800X. Depends on the motherboard what kind of LLC, offset is needed. Your CPU sample quality/behaviour also plays a part.
Negative offset is just asking for a bad time.

The PBO bug removes a Amperage limit for EDC, so it will boost higher requiring more voltage not less than usual to remain stable.


----------



## byDenoso

Nighthog said:


> I need usually stronger LLC and a positive offset to get use from the PBO BUG on my 3800X. Depends on the motherboard what kind of LLC, offset is needed. Your CPU sample quality/behaviour also plays a part.
> Negative offset is just asking for a bad time.
> 
> The PBO bug removes a Amperage limit for EDC, so it will boost higher requiring more voltage not less than usual to remain stable.


Strange, i've seen the same voltages using the EDC Bug, now it boosts to 4.28ghz in one core and 4.18ghz while gaming


----------



## Medizinmann

byDenoso said:


> Bad: Not hitting 4.2ghz in single core even with my 240mm AIO. a reach ~3,95ghz at full load with 70°C (yes, my 3600 is THAT BAD)
> Safe: for 24 / 7 long term use (gaming only).


Mhh...did you check the TIM?
I did repaste/reseat my cooler at least twice - for optimal performance.



> Should i apply a positive offset? i get BSOD's with stock + negative offset (-0,024v is enough for bluescreen).


It depends - my CPU (3900X) likes a small negative offset - but most poeple vote against it...



byDenoso said:


> Strange, i've seen the same voltages using the EDC Bug, now it boosts to 4.28ghz in one core and 4.18ghz while gaming


Sounds good.

Best regards,
Medizinmann


----------



## fastturtle

Manix-ITA: I'll have to check your scalar as I've just started playing with it. Currently using a 3x and no offsets other then the -100mv vid/vcore. One thing I'm quite happy with is seeing the 44+ on all cores while running P95 SFT Torture. One change I made that the bios provides is to unlock the VRM limits. What I am assuming is that if the CPU needs more volts, it's now able to draw them.


----------



## fastturtle

What Bios did AMD pull the negative core offsets from? My Asrock b450M pro4 is on 4.60 and I've got both offsets at -100mv for soc/vid and very happy with temps.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

I was able to use EDC at 7 on my 3600XT with the Master. Had to disable Global C States.
Not as big advantage as with the 3800X but still absolutely worth it.
All cores are boosting +100 MHz than before; in Geekbench5 ST went up about 50 points and MT about 150-200 points.


----------

