# Strictly technical: Matisse (Not really)



## The Stilt

*07/08/2019 6:33 PM (GMT) - Update on the bios issue on Crosshair VIII Hero motherboard ("the thing").*

Earlier today I received a response to my inquiries from ASUS. The response was rather technical and I cannot go into the specifics of what exactly it involved.
However, it confirmed my suspicions of what actually has caused the seen anomalies. A long story short; a mistake has been made and it has affected the results of multiple reviewers, including my own. In my own case, I ended
up discarding my own affected multithreaded results alltogether, before even releasing them. I'm still angry because of a lot of my own and other peoples work went to waste because of it. But like I said, mistakes do happen.
In this case all of the evidence and known facts suggest that this was indeed a mistake, caused by an extremely tight schedule and miscommunication between several different parties. Infact, all of the facts I can personally verify
indicate that despite the rather suspicious way this mistake happened, there never was any malicous intent involved.

ASUS also provided me a new bios versions for both Crosshair VIII Hero and Formula boards, which correct the mistake made in newer than the AMD approved 0066 bios builds.
Based on my own testing done on the 3900X SKU, the CPU now meets its specification in terms of the allowed power consumption (same way, as the approved 0066 build did). The new build has currently not been validated, so
it will take some time until its changes get reflected to builds available to the larger audience.

What kind of effects will the fixed bioses have then?

Based on my own testing (*do note that silicon variation exists and that the sample size is one for 3900X*):

- ~ 27W lower average power package power consumption (VDDCR_CPU & VDDCR_SoC, i.e. the main power rails)
- 7°C lower temperature (tDie, while using DeepCool Assassin II cooler)
- < 90MHz average frequency loss across all twelve cores in MT workloads

The above figures were recorded during Blender 2.80b runs, but they should translate almost directly to Cinebench R20 NT as well (based on my experience).

The peak power difference between the faulty and the fixed bioses is around 35W (Prime95).

Despite there is no question that a mistake was made, I'd still like to thank ASUS for two specific reasons: they didn't try to deny the existence of the issue (which btw. is the usual reponse within the industry), but also fixed it immediately.
I also do feel bad for the bios engineer, who had to stay over(over)-time to get the bios build done. Thanks for that. I also have to feel bad for ASUS, because this mistake might have smirched the reputation of their brand new Crosshair VIII -series motherboards.
And make no mistake, these are one of the best, if not the best X570 boards available at the market (a personal opinion).

At this point you should ask yourself if ASUS paid me off?
Everyone can be bought, its just the matter of the offered sum or bargain. Everyone claiming otherwise either lives in self-deception or frankly, is a moron.
I myself could definitely be bought. And rather cheaply too, I think. The thing is, just that at least until writing this, nobody has even tried to do so.

Besides of this statement, I also corrected an error AMD pointed out to me.
Despite the 3900X CPU has fused (factory programmed) Fmax ceiling of 4.65GHz, AMD only advertises 4.60GHz maximum boost.
I must admit that I was initially surprised to see the 3900X having 4.65GHz fused maximum boost limit, since AMD indeed only mentions 4.60GHz in their marketing materials.
Nevertheless, I'm yet to reach the advertised 4.6GHz either, so in that regard the only thing which changes is the CPU falling 25MHz short instead of 75MHz short of its advertised frequency.

*-------------------------------------------------------------------*

*First and foremost, a word of warning. When reading ANY of the AMD Ryzen 3000-series "Matisse" launch-day reviews, the first thing you should do is navigate to the page which lists the hardware setups.
AMD supplied four different motherboards to the media, one from ASRock, ASUS, GIGABYTE and MSI. In case of the ASUS Crosshair VIII Hero Wi-Fi motherboard, the media was instructed to use 0066 bios build,
which had been vetted and approved by AMD. However, newer bios builds were available and ASUS has also (allegedly) told the media to use those versions. What exactly has transpired here is still under investigation,
but regardless of the actual reasons behind it, the consequences might be rather significant. In practical terms, all reviews which were done on ASUS Crosshair VIII Formula or Hero motherboards using other than 0066 bios build must
be considered invalid, at least partially. Reviews using other ASUS motherboard models (not provided by AMD) are under suspicion as well.*

Few days ago, I noticed certain anomalies, while measuring the power consumption of the different Matisse SKUs. Inspection of the power management parameters revealed no issues, which could have explained those anomalies.
The external power measurements (VRM DCR) revealed that the CPU was consuming significantly more power, than its power management should have allowed it to. I initially suspected that this was AMDs own doing, in an effort trying
to boost the performance of the new CPUs even further, but further investigation indicated otherwise.

AMD had no part in it, and the actions by ASUS are the sole reason behind it. The investigation revealed that ASUS is altering one or more power
management parameters of the CPU, causing it believe it consumes less power than it actually does. As a result, the frequencies will be higher than the actual power budget would normally allow to. Tricks like this are pretty much a common (mal)practice these
days however, there is a good reason why this must be considered worse than the others: this "thing" is completely undetectable without external measurements and rather deep knowledge, but also there is no way to disable it either.
Even a person such as myself, who can control most things on these platforms cannot disable this "thing". As you may notice, at the moment I call this issue the "thing", since I'm giving ASUS the benefit of a doubt.

The release schedule of Ryzen 3000-series CPUs was rather ridiculous to begin with for two reasons. The retail (or PR, production ready) silicon has been available for at least two months, and relatively finished motherboard designs even longer than that.
Yet AMD had decided to enforce EXTREMELY strict control (NLTR, nothing leaves the room) over the silicon samples. I could have had several different X570 motherboard models months ago, but I managed to lay my hands on the first CPUs just three weeks ago (give or take). The actual CPU samples were distributed to the media just six days prior to the launch date.

Due to the extremely tight schedule, I have worked around 16 hours per day, for the last couple of days. There is nothing I hate more in this world than seeing my work being wasted.
This time a substantial part of it was wasted because of something I had no control over. Unless ASUS can clearly prove that this "thing" happened due to a human error and wasn't intentional, I have to reconsider my relations with them.
Mistakes do happen, but regardless of the actual reasons behind it, it definitely shouldn't have happened.

Despite AMD instructed the media to use the approved 0066 bios build with Crosshair VIII Hero, at the moment I have no idea how many of the reviewers ended up following those instructions and how many thought it would be a good idea to use the latest build (which in case of a new platform, most often is). Potentially this "thing" might have caused significant financial losses as well, in terms of additional salaries required to get the products re-tested with proper settings.

So then, what is affected? Technically every scenario on every Ryzen 3000-series SKU, which might be power limited. Purely single threaded workloads are fine, as well as at least most of the pure gaming tests.
However, every multithreaded CPU workload / benchmark must be considered invalid, if ASUS Crosshair VIII Hero with any other than 0066 bios version was used as the platform.

I used Crosshair VIII Formula for my tests, and since this model wasn't supplied to the media by AMD, there was no "official" (i.e vetted and approved) bios build for it either.
In my case I ended up discarding all of my multithreaded results. Since the Ryzen 3000-series multithreaded results were invalid, there was no point in keeping the multithreaded results for the other platforms either.
Since single threaded workloads are never power limited, these results were fine. In case of testing the SMT-yield on different architectures, the power limits were disabled anyway to avoid any potential biasing, so these results are included as well.

I originally intended to provide a lot more, but unfortunately the reality is that there was never enough time to do it all. The various different issues on several platforms and the "thing" (which was confirmed only yesterday) didn't help things either.
Also the issues with AGESA cross-compability also prevented testing the SMT-yield on Pinnacle Ridge. Because of that, I only provide the figures for Matisse, Coffee Lake Refresh and Skylake-X.

*Test setups*

AMD Ryzen 7 2700X (IPC / SMT = 3.800GHz fixed)
ASUS ROG Crosshair VIII Formula (Bios 0605, µCode 0x0800820D 4/16/2019, SMU 43.22)
2x16GB Corsair LPX 3333C16 running at 2666MHz 12-12-12-28 (IPC)
Deepcool Assassin II cooler
Windows 10 Education 10.0.18362.175

AMD Ryzen 7 3700X (IPC / SMT = 3.800GHz fixed, SKU-SKU ST up to 4.40GHz)
ASUS ROG Crosshair VIII Formula (Bios 0605, µCode 0x08701013 6/11/2019, SMU 46.37)
2x16GB Corsair LPX 3333C16 running at 2666MHz 12-12-12-28 (IPC & SMT), 3200MHz 14-14-14-32, 1:1 FCLK (SKU-SKU ST)
Deepcool Assassin II cooler
Windows 10 Education 10.0.18362.175

AMD Ryzen 7 3900X (SKU-SKU ST up to 4.6GHz)
ASUS ROG Crosshair VIII Formula (Bios 0605, µCode 0x08701013 6/11/2019, SMU 46.37)
2x16GB Corsair LPX 3333C16 running at 2666MHz 12-12-12-28 (IPC & SMT), 3200MHz 14-14-14-32, 1:1 FCLK (SKU-SKU ST)
Deepcool Assassin II cooler
Windows 10 Education 10.0.18362.175

i9-9900K (IPC / SMT = 3.800GHz fixed, SKU-SKU ST = 1C = 5.00GHz, 2C = 5.00GHz as defined by the fuses), ring offset -3.
ASUS ROG Strix Z390-E Gaming (Bios 1005, modified with µCode 0xBE 5/17/2019 includes all available mitigations, ME FW 12.0.40.1433)
All scenarios: 2x16GB Corsair LPX 3333C16, running at 2666MHz 12-12-12-28
Deepcool Assassin II cooler
Windows 10 Education 10.0.18362.175

i9-9920X (IPC / SMT = 3.800GHz fixed, SKU-SKU ST = 1-2C = 4.5GHz (TBM, SSE), 1-2C = 3.9GHz (AVX2), 1-2C = 3.7GHz (AVX512) as defined by the fuses), mesh 2.4GHz.
ASUS ROG Rampage VI Apex (Bios 1705, modified with µCode 0x2000005E 4/2/2019 includes all available mitigations, ME FW 11.11.65.1590)
All scenarios: 4x16GB Corsair LPX 3333C16, running at 2666MHz 12-12-12-28
Deepcool Assassin II cooler
Windows 10 Education 10.0.18362.175

*The IPC*

For the first time in over a decade, AMD has reached IPC parity with Intel.
On average, based on the results of 32 individual workloads Zen 2 even manages to provide slightly higher average IPC than Coffee Lake-S Refresh.
Thanks to it AVX-512 resources Skylake-X manages to stay a head in this test suite however, not by a large margin.



Spoiler















Individual results: https://imgur.com/a/AonND9l

*NOTE:* The gallery link has been updated on 7/9/2019 due to a following reason: In case of the tonemapping test, I've misunderstood the actual performance restrictions of the chain.
The original title of the tonemap chart was "ZIMG 2.91" however, the author pointed out to me that ZIMG itself is not the bottleneck in this case. Therefore the title of the chart has been changed from ZIMG 2.91 to FFMpeg 4.14.
The results (in any regard) are unchanged. The original and mislabeled gallery can be seen here: https://imgur.com/a/LeuwqnD for reference purposes only.

"ER" (Extremities removed):

Pinnacle Ridge - Coffee Lake SR = Particle Force (Hi), Vampire Numbers (Lo)
Pinnacle Ridge - Skylake-X = Linpack (Hi), Vampire Numbers (Lo)
Pinnacle Ridge - Matisse = Particle Force (Hi), Vampire Numbers (Lo)

*The SMT-yield*



Spoiler















Individual results: https://imgur.com/a/bUgp153

*SKU vs. SKU results

*


Spoiler



*








*



Individual results: https://imgur.com/a/y4HAZPF

*NOTE:* The gallery link has been updated on 7/9/2019 due to a following reason: In case of the tonemapping test, I've misunderstood the actual performance restrictions of the chain.
The original title of the tonemap chart was "ZIMG 2.91" however, the author pointed out to me that ZIMG itself is not the bottleneck in this case. Therefore the title of the chart has been changed from ZIMG 2.91 to FFMpeg 4.14.
The results (in any regard) are unchanged. The original and mislabeled gallery can be seen here: https://imgur.com/a/otWpc5H for reference purposes only.

"ER" (Extremities removed):

3700X-9900K = Stockfish (Hi), Vampire Numbers (Lo)
3700X-9920X = Linpack (Hi), Eigen (Lo)
3700X-3900X = Vampire Numbers (Hi), Lame (Lo)

*A word regarding the "Auto Overclocking" feature...*

The new "auto overclocking" feature, which is advertised with up to 200MHz frequency increase, in reality does close to nothing, at least on higher-end SKUs.
The lower-end SKUs, such as Ryzen 5 3600 definitely get some advantage however, the higher-end SKUs such as the 3700X and 3900X can be completely maxed out simply by increasing or removing the power limit (through PBO).
These SKUs are already clocked so high that further frequency improvements theoretically made possible by the "Auto OC" feature are disallowed by the silicon fitness monitoring feature (FIT), due to the required voltage for higher frequencies being too high. For instance,
on the 3700X test sample the best core of the CPU raises its frequency by 25MHz when the highest 200MHz option is selected. The rest of the seven cores remain at their default frequency, which varies between 4.35GHz and 4.375GHz.
Meanwhile the 3900X, which has stock max boost of 4.6GHz, there are no gains what so ever. In fact, none of the cores within this CPU even reach the advertised 4.6GHz. The two best cores reach 4.575GHz, while the ten other cores reach 4.325 - 4.4GHz peak. The variation between the different cores even on the same piece of a silicon appears to be huge, which would indicate that the process isn't very mature at this point. Even AMD themselves state in their slides that the frequencies are limited by the voltage they can safely feed to the CPU.

*The overclocking capabilities*

Essentially, if we're talking about the higher-end SKUs, there is basically none.
Based on my experience, the best case of scenario on 6C CCDs (3600, 3600X and 3900X) is around 4.25GHz, at relatively safe voltage levels.
In case of 3900X, given that you can cool the chip with two of those 6C CCDs. SKUs with 8C CCDs (3700X, 3800X and 3950X) the best case is around 4.15GHz. The 3950X is expected to be thermally limited, as a whole.
The biggest limit is the intensity (heat per area), secondly the voltage you can safely feed to the silicon. For example, the 9900K which has a reputation of being an inferno, has theoretical intensity of ~1.15W/mm² when operating at 5.0GHz (200W @ 174mm²).
Meanwhile Matisse can easily reach intensity of > 1.5W/mm² (120W+ @ 74mm²). The second issue is, that beyond ~3.8GHz the V/F curve becomes extremely steep. According to FIT, the safe voltage levels for the silicon are around 1.325V in high-current loads
and up to 1.47V in low-current loads (i.e ST), depending on the silicon characteristics. Because the stock boost operation is already limited by the silicon voltage reliability, the only way to eke out every last bit of all-core performance is using OC-Mode. Like on previous Ryzen generations, entering OC-Mode also means that you will loose the turbo boost (all cores operate at same frequency). On the higher-end SKUs, the single threaded performance penalty will be massive from doing so. For example on 3900X, you'd be trading additional ~100MHz all-core frequency to a loss of up to 450MHz in ST frequency by doing so. Personally, I advice against overclocking the higher-end SKUs at all, and instead increasing the power limits and trying your luck with the "Auto OC" feature (which most likely isn't beneficial).

The V/F testing was done using full resource utilization (FRU), meaning the stability was tested using 256-bit workloads.
Unlike Intel designs, Matisse does not feature an offset for 256-bit workloads. This means that to ensure the stability of the CPU cores in every scenario, they must be tested using this kind of a workload.
On Matisse, the delta in power consumption between the scalar and 256-bit vector instructions is massive, as expected (37%). That being said, there seems to be other design related factors limiting the maximum achievable frequency.
Despite significantly lower power consumption and therefore also lower temperatures, stability even in pure scalar workloads could not be achieved at much higher frequencies, compare to FRU scenario.



Spoiler
























*Performance per Watt*

As expected, Matisse provides significantly higher performance per watt than its competition, thanks to its leading edge 7nm manufacturing process. Some of you might notice that Matisse's power efficiency seems to peak at 3.5GHz, despite the fact that semiconductors do not behave like that. The reason behind this was revealed by Vmin testing, which clearly illustrated that Matisse lacks fused V/F (voltage-frequency) curve below 3.4GHz. This means that below 3.4GHz frequencies the voltage is always at the same level, it is at 3.4GHz. The stock (fused) V/F curve appears to be extremely well optimized as well, leaving only the temperature factor on the table.



Spoiler


----------



## The Stilt

IPC and SMT yield figures in, SKU-SKU ST results later.


----------



## lordzed83

The Stilt said:


> IPC and SMT yield figures in, SKU-SKU ST results later.


Fantastic wrightup. Cant wait what can 3900x run at on my cooling. 2700x survived 14 months of constant 24/7 load with 1.425vcore


----------



## chakku

Awesome writeup and interesting analysis on the overclocking.

Is there a chance we could see some CCD latency testing and compare how data hopping from a core on one chiplet to the other compares to a single chiplet processor? Ie how a theoretical 2CCX/2CCX + 2CCX/2CCX 8 core processor would fare against the 3700X's 4CCX/4CCX? (I know this is probably outside the scope of your analysis but it's worth a try since Matisse does change the layout entirely)


----------



## Luminair

Great work as usual, thanks for investigating the motherboard mystery.

One of the reviewers lost their 3900x while overclocking, so I think it's safe to say that you're right and AMD has left no room to spare.


----------



## The Stilt

chakku said:


> Awesome writeup and interesting analysis on the overclocking.
> 
> Is there a chance we could see some CCD latency testing and compare how data hopping from a core on one chiplet to the other compares to a single chiplet processor? Ie how a theoretical 2CCD/2CCD + 2CCD/2CCD 8 core processor would fare against the 3700X's 4CCD/4CCD? (I know this is probably outside the scope of your analysis but it's worth a try since Matisse does change the layout entirely)


I can try testing the latencies tomorrow, I should have a suitable tool somewhere.


----------



## chakku

The Stilt said:


> I can try testing the latencies tomorrow, I should have a suitable tool somewhere.


Awesome, this review appears to suggest that there's no latency difference between CCDs regardless of which chiplet they're on, so it would be good to get another reference point.


----------



## Heuchler

The Stilt said:


> I can try testing the latencies tomorrow, I should have a suitable tool somewhere.


Thanks for doing this. Worth so much more than all the youtube tech guys reviews combined.


----------



## datspike

Beautiful work.
Incredible how much more information on 3xxz cpus I ve got from your work than from YouTube nonsense


----------



## Diablix6

Great review, thank you.


As already said, this post provides more for us more relevant info than the most of the youtube / standard press.


I wonder if I will need to get custom loop for planned 3900X/3950X, or if I can safely work with stock cooler, since as you and many other reviewers wrote, OC almost provides no benefit. And paying 400+$ for custom loop seems to be to steep price for 'bout 50MHz boost over stock cooler.


----------



## ayerly

*you missed something on your work.*

bios given to press (the ones approved by AMD) are defective.

Here is the proof that it works as advertised with proper bios in use :


----------



## chakku

Some more on latencies, another confirmation that there are no 'penalties' for communications between chiplets. Even within a chiplet the CCX communications are already done through the I/O die. https://twitter.com/0x22h/status/1147863835161722881


----------



## JackCY

Thanks Stilt!


----------



## 1usmus

Thank you for posting at least part of the whole situation

respect!


----------



## xeizo

Thanks Stilt, invaluable information. Looks like in example 3800X will be hard to launch in any numbers as the specs are too optimistic out of the box. 3950X even more so, but it is at least officially delayed in launch.

I think the only star in this launch is the 3600, great price/performance!


----------



## gupsterg

@The Stilt , thank you as always for these invaluable shares :thumb: .


----------



## FlanK3r

great work Roger! 
did you tested also PBO level 3/4, is there somethig like this what we know from C7H and Pinnacle Ridge? Thank you.


----------



## RossiOCUK

Good job as usual, thanks


----------



## VPII

@The Stilt , interestingly a friend of mine who's been playing around with a 3600 and a couple x570 mobo's found that you really need to tune to get the IF speed to be half the memory speed and it makes a big difference in latency, read and write speed for the memory and assist with overall performance.

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk


----------



## rdr09

VPII said:


> @The Stilt , interestingly a friend of mine who's been playing around with a 3600 and a couple x570 mobo's found that you really need to tune to get the IF speed to be half the memory speed and it makes a big difference in latency, read and write speed for the memory and assist with overall performance.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk


I'm not understanding this. Isn't that is what we are trying to avoid by staying at or up to 3733MHz or just use 3600MHz and lower?


----------



## gupsterg

Currently I have a pre-order for R7 3700X, after reading OP, I'm thinking of getting a R5 3600. Especially as all I do is tinker with the setup than really use it. OP would suggest to be the non X R5 3600 has full PBO support or am I reading between the lines, anyone able to share info on this? or do I just order a R5 3600 which can be here tomorrow and try it  .


----------



## VPII

rdr09 said:


> I'm not understanding this. Isn't that is what we are trying to avoid by staying at or up to 3733MHz or just use 3600MHz and lower?


Even in the x470 motherboards you'll get added options in the bios when dropping a Ryzen 3000 in with which you can set the IF speed hence higher memory clocks being possible. But the higher memory clocks won't help much if your IF is at 1000mhz.

My friend had the IF speed at 1900mhz on an Asrock x570 board. He struggled with both the Asus and GB board he has due to bios not really working as it should.

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk


----------



## Jism

> the safe voltage levels for the silicon are around 1.325V in high-current loads
> and up to 1.47V in low-current loads


Really, take that advise for granted whenever your going to put in a manual OC. I've seen people degrade their 2x00 series chips to bits and even review websites sending out the wrong signal for putting 1.4 / 1.45v vcore. It will degrade your chip faster then you think.

Just as (my) 2700x; undervolting and good cooling is what gets the best out of XFR/PBO (4.1Ghz All core and 4.35Ghz single).


----------



## rdr09

gupsterg said:


> Currently I have a pre-order for R7 3700X, after reading OP, I'm thinking of getting a R5 3600. Especially as all I do is tinker with the setup than really use it. OP would suggest to be the non X R5 3600 has full PBO support or am I reading between the lines, anyone able to share info on this? or do I just order a R5 3600 which can be here tomorrow and try it  .


Yes, so we can read your findings soon! Then, sell it when the 16 core cores.


----------



## rdr09

VPII said:


> Even in the x470 motherboards you'll get added options in the bios when dropping a Ryzen 3000 in with which you can set the IF speed hence higher memory clocks being possible. But the higher memory clocks won't help much if your IF is at 1000mhz.
> 
> My friend had the IF speed at 1900mhz on an Asrock x570 board. He struggled with both the Asus and GB board he has due to bios not really working as it should.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk


Looks like Asrock is on the ball this time. Thanks VPII. +rep.


----------



## gupsterg

For those interested Anandtech article has nice info on constraints for 3xxx.



Spoiler






> The constraints are as follows:
> 
> Package Power Tracking (PPT): The power threshold that is allowed to be delivered to the socket.
> 
> This is 88W for 65W TDP processors, and 142W for 105W TDP processors.
> 
> Thermal Design Current (TDC): The maximum amount of current delivered by the motherboard’s voltage regulators when under thermally constrained scenarios (high temperatures)
> 
> This is 60A for 65W TDP processors, and 95A for 105W TDP processors.
> 
> Electrical Design Current (EDC): This is the maximum amount of current at any instantaneous short period of time that can be delivered by the motherboard’s voltage regulators.
> 
> This is 90A for 65W TDP processors, and 140A for 105W TDP processors.








gupsterg said:


> Currently I have a pre-order for R7 3700X, after reading OP, I'm thinking of getting a R5 3600. Especially as all I do is tinker with the setup than really use it. OP would suggest to be the non X R5 3600 has full PBO support or am I reading between the lines, anyone able to share info on this? or do I just order a R5 3600 which can be here tomorrow and try it  .
> 
> 
> rdr09 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, so we can read your findings soon! Then, sell it when the 16 core cores.
Click to expand...

Your pushing me over the edge man!  , as forum member there it's FOC next day delivery...



Spoiler
















Jism said:


> ...
> 
> Just as (my) 2700x; undervolting and good cooling is what gets the best out of XFR/PBO (4.1Ghz All core and 4.35Ghz single).


Hopefully the 3xxx SMU doesn't track negative voltage offset just like 2xxx.


----------



## finalheaven

chakku said:


> Awesome writeup and interesting analysis on the overclocking.
> 
> Is there a chance we could see some CCD latency testing and compare how data hopping from a core on one chiplet to the other compares to a single chiplet processor? Ie how a theoretical 2CCX/2CCX + 2CCX/2CCX 8 core processor would fare against the 3700X's 4CCX/4CCX? (I know this is probably outside the scope of your analysis but it's worth a try since Matisse does change the layout entirely)


Check this out: https://3dnews.ru/990367/obzor-amd-ryzen-9-3900x


----------



## gupsterg

@finalheaven

Nice find/share  (+rep).

@rdr09

I told the wife it was you who made me do it  ...



Spoiler














Now to get ready to be further hen pecked when I tinker tomorrow ...


----------



## AlphaC

finalheaven said:


> Check this out: https://3dnews.ru/990367/obzor-amd-ryzen-9-3900x



Seems Ryzen is at the mercy of the OS scheduler again. Maybe that is a selling point for 3950X over 3900X


----------



## finalheaven

AlphaC said:


> Seems Ryzen is at the mercy of the OS scheduler again. Maybe that is a selling point for 3950X over 3900X


That is what I'm thinking as well. Apps/Games that utilize one ccx can be much more quicker. 3 cores/6 threads can be a limiting factor for those optimizing for 4 cores/8 threads in one ccx. 

3950X looks much more enticing now. Or settle for a 3700X/3800X. All this assuming that windows and/or developers get better with scheduling.


----------



## The Stilt

Regarding the die topology latencies on Matisse, here's what I measured on 3900X at stock.



Spoiler















The intra-CCX (within the same CCX) latency is static, at roughly < 32ns, while the inter-CCX (CCX to CCX) latency and inter-CCD (CCD to CCD) latencies depend on the fabric frequency (FCLK).
Which makes sense, since the CCXs on the same CCDs are connected together through the fabric, as are the different CCDs (through IO-die).


----------



## thigobr

Are you seeing the same IF frequency cap at 1800MHz as pointed by some other reviews? Could this be a firmware limitation?


----------



## The Stilt

thigobr said:


> Are you seeing the same IF frequency cap at 1800MHz as pointed by some other reviews? Could this be a firmware limitation?


1800MHz+ should be doable on all CPU specimens.
I've done 1866 and IIRC 1900MHz as well without any issues.

However, the maximum achievable FCLK depends on the memory configuration as well.
1 DPC SR B-die (i.e. single sided sticks) will be hitting the peaks, and 1 DPC DR B-die will reach 1800MHz and not much higher.
According to some sources with 2 DPC DR sticks you are looking at 1600MHz max. FCLK (haven't tested myself).

Also, 2 CCD parts (3900X and 3950X) should be more picky about FCLK, due to the always present discrepancy in the CCD signaling.
Typically one CCD will prefer lower voltage than the other and so on.


----------



## larrydavid

Which voltage would potentially aid in stabilizing high FCLK frequency?


----------



## Cirrus550

:thumb: for @The Stilt creating this article and testsing!


----------



## The Stilt

larrydavid said:


> Which voltage would potentially aid in stabilizing high FCLK frequency?


Matisse introduced a new voltage adjusment, called cLDO_VDDG. VDDG is the fabric voltage.
At default it is 0.950V however, some motherboards might increase above the default level even at stock settings.

cLDO means the voltage uses a drop-out (LDO = low drop-out) regulator.
Most cLDO voltages are regulated from the two main power rails of the CPU. In case of cLDO_VDDG and cLDO_VDDP, they are regulated from the VDDCR_SoC plane.
Because of this, there are couple rules. For example, if you set the VDDG to 1.100V, while your actual SoC voltage under load is 1.05V the VDDG will stay roughly at 1.01V max.
Likewise if you have VDDG set to 1.100V and start increasing the SoC voltage, your VDDG will raise as well. I don't have the exact figure, but you can assume that the minimum drop-out voltage (Vin-Vout) is around 40mV.
Meaning you ACTUAL SoC voltage has to be at least by this much higher, than the requested VDDG for it to take effect as it is requested.

Adjusting the SoC voltage alone, unlike on previous gen. parts doesn't do much if anything at all.
The default value is fixed 1.100V and AMD recommends keeping it at that level. Increasing the VDDG helps with the fabric overclocking in certain scenarios, but not always.
1800MHz FCLK should be doable at the default 0.9500V value and for pushing the limits it might be beneficial to increase it to =< 1.05V (1.100 - 1.125V SoC, depending on the load-line).


----------



## The Stilt

OP has been update, read unless you already have.


----------



## Heuchler

The Stilt said:


> 1800MHz+ should be doable on all CPU specimens.
> I've done 1866 and IIRC 1900MHz as well without any issues.
> 
> However, the maximum achievable FCLK depends on the memory configuration as well.
> 1 DPC SR B-die (i.e. single sided sticks) will be hitting the peaks, and 1 DPC DR B-die will reach 1800MHz and not much higher.
> According to some sources with 2 DPC DR sticks you are looking at 1600MHz max. FCLK (haven't tested myself).
> 
> Also, 2 CCD parts (3900X and 3950X) should be more picky about FCLK, due to the always present discrepancy in the CCD signaling.
> Typically one CCD will prefer lower voltage than the other and so on.


Thanks for confirming this.

"By default: memory, fabric, and memory controller are tied at 1:1:1 ratio. This is true up to DDR4-3600 (1800MHz for all). When you go to 3601+, the IF snaps to 1800MHz, and then DRAM:IMC go 2:1 ratio at whatever mclk you have. You can also go back to 1:1 if you want to try it" - Robert Hallock
https://twitter.com/Thracks/status/1148308354852425729


----------



## Unoid

So B-DIE 16GB DR ram will have trouble going over 1600mhz aka pc3200? Or did I read your previous post wrong?

I'm hoping to get 3600 @ 16-16-16-16 out of my 2x16GB 14's b-die kit


----------



## rdr09

gupsterg said:


> @finalheaven
> 
> Nice find/share  (+rep).
> 
> @rdr09
> 
> I told the wife it was you who made me do it  ...
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 278546
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now to get ready to be further hen pecked when I tinker tomorrow ...


Nice. Bench, bench, bench!


----------



## The Stilt

Unoid said:


> So B-DIE 16GB DR ram will have trouble going over 1600mhz aka pc3200? Or did I read your previous post wrong?
> 
> I'm hoping to get 3600 @ 16-16-16-16 out of my 2x16GB 14's b-die kit


No, they should do 3600MHz rather easily.
2 DPC DR (i.e. 4x16GB) is limited to ~3200MHz according to some sources, but I haven't verified it personally.
1 DPC DR I've tested myself.


----------



## nick name

I'm most interested to see if we can expect 3600MHz at 14-14-14-14 instead of the 3600MHz at 14-15-14-14 many of us have to run on our Ryzen 2000 CPUs.


----------



## The Stilt

I did a quick test on the 3900X, using the brand new AGESA 1.0.0.3 w/ A & B patches and the newest chipset-drivers:

Core Fmax listing prior these changes:



Code:


Core 1 =  4575 - 4300MHz - 1.48750V (2*)
Core 2 =  4475 - 4350MHz - 1.48750V
Core 3 =  4525 - 4225MHz - 1.47500V
Core 4 =  4575 - 4275MHz - 1.47500V (1*)
Core 5 =  4475 - 4300MHz - 1.48750V
Core 6 =  4475 - 4300MHz - 1.48750V
Core 7 =  4375 - 4300MHz - 1.46250V (1*)
Core 8 =  4350 - 4300MHz - 1.46250V
Core 9 =  4350 - 4300MHz - 1.46250V
Core 10 = 4325 - 4275MHz - 1.48125V
Core 11 = 4325 - 4300MHz - 1.47500V
Core 12 = 4400 - 4300MHz - 1.47500V (2*)

Core Fmax listing after the changes: See above...

1* = The best core of the CCD, 2* the second best core of the CCD.

I'd say unless the factory V/F calibration is out of whack, which I really don't think it is, the only way AMD is going to increase the frequencies of the CPUs is most likely
allowing them to run at higher voltages (i.e. sacrificing reliability). The voltage figure seen for each core is the voltage the CPU asks from the VRM controller through SVI2 interface, when the specific core is stressed.


----------



## anethema

So still none are even reaching their advertised boosts.

Are these new values with all-core loads? Or are you loading the cores one at a time to see their max boost?

Is this with PBO on ? Have you tweaked PBO values? If so does PBo actually do anything?



The Stilt said:


> I did a quick test on the 3900X, using the brand new AGESA 1.0.0.3 w/ A & B patches and the newest chipset-drivers:
> 
> Core Fmax listing prior these changes:
> 
> 
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> Core 1 =  4575 - 4300MHz - 1.48750V (2*)
> Core 2 =  4475 - 4350MHz - 1.48750V
> Core 3 =  4525 - 4225MHz - 1.47500V
> Core 4 =  4575 - 4275MHz - 1.47500V (1*)
> Core 5 =  4475 - 4300MHz - 1.48750V
> Core 6 =  4475 - 4300MHz - 1.48750V
> Core 7 =  4375 - 4300MHz - 1.46250V (1*)
> Core 8 =  4350 - 4300MHz - 1.46250V
> Core 9 =  4350 - 4300MHz - 1.46250V
> Core 10 = 4325 - 4275MHz - 1.48125V
> Core 11 = 4325 - 4300MHz - 1.47500V
> Core 12 = 4400 - 4300MHz - 1.47500V (2*)
> 
> Core Fmax listing after the changes: See above...
> 
> 1* = The best core of the CCD, 2* the second best core of the CCD.
> 
> I'd say unless the factory V/F calibration is out of whack, which I really don't think it is, the only way AMD is going to increase the frequencies of the CPUs is most likely
> allowing them to run at higher voltages (i.e. sacrificing reliability). The voltage figure seen for each core is the voltage the CPU asks from the VRM controller through SVI2 interface, when the specific core is stressed.


----------



## BLUuuE

Is PBO only available on X SKUs like it was on Ryzen 2000?


----------



## The Stilt

anethema said:


> So still none are even reaching their advertised boosts.
> 
> Are these new values with all-core loads? Or are you loading the cores one at a time to see their max boost?
> 
> Is this with PBO on ? Have you tweaked PBO values? If so does PBo actually do anything?


Single core load, cores tested individually.
All core clocks are ~3.975GHz in a typical MT workloads at default settings, such as Blender.
Increasing the PBO limits (PPT, TDC & EDC) will increase them as far as FIT (voltage) will allow. Practically that means around 100MHz higher clocks (4.075GHz).

PBO does nothing to the single core clocks, since single core workloads are not limited by PPT, TDC or EDC.

"Auto OC" definitely does nothing, 200MHz produces the same exact results as 0MHz.
3600 is the only SKU I've tested, on which "Auto OC" does anything significant. On 3700X it boosts the best core of the CPU by 25MHz.


----------



## The Stilt

BLUuuE said:


> Is PBO only available on X SKUs like it was on Ryzen 2000?


At least on R5 3600 it worked fine, so I guess not


----------



## JeyD02

The Stilt said:


> Single core load, cores tested individually.
> All core clocks are ~3.975GHz in a typical MT workloads at default settings, such as Blender.
> Increasing the PBO limits (PPT, TDC & EDC) will increase them as far as FIT (voltage) will allow. Practically that means around 100MHz higher clocks (4.075GHz).
> 
> PBO does nothing to the single core clocks, since single core workloads are not limited by PPT, TDC or EDC.
> 
> "Auto OC" definitely does nothing, 200MHz produces the same exact results as 0MHz.
> 3600 is the only SKU I've tested, on which "Auto OC" does anything significant. On 3700X it boosts the best core of the CPU by 25MHz.


For some reason amd Robert insists that even 3900x "should" see at least some benefits from PBO lol.

https://reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/can8yr/der8auer_on_pbo_issues_update/etalotq?context=3


----------



## The Stilt

JeyD02 said:


> For some reason amd Robert insists that even 3900x "should" see at least some benefits from PBO lol.
> 
> https://reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/can8yr/der8auer_on_pbo_issues_update/etalotq?context=3


That is not surprising, since that is the official and only stand from AMD.

Technically the 3900X should indeed hit at least the advertised 4.6GHz however, I'm yet to see any confirmed case where it actually would do that.


----------



## nick name

I just heard that the magical Performance Enhancers Level 3 and Level 4 on the ROG boards isn't present on the CH8. That bums me out. Those Performance Enhancers are the best way to run a Ryzen 2000 CPU and was hoping for the same on the 3000 CPUs too.


----------



## The Stilt

nick name said:


> I just heard that the magical Performance Enhancers Level 3 and Level 4 on the ROG boards isn't present on the CH8. That bums me out. Those Performance Enhancers are the best way to run a Ryzen 2000 CPU and was hoping for the same on the 3000 CPUs too.


In practical terms, the same exact thing is pretty much done at default now...


----------



## JeyD02

The Stilt said:


> In practical terms, the same exact thing is pretty much done at default now...


So can we now say that sub-latency timing it's not as important as Zen 1? Should it relatively be good enough if you are on 3600/3733 at default latency?

We can now accept the current perf of these chips. Overall they are beast except not beating 9900k in gaming which is FINE and expected. However I see this trend with Zen hitting a very small margin wall when it comes to manual OC. They seem to go for out of the box OC, but still not reaching the high ~5ghz freq. If IPC is better there is no point but still, is that the native constrains of these Zen architecture. I wonder.


----------



## Pilz

Luminair said:


> Great work as usual, thanks for investigating the motherboard mystery.
> 
> One of the reviewers lost their 3900x while overclocking, so I think it's safe to say that you're right and AMD has left no room to spare.


Which reviewer? Do you have a link?


----------



## The Stilt

Pilz said:


> Which reviewer? Do you have a link?


Hardware Unboxed.


----------



## The Stilt

JeyD02 said:


> So can we now say that sub-latency timing it's not as important as Zen 1? Should it relatively be good enough if you are on 3600/3733 at default latency?
> 
> We can now accept the current perf of these chips. Overall they are beast except not beating 9900k in gaming which is FINE and expected. However I see this trend with Zen hitting a very small margin wall when it comes to manual OC. They seem to go for out of the box OC, but still not reaching the high ~5ghz freq. If IPC is better there is no point but still, is that the native constrains of these Zen architecture. I wonder.


Zen 2 also benefits from tightening the sub-timings, however not even remotely to the same extent as the older parts did.
Latency wise, the bottleneck seems to be elsewhere.


----------



## fursko

The Stilt said:


> Single core load, cores tested individually.
> All core clocks are ~3.975GHz in a typical MT workloads at default settings, such as Blender.
> Increasing the PBO limits (PPT, TDC & EDC) will increase them as far as FIT (voltage) will allow. Practically that means around 100MHz higher clocks (4.075GHz).
> 
> PBO does nothing to the single core clocks, since single core workloads are not limited by PPT, TDC or EDC.
> 
> "Auto OC" definitely does nothing, 200MHz produces the same exact results as 0MHz.
> 3600 is the only SKU I've tested, on which "Auto OC" does anything significant. On 3700X it boosts the best core of the CPU by 25MHz.



Are these clocks are absolute or can we expect any surprise from silicon lottery? Precision boost can recognize better silicon or it assigns fixed frequency and voltages for every chip ? Also what can we expect from -voltage offset or pbo scalar ?

and one last question  What do you think about 3800X ? It has bad value compared to 3700X and 3900X and we already saw that even advertised boost clocks are very optimistic. 3800X looks very bad with the current information. We may end up with 3700X+pbo=4425mhz and poor 3800X with 4475mhz. What do you expect 3800X. It has 105W tdp but 3700X PBO is already breaks the limits.

ok one more  I'm planning 32gb ram this time around. My motherboard gonna be daisy chain. Which setup should work better with the ryzen 3000 4x8 single rank or 2x16 dual rank ? I'll push to fabric frequency as much as i can.

Thanks for sharing information.


----------



## The Stilt

fursko said:


> Are these clocks are absolute or can we expect any surprise from silicon lottery? Precision boost can recognize better silicon or it assigns fixed frequency and voltages for every chip ? Also what can we expect from -voltage offset or pbo scalar ?
> 
> and one last question  What do you think about 3800X ? It has bad value compared to 3700X and 3900X and we already saw that even advertised boost clocks are very optimistic. 3800X looks very bad with the current information. We may end up with 3700X+pbo=4425mhz and poor 3800X with 4475mhz. What do you expect 3800X. It has 105W tdp but 3700X PBO is already breaks the limits.
> 
> ok one more  I'm planning 32gb ram this time around. My motherboard gonna be daisy chain. Which setup should work better with the ryzen 3000 4x8 single rank or 2x16 dual rank ? I'll push to fabric frequency as much as i can.
> 
> Thanks for sharing information.


Silicon variation is always present, and based on the seen behavior I'd say even more than usual in case with Ryzen 3000-series.
That being said, ultimately the frequencies will be limited by the extreme heat intensity caused by the tiny CCD size, but also by the maximum voltage you can safely feed to the silicon.
Because of those factors, I'd expect LOWER than usual variation between the different specimens, despite the fact that the manufacturing process appears to be somewhat immature at this point.

AMD did not sample 3800X SKUs, so I have no experience on how they exactly behave. I'd expect them to behave very much like the 3700X.


----------



## cameronmc88

The Stilt said:


> Zen 2 also benefits from tightening the sub-timings, however not even remotely to the same extent as the older parts did.
> Latency wise, the bottleneck seems to be elsewhere.


So does this mean a Ryzen 2700X with low latency sub-timings 3466mhz memory wouldn't be far behind a Ryzen 3700X with say 3600mhz in gaming performance with a RTX 2080 for example.


----------



## nick name

The Stilt said:


> In practical terms, the same exact thing is pretty much done at default now...


That is wonderful to hear. Thanks fam.


----------



## The Stilt

cameronmc88 said:


> So does this mean a Ryzen 2700X with low latency sub-timings 3466mhz memory wouldn't be far behind a Ryzen 3700X with say 3600mhz in gaming performance with a RTX 2080 for example.


Since the CPU structure is significantly different the latencies are not compareable. For instance according to AMDs estimation, the increased L3 cache alone lowers the effective memory latency by up to 33ns.
So eventhou the tuned, best-case memory latency might be < 10ns higher than on Pinnacle Ridge, the effective latency on Ryzen 3000-series is still far superior.


----------



## cameronmc88

The Stilt said:


> Since the CPU structure is significantly different the latencies are not compareable. For instance according to AMDs estimation, the increased L3 cache alone lowers the effective memory latency by up to 33ns.
> So eventhou the tuned, best-case memory latency might be < 10ns higher than on Pinnacle Ridge, the effective latency on Ryzen 3000-series is still far superior.


That sounds really amazing, I'm currently trying to decide If I upgrade my GPU (Currently GTX 1060 6GB) to a RTX 2070 SUPER or my Ryzen 1800X with tweaked sub-timings (3466mhz LL) to a Ryzen 3700X.
Problem is I can only afford one atm either the 3700X or the RTX 2070 SUPER, does anybody know which would give me a better overall gaming performance upgrade.. not just talking about average frames but 1% lows and 0.1% lows??

I currently game at 1080p and very low settings for games such as Apex Legends, CoD etc. always go for high frame rate (144hz).


----------



## specialedge

nick name said:


> I'm most interested to see if we can expect 3600MHz at 14-14-14-14 instead of the 3600MHz at 14-15-14-14 many of us have to run on our Ryzen 2000 CPUs.


this is still dropping my jaw, with my sad 3533cl16 b-die kit


----------



## kundica

The Stilt said:


> That is not surprising, since that is the official and only stand from AMD.
> 
> Technically the 3900X should indeed hit at least the advertised 4.6GHz however, I'm yet to see any confirmed case where it actually would do that.


This reviewer claims it hits the specified boost using a bios with earlier AGESA on their Aorus Xtreme Mobo but were limited on newer AGESA. They write about bios/AGESA issues about 2/3 of the way down the page. https://www.xanxogaming.com/reviews...w-english-dethroning-the-intel-core-i9-9900k/ I've attached the screen grab they took from HWinfo. It's a little tough to read but you can still read the max column.


----------



## The Stilt

kundica said:


> This reviewer claims it hits the specified boost using a bios with earlier AGESA on their Aorus Xtreme Mobo but were limited on newer AGESA. They write about bios/AGESA issues about 2/3 of the way down the page. https://www.xanxogaming.com/reviews...w-english-dethroning-the-intel-core-i9-9900k/ I've attached the screen grab they took from HWinfo. It's a little tough to read but you can still read the max column.


Judging by the voltages alone, that isn't working properly either.
There is significant differences between the different core characteristics and not all of them should boost to the Fmax.
Likewise, not all of them should run at the same voltage either. No different to older CPUs, such as the 2700X. Only the best cores could boost to the Fmax (4.35GHz).

To me that looks like some kind of a bios hack, done by Gigabyte. Maybe disabled or misconfigured FIT controller.


----------



## Spectre73

The Stilt said:


> Hardware Unboxed.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDVUdpcKZMA


I asked them via twitter (linking to your OP), if they used an Asus board with a BIOS other than 0066 and they pretty much confirmed it.


----------



## gupsterg

BLUuuE said:


> Is PBO only available on X SKUs like it was on Ryzen 2000?
> 
> 
> 
> The Stilt said:
> 
> 
> 
> At least on R5 3600 it worked fine, so I guess not
Click to expand...

A purchaser of R5 3600 gained an answer from AMD source on Reddit apparently, link.

Well share my results later today  .

I was wondering Roger if like when PR released you have util for checking best/worst core core voltage difference or will that previous SW work with clock rolled back?


----------



## Melan

A question. I'm planning to order G-Skill TridentZ 3600 CL15-15-15-35 memory to go along with 3700X and aorus x570 elite, but I've read somewhere that ryzen doesn't go well with anything odd. Is this only for older ryzen or is this load-o-carp as usual? Just want to confirm before I have to send 200 euros worth of ram back and forth.


----------



## gupsterg

Melan said:


> A question. I'm planning to order G-Skill TridentZ 3600 CL15-15-15-35 memory to go along with 3700X and aorus x570 elite, but I've read somewhere that ryzen doesn't go well with anything odd. Is this only for older ryzen or is this load-o-carp as usual? Just want to confirm before I have to send 200 euros worth of ram back and forth.


On 1xxx/2xxx you disabled Gear Down Mode and odd CAS was not rounded up to nearest even. If 3xxx still needs this, that is all you'll have to do to have CAS 15.


----------



## lordzed83

@The Stilt Have You tried playing with BCLK ?? I'w not seen anything around on that topic.


----------



## Nighthog

lordzed83 said:


> @The Stilt Have You tried playing with BCLK ?? I'w not seen anything around on that topic.


I'm interested as well. though on gen 1 it wasn't that useful as it made the chip hotter and didn't help performance if you matched with regular multiplier clocking. (130fsb tried on Ryzen 7 1700)

I've made a order for a Ryzen 7 3800X and a new ASUS motherboard so will have oppurtunity to test it out whenever they actually arrive. Might take 1-2 weeks at worst.


----------



## Amardio

@The Stilt

Why these chips does not scale well with LN2 ?

After their 32nm , they never do! 
why ?


----------



## DragonQ

Thanks for all of this. Any undervolting tests would be appreciated. Would it help achieving higher boost clocks like with GPUs?


----------



## The Stilt

Spectre73 said:


> I asked them via twitter (linking to your OP), if they used an Asus board with a BIOS other than 0066 and they pretty much confirmed it.


The issue which is present in the newer than 0066 but older than 0090 bioses cannot have caused it.
Sure, the CPU exceeded its power consumption and because of that it ran at somewhat higher voltages as well than it should have had.
But typically we're talking < 30W difference in power consumption, and less than 70mV difference in the peak voltage.

A CPU which has rated power draw of 142W doesn't get killed by additional < 30W. If it does, then it was defective from the get-go and would have failed at some point in any case.


----------



## The Stilt

gupsterg said:


> I was wondering Roger if like when PR released you have util for checking best/worst core core voltage difference or will that previous SW work with clock rolled back?


Maybe at some point 

This time around thou, I might be able to do it without testing


----------



## The Stilt

Melan said:


> A question. I'm planning to order G-Skill TridentZ 3600 CL15-15-15-35 memory to go along with 3700X and aorus x570 elite, but I've read somewhere that ryzen doesn't go well with anything odd. Is this only for older ryzen or is this load-o-carp as usual? Just want to confirm before I have to send 200 euros worth of ram back and forth.


The memory controller requires disabling "GearDownMode" before the odd tCL values can be used.
This has not changed in Ryzen 3000-series, as far as I know.

G.Skill 3600 15-15-15 is the highest rated (at 1.35V) kit money can buy and they are excellent regardless if the rated tCL 15 CLK work on the platform or not.
You could probably run them at 3600MHz 14-14-14 timings with safe voltages, but the quickest way around overall is probably running them 3733MHz 15-15-15.
The system should be able to do 3733MHz even with GearDownMode disabled and since higher FCLK is beneficial, the latency should be better as well.

But like I said, my personal experience on memory related things on this platform is extremely limited, due being extremely busy for the last couple of weeks.


----------



## The Stilt

lordzed83 said:


> @*The Stilt* Have You tried playing with BCLK ?? I'w not seen anything around on that topic.


No.
I never touch the BCLK on these platforms for following reasons: There is no need to and altering the BCLK can cause serious issues since BCLK isn't an independent domain.
I've lost data on a M.2 SSD by doing so, so until there is a clear benefit to be had, I never do it again. 



Amardio said:


> @*The Stilt*
> 
> Why these chips does not scale well with LN2 ?
> 
> After their 32nm , they never do!
> why ?


Probably due to various different reasons.
One of them is the characteristics of the modern manufacturing processes, and one is the design of the chips themselves.
Both Intel's and AMD's 32nm processes were amazing in terms of Fmax. Also in case of 15h cores, they were designed to hit extremely high frequencies to begin with.
On Piledriver CPUs you could get a suicide screenshot at 6.0GHz on conventional cooling. These days were are lucky to brief turbo burst at low 5GHz's.



DragonQ said:


> Thanks for all of this. Any undervolting tests would be appreciated. Would it help achieving higher boost clocks like with GPUs?


You can see the Vmin (Vmin = minimum voltage) figures from the "Overclocking" and "Performance per Watt" sections.
As you can see from the latter chart (Vmin vs. Fuse) the only margins that are present are the thermal ones (see how the too lines meet at 3.4GHz).


----------



## CJMitsuki

The Stilt said:


> G.Skill 3600 15-15-15 is the highest rated (at 1.35V) kit money can buy and they are excellent regardless if the rated tCL 15 CLK work on the platform or not.


What about the 4000 cl17 kits? They are rated for 1.35v as well. The 4400 cl19 kits are nice too but they are rated at 1.4v


----------



## The Stilt

CJMitsuki said:


> What about the 4000 cl17 kits? They are rated for 1.35v as well. The 4400 cl19 kits are nice too but they are rated at 1.4v


They are extremely high quality sticks as well, but 3600MHz 15-15-15 is tehnically a better bin (8.333ns vs. 8.500ns at 1.350V).

Besides, anything with RGB on it doesn't count as a real product


----------



## lordzed83

The Stilt said:


> They are extremely high quality sticks as well, but 3600MHz 15-15-15 is tehnically a better bin (8.333ns vs. 8.500ns at 1.350V).
> 
> Besides, anything with RGB on it doesn't count as a real product


Ye who needs RGB its not Xmas.
Ill have a plan to play with BCLK to see how it is with locked all core oc. I'm on 102bclk on my 2700x over a year no problems for more fun i was using 104 on older bioses


----------



## Aenra

Much appreciated as always Stilt; i feel dumb everytime time i give rep to folks (useless), but.. all i can do 

Speaking of RAM btw, you (all?) should check out the new Ryzen "optimised" modules coming from GSKILL if you haven't purchased something already:









* Edit: Good thing i waited as it turns out, that 2x16Gigs at 3600/16-16-16-36 has my name on it. Whether i will or will not be able to run it there; we'll see ^^


----------



## SystemTech

@The Stilt

Someone asked I am too am interested, can you see any added advantage running a full custom waterloop with these chips given they are already so close to fmax?
Would the drop in temps allow for more vcore and clocks(50mhz+)?

Chips in question is a 3600X and 3700X


----------



## nick name

Melan said:


> A question. I'm planning to order G-Skill TridentZ 3600 CL15-15-15-35 memory to go along with 3700X and aorus x570 elite, but I've read somewhere that ryzen doesn't go well with anything odd. Is this only for older ryzen or is this load-o-carp as usual? Just want to confirm before I have to send 200 euros worth of ram back and forth.


I have a 3600CL15 kit, but can't speak to how high it can go as I only have a 2700X. I can say it will get down to 3200 12-13-12-12 timings and very tight subs. That setup doesn't perform as well as 3600 14-15-14-14 and tight subs though. 

Bearded Hardware just did a live stream with a 4000CL17 TridentZ Royal kit that he was booting at 3800 12-11-11-11 and tRFC 180. He wasn't testing stability, but the setup didn't crash and ran Aida and Cinebench. He was using a 3700X at 4.3GHz on an MSI X570 board.


----------



## gupsterg

@rdr09

Tanked up on caffeine and getting benching! 



Spoiler
















The Stilt said:


> Maybe at some point
> 
> This time around thou, I might be able to do it without testing


NP, will stay tuned  :thumb: .



lordzed83 said:


> @The Stilt Have You tried playing with BCLK ?? I'w not seen anything around on that topic.
> 
> 
> The Stilt said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> I never touch the BCLK on these platforms for following reasons: There is no need to and altering the BCLK can cause serious issues since BCLK isn't an independent domain.
> I've lost data on a M.2 SSD by doing so, so until there is a clear benefit to be had, I never do it again.
Click to expand...

I'd agree with The Stilt on this. I recently went NVMe and setup that had no issues BCLK OC with SATA SSD, would blank screen after UEFI splash screen even with 101MHz. Also Zeed see Johan's last sentence here.



SystemTech said:


> @The Stilt
> 
> Someone asked I am too am interested, can you see any added advantage running a full custom waterloop with these chips given they are already so close to fmax?
> Would the drop in temps allow for more vcore and clocks(50mhz+)?
> 
> Chips in question is a 3600X and 3700X


Checkout Der8auer's video on YT on 3000 series delid, etc, that well give you insight. Unless your going WC for say cooling additional, like GPU, for say improved noise aspect of cooling, etc all good, but MHz gains are not at all worth the outlay.


----------



## The Stilt

SystemTech said:


> @*The Stilt*
> 
> Someone asked I am too am interested, can you see any added advantage running a full custom waterloop with these chips given they are already so close to fmax?
> Would the drop in temps allow for more vcore and clocks(50mhz+)?
> 
> Chips in question is a 3600X and 3700X


Hard to say, but based on the known facts I would say no.
The main issue is getting the heat transfered out of the tiny 74mm² CCD. The actual cooling capacity of your cooling solution is not the issue here.
Maybe you can gain something (like the 50MHz you mentioned), but I definitely wouldn't increase the voltage based on the better cooling. The voltage is limited by the silicon itself, not by the thermal dissipation it results.


----------



## gupsterg

I confirm on R5 3600 retail I have full PBO settings access in UEFI based on what current UEFI 2406 AGESA ComboPi-AM4 1.0.0.2 allows  . For anyone interested I have posted experience so far on ROG forum and will continue updates there on how things go.


----------



## rdr09

gupsterg said:


> I confirm on R5 3600 retail I have full PBO settings access in UEFI based on what current UEFI 2406 AGESA ComboPi-AM4 1.0.0.2 allows  . For anyone interested I have posted experience so far on ROG forum and will continue updates there on how things go.


Nice. Got something to read.


----------



## Lexi is Dumb

gupsterg said:


> I confirm on R5 3600 retail I have full PBO settings access in UEFI based on what current UEFI 2406 AGESA ComboPi-AM4 1.0.0.2 allows  . For anyone interested I have posted experience so far on ROG forum and will continue updates there on how things go.


Wish my experience was going the same. 3700X on the X370-F with 5009 bios. Wont post with any changes at all to memory, has to be left to the 2133 c15 default. Elmor suggested something to do with boot voltage, but there's no setting for that on my board so I guess im SOL until a bios fix comes. The CPU is also hitting 1.5v at idle and I just don't know if that's normal or not.


----------



## Hale59

Lexi is Dumb said:


> Wish my experience was going the same. 3700X on the X370-F with 5009 bios. Wont post with any changes at all to memory, has to be left to the 2133 c15 default. Elmor suggested something to do with boot voltage, but there's no setting for that on my board so I guess im SOL until a bios fix comes. The CPU is also hitting 1.5v at idle and I just don't know if that's normal or not.


Apparently some people are able to run a 3900X on a B350.
https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-ryzen-9-3900x-tested-on-cheap-b350-motherboard/2.html


----------



## mouacyk

Man, what a very clouded launch for an interesting design and affordable product.


----------



## Medusa666

My motherboard is an ASUS X370 CH6. 

I have Vcore set to 1,25v in BIOS, and it also shows in BIOS during boot. 

I don't understand why the VID values are 1,1v, while the Vcore value is still 1,25v?


----------



## ReDXfiRe

The Stilt said:


> Judging by the voltages alone, that isn't working properly either.
> There is significant differences between the different core characteristics and not all of them should boost to the Fmax.
> Likewise, not all of them should run at the same voltage either. No different to older CPUs, such as the 2700X. Only the best cores could boost to the Fmax (4.35GHz).
> 
> To me that looks like some kind of a bios hack, done by Gigabyte. Maybe disabled or misconfigured FIT controller.


Hi TheStilt, first and foremost, I respect the knowledge level you have and won't even want to enter into a discussion with you. As I said, have a lot of respect. About GBT hack, there might be a error on that, it's an AGESA 1002 prior to NPRP code (F1 XTREME) that is showing the 4.65 on all cores behaviour. Gurgstep also just used that same 1002 code (which it seems not to contain the NPRP code) and he's having similar results on R5 3600. You can check his post.

I guess I take for granted your conclusion on the Delta difference between best core and worst cores have a delta of up to 300 MHz (in your case, best core did not even reach 4.6 GHz). The behaviour of all cores reaching got something to do with 1002 non NPRP.

F5e is showing same behaviour as you posted, guess as you mentioned, 7nm process still immature and deltas are higher between best and worst cores in ST. As for voltage VID being fed on XTREME, F5e shows same behaviour.

P.D. Still figuring out the PCIe WHEA errors I'm getting on NVIDIA Cards on two boards and two samples I have.

With regards,
XanxoGaming


----------



## ReDXfiRe

gupsterg said:


> I confirm on R5 3600 retail I have full PBO settings access in UEFI based on what current UEFI 2406 AGESA ComboPi-AM4 1.0.0.2 allows  . For anyone interested I have posted experience so far on ROG forum and will continue updates there on how things go.


Same behaviour I've experienced with AGESA 1002 (non NPRP version) on XTREME/MASTER/X470 AG7W on 3900X. Even F1 bios says 1003, according to GBT F1 is 1002 (probably typo error on website). I've tried Master (F4) and AG7W (F41a) boosting to 4.65 GHz on all core. Guess PBO is working or AGESA 1002 just behaves like that. Really hard to say, TheStilt mentioned only way to really measure power consumption need specialized tools and knowledge which escapes my reach (I admit).


----------



## anethema

The traditional Ryzen method for OCing was PBO with a slight undervolt. It seems that since you're hitting the FIT voltage issue and this is what is limiting clocks, have you tried playing with smaller negative voltage offsets while leaving power/current etc maxed out to see if it is able to boost any higher?



The Stilt said:


> I did a quick test on the 3900X, using the brand new AGESA 1.0.0.3 w/ A & B patches and the newest chipset-drivers:
> 
> Core Fmax listing prior these changes:
> 
> 
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> Core 1 =  4575 - 4300MHz - 1.48750V (2*)
> Core 2 =  4475 - 4350MHz - 1.48750V
> Core 3 =  4525 - 4225MHz - 1.47500V
> Core 4 =  4575 - 4275MHz - 1.47500V (1*)
> Core 5 =  4475 - 4300MHz - 1.48750V
> Core 6 =  4475 - 4300MHz - 1.48750V
> Core 7 =  4375 - 4300MHz - 1.46250V (1*)
> Core 8 =  4350 - 4300MHz - 1.46250V
> Core 9 =  4350 - 4300MHz - 1.46250V
> Core 10 = 4325 - 4275MHz - 1.48125V
> Core 11 = 4325 - 4300MHz - 1.47500V
> Core 12 = 4400 - 4300MHz - 1.47500V (2*)
> 
> Core Fmax listing after the changes: See above...
> 
> 1* = The best core of the CCD, 2* the second best core of the CCD.
> 
> I'd say unless the factory V/F calibration is out of whack, which I really don't think it is, the only way AMD is going to increase the frequencies of the CPUs is most likely
> allowing them to run at higher voltages (i.e. sacrificing reliability). The voltage figure seen for each core is the voltage the CPU asks from the VRM controller through SVI2 interface, when the specific core is stressed.


----------



## gupsterg

rdr09 said:


> Nice. Got something to read.


NP, I got some bits done, more tomorrow over on ROG.



Lexi is Dumb said:


> Wish my experience was going the same. 3700X on the X370-F with 5009 bios. Wont post with any changes at all to memory, has to be left to the 2133 c15 default. Elmor suggested something to do with boot voltage, but there's no setting for that on my board so I guess im SOL until a bios fix comes. The CPU is also hitting 1.5v at idle and I just don't know if that's normal or not.


Yours is 3700X, max boost is 4.4GHz, perhaps the reason for the experience your having. As the 3600 non X is 4.2GHz that maybe why I'm only seeing 1.3V. TBH dunno though, my 2700X even at stock could go circa ~1.45V on upto ~4.35GHz single/cycling core low load boost. I have no experience of that board, sorry. All I can say is cruising to 3533MHz using the :clock: The Stilt :clock: 3466MHz timings has been easy on C7H.

HWINFO idle data/Powerplan/OS/settings txt used in spoiler.



Spoiler




















View attachment 2406_R5_Base_setting.txt






ReDXfiRe said:


> Hi TheStilt, first and foremost, I respect the knowledge level you have and won't even want to enter into a discussion with you. As I said, have a lot of respect. About GBT hack, there might be a error on that, it's an AGESA 1002 prior to NPRP code (F1 XTREME) that is showing the 4.65 on all cores behaviour. Gurgstep also just used that same 1002 code (which it seems not to contain the NPRP code) and he's having similar results on R5 3600. You can check his post.
> 
> I guess I take for granted your conclusion on the Delta difference between best core and worst cores have a delta of up to 300 MHz (in your case, best core did not even reach 4.6 GHz). The behaviour of all cores reaching got something to do with 1002 non NPRP.
> 
> F5e is showing same behaviour as you posted, guess as you mentioned, 7nm process still immature and deltas are higher between best and worst cores in ST. As for voltage VID being fed on XTREME, F5e shows same behaviour.
> 
> P.D. Still figuring out the PCIe WHEA errors I'm getting on NVIDIA Cards on two boards and two samples I have.
> 
> With regards,
> XanxoGaming


At present I think I'm seeing what I'm seeing as perhaps using a low core count CPU, is on WC, but dunno really, all too fresh at present. Perhaps The Stilt will see something in the spoiler above containing info that I think you are referencing from my shares.


----------



## gupsterg

Now this I was not expecting Kahru RAM Test ACB 4.2GHz without OC on core :thinking: .









Settings used:-

View attachment 2406_R5_Base_3533S_setting.txt


Room ambient ~26C.

Under load VCORE I see on DMM ~1.297V - 1.369V, mostly ~1.3V, SOC is ~1.010V, VDIMM ~1.353V.


----------



## ReDXfiRe

gupsterg said:


> NP, I got some bits done, more tomorrow over on ROG.
> 
> 
> 
> Yours is 3700X, max boost is 4.4GHz, perhaps the reason for the experience your having. As the 3600 non X is 4.2GHz that maybe why I'm only seeing 1.3V. TBH dunno though, my 2700X even at stock could go circa ~1.45V on upto ~4.35GHz single/cycling core low load boost. I have no experience of that board, sorry. All I can say is cruising to 3533MHz using the :clock: The Stilt :clock: 3466MHz timings has been easy on C7H.
> 
> HWINFO idle data/Powerplan/OS/settings txt used in spoiler.
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 278828
> 
> 
> View attachment 278832
> 
> 
> View attachment 278830
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At present I think I'm seeing what I'm seeing as perhaps using a low core count CPU, is on WC, but dunno really, all too fresh at present. Perhaps The Stilt will see something in the spoiler above containing info that I think you are referencing from my shares.


I'm using AIO 280mm, seeing that result on AGESA 1002. Anyways, sending an e-mail soon to AMD just to clarify boost delta being that high on this gen between cores. Since we are small media outlet in Perú, it is hard to reach AMD directly (e.g. Robert Hallock or the person in charge of AMD technical USA). But yes, same boosts (higher VID, new PWM controller on XTREME) up to 4.65 GHz on almost all cores AGESA 1002 like you achieved on C7H.

I am being sent a C8H, testing some NVIDIA GPU issue with PCIe.


----------



## The Stilt

anethema said:


> The traditional Ryzen method for OCing was PBO with a slight undervolt. It seems that since you're hitting the FIT voltage issue and this is what is limiting clocks, have you tried playing with smaller negative voltage offsets while leaving power/current etc maxed out to see if it is able to boost any higher?


I have, but cannot currently elaborate on that...


----------



## gupsterg

ReDXfiRe said:


> I'm using AIO 280mm, seeing that result on AGESA 1002. Anyways, sending an e-mail soon to AMD just to clarify boost delta being that high on this gen between cores. Since we are small media outlet in Perú, it is hard to reach AMD directly (e.g. Robert Hallock or the person in charge of AMD technical USA). But yes, same boosts (higher VID, new PWM controller on XTREME) up to 4.65 GHz on almost all cores AGESA 1002 like you achieved on C7H.
> 
> I am being sent a C8H, testing some NVIDIA GPU issue with PCIe.


Sorry I can not be of any use use other than share my limited experience on my current setup.

Voltage I'm seeing in SW and on DMM, idle or load, I'm pretty impressed with TBH. What is concerning me is why am I seeing ACB 4.2GHz in RAM Test, even though not on core OC.

That above run of RAM Test lasted 1100%, I manually stopped and trying 3600MHz with same timings.



Code:


[2018-11-17T19:54:18.7355837+00:00] License activated successfully.
[2018-11-17T19:55:06.6896294+00:00] RAM Test is up-to-date.
[2019-07-09T22:49:37.6416727+01:00] RAM Test is up-to-date.
[2019-07-09T22:49:52.6271620+01:00] Started testing 12642 MB with 12 thread(s).
[2019-07-09T23:11:41.0913115+01:00] Stopped testing after 0:00:21:48 with 1102 % coverage and 0 error(s).


----------



## gerardfraser

Thanks for sharing,great information and this was classic.



> At this point you should ask yourself if ASUS paid me off?
> Everyone can be bought, its just the matter of the offered sum or bargain. Everyone claiming otherwise either lives in self-deception or frankly, is a moron.
> I myself could definitely be bought. And rather cheaply too, I think. The thing is, just that at least until writing this, nobody has even tried to do so.


----------



## CJMitsuki

The Stilt said:


> anethema said:
> 
> 
> 
> The traditional Ryzen method for OCing was PBO with a slight undervolt. It seems that since you're hitting the FIT voltage issue and this is what is limiting clocks, have you tried playing with smaller negative voltage offsets while leaving power/current etc maxed out to see if it is able to boost any higher?
> 
> 
> 
> I have, but cannot currently elaborate on that...
Click to expand...

I feel like @The Stilt is saying that maybe we should try that but he cant actually say it bc Robert Hallock will find him and hit him in the knees with a lead pipe. That or theres even more weird behavior when doing it.


----------



## anethema

Ya honestly I have no clue why he would not be allowed to talk about the most common way to OC Ryzen chips?


----------



## rdr09

gupsterg said:


> @rdr09
> 
> Tanked up on caffeine and getting benching!
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 278714
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NP, will stay tuned  :thumb: .
> 
> 
> 
> I'd agree with The Stilt on this. I recently went NVMe and setup that had no issues BCLK OC with SATA SSD, would blank screen after UEFI splash screen even with 101MHz. Also Zeed see Johan's last sentence here.
> 
> Is it too much to ask that you start your own thread? This way it will be easier for us with this cpu to sift through the info. Then we can bounce it off the ROG.
> 
> 
> 
> Checkout Der8auer's video on YT on 3000 series delid, etc, that well give you insight. Unless your going WC for say cooling additional, like GPU, for say improved noise aspect of cooling, etc all good, but MHz gains are not at all worth the outlay.


Is it too much to ask that you start your own thread? This way it will be easier for us with this cpu to sift through the info. Then we can bounce it off the ROG. 

If it is ok with you. Thanks.


----------



## Saiger0

With ryzen 300 laready running so close to FIT I wonder whether anything but stock settings will harm the cpu in the long run. I´m even hesitant to enable pbo without a negative offset.

Is it (with the current state of most bios) really safe to leave everything on auto?


----------



## majestynl

Saiger0 said:


> With ryzen 300 laready running so close to FIT I wonder whether anything but stock settings will harm the cpu in the long run. I´m even hesitant to enable pbo without a negative offset.
> 
> Is it (with the current state of most bios) really safe to leave everything on auto?


People where also afraid with 1x and 2x series. After few years i still have not heard anything bad. Their is nothing wrong with Auto. And if it kills something. AMD will/must accept the RMA, even after few years!


----------



## gupsterg

rdr09 said:


> Is it too much to ask that you start your own thread? This way it will be easier for us with this cpu to sift through the info. Then we can bounce it off the ROG.
> 
> If it is ok with you. Thanks.


NP  , started one on ROG forum yesterday I did post a link few posts back, I've added it to my signature  .


----------



## rdr09

gupsterg said:


> NP  , started one on ROG forum yesterday I did post a link few posts back, I've added it to my signature  .


Got it. +rep.


----------



## dev1ance

EDIT: Wrong thread. Had too many tabs open. Sorry.


----------



## gonX

This thread appeared in TechLinked's latest video


----------



## gupsterg

Does PBO overdrive work on R5 3600 with UEFI 2406 AEGSA 1.0.0.2, YES!


*** edit ***

Matisse Hypeship are coming to dock…



Spoiler


----------



## Hale59

Idle voltages

https://twitter.com/Thracks/status/1149041704881795072


----------



## fursko

Hale59 said:


> Idle voltages
> 
> https://twitter.com/Thracks/status/1149041704881795072


Yo what is Ryzen high performance plan ? What is the difference ?


----------



## gupsterg

@Hale59

+rep, thanks for info.
@nick name @rdr09

SiSoft Sandra Inter Core Latency, with the usual PBO: Enabled PE: Default on 2700X I never saw below ~70ns even with RAM 3600MHz. Below is compare of:-

R5 3600 stock CPU/RAM
vs
R5 3600 PBO+75MHz 3600MHz using The Stilt 3466MHz timings GDMD 1T
vs
2700X PE: Default PBO: Enabled 3533MHz using The Stilt 3466MHz timings GDMD 1T



Spoiler


----------



## nick name

gupsterg said:


> @Hale59
> 
> +rep, thanks for info.
> 
> @nick name @rdr09
> 
> SiSoft Sandra Inter Core Latency, with the usual PBO: Enabled PE: Default on 2700X I never saw below ~70ns even with RAM 3600MHz. Below is compare of:-
> 
> R5 3600 stock CPU/RAM
> vs
> R5 3600 PBO+75MHz 3600MHz using The Stilt 3466MHz timings GDMD 1T
> vs
> 2700X PE: Default PBO: Enabled 3533MHz using The Stilt 3466MHz timings GDMD 1T
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 279094



God, I hate SiSoft. 

Many thanks for taking the time for that.


----------



## rdr09

nick name said:


> God, I hate SiSoft.
> 
> Many thanks for taking the time for that.


lol. Same here. But thanks @gupsterg, keep them coming. I must have missed it . . . have you tried undervolting?

So, both memory and IF are set to 3600MHz but you manually set the timings using Stilt's. Also, i see max Core Voltage of 1.42v @ 4.275 GHz boost. Not bad.


----------



## gupsterg

nick name said:


> God, I hate SiSoft.
> 
> Many thanks for taking the time for that.


LOL. I only use it for that test, as that was what was highlighted to show an issue on an AGESA before which your probably aware. If there is another which is better I'm open to use it  .

No problem  .



rdr09 said:


> lol. Same here. But thanks @gupsterg, keep them coming. I must have missed it . . . have you tried undervolting?


Not yet. I just wanted to take time knowing CPU+RAM OC combo is sound, before try to lower VCORE (if it works).

PBO+100MHz with 3600MHz using The Stilt 3466MHz timings, with RAM:IF 1:1, is very sound IMO with all the rerun's I have done. 

3666MHz same setup I have hit a wall  . Kahru RAM test ~1200% is max stability I have  , I can show several reruns with this issue of 1200%  . Today doing some methodological tuning/testing, as it's change a setting and "repeat & rinse" gonna be slow  .

Regardless I am stunned at power draw, but shocked at temps.

IMO, loosely speaking, say when running RAM Test wall power meter goes from ~70W idle to ~120W load. R7 2700X IIRC was somewhere around ~180W load (gotta double check), idle same. Temps seem ever so slightly higher on R5 3600, regardless of lower power cooling have to shift. Clearly the density from process as stated in OP is the factor.



rdr09 said:


> So, both memory and IF are set to 3600MHz but you manually set the timings using Stilt's. Also, i see max Core Voltage of 1.42v @ 4.275 GHz boost. Not bad.


Yes. In the memory tab of CPU-Z NB Frequency is FCLK (ie IF).

4.3GHz ACB on the R5 3600 is very close to the average SVI2 voltage read in HWINFO when using a DMM to measure.

I am :wubsmiley the R5, really contemplating cancelling R7 3700X.


----------



## RossiOCUK

@gupsterg
What have you got the memory latency down to? Anywhere near the likes of the previous gen yet?


----------



## rdr09

gupsterg said:


> LOL. I only use it for that test, as that was what was highlighted to show an issue on an AGESA before which your probably aware. If there is another which is better I'm open to use it  .
> 
> No problem  .
> 
> 
> 
> Not yet. I just wanted to take time knowing CPU+RAM OC combo is sound, before try to lower VCORE (if it works).
> 
> PBO+100MHz with 3600MHz using The Stilt 3466MHz timings, with RAM:IF 1:1, is very sound IMO with all the rerun's I have done.
> 
> 3666MHz same setup I have hit a wall  . Kahru RAM test ~1200% is max stability I have  , I can show several reruns with this issue of 1200%  . Today doing some methodological tuning/testing, as it's change a setting and "repeat & rinse" gonna be slow  .
> 
> Regardless I am stunned at power draw, but shocked at temps.
> 
> IMO, loosely speaking, say when running RAM Test wall power meter goes from ~70W idle to ~120W load. R7 2700X IIRC was somewhere around ~180W load (gotta double check), idle same. Temps seem ever so slightly higher on R5 3600, regardless of lower power cooling have to shift. Clearly the density from process as stated in OP is the factor.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. In the memory tab of CPU-Z NB Frequency is FCLK (ie IF).
> 
> 4.3GHz ACB on the R5 3600 is very close to the average SVI2 voltage read in HWINFO when using a DMM to measure.
> 
> I am :wubsmiley the R5, really contemplating cancelling R7 3700X.


Oh noes.

https://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/2263?vs=2520


----------



## gupsterg

RossiOCUK said:


> @gupsterg
> What have you got the memory latency down to? Anywhere near the likes of the previous gen yet?


Best so far is ~67ns. All tests unless stated are without Performance Bias/OS tweaks. Below all are same test setup/sw except the 2700X 3600MHz result, that is W7, that was only result I could find in my screenies without me playing with say BCLK, etc, that is also a stability tested PASS setup.



Spoiler














My opinion is don't take the numbers as Zen2 is bad. Real world performance seems not lacking, the 6C/12T Zen2 is breathing down on the 8C/16T in synthetics IMO, below 2700X is PE: Default PBO: Enabled.

I have not benched PBO+100MHz xxxxRAM yet. Below is PBO+75MHz 3600MHz



Spoiler






































































The R5 3600 uses say 1.355V VDIMM for 3600MHz, SOC is pretty much stock, CLDO_VDDG is slight bump over stock. This aspect IMO made it sweeter than past gens.

For £189 it's lot a performance IMO. IIRC I paid ~£300 for R7 1700 near launch, R7 2700X was that also, yeah this is less core, etc, but I reckon some what we've all gone "MOAR cores crazy!" LOOL.



rdr09 said:


> Oh noes.


Got 1600%+ on 3666MHz in RT, rinsing and repeating  .


----------



## rdr09

gupsterg said:


> Best so far is ~67ns. All tests unless stated are without Performance Bias/OS tweaks. Below all are same test setup/sw except the 2700X 3600MHz result, that is W7, that was only result I could find in my screenies without me playing with say BCLK, etc, that is also a stability tested PASS setup.
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 279222
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My opinion is don't take the numbers as Zen2 is bad. Real world performance seems not lacking, the 6C/12T Zen2 is breathing down on the 8C/16T in synthetics IMO, below 2700X is PE: Default PBO: Enabled.
> 
> I have not benched PBO+100MHz xxxxRAM yet. Below is PBO+75MHz 3600MHz
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 279222
> 
> 
> View attachment 279224
> 
> 
> View attachment 279226
> 
> 
> View attachment 279228
> 
> 
> View attachment 279230
> 
> 
> View attachment 279232
> 
> 
> View attachment 279234
> 
> 
> View attachment 279236
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The R5 3600 uses say 1.355V VDIMM for 3600MHz, SOC is pretty much stock, CLDO_VDDG is slight bump over stock. This aspect IMO made it sweeter than past gens.
> 
> For £189 it's lot a performance IMO. IIRC I paid ~£300 for R7 1700 near launch, R7 2700X was that also, yeah this is less core, etc, but I reckon some what we've all gone "MOAR cores crazy!" LOOL.
> 
> 
> 
> Got 1600%+ on 3666MHz in RT, rinsing and repeating  .


Oo, time to bench again. Highest i got my G.Skill FlareX 3200 paired with a 2700 is 3533 MHz CL14.

BTW, how did you apply the thermal paste and what did you use? I read a number of people having issues with temps with their 3600.


----------



## gupsterg

rdr09 said:


> Oo, time to bench again. Highest i got my G.Skill FlareX 3200 paired with a 2700 is 3533 MHz CL14.
> 
> BTW, how did you apply the thermal paste and what did you use? I read a number of people having issues with temps with their 3600.


Same here. Initially preset was The Stilt 3466MHz timings, then other timings dropped lower.



Spoiler














Will be trying 3600MHz C14 on Zen 2 and moar once I finish other testing.

Arctic Silver 5, spread by strip of plastic card. I once tried Hydronaut, was so awful to spread, after that experienced I couldn't be bothered to try any other.

Same HW except CPU, room is ~24C R5 3600 screenie, ~22C R7 2700X, PBO+100MHz vs PE: Default PBO: Enabled, pretty much same RAM timings.



Spoiler














Best I had 3666MHz on 2700X was ~4000% in RT, got several ~3000% passes.



Spoiler


----------



## rdr09

gupsterg said:


> Same here. Initially preset was The Stilt 3466MHz timings, then other timings dropped lower.
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 279246
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Will be trying 3600MHz C14 on Zen 2 and moar once I finish other testing.
> 
> Arctic Silver 5, spread by strip of plastic card. I once tried Hydronaut, was so awful to spread, after that experienced I couldn't be bothered to try any other.
> 
> Same HW except CPU, room is ~24C R5 3600 screenie, ~22C R7 2700X, PBO+100MHz vs PE: Default PBO: Enabled, pretty much same RAM timings.
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 279250
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Best I had 3666MHz on 2700X was ~4000% in RT, got several ~3000% passes.
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 279252


Wait, i missed what cpu cooler you are using. Temp is outstanding even without an undervolt. Must be a combo of spreading the paste, cooler, bios version/settings, chip driver, and silicon.

Dam, 1600 to 1800. My Flares should do as well. I have not crossed upon proof that 3200 to 3600 will make a significant lift in performance on the Ryzen 3000. 

If there is no significant effect of going 3600MHz on the ram, then there is no reason to oc or there is no reason to buy expensive ram kits. Most reviewers are using 3200 CL16.


----------



## gupsterg

rdr09 said:


> Wait, i missed what cpu cooler you are using. Temp is outstanding even without an undervolt. Must be a combo of spreading the paste, cooler, bios version/settings, chip driver, and silicon.
> 
> Dam, 1600 to 1800. My Flares should do as well. I have not crossed upon proof that 3200 to 3600 will make a significant lift in performance on the Ryzen 3000.
> 
> If there is no significant effect of going 3600MHz on the ram, then there is no reason to oc or there is no reason to buy expensive ram kits. Most reviewers are using 3200 CL16.


Custom WC, linked thread in sig OP has info  .

3600MHz 1:1 MEMCLK:FCLK was too easy IMO. So regardless of gains I'd be trying that. SOC was measured on DMM when everything was stock, I saw ~1.010V IIRC, manually setting 1.025V matched that reading taken at defaults/auto. CLDO_VDDG stock is 0.950V, I bumped to 0.985V, VDIMM only needed to be 1.355V. So everything is so close to defaults I just would not be tempted to be a lower than 3600MHz  . I'd be tempted to tighten as much as I could from The Stilt's 3466MHz timings I have been using.

AFAIK 3200MHz C14 Samsung B die is highly regarded by The Stilt, so defo your in good place. I used 3600C15 4000C18 with the 2700X, as I gained nothing more than what I did with 3200C14 kit I sold those on.

Any how here is 3666MHz 1:1 MEMCLK:FCLK, after quite a day of rinse repeat I am happy with this profile.



Spoiler











I did upload whilst that screen video capture was going on. I stopped at 3K%.



Spoiler














I am now retesting with PBO+125MHz.



Spoiler


----------



## rdr09

gupsterg said:


> Custom WC, linked thread in sig OP has info  .
> 
> 3600MHz 1:1 MEMCLK:FCLK was too easy IMO. So regardless of gains I'd be trying that. SOC was measured on DMM when everything was stock, I saw ~1.010V IIRC, manually setting 1.025V matched that reading taken at defaults/auto. CLDO_VDDG stock is 0.950V, I bumped to 0.985V, VDIMM only needed to be 1.355V. So everything is so close to defaults I just would not be tempted to be a lower than 3600MHz  . I'd be tempted to tighten as much as I could from The Stilt's 3466MHz timings I have been using.
> 
> AFAIK 3200MHz C14 Samsung B die is highly regarded by The Stilt, so defo your in good place. I used 3600C15 4000C18 with the 2700X, as I gained nothing more than what I did with 3200C14 kit I sold those on.
> 
> Any how here is 3666MHz 1:1 MEMCLK:FCLK, after quite a day of rinse repeat I am happy with this profile.
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> https://youtu.be/7Udz7wWXyuo
> 
> 
> 
> I did upload whilst that screen video capture was going on. I stopped at 3K%.
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 279310
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am now retesting with PBO+125MHz.
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 279312


Voltage is still good. That's 3600X territory. You got skilz and that motherboard is showing its worth.


----------



## limited

What is the IPC gain from Pinnacle Ridge to Matisse excluding AVX 256bit workloads?


----------



## fursko

gupsterg said:


> Custom WC, linked thread in sig OP has info  .
> 
> 3600MHz 1:1 MEMCLK:FCLK was too easy IMO. So regardless of gains I'd be trying that. SOC was measured on DMM when everything was stock, I saw ~1.010V IIRC, manually setting 1.025V matched that reading taken at defaults/auto. CLDO_VDDG stock is 0.950V, I bumped to 0.985V, VDIMM only needed to be 1.355V. So everything is so close to defaults I just would not be tempted to be a lower than 3600MHz  . I'd be tempted to tighten as much as I could from The Stilt's 3466MHz timings I have been using.
> 
> AFAIK 3200MHz C14 Samsung B die is highly regarded by The Stilt, so defo your in good place. I used 3600C15 4000C18 with the 2700X, as I gained nothing more than what I did with 3200C14 kit I sold those on.
> 
> Any how here is 3666MHz 1:1 MEMCLK:FCLK, after quite a day of rinse repeat I am happy with this profile.
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> https://youtu.be/7Udz7wWXyuo
> 
> 
> 
> I did upload whilst that screen video capture was going on. I stopped at 3K%.
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 279310
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am now retesting with PBO+125MHz.
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 279312


Hey i have 3200cl16 hynix m-die running on intel system. Do you think can i overclock it to 3600 c16 or c17 with ryzen 3000 ?


----------



## ReDXfiRe

gupsterg said:


> Does PBO overdrive work on R5 3600 with UEFI 2406 AEGSA 1.0.0.2, YES!
> 
> 
> *** edit ***
> 
> Matisse Hypeship are coming to dock…
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> https://youtu.be/u7bsGBTAUqI


Gupsterg, quoting you in my article and btw good job. Due to review launch, I did not bother to test throughly PBO options but you've confirmed what AMD marketing has been saying. This could not be done on NPRP bios, as reported as TheStilt, me and other reviewers. Basically I said, PBO is broken or does nothing. I do not know if C7H has voltage reading points, but if it does, do you mind measuring idle and load voltages using PBO, greatly appreciate it. Good luck on your tests. With this new information I'll flashback F1 BIOS on Xtreme and see if I can make PBO work.


----------



## crakej

gupsterg said:


> Custom WC, linked thread in sig OP has info  .
> 
> 3600MHz 1:1 MEMCLK:FCLK was too easy IMO. So regardless of gains I'd be trying that. SOC was measured on DMM when everything was stock, I saw ~1.010V IIRC, manually setting 1.025V matched that reading taken at defaults/auto. CLDO_VDDG stock is 0.950V, I bumped to 0.985V, VDIMM only needed to be 1.355V. So everything is so close to defaults I just would not be tempted to be a lower than 3600MHz  . I'd be tempted to tighten as much as I could from The Stilt's 3466MHz timings I have been using.
> 
> AFAIK 3200MHz C14 Samsung B die is highly regarded by The Stilt, so defo your in good place. I used 3600C15 4000C18 with the 2700X, as I gained nothing more than what I did with 3200C14 kit I sold those on.
> 
> Any how here is 3666MHz 1:1 MEMCLK:FCLK, after quite a day of rinse repeat I am happy with this profile.
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> https://youtu.be/7Udz7wWXyuo
> 
> 
> 
> I did upload whilst that screen video capture was going on. I stopped at 3K%.
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 279310
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am now retesting with PBO+125MHz.
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 279312


Thanks for sharing gupsterg. I've no idea when my cpu will be here but you're saving me (lots of us!) lots of time when it does arrive. Very frustrated I can't really contribute yet! Hopefully I'll get it by tomorrow...


----------



## gupsterg

rdr09 said:


> Voltage is still good. That's 3600X territory. You got skilz and that motherboard is showing its worth.


Yes it verging on 3600X territory.



fursko said:


> Hey i have 3200cl16 hynix m-die running on intel system. Do you think can i overclock it to 3600 c16 or c17 with ryzen 3000 ?


I'm sorry I have only used Samsung B die single side/ranked with Ryzen. Back in Mar 17 only then did I use some Crucial (Micron) & Corsair (Hynix) and they were lower end/speed kits. IIRC 2400MHz and they worked as they should, as at that time so much of the UEFI was lacking in options I really didn't tinker with it much. By the time more of the options came out I had sold that kit and moved to B die.



ReDXfiRe said:


> Gupsterg, quoting you in my article and btw good job. Due to review launch, I did not bother to test throughly PBO options but you've confirmed what AMD marketing has been saying. This could not be done on NPRP bios, as reported as TheStilt, me and other reviewers. Basically I said, PBO is broken or does nothing. I do not know if C7H has voltage reading points, but if it does, do you mind measuring idle and load voltages using PBO, greatly appreciate it. Good luck on your tests. With this new information I'll flashback F1 BIOS on Xtreme and see if I can make PBO work.


No problem, glad it was useful to you  .

There are benchmarks in this post with PBO+75MHz.

Here is some additional info that you may find useful or not.

Within spoiler are some UEFI screens, the zip has what I use as base profile (ie stock) and the other has all settings for PBO+75MHz 3600MHz using :clock: The Stilt :clock: 3466MHz timings for Samsung B die. The OC txt only lacks the settings for PBO which the screenshot is detailing.



Spoiler




























View attachment R5_Base_PBO.zip




I reran RT this morning to get you DMM readings from the C7H Probeit points and power readings from wall plug meter. The power readings are for complete PC excluding screen. I should have perhaps set a fixed fan/pump profile, so do bare in mind power reading will be ever so slightly affected by that IMO.

Where CPU is stated stock I still had RAM OC'd to 3600MHz, SOC voltage is as it would be at UEFI defaults, CLDO_VDDG is 0.985V vs 0.950V of stock, VDIMM is set as 1.355V.

Stock: idle is ~0.920V steady, Kahru RAM Test loading CPU VCORE has swinging read, min ~1.302V to max ~1.360V, but it is more so closer to the 1.30V end than ~1.36.

PBO: idle is ~0.920V steady, Kahru RAM Test loading CPU VCORE has swinging read, min ~1.344V to max ~1.381V, but it is more so closer to the 1.344V end than ~1.381V.

Idle power reading is ~73-75W (slight swing) for stock & PBO. Under load stock is ~110W with swing upto ~120W, more so stays towards the ~110W side. Under load PBO is ~115W with swing upto ~125W, more so stays towards the ~115W side.

Below is RM for when on PBO+75MHz 3600S, red lined items do not match manual set values, EDC was 90A and SOC 1.025V.



Spoiler














Below is RM CPU stock but RAM 3600S, here only SOC voltage is out.



Spoiler














Below is RAM test runs screenies for this mornings readings of DMM/Watt meter.



Spoiler






















Hope this helps and all the best Gup :thumb: .



crakej said:


> Thanks for sharing gupsterg. I've no idea when my cpu will be here but you're saving me (lots of us!) lots of time when it does arrive. Very frustrated I can't really contribute yet! Hopefully I'll get it by tomorrow...


NP  , hope you get yours soon  .


----------



## zirblazer

Hi The Stilt. Long time I don't see your Posts after you left Anandtech, had to stalk you a bit to find where you were posting.


I see that you're focusing on the CPU side of things. Do you have any data regarding Matisse IO chiplet? The IO die seems to hold a lot of secrets since it is supposed to be the same design than what is used for the X570 Chipset. Given than in Socket AM4 package and in Chipset package it offers two extremely different feature sets, I find it far more interesing than the CPU chiplet itself which shouldn't vary between Matisse, ThreadRipper and EPYC 7000.

Based on what we saw previously with Zeppelin, Socket AM4 pinout seems to be limited to how many features it can expose compared to what is really in the die. For example, Zeppelin in Socket AM4 package can expose only 24 PCIe Lanes and 4 USB, whereas in the single die EPYC Embedded 3200 series, it could do the full 32 PCIe Lanes + 4 USB. It also has a builtin 10G MACs, but AMD didn't said how it was multiplexed. Same happens with Raven Ridge, which in the Ryzen Embedded V1000 series seems to expose 6 USB whereas in AM4 only 4 (Albeit it has less PCIe Lanes), and it also has the 10G MACs.
Based on AMD slides about X570: https://hexus.net/tech/features/mainboard/131789-amd-ryzen-3000-supporting-x570-chipset-examined/
...Matisse IO chiplet seems to have at least 20 PCIe (In AM4 it exposes 24, 16 + 4 + 4), 12 USB, and 4 dedicated SATA. What I'm curious about, is the absolute maximum possible lane configuration (A la Intel Chipset Flex IO) that we could see in an EPYC Embedded product with a new pinout that exposes all what the IO chiplet is capable of.

I have recently been ranting about how I dislike Socket AM4 itself due to forcing you to use a Chipset, which in Zen generation is merely a glorified PCIe Switch with builtin SATA and USB Controllers, and how for mITX sized builds an embedded Zen counterpart actually makes more sense. Given the fact that Matisse IO chiplet seems to be wider than Zeppelin die IO, to me it makes sense for certain builds to kick out the Chipset from the platform and go full Zen 2 SoC. So far, there seems to be little interest in such products. I'm highly interesed on whenever you find such a product viable. I'm willing to sacrifice the upgradeable Socket just to expose more IO from the Processor package.


----------



## gupsterg

@FJSAMA

I wanna thank you for looking at my screenie shots and data closely :thumb: . I fully appreciate your private message pointing out the issue of CLDO_VDDP when I started using 3666MHz :thumb: .

@The Stilt

I had set a lot of voltages manually for my profiles as didn't want an [Auto] rule spiking something. I had left CLDO_VDDP: [Auto] as did not think an [Auto] rule would be present on it. It bounces to ~1.1V if left on [Auto] when I use just 3666MHz MEMCLK & FCLK, is this supposed happen? below 3600MHz it is ~0.900V.

RM system UEFI defaults/stock



Spoiler














RM system 3600MHz MEMCLK/FCLK



Spoiler














RM system 3666MHz MEMCLK/FCLK



Spoiler














RM system 3666MHz MEMCLK/FCLK manually set CLDO_VDDP.



Spoiler














Is also VDDP 1.05V on Matisse? on [Auto] 3666MHz profile I see 1.05V in ASUS Turbo V Core.



Spoiler














*** edit ***

Stock is 1.05V as well.



Spoiler


----------



## The Stilt

limited said:


> What is the IPC gain from Pinnacle Ridge to Matisse excluding AVX 256bit workloads?


Around 11.7%, if all workloads which receive any gains from 256-bit instructions are excluded.
But that is extremely hard to define clearly, without profiling each of the workloads.


----------



## The Stilt

gupsterg said:


> @*FJSAMA*
> 
> I wanna thank you for looking at my screenie shots and data closely :thumb: . I fully appreciate your private message pointing out the issue of CLDO_VDDP when I started using 3666MHz :thumb: .
> 
> @*The Stilt*
> 
> I had set a lot of voltages manually for my profiles as didn't want an [Auto] rule spiking something. I had left CLDO_VDDP: [Auto] as did not think an [Auto] rule would be present on it. It bounces to ~1.1V if left on [Auto] when I use just 3666MHz MEMCLK & FCLK, is this supposed happen? below 3600MHz it is ~0.900V.
> 
> RM system UEFI defaults/stock
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 279486
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RM system 3600MHz MEMCLK/FCLK
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 279488
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RM system 3666MHz MEMCLK/FCLK
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 279490
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RM system 3666MHz MEMCLK/FCLK manually set CLDO_VDDP.
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 279492
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is also VDDP 1.05V on Matisse? on [Auto] 3666MHz profile I see 1.05V in ASUS Turbo V Core.
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 279494
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *** edit ***
> 
> Stock is 1.05V as well.
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 279496
> 
> 
> View attachment 279498


VDDP != (not) cLDO_VDDP.

cLDO_VDDP defaults to 0.900V on Matisse and is sourced from VDDCR_SoC.
Because of that, the same rules that apply on cLDO_VDDG apply on it as well.


----------



## gupsterg

The Stilt said:


> VDDP != (not) cLDO_VDDP.
> 
> cLDO_VDDP defaults to 0.900V on Matisse and is sourced from VDDCR_SoC.
> Because of that, the same rules that apply on cLDO_VDDG apply on it as well.


Thank you  .

I have manually set:-

VDDP: 1.05V
cLDO_VDDP: 0.9V

And changing VDDCR_SoC & cLDO_VDDG as needed and keep to rule you posted before of allowing at least ~40mV gap between it and cLDO_VDDG.

The [Auto] rule for cLDO_VDDP slammed it to ~1.1V. Is this an oversight in UEFI in your opinion?

On 1xxx cLDO_VDDP was used to moved memory hole, I did tweak it on that. 2xxx I never played with it as did not encounter memory hole. What is guidance on it for 3xxx? have you seen any benefit of tweaking it?


----------



## The Stilt

gupsterg said:


> Thank you  .
> The [Auto] rule for cLDO_VDDP slammed it to ~1.1V. Is this an oversight in UEFI in your opinion?


It is based on AMDs guideline.
Unless you raise SoC to 1.15V or disable the load-line, you won't be getting much over 1.05V anyhow.


----------



## gupsterg

The Stilt said:


> It is based on AMDs guideline.
> Unless you raise SoC to 1.15V or disable the load-line, you won't be getting much over 1.05V anyhow.


No not been there nor plan too.

Max I have gone to so far is 1.087V VDDCR_SOC and 1.047V cLDO_VDDG.

Glad inadvertently the Phy did not get that voltage.


----------



## The Stilt

Wanted to clear a common misconception people seem to have: The "Northbridge Frequency" displayed by CPU-Z is NOT the FCLK (fabric) frequency. Instead it is the frequency of the memory controller itself (UCLK). Normally both FCLK and UCLK operate at the same speed (MEMCLK). When FCLK and MEMCLK are desynchronised, UCLK will be set to 1/2 mode. Regardless if you lower or raise it below / above the MEMCLK. For example, if MEMCLK = 3200MHz and FCLK is anything else than 1600MHz, the UCLK frequency will be MEMCLK / 2 (i.e. 800MHz).

No third party software (for the time being) can monitor FCLK frequency.


----------



## majestynl

The Stilt said:


> Wanted to clear a common misconception people seem to have: The "Northbridge Frequency" displayed by CPU-Z is NOT the FCLK (fabric) frequency. Instead it is the frequency of the memory controller itself (UCLK). Normally both FCLK and UCLK operate at the same speed (MEMCLK). When FCLK and MEMCLK are desynchronised, UCLK will be set to 1/2 mode. Regardless if you lower or raise it below / above the MEMCLK. For example, if MEMCLK = 3200MHz and FCLK is anything else than 1600MHz, the UCLK frequency will be MEMCLK / 2 (i.e. 800MHz).
> 
> No third party software (for the time being) can monitor FCLK frequency.


Good to know. Mumak from HwInfo is talking to AmD if they can unlock to show the FCLK values in Third party apps. Would helpful for many users.


----------



## FJSAMA

@gupsterg

NP. I didnt know if it was potentially dangerous or not, but hey, better be safe than sorry :thumb:


----------



## VPII

The Stilt said:


> Wanted to clear a common misconception people seem to have: The "Northbridge Frequency" displayed by CPU-Z is NOT the FCLK (fabric) frequency. Instead it is the frequency of the memory controller itself (UCLK). Normally both FCLK and UCLK operate at the same speed (MEMCLK). When FCLK and MEMCLK are desynchronised, UCLK will be set to 1/2 mode. Regardless if you lower or raise it below / above the MEMCLK. For example, if MEMCLK = 3200MHz and FCLK is anything else than 1600MHz, the UCLK frequency will be MEMCLK / 2 (i.e. 800MHz).
> 
> No third party software (for the time being) can monitor FCLK frequency.


Hi @The Stilt , not really what I found. First boot with a Ryzen 5 3600 in my C7H with Gskill flare x set to docp 3200 cl 14 the nb spped in cpuz read 1000, when I restarted znd set the fclk speed to 1600 it showed 1600 as nb speed in cpuz. Same as when set to 3600 mem speed and 1800 fclk speed.

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk


----------



## ReDXfiRe

@gupsterg

Forgot I had my X370 C6H, updated BIOS to 7106 (AGESA 1002) AUTO OC + 200 MHz. Have not done any too much timings tightening and probably won't have time for the mean time (have to return chip). But anyways, was fun to meddle with. 3600 does seem to have more headroom.

P.S. Forgot C6H has the worst positioning for multimeter read points lulz


----------



## gupsterg

The Stilt said:


> Wanted to clear a common misconception people seem to have: The "Northbridge Frequency" displayed by CPU-Z is NOT the FCLK (fabric) frequency. Instead it is the frequency of the memory controller itself (UCLK). Normally both FCLK and UCLK operate at the same speed (MEMCLK). When FCLK and MEMCLK are desynchronised, UCLK will be set to 1/2 mode. Regardless if you lower or raise it below / above the MEMCLK. For example, if MEMCLK = 3200MHz and FCLK is anything else than 1600MHz, the UCLK frequency will be MEMCLK / 2 (i.e. 800MHz).
> 
> No third party software (for the time being) can monitor FCLK frequency.
> 
> 
> 
> VPII said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi @The Stilt , not really what I found. First boot with a Ryzen 5 3600 in my C7H with Gskill flare x set to docp 3200 cl 14 the nb spped in cpuz read 1000, when I restarted znd set the fclk speed to 1600 it showed 1600 as nb speed in cpuz. Same as when set to 3600 mem speed and 1800 fclk speed.
Click to expand...

It is defo UCLK in my case, even though I initially thought it was FCLK. Johan45 was the first to explain to me it is UCLK.

For example VPII set say 3666MHz, which is 1833MHz RAM, FCLK will be 1833MHz if manually set, but as the UCLK will go MEMCLK/2 you should see ~917MHz. See the screenie in this post, I target 3533MHz (ie 1767MHz), 883MHz would be UCLK when MEMCLK/2=UCLK.



FJSAMA said:


> @gupsterg
> 
> NP. I didnt know if it was potentially dangerous or not, but hey, better be safe than sorry :thumb:


Thanks again :thumb: , fully appreciated :thumb: .



ReDXfiRe said:


> @gupsterg
> 
> Forgot I had my X370 C6H, updated BIOS to 7106 (AGESA 1002) AUTO OC + 200 MHz. Have not done any too much timings tightening and probably won't have time for the mean time (have to return chip). But anyways, was fun to meddle with. 3600 does seem to have more headroom.
> 
> P.S. Forgot C6H has the worst positioning for multimeter read points lulz


Nice  , I cancelled my R7 3700X pre-order this morning, the R5 3600 is good enough fun for me  .

Be aware under load the Probeit points on C6H are affected by load line to planes (C7H isn't), there was a post by Elmor in the C6H thread and also should be in the OP of Ryzen Essential thread in my signature. You are better off setting a faster polling rate in HWINFO (~500ms or lower), then referencing the average SVI2 VCORE/SOC.

Yesterday to me felt wasted for me, I didn't get what I thought I'd get done. Any how this morning I am back testing what I'd like to be  .

Without CPU OC this is how my CPU sits with MEMCLK/FCLK/UCLK 1:1:1:-

3533S SOC: 1.025V CLDO_VDDG: 0.985V VDIMM: 1.35V
3600S SOC: 1.025V CLDO_VDDG: 0.985V VDIMM: 1.355V
3666S SOC: 1.043V CLDO_VDDG: 1.003V VDIMM: 1.385V ProcODT: 48

Highest RAM profile is repeat pass in Kahru RAM Test of ~3000%, yet to run other tests. When combining it with PBO+150MHz it seems I need higher SOC & CLDO_VDDG.

3666S with PBO+150MHz PPT: 142W TDC: 95A EDC: 140A Scalar: 6x:-

SOC: 1.043V CLDO_VDDG: 1.003V fails ~400% tested twice in RAM Test
SOC: 1.050V CLDO_VDDG: 1.010V fails ~800% tested twice in RAM Test
SOC: 1.056V CLDO_VDDG: 1.016V fails ~1890% tested once in RAM Test

Upto PBO+100MHz I do not need to adjust scalar to have nice ACB of upto 4.3GHz in RAM Test. Over +100MHz I need to adjust this to have improved sustainable all cores frequency. +125MHz IIRC needs at least 4x, +150MHz seems right with 6x, not tried 7x yet. Below video will show clocks, etc.



Spoiler


----------



## Aenra

The Stilt said:


> VDDP != (not) cLDO_VDDP.
> 
> cLDO_VDDP defaults to 0.900V on Matisse and is sourced from VDDCR_SoC.
> Because of that, the same rules that apply on cLDO_VDDG apply on it as well.





gupsterg said:


> And changing VDDCR_SoC & cLDO_VDDG as needed and keep to rule you posted before of allowing at least ~40mV gap between it and cLDO_VDDG


After thanking everyone involved in this once again (those quoted included of course), may i ask we .. consolidate this all somewhere? Perhaps just updating the OP even.
It's that typical situation where you have one post with facts, followed by 478452 posts of people trying stuff out; very natural, albeit with the cost of the important stuff getting lost somewhere along the road. 
Request over, back to reading


----------



## Duvar

Can someone pls check my values (especially voltages)?
I think i need to lower some of the voltages, would be happy if you could tell me the numbers what i should try?
Thx in advance and greetings from Germany.
(Its only a quick aida test...)

Edit: Cant change CLDO VDDP Voltage to 0.9V in Tweakers Paradise in the Bios, it switches to 0 if i do so. What am i doing wrong?


----------



## gupsterg

Duvar said:


> Can someone pls check my values (especially voltages)?
> I think i need to lower some of the voltages, would be happy if you could tell me the numbers what i should try?
> Thx in advance and greetings from Germany.
> (Its only a quick aida test...)
> 
> Edit: Cant change CLDO VDDP Voltage to 0.9V in Tweakers Paradise in the Bios, it switches to 0 if i do so. What am i doing wrong?


Value needs to me entered as mV, so if you want 0.9V enter 900. Usually there is help string there stating this, perhaps missing.

From your HWINFO screenie seems as if your using something like manually set SOC of 1.062V if so manually set CLDO_VDDG 1.022V.


----------



## Duvar

gupsterg said:


> Value needs to me entered as mV, so if you want 0.9V enter 900. Usually there is help string there stating this, perhaps missing.
> 
> From your HWINFO screenie seems as if your using something like manually set SOC of 1.062V if so manually set CLDO_VDDG 1.022V.


Ah ok thx.
This is how it looks now, any other suggestions?


----------



## gupsterg

Duvar said:


> Ah ok thx.
> This is how it looks now, any other suggestions?


NP  .

Other than stability test and tweak as required I think your good to go :thumb: .

Seeing things like 3733MHz on Ryzen is unnerving  :thumb: ....


----------



## Duvar

You can check this here too: https://www.hardwareluxx.de/communi...-und-laberthread-1235746-10.html#post27034918


----------



## egandt

I've not seen others doing it, but personally PBO did very little for me on my x3900, depending on BIOS and settings was always around 4075-4125 all core (Gigabyte Master x570, on a custom water loop, max temp was never over 58.8c). Single core is never seen above 4325 in CPU-Z for example and Cinebench 20 single core is closed to 4200MHZ (yes it does boost all the way up to 4600 but so such a short period I've never seen it only in charts).

What I found was helpful was bumping the Frontside BUS from 100 to 102.5, that gains me almost exactly 2.7% in Cinebench and CPU-Z multi-core and closer to 4% in single core, though for some reason the temp does increase to closer to 65c under load.

I have CPU core set at Normal on this MB with a -0.05 offset right now, not sure how low to push this however.

So my Single core in CPU-Z as an example went from appx. 535 to 555 as it changed by a few with each run. Multicore is now running about 8470.

ERIC


----------



## gupsterg

Duvar said:


> You can check this here too: https://www.hardwareluxx.de/communi...-und-laberthread-1235746-10.html#post27034918


Nice :thumb: and thank you :thumb:, I will have a read over there as well  .

I have to get over this hump...



Spoiler






















I'm hoping when AGESA ComboPi-AM4 1.0.0.3AB or newer is on C7H it improves stability.


----------



## gupsterg

@The Stilt

Roger any guidance on which P95 to use and temperature to be considered ok?



Spoiler


----------



## Pariston

Which 9900K stepping do you have? 



Also, could you test Matisse, Coffee Lake Refresh, and Skylake-X Refresh at 8C/16T?


----------



## The Stilt

gupsterg said:


> @*The Stilt*
> 
> Roger any guidance on which P95 to use and temperature to be considered ok?
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 279948
> 
> 
> View attachment 279950


Temperatures are pretty ok.
95°C is the official TjMax, but you don't want to exceed 85°C or so.

I suggest you use P95 29.8b3 version.
For maximum load, use 256-256 FFT size, Run FFTs in-place. If you run AVX/AVX2/FMA3 disabled (local.txt) use 160-160 Run FFTs in-place option.

I don't recommend running 256-bit Prime95 at > 1.250V thou...


----------



## The Stilt

Pariston said:


> Which 9900K stepping do you have?
> 
> 
> 
> Also, could you test Matisse, Coffee Lake Refresh, and Skylake-X Refresh at 8C/16T?


P0.

My multithreaded results were discarded due to the bios bug on Matisse and I am not going to retest them.
Several days of work, no ROI.

Sorry.


----------



## gupsterg

The Stilt said:


> Temperatures are pretty ok.
> 95°C is the official TjMax, but you don't want to exceed 85°C or so.
> 
> I suggest you use P95 29.8b3 version.
> For maximum load, use 256-256 FFT size, Run FFTs in-place. If you run AVX/AVX2/FMA3 disabled (local.txt) use 160-160 Run FFTs in-place option.
> 
> I don't recommend running 256-bit Prime95 at > 1.250V thou...


Thanks as always :thumb: .

When you say "I don't recommend running 256-bit Prime95 at > 1.250V thou..." disable AVX2?


----------



## The Stilt

gupsterg said:


> Thanks as always :thumb: .
> 
> When you say "I don't recommend running 256-bit Prime95 at > 1.250V thou..." disable AVX2?


local.txt >> 
CpuSupportsAVX=0
CpuSupportsFMA3=0
CpuSupportsFMA4=0
CpuSupportsAVX2=0

The thing is, to properly test the stability (i.e. all workloads) you need to test with FMA3, since there is no offset.
But it is not wise, especially if you are pushing.


----------



## Martin778

81*C is how hot a stock 3600 runs in SmallFFT's...with a 360mm AiO. Yet the cooler is barely warm, I've tried this on 3 different coolers and got similar results. TIM was evenly spread Kryonaut. Some pre-release reviews showed the same behaviour, almost 90*c on weaker coolers.
I hate to be the doomsayer but won't the 3900/3950X be hitting Tjmax all the time in SmallFFT's?


----------



## The Stilt

Martin778 said:


> 81*C is how hot a stock 3600 runs in SmallFFT's...with a 360mm AiO. Yet the cooler is barely warm, I've tried this on 3 different coolers and got similar results. TIM was evenly spread Kryonaut. Some pre-release reviews showed the same behaviour, almost 90*c on weaker coolers.
> I hate to be the doomsayer but won't the 3900/3950X be hitting Tjmax all the time in SmallFFT's?
> 
> https://youtu.be/gVgO0Fsszls


The limitations on 2 CCD SKUs are similar to the 1 CCD ones.
The total power will be higher, but the per CCD intensity (which is the biggest) issue is the same or slightly lower (due to higher quality silicon).
Twice the watts roughly, but twice the surface area as well.


----------



## Martin778

That's true, the 3900X has a second CCD with 6 cores. It shouldn't matter that much then. I'm still battling WHEA errors in HWInfo64, every now and then it counts one for the PCIe controller even without overclocking.


----------



## Paul17041993

nice to see you're still around stilt, good stuff


----------



## JackCY

What's up with the ASUS mobos going murderous on Ryzen with voltage?

https://youtu.be/Ssuqhyqah2k?t=191

Do they even test and check the UEFIs they are putting out? It's getting worse and worse with ASUS.


----------



## elmor

JackCY said:


> What's up with the ASUS mobos going murderous on Ryzen with voltage?
> 
> https://youtu.be/Ssuqhyqah2k?t=191
> 
> Do they even test and check the UEFIs they are putting out? It's getting worse and worse with ASUS.



You can clearly see in the video that he has LN2 Mode Enabled.


----------



## chakku

I have my VDDCR_SOC set to 1.15V in the BIOS on my C7H but it appears to be locked to 1.1V, at least according to Ryzen Master. Strangely my CLDO_VDDG is up at 1.15V now and CLDO_VDDP at 1.1V. I thought the former needed to be 40mv or so lower than SoC.

Is this bad?


----------



## gupsterg

P95 v29.8b3 160K test data in this ZIP if any one wish to see. I'd organise files by time.

First run uses constraints manually set as 65W TDP CPU, second as 105W and third has SMU option PPL matching PBO PPT, only then does RM show PPT as set in PBO.



Spoiler














All three test setups really didn't showing any real difference in frequency. Wall power meter readings were so close as well, idle ~70W, load ~155W-165W.



gupsterg said:


> Thanks as always :thumb: .
> 
> When you say "I don't recommend running 256-bit Prime95 at > 1.250V thou..." disable AVX2?
> 
> 
> 
> The Stilt said:
> 
> 
> 
> local.txt >>
> CpuSupportsAVX=0
> CpuSupportsFMA3=0
> CpuSupportsFMA4=0
> CpuSupportsAVX2=0
> 
> The thing is, to properly test the stability (i.e. all workloads) you need to test with FMA3, since there is no offset.
> But it is not wise, especially if you are pushing.
Click to expand...

Adding just CpuSupportsAVX2=0 didn't seem to grey out AVX2 in P95, so I held off retest until got confirmation, using your config all boxes are, thank you :thumb: .

RealBench v2.56 seems too slow to pick an error, last night set rig to 8hr run and checking log this morning I had fail at ~3.5hrs in.

So far Kahru RAM Test seems the most reliable and quicker failing test on current profile of:-

PBO+150MHz, constraints as 105W CPU, scalar 6x. 3666MHz, 1:1:1 MEMCLK:FCLK:UCLK, using your 3466MHz timings, GDMD, PDMD, 1T. SOC: 1.056V, CLDO_VDDG: 1.016V, VDIMM: 1.38V, VTTDDR: 0.687V ProcODT: 48. Anything else not stated in regarded to voltages is manually set at what was seen at stock.

Y-Cruncher in the past has had quite high peak temps, have you used that as a test load?



chakku said:


> I have my VDDCR_SOC set to 1.15V in the BIOS on my C7H but it appears to be locked to 1.1V, at least according to Ryzen Master. Strangely my CLDO_VDDG is up at 1.15V now and CLDO_VDDP at 1.1V. I thought the former needed to be 40mv or so lower than SoC.
> 
> Is this bad?
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler


I believe when CLDO_VDDG is no longer stock RM just defaults to showing SOC as 1.1V regardless to what it is set as. HWINFO SVI2 reading for SOC seems "on the money" to me.

In my signature is link to my C7H+R5 3600 thread, only recently I placed links to The Stilt's post there regarding some of what you are after insight on.


----------



## VPII

chakku said:


> I have my VDDCR_SOC set to 1.15V in the BIOS on my C7H but it appears to be locked to 1.1V, at least according to Ryzen Master. Strangely my CLDO_VDDG is up at 1.15V now and CLDO_VDDP at 1.1V. I thought the former needed to be 40mv or so lower than SoC.
> 
> Is this bad?


I'm not sure, I have my SOC set at 1.25v but it also reads 1.1v in Ryzen Master. The cpu vcore is set at 1.425 but reads 1.1v in both cpuz and Ryzen Master. Hwinfo64 won't open, keeps hanging at S.M.A.R.T. #0

The funny thing is even at this 1.425vcore set in bios the cpu never reaches 70C while running benchmarks.


----------



## chakku

VPII said:


> I'm not sure, I have my SOC set at 1.25v but it also reads 1.1v in Ryzen Master. The cpu vcore is set at 1.425 but reads 1.1v in both cpuz and Ryzen Master. Hwinfo64 won't open, keeps hanging at S.M.A.R.T. #0
> 
> The funny thing is even at this 1.425vcore set in bios the cpu never reaches 70C while running benchmarks.


Are you using StoreMI? That's likely causing your HWiNFO issue.


----------



## VPII

chakku said:


> Are you using StoreMI? That's likely causing your HWiNFO issue.


Nope don't even know what it means, or does so no I am not using it.


----------



## ssateneth

The Stilt said:


> local.txt >>
> CpuSupportsAVX=0
> CpuSupportsFMA3=0
> CpuSupportsFMA4=0
> CpuSupportsAVX2=0
> 
> The thing is, to properly test the stability (i.e. all workloads) you need to test with FMA3, since there is no offset.
> But it is not wise, especially if you are pushing.


You dont need to do that anymore. The newest prime95 lets you disable FMA and/or AVX on a per-run basis.


----------



## Pariston

The Stilt said:


> P0.
> 
> My multithreaded results were discarded due to the bios bug on Matisse and I am not going to retest them.
> Several days of work, no ROI.
> 
> Sorry.


I see.


Oh, that's unfortunate. Well, would you be able to test Matisse, Cascade Lake-X, and Comet Lake when they launch in 8C/16T config?


----------



## gupsterg

ssateneth said:


> You dont need to do that anymore. The newest prime95 lets you disable FMA and/or AVX on a per-run basis.
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler


I had noted that, but I prefer the edit to txt.

As inadvertently I may not set P95 incorrectly.

Even using PBO+150MHz 6x scalar I see ~100mV or greater under load VCORE than what The Stilt recommends for fuller testing.

I think I'll try some blender runs to see if they fail quicker than RealBench.


----------



## gupsterg

chakku said:


> I have my VDDCR_SOC set to 1.15V in the BIOS on my C7H but it appears to be locked to 1.1V, at least according to Ryzen Master. Strangely my CLDO_VDDG is up at 1.15V now and CLDO_VDDP at 1.1V. I thought the former needed to be 40mv or so lower than SoC.
> 
> Is this bad?
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gupsterg said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe when CLDO_VDDG is no longer stock RM just defaults to showing SOC as 1.1V regardless to what it is set as. HWINFO SVI2 reading for SOC seems "on the money" to me.
Click to expand...

If I leave SOC on Extreme Tweaker on [Auto] and changed SOC in AMD menu then RM displays it correctly. Enter in mV, so far example I want 1.05V enter 1050.



Spoiler






















I have yet to watch digital multimeter at POST on R5 3600 when I was setting SOC via Extreme Tweaker, but what I can tell is by applying it in AMD menu of UEFI from the start of POST SOC voltage was as set.

I have also set CLDO_VDDP and CLDO_VDDG via the AMD menu in UEFI and reverted the other settings to [Auto].

Change from [Auto] and enter value as mV you require.



Spoiler


----------



## zirblazer

Just tangentially related to this Thread, but Phoronix recently posted that Coreboot is getting Picasso (12nm Zen+ Raven Ridge shrink) support: https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=AMD-Picasso-Coreboot-Ready
During the previous generation AMD was rather open with its entire platform documentation, but they have not released anything for Zen based platforms, so it was impossible to make a Coreboot port without massive reverse engineering and magic numbers. Thus, Picasso being the first Zen based Processor that is going to get Coreboot support is a major milestone, and may technically be the needed reference implementation that opens the doors to port other Zen based Processors even if AMD provides no public documentation, assuming that they are similar enough.
The Picasso porting job is being done by Google as they are going to use it for its Chromebooks. Google has obviously signed a NDA with AMD to get the required Zen documentation for the very first port, and they even mentioned that AMD had to review the Picasso Coreboot port documentation that the developers wrote before posting it. The port documentation itself is here: https://review.coreboot.org/c/coreboot/+/33399/4/Documentation/soc/amd/family17h.md#139


Now, the reason why I post this here, is because chances are that many of these internal details also involve Matisse. Something that called my attention is that a feature called CAR (Cache-as-RAM) is not supported anymore. CAR was used at least since the K8 days (I think that Intel Pentium 2/3 also had it, but as a quirk, not as an officially supported feature. AMD mentioned CAR in its K10 Barcelona documentation) so that the CPU could have some memory to work with before the initialization of the Memory Controller, otherwise, its only workspace are the internal x86 General Purpose Registers. While CAR has been prominently used by the Firmware to bootstrap the platform, I recall hearing that there were some debugging tools and even Hypervisors that could use CAR to stay Cache resident. They seem to be novel use cases, but interesing nonetheless, more so with each CCX now packing 16 MiB Cache L3. Any reason why CAR was removed?
https://pete.akeo.ie/2011/08/ubrx-l2-cache-as-instruction-ram.html
https://privatecore.com/vcage/ (Supposedly it is a Cache resident Hypervisor, does so via CAR)


Also, is there no love for Matisse IO die? 
https://www.overclock.net/forum/28038894-post129.html


----------



## ReDXfiRe

gupsterg said:


> It is defo UCLK in my case, even though I initially thought it was FCLK. Johan45 was the first to explain to me it is UCLK.
> 
> For example VPII set say 3666MHz, which is 1833MHz RAM, FCLK will be 1833MHz if manually set, but as the UCLK will go MEMCLK/2 you should see ~917MHz. See the screenie in this post, I target 3533MHz (ie 1767MHz), 883MHz would be UCLK when MEMCLK/2=UCLK.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks again :thumb: , fully appreciated :thumb: .
> 
> 
> 
> Nice  , I cancelled my R7 3700X pre-order this morning, the R5 3600 is good enough fun for me  .
> 
> Be aware under load the Probeit points on C6H are affected by load line to planes (C7H isn't), there was a post by Elmor in the C6H thread and also should be in the OP of Ryzen Essential thread in my signature. You are better off setting a faster polling rate in HWINFO (~500ms or lower), then referencing the average SVI2 VCORE/SOC.
> 
> Yesterday to me felt wasted for me, I didn't get what I thought I'd get done. Any how this morning I am back testing what I'd like to be  .
> 
> Without CPU OC this is how my CPU sits with MEMCLK/FCLK/UCLK 1:1:1:-
> 
> 3533S SOC: 1.025V CLDO_VDDG: 0.985V VDIMM: 1.35V
> 3600S SOC: 1.025V CLDO_VDDG: 0.985V VDIMM: 1.355V
> 3666S SOC: 1.043V CLDO_VDDG: 1.003V VDIMM: 1.385V ProcODT: 48
> 
> Highest RAM profile is repeat pass in Kahru RAM Test of ~3000%, yet to run other tests. When combining it with PBO+150MHz it seems I need higher SOC & CLDO_VDDG.
> 
> 3666S with PBO+150MHz PPT: 142W TDC: 95A EDC: 140A Scalar: 6x:-
> 
> SOC: 1.043V CLDO_VDDG: 1.003V fails ~400% tested twice in RAM Test
> SOC: 1.050V CLDO_VDDG: 1.010V fails ~800% tested twice in RAM Test
> SOC: 1.056V CLDO_VDDG: 1.016V fails ~1890% tested once in RAM Test
> 
> Upto PBO+100MHz I do not need to adjust scalar to have nice ACB of upto 4.3GHz in RAM Test. Over +100MHz I need to adjust this to have improved sustainable all cores frequency. +125MHz IIRC needs at least 4x, +150MHz seems right with 6x, not tried 7x yet. Below video will show clocks, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> https://youtu.be/fNIGtJ6Cvug


Yeah, I think I'm ordering a R5 3600 atm. Btw, seems WHEA errors are affecting NVMe storage devices... For my review used SSD SATA for primary OS, NVMe drive for secondary storage (Phison E12)


----------



## Martin778

That WHEA story might become a major OOF. I have the MP600 for OS and 970PRO as secondary and even a day after a fresh reinstall SFC /scannow tells me it found something corrupt but can't fix it.


----------



## go626201

Sorry for asking is that a problem that 3900X running aida64 fpu ,and the temp will go up to 90+ and even 103 within 2second with 360mm water cooling?


----------



## cbjaust

Martin778 said:


> That WHEA story might become a major OOF. I have the MP600 for OS and 970PRO as secondary and even a day after a fresh reinstall SFC scannow tells me it found something corrupt but can't fix it.


Could be AMD Chipset drivers... https://forums.overclockers.com.au/posts/18261041/


----------



## CJMitsuki

cbjaust said:


> Could be AMD Chipset drivers... https://forums.overclockers.com.au/posts/18261041/


Have you tried tHe DISM commands? Run them in this order after you get a message like that in SFC. It will attempt to rebuild the corrupted image from an online source from microsoft. If its a stripped windows version then it will likely be rebuilt with those commands also

DISM /Online /Cleanup-Image /CheckHealth
DISM /Online /Cleanup-Image /ScanHealth
DISM /Online /Cleanup-Image /RestoreHealth


----------



## rdr09

Martin778 said:


> That WHEA story might become a major OOF. I have the MP600 for OS and 970PRO as secondary and even a day after a fresh reinstall SFC /scannow tells me it found something corrupt but can't fix it.





cbjaust said:


> Could be AMD Chipset drivers... https://forums.overclockers.com.au/posts/18261041/


Errors are showing up on some intel systems too. Not yet confirmed but it seems to be related to Win 10 1903. If someone with a later version of Win10 can test and see if it happens, too, would be good info in mitigation.


----------



## gupsterg

chakku said:


> I have my VDDCR_SOC set to 1.15V in the BIOS on my C7H but it appears to be locked to 1.1V, at least according to Ryzen Master. Strangely my CLDO_VDDG is up at 1.15V now and CLDO_VDDP at 1.1V. I thought the former needed to be 40mv or so lower than SoC.
> 
> Is this bad?
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gupsterg said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe when CLDO_VDDG is no longer stock RM just defaults to showing SOC as 1.1V regardless to what it is set as. HWINFO SVI2 reading for SOC seems "on the money" to me.
> 
> In my signature is link to my C7H+R5 3600 thread, only recently I placed links to The Stilt's post there regarding some of what you are after insight on.
> 
> 
> 
> gupsterg said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I leave SOC on Extreme Tweaker on [Auto] and changed SOC in AMD menu then RM displays it correctly. Enter in mV, so far example I want 1.05V enter 1050.
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 280360
> 
> 
> View attachment 280362
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have yet to watch digital multimeter at POST on R5 3600 when I was setting SOC via Extreme Tweaker, but what I can tell is by applying it in AMD menu of UEFI from the start of POST SOC voltage was as set.
> 
> I have also set CLDO_VDDP and CLDO_VDDG via the AMD menu in UEFI and reverted the other settings to [Auto].
> 
> Change from [Auto] and enter value as mV you require.
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 280364
> 
> 
> View attachment 280366
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Ok I did testing with digital multimeter at POST.

If I leave AMD menu SOC voltage 0 (which is default), then adjust SOC on Extremer Tweaker menu, from shutdown to POST measure SOC, what happens is *voltage shoots to ~1.1V*, then it comes down to what I'd set on Extreme Tweaker page, say for example 1.075V set = ~1.063V actual.

When I use AMD menu to set SOC voltage and leave Extreme Tweaker menu [Auto], from shutdown to POST measure SOC, what happens is voltage as I target from get go, ie no spike to ~1.1V.



ReDXfiRe said:


> Yeah, I think I'm ordering a R5 3600 atm. Btw, seems WHEA errors are affecting NVMe storage devices... For my review used SSD SATA for primary OS, NVMe drive for secondary storage (Phison E12)


Nice enjoy the R5 3600 :thumb: .

I appreciate the heads up, I had read some reports a day or so ago on reddit, I see no faults logged in that context. I am using Intel 660P 1TB NVMe.


----------



## chakku

Thanks for testing @gupsterg seems like AMD menu is the way to go for these settings.


----------



## gupsterg

chakku said:


> Thanks for testing @gupsterg seems like AMD menu is the way to go for these settings.


NP  , I believe so currently, I have yet to see if I targets above 1100mV does it apply via AMD menu, as how RM only seems to display 1.1V when we doing the other way, perhaps there is a limit, I dunno.

Perhaps a quirk of how ASUS portion of UEFI interact with AMD. Perhaps be fixed in next release, dunno, but I will test other UEFI as and when they release  .


----------



## ReDXfiRe

gupsterg said:


> Ok I did testing with digital multimeter at POST.
> 
> If I leave AMD menu SOC voltage 0 (which is default), then adjust SOC on Extremer Tweaker menu, from shutdown to POST measure SOC, what happens is *voltage shoots to ~1.1V*, then it comes down to what I'd set on Extreme Tweaker page, say for example 1.075V set = ~1.063V actual.
> 
> When I use AMD menu to set SOC voltage and leave Extreme Tweaker menu [Auto], from shutdown to POST measure SOC, what happens is voltage as I target from get go, ie no spike to ~1.1V.
> 
> 
> 
> Nice enjoy the R5 3600 :thumb: .
> 
> I appreciate the heads up, I had read some reports a day or so ago on reddit, I see no faults logged in that context. I am using Intel 660P 1TB NVMe.


AMD_Robert has assured it does not cause data loss acording to him, but they acknowledge something is going on and they are investigating. He is suggesting to use Windows native driver and uninstall Samsung Driver. Some Intel SSD user have reported WHEA errors (would be nice at least to get a log) but I guess the safe bet right now is using Windows drivers.


----------



## gupsterg

ReDXfiRe said:


> AMD_Robert has assured it does not cause data loss acording to him, but they acknowledge something is going on and they are investigating. He is suggesting to use Windows native driver and uninstall Samsung Driver. Some Intel SSD user have reported WHEA errors (would be nice at least to get a log) but I guess the safe bet right now is using Windows drivers.


Yeah I saw another thread on reddit where some one was doing as you say and manually setting PCI-E GEN IIRC.

I installed W10 Pro x64 1903 from ISO, allowed to update as required via web, only driver I installed is AMD Chipset v1.07.07, other than that it's what OS has wanted to do itself TBH.

Seems for a while there will be teething issues  ...


----------



## rdr09

gupsterg said:


> Yeah I saw another thread on reddit where some one was doing as you say and manually setting PCI-E GEN IIRC.
> 
> I installed W10 Pro x64 1903 from ISO, allowed to update as required via web, only driver I installed is AMD Chipset v1.07.07, other than that it's what OS has wanted to do itself TBH.
> 
> Seems for a while there will be teething issues  ...


It could be a component driver issue, since it affects both intel and amd. From the reddit page . . .


----------



## gupsterg

Dunno, I ran SFC /SCANNOW only this morning. Only corruption I had was relating to defender, which is known issue and occurs on W10 1803 as well. The OneDrive .ink restore is as I removed it.



Spoiler






Code:


2019-07-15 09:28:24, Info                  CSI    0000019f [SR] Could not reproject corrupted file \??\C:\Windows\System32\WindowsPowerShell\v1.0\Modules\Defender\\MSFT_MpComputerStatus.cdxml; source file in store is also corrupted

2019-07-15 09:28:24, Info                  CSI    000001a2 [SR] Could not reproject corrupted file \??\C:\Windows\System32\WindowsPowerShell\v1.0\Modules\Defender\\MSFT_MpThreat.cdxml; source file in store is also corrupted

2019-07-15 09:28:24, Info                  CSI    000001a5 [SR] Could not reproject corrupted file \??\C:\Windows\System32\WindowsPowerShell\v1.0\Modules\Defender\\MSFT_MpThreatCatalog.cdxml; source file in store is also corrupted

2019-07-15 09:28:24, Info                  CSI    000001a8 [SR] Could not reproject corrupted file \??\C:\Windows\System32\WindowsPowerShell\v1.0\Modules\Defender\\MSFT_MpThreatDetection.cdxml; source file in store is also corrupted

2019-07-15 09:28:24, Info                  CSI    000001ab [SR] Could not reproject corrupted file \??\C:\Windows\System32\WindowsPowerShell\v1.0\Modules\Defender\\MSFT_MpPreference.cdxml; source file in store is also corrupted

2019-07-15 09:28:24, Info                  CSI    000001ae [SR] Could not reproject corrupted file \??\C:\Windows\System32\WindowsPowerShell\v1.0\Modules\Defender\\MSFT_MpScan.cdxml; source file in store is also corrupted

2019-07-15 09:28:24, Info                  CSI    000001b1 [SR] Could not reproject corrupted file \??\C:\Windows\System32\WindowsPowerShell\v1.0\Modules\Defender\\MSFT_MpWDOScan.cdxml; source file in store is also corrupted

2019-07-15 09:28:24, Info                  CSI    000001b4 [SR] Could not reproject corrupted file \??\C:\Windows\System32\WindowsPowerShell\v1.0\Modules\Defender\\MSFT_MpSignature.cdxml; source file in store is also corrupted

2019-07-15 09:28:24, Info                  CSI    000001b7 [SR] Could not reproject corrupted file \??\C:\Windows\System32\WindowsPowerShell\v1.0\Modules\Defender\\Defender.psd1; source file in store is also corrupted

2019-07-15 09:28:32, Info                  CSI    0000020c [SR] Repairing corrupted file \??\C:\Users\Default\AppData\Roaming\Microsoft\Windows\Start Menu\Programs\\OneDrive.lnk from store





I have had to only twice restore my OS so far, both occasions it was because I targetted 3733MHz 1:1:1 with incorrect settings...


----------



## CJMitsuki

gupsterg said:


> Dunno, I ran SFC /SCANNOW only this morning. Only corruption I had was relating to defender, which is known issue and occurs on W10 1803 as well. The OneDrive .ink restore is as I removed it.
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> 2019-07-15 09:28:24, Info                  CSI    0000019f [SR] Could not reproject corrupted file \??\C:\Windows\System32\WindowsPowerShell\v1.0\Modules\Defender\\MSFT_MpComputerStatus.cdxml; source file in store is also corrupted
> 
> 2019-07-15 09:28:24, Info                  CSI    000001a2 [SR] Could not reproject corrupted file \??\C:\Windows\System32\WindowsPowerShell\v1.0\Modules\Defender\\MSFT_MpThreat.cdxml; source file in store is also corrupted
> 
> 2019-07-15 09:28:24, Info                  CSI    000001a5 [SR] Could not reproject corrupted file \??\C:\Windows\System32\WindowsPowerShell\v1.0\Modules\Defender\\MSFT_MpThreatCatalog.cdxml; source file in store is also corrupted
> 
> 2019-07-15 09:28:24, Info                  CSI    000001a8 [SR] Could not reproject corrupted file \??\C:\Windows\System32\WindowsPowerShell\v1.0\Modules\Defender\\MSFT_MpThreatDetection.cdxml; source file in store is also corrupted
> 
> 2019-07-15 09:28:24, Info                  CSI    000001ab [SR] Could not reproject corrupted file \??\C:\Windows\System32\WindowsPowerShell\v1.0\Modules\Defender\\MSFT_MpPreference.cdxml; source file in store is also corrupted
> 
> 2019-07-15 09:28:24, Info                  CSI    000001ae [SR] Could not reproject corrupted file \??\C:\Windows\System32\WindowsPowerShell\v1.0\Modules\Defender\\MSFT_MpScan.cdxml; source file in store is also corrupted
> 
> 2019-07-15 09:28:24, Info                  CSI    000001b1 [SR] Could not reproject corrupted file \??\C:\Windows\System32\WindowsPowerShell\v1.0\Modules\Defender\\MSFT_MpWDOScan.cdxml; source file in store is also corrupted
> 
> 2019-07-15 09:28:24, Info                  CSI    000001b4 [SR] Could not reproject corrupted file \??\C:\Windows\System32\WindowsPowerShell\v1.0\Modules\Defender\\MSFT_MpSignature.cdxml; source file in store is also corrupted
> 
> 2019-07-15 09:28:24, Info                  CSI    000001b7 [SR] Could not reproject corrupted file \??\C:\Windows\System32\WindowsPowerShell\v1.0\Modules\Defender\\Defender.psd1; source file in store is also corrupted
> 
> 2019-07-15 09:28:32, Info                  CSI    0000020c [SR] Repairing corrupted file \??\C:\Users\Default\AppData\Roaming\Microsoft\Windows\Start Menu\Programs\\OneDrive.lnk from store
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have had to only twice restore my OS so far, both occasions it was because I targetted 3733MHz 1:1:1 with incorrect settings...


I got lucky with my memory controller silicon. 3800 1:1:1 was np. Only way to reach it is with bclk at 101.8mhz as there is something in the bios that will not let you go above that. You get C5 error code as soon as you do. I know I have the head room for at least another freq step if not two @ 1:1:1. Im currently tightening 3733cl14 right now. Might be able to get it at 14-14-14-24-38-1T


----------



## rdr09

gupsterg said:


> Dunno, I ran SFC /SCANNOW only this morning. Only corruption I had was relating to defender, which is known issue and occurs on W10 1803 as well. The OneDrive .ink restore is as I removed it.
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> 2019-07-15 09:28:24, Info                  CSI    0000019f [SR] Could not reproject corrupted file \??\C:\Windows\System32\WindowsPowerShell\v1.0\Modules\Defender\\MSFT_MpComputerStatus.cdxml; source file in store is also corrupted
> 
> 2019-07-15 09:28:24, Info                  CSI    000001a2 [SR] Could not reproject corrupted file \??\C:\Windows\System32\WindowsPowerShell\v1.0\Modules\Defender\\MSFT_MpThreat.cdxml; source file in store is also corrupted
> 
> 2019-07-15 09:28:24, Info                  CSI    000001a5 [SR] Could not reproject corrupted file \??\C:\Windows\System32\WindowsPowerShell\v1.0\Modules\Defender\\MSFT_MpThreatCatalog.cdxml; source file in store is also corrupted
> 
> 2019-07-15 09:28:24, Info                  CSI    000001a8 [SR] Could not reproject corrupted file \??\C:\Windows\System32\WindowsPowerShell\v1.0\Modules\Defender\\MSFT_MpThreatDetection.cdxml; source file in store is also corrupted
> 
> 2019-07-15 09:28:24, Info                  CSI    000001ab [SR] Could not reproject corrupted file \??\C:\Windows\System32\WindowsPowerShell\v1.0\Modules\Defender\\MSFT_MpPreference.cdxml; source file in store is also corrupted
> 
> 2019-07-15 09:28:24, Info                  CSI    000001ae [SR] Could not reproject corrupted file \??\C:\Windows\System32\WindowsPowerShell\v1.0\Modules\Defender\\MSFT_MpScan.cdxml; source file in store is also corrupted
> 
> 2019-07-15 09:28:24, Info                  CSI    000001b1 [SR] Could not reproject corrupted file \??\C:\Windows\System32\WindowsPowerShell\v1.0\Modules\Defender\\MSFT_MpWDOScan.cdxml; source file in store is also corrupted
> 
> 2019-07-15 09:28:24, Info                  CSI    000001b4 [SR] Could not reproject corrupted file \??\C:\Windows\System32\WindowsPowerShell\v1.0\Modules\Defender\\MSFT_MpSignature.cdxml; source file in store is also corrupted
> 
> 2019-07-15 09:28:24, Info                  CSI    000001b7 [SR] Could not reproject corrupted file \??\C:\Windows\System32\WindowsPowerShell\v1.0\Modules\Defender\\Defender.psd1; source file in store is also corrupted
> 
> 2019-07-15 09:28:32, Info                  CSI    0000020c [SR] Repairing corrupted file \??\C:\Users\Default\AppData\Roaming\Microsoft\Windows\Start Menu\Programs\\OneDrive.lnk from store
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have had to only twice restore my OS so far, both occasions it was because I targetted 3733MHz 1:1:1 with incorrect settings...


What brand of nvme drive do you have?


----------



## FlanK3r

Roger @The Stilt

do u have some tip, how to fix this "issue"? Is it possible to manually fix it?


----------



## Duvar

CJMitsuki said:


> I got lucky with my memory controller silicon. 3800 1:1:1 was np. Only way to reach it is with bclk at 101.8mhz as there is something in the bios that will not let you go above that. You get C5 error code as soon as you do. I know I have the head room for at least another freq step if not two @ 1:1:1. Im currently tightening 3733cl14 right now. Might be able to get it at 14-14-14-24-38-1T


I can confirm that, maybe you wanna try out my Timings, to save some time:


----------



## blair

Here is my 3700X peak Clock with -0.075 Voltage offset. CBR15 was run ST to show these clocks.

I am using C6H with UEFI 7106 (AGESA 1.0.0.2).

Memory is 4x8GB G.Skill 3600 CL16 B-Die. Timings visible in Ryzen master.

I have only tested this config to 500-600% Memtest. However no errors/crashes or weird issues so far...

Ryzen Master Snip
https://puu.sh/DT78o/4746afe4b4.png

I am interested to see what i can do with Fclk at this stage.. currently got too much wow farming to do.. -.- maybe once that's done i'll tweak this more. This thread has been very informative so far. (only on page 6/7 so far).

Playing with different offsets show I could get 4.375 MAX ST frequency with about 4.2Ghz~ All Core (CB R15/R20) I believe from memory this was with -0.025v offset. Lowering the offset reduced performance in all cases, even with Fans boosted to max. I am yet to try setting manual voltage at so far it seems pointless?


----------



## The Stilt

zirblazer said:


> Hi The Stilt. Long time I don't see your Posts after you left Anandtech, had to stalk you a bit to find where you were posting.
> 
> 
> I see that you're focusing on the CPU side of things. Do you have any data regarding Matisse IO chiplet? The IO die seems to hold a lot of secrets since it is supposed to be the same design than what is used for the X570 Chipset. Given than in Socket AM4 package and in Chipset package it offers two extremely different feature sets, I find it far more interesing than the CPU chiplet itself which shouldn't vary between Matisse, ThreadRipper and EPYC 7000.
> 
> Based on what we saw previously with Zeppelin, Socket AM4 pinout seems to be limited to how many features it can expose compared to what is really in the die. For example, Zeppelin in Socket AM4 package can expose only 24 PCIe Lanes and 4 USB, whereas in the single die EPYC Embedded 3200 series, it could do the full 32 PCIe Lanes + 4 USB. It also has a builtin 10G MACs, but AMD didn't said how it was multiplexed. Same happens with Raven Ridge, which in the Ryzen Embedded V1000 series seems to expose 6 USB whereas in AM4 only 4 (Albeit it has less PCIe Lanes), and it also has the 10G MACs.
> Based on AMD slides about X570: https://hexus.net/tech/features/mainboard/131789-amd-ryzen-3000-supporting-x570-chipset-examined/
> ...Matisse IO chiplet seems to have at least 20 PCIe (In AM4 it exposes 24, 16 + 4 + 4), 12 USB, and 4 dedicated SATA. What I'm curious about, is the absolute maximum possible lane configuration (A la Intel Chipset Flex IO) that we could see in an EPYC Embedded product with a new pinout that exposes all what the IO chiplet is capable of.
> 
> I have recently been ranting about how I dislike Socket AM4 itself due to forcing you to use a Chipset, which in Zen generation is merely a glorified PCIe Switch with builtin SATA and USB Controllers, and how for mITX sized builds an embedded Zen counterpart actually makes more sense. Given the fact that Matisse IO chiplet seems to be wider than Zeppelin die IO, to me it makes sense for certain builds to kick out the Chipset from the platform and go full Zen 2 SoC. So far, there seems to be little interest in such products. I'm highly interesed on whenever you find such a product viable. I'm willing to sacrifice the upgradeable Socket just to expose more IO from the Processor package.


Any information (outside the marketing material) related to Zen 2 is extremely hard to find.
Finding any information related to the IOD is as easy as finding reliable evidence about Sasquatch.

According to AMD the IOD has 24 Gen. 4 lanes in total, four 3.1 Gen. 2 USBs, two Gen. 3 SATAs and the usual misc IO (SMBUS, SPI, etc).

The CCDs used in Matisse are not the same used in the other products. The IOD might or might not be.
So basically it makes no difference what would actually be available, when there is no way to use it.


----------



## The Stilt

FlanK3r said:


> Roger @The Stilt
> 
> do u have some tip, how to fix this "issue"? Is it possible to manually fix it?
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tlUE8GlkbGA


As far as I know, yes.
My 3900X specimen now boosts to 4.625GHz, despite being limited to 4.575GHz even 1.0.0.3AB.
Based on a sample size of one, I cannot say if the method I use to fix it is the sufficient remedy on all specimens.

Technically it has nothing to do with AGESA version itself.

I'm confident that an official fix will be available at some point (soon).


----------



## fursko

The Stilt said:


> As far as I know, yes.
> My 3900X specimen now boosts to 4.625GHz, despite being limited to 4.575GHz even 1.0.0.3AB.
> Based on a sample size of one, I cannot say if the method I use to fix it is the sufficient remedy on all specimens.
> 
> Technically it has nothing to do with AGESA version itself.
> 
> I'm confident that an official fix will be available at some point (soon).


That's big if true. Can you share more details ?


----------



## anethema

The Stilt said:


> As far as I know, yes.
> My 3900X specimen now boosts to 4.625GHz, despite being limited to 4.575GHz even 1.0.0.3AB.
> Based on a sample size of one, I cannot say if the method I use to fix it is the sufficient remedy on all specimens.
> 
> Technically it has nothing to do with AGESA version itself.
> 
> I'm confident that an official fix will be available at some point (soon).



Wow! Can you say what you are doing or what road to go down to to attempt this?


----------



## The Stilt

fursko said:


> That's big if true. Can you share more details ?





anethema said:


> Wow! Can you say what you are doing or what road to go down to to attempt this?


It is quite simple, but not something which an average user can do, partially due to the lack of equipment.

I'll let AMD to elaborate once they have investigated and fixed the issue.

And as I said, I've only tested it on a single specimen (3600 and 3700X had no issues). Other reviewers had samples which were limited to significantly lower frequencies than mine, which did 4.575GHz peak at stock.
So I have no way of knowing if the solution will completely fix the issue, or if it is simply an improvement. Mostly that's why I don't care to be more specific.


----------



## fursko

The Stilt said:


> It is quite simple, but not something which an average user can do, partially due to the lack of equipment.
> 
> I'll let AMD to elaborate once they have investigated and fixed the issue.
> 
> And as I said, I've only tested it on a single specimen (3600 and 3700X had no issues). Other reviewers had samples which were limited to significantly lower frequencies than mine, which did 4.575GHz peak at stock.
> So I have no way of knowing if the solution will completely fix the issue, or if it is simply an improvement. Mostly that's why I don't care to be more specific.


Interesting! I've also saw some tests people undervolting their Ryzen and their clock speeds stay same or improves even more but the performance lose is big. You probably already know that. Why this happens ? Is it wrong clock speed reporting or what ? Same thing happened to me with my Vega's. One of them was reporting lower speeds and getting better results. Other one reporting higher speeds and even higher with the undervolt but still lacking behind.


----------



## The Stilt

fursko said:


> Interesting! I've also saw some tests people undervolting their Ryzen and their clock speeds stay same or improves even more but the performance lose is big. You probably already know that. Why this happens ? Is it wrong clock speed reporting or what ? Same thing happened to me with my Vega's. One of them was reporting lower speeds and getting better results. Other one reporting higher speeds and even higher with the undervolt but still lacking behind.


Clock strechers are kicking in, when the CPU doesn't receive the voltage it requires.
It seems that it will increase the VID request until FIT limit is reached and then start stretching if its still in UV condition.

https://www.overclock.net/forum/28044514-post7.html


----------



## CJMitsuki

fursko said:


> Interesting! I've also saw some tests people undervolting their Ryzen and their clock speeds stay same or improves even more but the performance lose is big. You probably already know that. Why this happens ? Is it wrong clock speed reporting or what ? Same thing happened to me with my Vega's. One of them was reporting lower speeds and getting better results. Other one reporting higher speeds and even higher with the undervolt but still lacking behind.





The Stilt said:


> Clock strechers are kicking in, when the CPU doesn't receive the voltage it requires.
> It seems that it will increase the VID request until FIT limit is reached and then start stretching if its still in UV condition.
> 
> https://www.overclock.net/forum/28044514-post7.html


I have mine undervolted wit a -.0625v offset with 3733mhz cl14 memory 1:1:1 with a BCLK of 101.8mhz which boosts to 4.4ghz all core and 4.48ghz single core. No loss of performance from what i see and significantly lower temps, my fans barely run unless im running a benchmark.


----------



## AlphaC

https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=ASUS-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO


BIOS 0702 actually is slower than 0066


_It's usually a few percent swing if that in either direction, but the older BIOS was favored in a number of cases. _


----------



## nick name

The Stilt said:


> Clock strechers are kicking in, when the CPU doesn't receive the voltage it requires.
> It seems that it will increase the VID request until FIT limit is reached and then start stretching if its still in UV condition.
> 
> https://www.overclock.net/forum/28044514-post7.html


Clock Stretchers? Like in this older AMD slide?


----------



## anethema

The Stilt said:


> Clock strechers are kicking in, when the CPU doesn't receive the voltage it requires.
> It seems that it will increase the VID request until FIT limit is reached and then start stretching if its still in UV condition.
> 
> https://www.overclock.net/forum/28044514-post7.html



One thing to seemingly keep in mind is..while the old way seemed to be to undervolt a bit so it would clock higher without hitting the FIT voltage, undervolting seems to do very weird things on Zen2. Everyone is reporting that an undervolt actually got them consistently higher clocks, but when actually benching the machines, the scores go way down. Games too.

One thread on reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/cdkbkk/psa_undervolting_does_not_retain_performance_with/

EDIT:I see you have already addressed the downsides of undervolting. NVM

So it seems while undervolting may help clocks, it isn't the answer for actual overclocking.

As far as the 'solution' I'd still be curious to hear it even in a PM. I work in electrical engineering and can get my hands on a bit of equipment  I mostly work in RF, but still.


----------



## CJMitsuki

anethema said:


> One thing to seemingly keep in mind is..while the old way seemed to be to undervolt a bit so it would clock higher without hitting the FIT voltage, undervolting seems to do very weird things on Zen2. Everyone is reporting that an undervolt actually got them consistently higher clocks, but when actually benching the machines, the scores go way down. Games too.
> 
> One thread on reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/cdkbkk/psa_undervolting_does_not_retain_performance_with/
> 
> EDIT:I see you have already addressed the downsides of undervolting. NVM
> 
> So it seems while undervolting may help clocks, it isn't the answer for actual overclocking.
> 
> As far as the 'solution' I'd still be curious to hear it even in a PM. I work in electrical engineering and can get my hands on a bit of equipment  I mostly work in RF, but still.


I think the problem may be undervolting too much.


----------



## zirblazer

The Stilt said:


> Any information (outside the marketing material) related to Zen 2 is extremely hard to find.
> Finding any information related to the IOD is as easy as finding reliable evidence about Sasquatch.
> 
> According to AMD the IOD has 24 Gen. 4 lanes in total, four 3.1 Gen. 2 USBs, two Gen. 3 SATAs and the usual misc IO (SMBUS, SPI, etc).
> 
> The CCDs used in Matisse are not the same used in the other products. The IOD might or might not be.
> So basically it makes no difference what would actually be available, when there is no way to use it.


What do you mean that the CCDs are not the same between Matisse and the other products? I though that part of the idea behind the chiplets is that the CPU ones could be reused across all the non-APU product lines, like ThreadRipper and EPYC (Unless AMD wants to do an APU with an IO, CPU and GPU chiplets). Are you implying that Rome will use a different CPU chiplet than the one found in Matisse?


Regarding the IO die, what AMD said is that they use the same design for both Matisse IO die and the X570 Chipset, but Matisse one is manufactured using 12nm process whereas X570 uses 14nm. Sources:
https://www.techpowerup.com/256511/amd-ryzen-3000-matisse-i-o-controller-die-12nm-not-14nm
https://twitter.com/IanCutress/status/1138443875154944000
This pretty much means that X570 has an unused IMC while Matisse IO die doesn't expose some of the new I/O like 8 more USB Ports (As X570 has 12) or the multiplexed configurable 8 PCIe/8 SATA (Plus 4 dedicated SATA), which personally I believe that would be wonderful for two OCuLink Ports that depending on cable could be used for a 4x NVMe or a breakout cable for 4 SATA. Matisse IO die should also have slighty less power consumption given that it uses a smaller process.

I know that exposing the additional I/O is not possible in Socket AM4 because it shouldn't have enough unused/reserved Pins for a backwards compatible revision to begin with. However, that applies to AM4 products only, maybe with a redesigned package for a different pinout more of that I/O could be exposed. For example, the Zen based EPYC Embedded 3000 series exposed the full feature set of Zeppelin (32 Lanes instead of only 24 like on AM4, RDIMM support, and the multiplexed four 10G MACs that before EPYC Embedded launch were completely unknow), and there is also an embedded Raven Ridge version that exposes 4 DisplayPorts and 6 USBs, whereas in Socket AM4 they only do 3 and 4, respectively.
Given the fact that the Matisse IO die, if fully exposed, has enough I/O to drive a decently sized platform with no other Chipset or major controller help (Except the Super I/O), I find that an EPYC Embedded version would be an absolute monster. I even did a long rant about how I believe that for small to medium sized systems (mITX/mATX) you could happily drive the full platform with the Zen SoC I/O without needing a Chipset, which if you're interesed you can read here: https://forums.anandtech.com/thread...ike-ryzen-epyc-embedded-alternatives.2565304/
Matisse solves the Zeppelin weakness since Zeppelin had only 4 USB Ports, which were not close to enough for consumer usage (Even Server Motherboards like Supermicro ones had to use two USB Hubs in its EPYC Embedded Motherboards), but Matisse with 12 is excellent. However, due to lack of information, I don't know if it has less total possible PCIe Lanes (24 vs 32), if the USB Ports are dedicated or multiplexed on something else, and so on. Is hard to theorycraft my perfect Matisse SoC Motherboard without that info 


In your personal opinion, do you find Zen 2 SoC potential if switched to another format interesing? While I understand that Socket AM4 was designed that way due to cost concerns, I think that it is limiting it a lot, which is the reason why I don't find satisfaction in that platform, yet fell in love with the EPYC Embedded line. I expect a Matisse based version to be even better, UNLESS AMD sticks to the previous generation pinout...


----------



## gupsterg

rdr09 said:


> What brand of nvme drive do you have?


Sorry for delayed response, as post above yours had info, I thought I would point it out after I had something new to post. It is an Intel 660P 1TB in M2_1 of C7HWIFI.

I have not had to restore image of OS for few days now, as getting better at knowing what to set to get to OS when change OC profile. So this is same "image" of OS as yesterday, again only the known issue shows in CBS.log link.



CJMitsuki said:


> I got lucky with my memory controller silicon. 3800 1:1:1 was np. Only way to reach it is with bclk at 101.8mhz as there is something in the bios that will not let you go above that. You get C5 error code as soon as you do. I know I have the head room for at least another freq step if not two @ 1:1:1. Im currently tightening 3733cl14 right now. Might be able to get it at 14-14-14-24-38-1T


Nice  .

I can get 3800MHz, without BCLK, but not fully stable for me.

SOC: 1.075V, VDDG: 1.035V, VDIMM: 1.425V, VTTDDR: 0.7125V.



Spoiler














Pretty much all my profiles use :clock: The Stilt's :clock: 3466MHz timings, GDMD, 1T. Not yet at a stage for tweaking timings further on my end. I have been more concerned with profiling voltages for x target, seeing how PBO behave, tinkering with UEFI settings to see how it then reflect in Ryzen Master, ASUS Turbo V, POST process voltages, etc. I update this album with reasonable stability tested benches. None have Performance Bias, OS, any or other tweaks, just straight up UEFI setup/OS and tested.


----------



## Martin778

Anyone already tried OCing 2x16 kits on Zen2? I only see 2x8 results so far.


----------



## majestynl

gupsterg said:


> Nice  .
> 
> I can get 3800MHz, without BCLK, but not fully stable for me.
> 
> SOC: 1.075V, VDDG: 1.035V, VDIMM: 1.425V, VTTDDR: 0.7125V.
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 280758
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty much all my profiles use :clock: The Stilt's :clock: 3466MHz timings, GDMD, 1T. Not yet at a stage for tweaking timings further on my end. I have been more concerned with profiling voltages for x target, seeing how PBO behave, tinkering with UEFI settings to see how it then reflect in Ryzen Master, ASUS Turbo V, POST process voltages, etc. I update this album with reasonable stability tested benches. None have Performance Bias, OS, any or other tweaks, just straight up UEFI setup/OS and tested.



Thanks for the share chap! Same here, i can only get it fully stable if i keep my ram at low temps. Even with CL14 
Maybe when you have some time you can try to blow a fan on them just to see if you can pass Ramtest for x %


----------



## Gadfly

How do I view the CPU's FIT table


----------



## The Stilt

Gadfly said:


> How do I view the CPU's FIT table


Not possible using the standard tools.
The FIT decisions are based on fused (silicon specific) parameters and models.


----------



## Gadfly

The Stilt said:


> Not possible using the standard tools.
> The FIT decisions are based on fused (silicon specific) parameters and models.


What tools are you using to view the fused parameters on the CPU? I'm a developer, and would love to figure out how to do this


----------



## rdr09

gupsterg said:


> Sorry for delayed response, as post above yours had info, I thought I would point it out after I had something new to post. It is an Intel 660P 1TB in M2_1 of C7HWIFI.
> 
> I have not had to restore image of OS for few days now, as getting better at knowing what to set to get to OS when change OC profile. So this is same "image" of OS as yesterday, again only the known issue shows in CBS.log link.


Thanks gups. I think Samsung are the ones having issue.


----------



## The Stilt

Gadfly said:


> What tools are you using to view the fused parameters on the CPU? I'm a developer, and would love to figure out how to do this


Custom tools.

If you're a developer how has signed NDA with AMD, then you should already have access to partial fuse descriptions.
Obviously far from everything has been described.


----------



## Diablosbud

So I just installed my R5 3600 into my ASUS Prime X370-Pro running the latest 5008 BIOS (AGESA 1.0.0.2). I thought I would share an observation that might be helpful to some.

When I first boot up my machine after a CMOS reset or the CPU install, I can only boot with a very low RAM speed such as 2400 MHz. Otherwise I get stuck in a boot loop with no POST.

After the first boot, I'm able to set far higher speeds. I'm currently testing options around 3600 MHz with Prime95, with manually set matching FCLK.


----------



## The Stilt

Based on the testing I did, the higher-end single CCD SKUs could potentially benefit more from undervolting.
Thats because the two CCD SKUs seem to have one "prime cut" (high quality CCD) and one significantly lower quality CCD in them.
Again, that's based on a single sample however, similar behavior has been illustrated in the test made by other reviewers.

At ±0mV offset there is no stretcher activity under load, as expected. That'll change as the voltage drops.
Already at -25mV the weaker CCD has some stretcher activity present (core 14). At -50mV minor activity can be observed on cores 9, 13 and 14.
At -75mV the activity increases on cores 9, 13, 14 and activity also on core 11 can be seen. At -100mV all active cores on CCD1 have activity going on, the weakest cores (13, 14) are practically out.

Ideally there should be a way to detect the "effective" clock the CPU is running at, but so far I haven't been able to find one.

So undervolting Ryzen 3000-series isn't recommended in general, unless the performance is evaluated prior and post the changes (in multiple workloads).*

Note: *Core 0, 4, 10 and 12 are factory harvests.
Cores 1 & 5 are the best cores of this CPU and by a huge margin.
No activity on them until -175mV offset.



Spoiler


----------



## zirblazer

Those were some epyc pics. However, I think that every undervolting Zen 2 result I saw so far was @ stock clock. If along with the undervolt, clock speed was underclocked (At the cost of performance, obviously), would the clock stretchers go back to zero activity at same voltage?

From both performance and stability standpoint, would an hyphotetical 4.2 GHz with an average 20% clock stretcher activity or so due to undervolting perform better or worse, and consume more power or less, than one at 3.6 GHz with 0% clock stretcher activity? Basically, should people that want to save power at the cost of performance prefer to put the effort in the clock stretcher or reduce clock speed? Both choices reduces performance.


----------



## Nighthog

The Stilt said:


> Based on the testing I did, the higher-end single CCD SKUs could potentially benefit more from undervolting.
> Thats because the two CCD SKUs seem to have one "prime cut" (high quality CCD) and one significantly lower quality CCD in them.
> Again, that's based on a single sample however, similar behavior has been illustrated in the test made by other reviewers.
> 
> At ±0mV offset there is no stretcher activity under load, as expected. That'll change as the voltage drops.
> Already at -25mV the weaker CCD has some stretcher activity present (core 14). At -50mV minor activity can be observed on cores 9, 13 and 14.
> At -75mV the activity increases on cores 9, 13, 14 and activity also on core 11 can be seen. At -100mV all active cores on CCD1 have activity going on, the weakest cores (13, 14) are practically out.
> 
> Ideally there should be a way to detect the "effective" clock the CPU is running at, but so far I haven't been able to find one.
> 
> So undervolting Ryzen 3000-series isn't recommended in general, unless the performance is evaluated prior and post the changes (in multiple workloads).*
> 
> Note: *Core 0, 4, 10 and 12 are factory harvests.
> Cores 1 & 5 are the best cores of this CPU and by a huge margin.
> No activity on them until -175mV offset.


I've noted 2 other people with similiar observation of their 3900X samples. One CCD is golden and the other CCD is garbage in varying degree.
I think this is how AMD can hit TDP(105W) and as well advertise their BOOST frequency as sold. One CCD will usually hit them targets at times but the other will probably not have as much luck. 
This will bode well for 3950X as both chips WILL HAVE TO be great bins to be able to hit targets. Though the low base-clock is a misnomer of things in the end so they can throw in some mediocre bins there.


----------



## The Stilt

zirblazer said:


> Those were some epyc pics. However, I think that every undervolting Zen 2 result I saw so far was @ stock clock. If along with the undervolt, clock speed was underclocked (At the cost of performance, obviously), would the clock stretchers go back to zero activity at same voltage?
> 
> From both performance and stability standpoint, would an hyphotetical 4.2 GHz with an average 20% clock stretcher activity or so due to undervolting perform better or worse, and consume more power or less, than one at 3.6 GHz with 0% clock stretcher activity? Basically, should people that want to save power at the cost of performance prefer to put the effort in the clock stretcher or reduce clock speed? Both choices reduces performance.


Stretchers are not used in OC-Mode, which is activated by underclocking as well.
So if you want to run at Vmin all the time, you must use OC-Mode (i.e. no Turbo available).

The stock V/F on Matisse (above 3.6GHz) is absurdly accurate. The biggest issue is definitely the discrepancy between the different cores and the CCDs.



Spoiler


----------



## The Stilt

Nighthog said:


> This will bode well for 3950X as both chips WILL HAVE TO be great bins to be able to hit targets.


What do you mean?


----------



## Martin778

@The Stilt,
My MSI Godlike X570 warns me that "above 1.10V CPU SOC voltage the Gen4 speed will downgrade or fall back to Gen3 speeds". Any idea why this is, does ASUS do that too?


----------



## Nighthog

The Stilt said:


> What do you mean?


As you observed with your 3900X which is 12core-24thread part @ 105W we get one "golden" chiplet one "turd" chiplet (requires lots more voltage to hit same target frequency)
The 16-core-32thread 3950X @ 105W should in theory have to have better chiplets to be able to hit it's advertised specifications at the same wattage. (though it does have lower base clock to make finding a pair easier to meet spec)
It might be two "gold" chiplets to be able to meet spec but we might see the same as with the 3900X with 1 good and one throw in whatever to fill the spot.

Just speculation and conjecture on how they might do it to be able to meet demand with available parts on hand from manufacturing depending on how many good vs bad chiplets they get.


----------



## The Stilt

Martin778 said:


> @*The Stilt* ,
> My MSI Godlike X570 warns me that "above 1.10V CPU SOC voltage the Gen4 speed will downgrade or fall back to Gen3 speeds". Any idea why this is, does ASUS do that too?


1.100V is the official guideline value from AMD.
I'm not sure if ASUS boards warn or not, but they don't automatically exceed 1.1V either.


----------



## Martin778

Clear, I've seen it's setting 1.10V by itself when running XMP. I've tried 3733 16-16-16-36 2T (2x16 3200C14 kit) but it was throwing errors in 1iusmus's TestMem5. Incrased to 1.15V and it already did 2 passes.


----------



## The Stilt

Nighthog said:


> As you observed with your 3900X which is 12core-24thread part @ 105W we get one "golden" chiplet one "turd" chiplet (requires lots more voltage to hit same target frequency)
> The 16-core-32thread 3950X @ 105W should in theory have to have better chiplets to be able to hit it's advertised specifications at the same wattage. (though it does have lower base clock to make finding a pair easier to meet spec)
> It might be two "gold" chiplets to be able to meet spec but we might see the same as with the 3900X with 1 good and one throw in whatever to fill the spot.
> 
> Just speculation and conjecture on how they might do it to be able to meet demand with available parts on hand from manufacturing depending on how many good vs bad chiplets they get.


Yes, but the 3950X has only 3.5GHz base clock.
That is easily doable at the default 142W power budget.

Practically it should be able to do ~3.7GHz in most MT workloads at that power budget.


----------



## Nighthog

The Stilt said:


> Yes, but the 3950X has only 3.5GHz base clock.
> That is easily doable at the default 142W power budget.
> 
> Practically it should be able to do ~3.7GHz in most MT workloads at that power budget.


When you make it like that hope goes down. Low clocks don't need good chiplets as they don't require that high voltages. 
It's the advertised boost ~4.6Ghz that gives ideas but as seen with reviews maybe that's really not something one should put too much weight on.

Though PBO + AutoOC would do wonders on these then compared to PB @ stock with it's constraints too reach similar clocks like the other Sku:s already released. 
Provided we can keep temps in check.


----------



## CJMitsuki

I find that any Auto OC and PBO are horrible on my cpu at least. Ive set a -.0625v offset and havent changed it and ive steadily increased BCLK up to 102.8mhz so far. 3700x pushing 4.4ghz all core with 1.35v under heavy load with temps around 70c. Single core up to 4 cores boosting over 4.5ghz at 1.41v in brief bursts. Although, after raising the base clock the cpu will no longer boost unless you go into Ryzen Master and go to the Creator Mode tab and set PBO to active again then it works perfectly. AMD boosting seems rather moderate on the clocks while using far too much voltage. Before I set a negative offset I would spike to 1.47v with only 4.35ghz all core. Ive also seen no degradation in performance from the undervolting. Memory is running at 3770mhz @ cl14 1:1:1 14-15-15-22-36. Memory is getting multicore memory scores in GB3 of 8600 now.

http://browser.geekbench.com/geekbench3/8792993

And 8900 in GB4

http://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/13915843


----------



## Atlan1980

*clock stretching*



The Stilt said:


> Based on the testing I did, the higher-end single CCD SKUs could potentially benefit more from undervolting. ....


@ The Stilt
Good observation. Is there any way to log clock stretching for normal users? Have no problem to use a command line window. Could be beneficial for checking all the workloads.


----------



## Haelous

The Stilt said:


> Based on the testing I did, the higher-end single CCD SKUs could potentially benefit more from undervolting.
> Thats because the two CCD SKUs seem to have one "prime cut" (high quality CCD) and one significantly lower quality CCD in them.
> Again, that's based on a single sample however, similar behavior has been illustrated in the test made by other reviewers.
> 
> At ±0mV offset there is no stretcher activity under load, as expected. That'll change as the voltage drops.
> Already at -25mV the weaker CCD has some stretcher activity present (core 14). At -50mV minor activity can be observed on cores 9, 13 and 14.
> At -75mV the activity increases on cores 9, 13, 14 and activity also on core 11 can be seen. At -100mV all active cores on CCD1 have activity going on, the weakest cores (13, 14) are practically out.
> 
> Ideally there should be a way to detect the "effective" clock the CPU is running at, but so far I haven't been able to find one.
> 
> So undervolting Ryzen 3000-series isn't recommended in general, unless the performance is evaluated prior and post the changes (in multiple workloads).*
> 
> Note: *Core 0, 4, 10 and 12 are factory harvests.
> Cores 1 & 5 are the best cores of this CPU and by a huge margin.
> No activity on them until -175mV offset.


I can confirm this on my chip as well. C01 and C05 are the best of my first CCD, and the "best" of the second CCD (C12) is not even close to C05. My worst core is only good for 4300 while my best hits 4550. All core boost stops at 4100 for a 24T load.


----------



## gupsterg

Peeps with 2 CCD CPUs may wanna grab this tool which allows each CCX to clock at x, link in der8auer's YT video description. From what der8auer states, RM also allows this feature.



Spoiler


----------



## lordzed83

gupsterg said:


> Peeps with 2 CCD CPUs may wanna grab this tool which allows each CCX to clock at x, link in der8auer's YT video description. From what der8auer states, RM also allows this feature.
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> https://youtu.be/M5pHUHGZ7hU


This is interesting !!!!


----------



## lordzed83

The Stilt said:


> 1.100V is the official guideline value from AMD.
> I'm not sure if ASUS boards warn or not, but they don't automatically exceed 1.1V either.


Maybe thats why with my Soc @1.125 gen 4 is not active on my system even tho its set in bios. Interesting ill check after work )


----------



## The Stilt

As suggested by @elmor, I checked the APERF counters when I knew clock stretching was taking place.
APERF is indeed able to see the change in the effective clock, despite all of the other methods fail to detect it.

The testing revealed couple new things.

On 3900X the maximum stretch during UV appears to be around 81% of the original frequency. Meaning if the stretcher activity is 100% at 4.325GHz, the effective frequency is around 3.5GHz.

Also due to the frequency relations of the different cores of the same CCX, stretch activity on any core affect the frequency of the other cores of the same CCX.
So even if you have three strong cores in a single CCX, their frequency will be capped by the weakest core of the CCX.


----------



## Nighthog

I noted my Aorus Xtreme with F2 BIOS wanted to push 1.200V SoC with AUTO voltage when running like 4000Mhz and above memory clock. 

I manually set 1.100V but I haven't yet gotten anything but 4000Mhz stable, above and many things I've tried I get lots of errors. Might be one of the sticks can't run that speed but there is lots left to test.

I haven't yet found most settings.


----------



## majestynl

gupsterg said:


> Peeps with 2 CCD CPUs may wanna grab this tool which allows each CCX to clock at x, link in der8auer's YT video description. From what der8auer states, RM also allows this feature.
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> https://youtu.be/M5pHUHGZ7hU


Yeap saw the video today. Very interesting. We need that SW from Asus 




The Stilt said:


> Also due to the frequency relations of the different cores of the same CCX, stretch activity on any core affect the frequency of the other cores of the same CCX.
> So even if you have three strong cores in a single CCX, their frequency will be capped by the weakest core of the CCX


Interesting but sounds logic if you just think about it.
Chain is only as strong... as its weakest link.


----------



## gupsterg

majestynl said:


> Yeap saw the video today. Very interesting. We need that SW from Asus


As stated link in description, I downed it today, just if get a 2CCD chip...


----------



## majestynl

gupsterg said:


> As stated link in description, I downed it today, just if get a 2CCD chip...


Missed that.. nice !! Heard him saying he needed to wait for Asus approval... Thanks Gup


----------



## gupsterg

@The Stilt

Any info you can share as to what we could set the new customisable BGSA options to?



Spoiler
















lordzed83 said:


> This is interesting !!!!


Indeed  .



majestynl said:


> Missed that.. nice !! Heard him saying he needed to wait for Asus approval... Thanks Gup


NP  .


----------



## The Stilt

gupsterg said:


> @*The Stilt*
> 
> Any info you can share as to what we could set the new customisable BGSA options to?
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 281194
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed  .
> 
> 
> 
> NP  .


Unfortunately I have no idea, as I haven't had the time to play around with these yet.


----------



## crakej

I can confirm that my 3900X seems to reflect your findings - CCD 1 is doing about 4.5, nearly 4.6 on best core. CCD2 is max 4.4GHz.

How come some are getting 100MHz for bus clock? I can't get it even if I manually enter it.


----------



## majestynl

crakej said:


> How come some are getting 100MHz for bus clock? I can't get it even if I manually enter it.


Just set as usual in Bios. But for proper down-clocking etc you can enable in RM.
Creator mode > PBO Tab >> Enable (and test)

If you dont manually enable. It only downclocks to your base-clock.
Below both situations


----------



## chakku

gupsterg said:


> Peeps with 2 CCD CPUs may wanna grab this tool which allows each CCX to clock at x, link in der8auer's YT video description. From what der8auer states, RM also allows this feature.
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> https://youtu.be/M5pHUHGZ7hU


Can't watch until I get home, but if this is per CCX why does it matter if it's a 1 or 2 CCD CPU? Should be possible on a 1 CCD CPU too I imagine?


----------



## Diablosbud

Do you guys think that it's safe to overclock using PBO while using auto voltage? Should I try to set a negative voltage offset?

I planned on overclocking with a manually set clock and voltage, but my X370 BIOS appears to be bugged when setting a custom multiplier. It boot loops every time, even after multiple CMOS clears. So instead I set a max boost increase of +200 MHz.

The clocks are varying from 4 GHz to 4.4 GHz depending on the load, from Prime95 to gaming, which is making it difficult for me to decide where to set my voltage.

Edit: The highest voltage I've seen so far is 1.45V during gaming. Other loads are lower.


----------



## crakej

majestynl said:


> Just set as usual in Bios. But for proper down-clocking etc you can enable in RM.
> Creator mode > PBO Tab >> Enable (and test)
> 
> If you dont manually enable. It only downclocks to your base-clock.
> Below both situations


I did set it to 100MHz, but it's still 99.8. Down-clocking is fine for me, but I do not see the PBO menu in RM that you have???

Edit:Manually turned on PBO in bios. What setting have I changed that turned it off? SoC voltage change?


----------



## The Stilt

Diablosbud said:


> Do you guys think that it's safe to overclock using PBO while using auto voltage? Should I try to set a negative voltage offset?
> 
> I planned on overclocking with a manually set clock and voltage, but my X370 BIOS appears to be bugged when setting a custom multiplier. It boot loops every time, even after multiple CMOS clears. So instead I set a max boost increase of +200 MHz.
> 
> The clocks are varying from 4 GHz to 4.4 GHz depending on the load, from Prime95 to gaming, which is making it difficult for me to decide where to set my voltage.
> 
> Edit: The highest voltage I've seen so far is 1.45V during gaming. Other loads are lower.


If you are worried about any automatic voltage adjustments, you can manually select offset mode and use the minimum allowed negative offset (0.00625V). That will prevent any additional automatic adjustments.
Outside the "OC-Mode" these shouldn't happen anyhow, since there is no point in altering the CPU voltages during the normal operation.


----------



## Duvar

Guys can you pls test the following?: https://extreme.pcgameshardware.de/prozessoren/470191-sammelthread-amd-ryzen-1888.html#post9942313


----------



## Diablosbud

The Stilt said:


> If you are worried about any automatic voltage adjustments, you can manually select offset mode and use the minimum allowed negative offset (0.00625V). That will prevent any additional automatic adjustments.
> Outside the "OC-Mode" these shouldn't happen anyhow, since there is no point in altering the CPU voltages during the normal operation.


Okay I might give that a try. Thanks.


----------



## Boxman

Duvar said:


> Guys can you pls test the following?: https://extreme.pcgameshardware.de/prozessoren/470191-sammelthread-amd-ryzen-1888.html#post9942313


I think very little of us speak German, so if you want help you should probably translate that.


----------



## Duvar

I loaded up my 4.275GHz Profile (already optimized for the lowest possible Voltage), after that i startet CB R20 and made a screenshot where you can see temps etc + the score.
After that, i reduced within the Ryzen Master PPT/TDC/EDC to the lowest values and run again, temps/power consumption dropped significantly but the scores are equal to the first run.
This was done with a 3600, maybe with another processor, you need other limits, therefore i asked, if you guys can test that too.


----------



## lordzed83

Boxman said:


> I think very little of us speak German, so if you want help you should probably translate that.


I can help use google translator or translator browser addon like me


----------



## Streetdragon

I have thos funny temp spikes. from 36° to 47°
Than it cools down for exactly 8 secounds from 47° to 36° and goes up. the whole time in 8 secounds. wut^^


----------



## DragonQ

Streetdragon said:


> I have thos funny temp spikes. from 36° to 47°
> Than it cools down for exactly 8 secounds from 47° to 36° and goes up. the whole time in 8 secounds. wut^^


During gaming my temps keep oscillating between ~65 and ~75, up down up down. It seems to just be how these chips (or the monitoring software) work.


----------



## lordzed83

The Stilt said:


> If you are worried about any automatic voltage adjustments, you can manually select offset mode and use the minimum allowed negative offset (0.00625V). That will prevent any additional automatic adjustments.
> Outside the "OC-Mode" these shouldn't happen anyhow, since there is no point in altering the CPU voltages during the normal operation.


That's what I'm doing got my voltages on offset mode same as on zen and zen+. Seen cores are going to sleep andkeeps temps at good level


----------



## Duvar

Test this what i said pls with auto voltage and auto core speed. 
I think with fixed values its not working properly.
Here my results with settings @ auto (Voltage and Corespeed): https://www.computerbase.de/forum/t...t-die-kroenung.1880423/page-353#post-22896693


----------



## majestynl

Duvar said:


> Test this what i said pls with auto voltage and auto core speed.
> I think with fixed values its not working properly.
> Here my results with settings @ auto (Voltage and Corespeed): https://www.computerbase.de/forum/t...t-die-kroenung.1880423/page-353#post-22896693


Those test are made while undervolting. So probably also underpowered for a certain OC. Not really a good viewing point if you ask me.

Yesterday I posted some test results with PBO and offset voltages in the CH7 thread. What I saw on my chip is when you max out PBO you probably also need some extra juice to show the full potential. The clocks where going higher with undervolting but performance went down. The performance went higher when I applied + offset. And their is definitely a sweet spot. So to much offset also did degrade the performance.


----------



## Duvar

Only the last picture is undervolted, i added that for comparision. The first 3 are @ auto voltage and auto clocks.
The first pic is @ stock.
The second with PPT etc @ min value (but also stock clocks and voltage)
The third is the same but with auto oc +200 
The last my comparable undervolt profile (score wise)

You can see how temps and power consumption is going down drastically.


----------



## Streetdragon

Voltage to "normal"
PBO + XFR "Enabled"

RAM + IF to 1767Mhz 1:1

Now i get prober boosts etc.
Better singecore and multicore performence!
Still no downvolting/idle. Even when i close all programms


----------



## majestynl

Streetdragon said:


> Voltage to "normal"
> PBO + XFR "Enabled"
> 
> RAM + IF to 1767Mhz 1:1
> 
> Now i get prober boosts etc.
> Better singecore and multicore performence!
> Still no downvolting/idle. Even when i close all programms


Have you toched BCLK? Probably you set it to 100mhz ?
If yes, then you can activate Presision Boost Overdrive in Ryzen Master (creator menu). Click on the PBO tab en then just click enable (bottom)

If everything else is right you will see the down clocking.


----------



## Streetdragon

tried bclk. everything else than auto(100) wound boot.

I saw that the downclocking/voltage behaving is from boot to boot different for me. Sometimes it works with steam etc in the background and mostly its not working. Very confusing^^
But i can live with 1.3V in idle. As long as the boosts etc are working for now.

Little side question:
When the whole PC does a restart while gaming it could point to a problem with the IF is not stable right?
Had that problem with clock of 3733/1866Mhz ram/IF.
3533/1766Ram/IF was running metro exodus fine for an hour. Needs more testing for sure


----------



## gupsterg

gupsterg said:


> @The Stilt
> 
> Any info you can share as to what we could set the new customisable BGSA options to?
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 281194
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Stilt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately I have no idea, as I haven't had the time to play around with these yet.
Click to expand...

I set it as 300h and significantly AIDA benched worse. 4F8h, seemed same as [Auto] or [Enabled/3F8h], going higher made no difference, tried 8F8h.



Spoiler












*300h*









*4F8h*









*8F8h*













crakej said:


> How come some are getting 100MHz for bus clock? I can't get it even if I manually enter it.


Ryzen lacks HW to report BCLK accurately.

I just set 100MHz manually, disabled periodic polling in HWINFO and all is same as 1xxx, 2xxx setups.



chakku said:


> Can't watch until I get home, but if this is per CCX why does it matter if it's a 1 or 2 CCD CPU? Should be possible on a 1 CCD CPU too I imagine?


Ahh, yes, will have to try it  .



Streetdragon said:


> I have thos funny temp spikes. from 36° to 47°
> Than it cools down for exactly 8 secounds from 47° to 36° and goes up. the whole time in 8 secounds. wut^^


Ryzen doesn't do averaging on CPU temperature AFAIK. There are multiple on-die sensors, but only one reading, so some rotating must go on and highest read may take priority.

Due to the process/density, I reckon we see more of a sporadic jump then probably prior Ryzen CPUs as well. 



Duvar said:


> I loaded up my 4.275GHz Profile (already optimized for the lowest possible Voltage), after that i startet CB R20 and made a screenshot where you can see temps etc + the score.
> After that, i reduced within the Ryzen Master PPT/TDC/EDC to the lowest values and run again, temps/power consumption dropped significantly but the scores are equal to the first run.
> This was done with a 3600, maybe with another processor, you need other limits, therefore i asked, if you guys can test that too.


Interesting, thanks for share, will have to try when find the time from other testing  .


----------



## Duvar

Whats also very interesting is how efficient the 3600 or Zen 2 in general can be.
I downclocked the CPU to 3.35GHz @ 0.9V (if i set lower Voltage, System will be unstable), and during gaming i am @ 2600X/2700X (with 3200CL14) Lvl of FPS with very very low power consumption^^
Look at that: https://extreme.pcgameshardware.de/prozessoren/470191-sammelthread-amd-ryzen-1909.html#post9944809
For me as 4k Gamer, its more than enough because my 1080Ti is bottlenecking before the CPU.


----------



## majestynl

Duvar said:


> Only the last picture is undervolted, i added that for comparision. The first 3 are @ auto voltage and auto clocks.
> The first pic is @ stock.
> The second with PPT etc @ min value (but also stock clocks and voltage)
> The third is the same but with auto oc +200
> The last my comparable undervolt profile (score wise)
> 
> You can see how temps and power consumption is going down drastically.


Ok, will have a look again  Thanks for the share!



Streetdragon said:


> tried bclk. everything else than auto(100) wound boot.
> 
> I saw that the downclocking/voltage behaving is from boot to boot different for me. Sometimes it works with steam etc in the background and mostly its not working. Very confusing^^
> But i can live with 1.3V in idle. As long as the boosts etc are working for now.


I asked if you have touched the bclk. Not to try it  anyways. Reading above info from you. You system doesn't get to IDLE because you have SW's open who are keeping the cores alive!
If you want to test if the system down-clocking properly on idle, you need to close all app/process who are effecting this. I see on the new platform waking up cores are very sensitive compared to earlier platforms.



Streetdragon said:


> Little side question:
> When the whole PC does a restart while gaming it could point to a problem with the IF is not stable right?
> Had that problem with clock of 3733/1866Mhz ram/IF.
> 3533/1766Ram/IF was running metro exodus fine for an hour. Needs more testing for sure


Can be anything, RAM / CPU or Graphics Card unstable! For CPU you can check windows events, mostly you will see a error event related to cores!
To find the issue you need to eliminate OC on other parts that could have impact! Run Defaults on CPU and Graphics. then check again. If you have still issues it could be the RAM OC


----------



## The Stilt

For 2 CCD SKUs, 2 DPC SR configuration seems to be the way to go.
Both the 3600 and 3700X did 1800MHz UCLK on 1 DPC DR config, but most likely due to the discrepancy of the two CCDs in 3900X, it barely does 1733MHz on those DIMMs.
Meanwhile with 2 DPC SR config there is no issue in reaching 1866MHz FCLK/UCLK. That's pretty unfortunate since 8GB DIMMs cannot be considered as desireable or future proof as 16GB ones, due to the 32GB limitation.
Sure 16Gb ICs exist nowdays (hence allowing 16GB SR modules), but none of them can come even close to B-die in terms of frequency and timings.

Phy at AGESA defaults, except ProcODT of 40.0Ohm, which is an ASUS auto-rule for Optimem III.
tRDRDSCL & tWRWRSCL cannot be set < 4 CLK when the UCLK is operating at the limit, but that doesn't seem to affect the latency too much.
4 CLK already provides 100% efficiency for intra BankGroup accesses, but obviously it would ideally be set to 2 CLKs. Same goes for disabling GearDownMode, which seems to de-stabilize UCLK when it is operating close to the limit.

Increasing cLDO_VDDP seems beneficial > 3600MHz MEMCLKs, as increasing it seems to improve the margins and hence help with potential training issues. On previous gen. products it was only useful for shifting the MEMCLK holes, which were
present on certain CPU, motherboard and DIMM combinations. But then again, we never did this kind of MEMCLKs on those parts.










And before you ask. No.
Matisse version of RTC will never be public, sorry


----------



## Martin778

I'm surprised it even booted 1T with 2x16GB. I can run 3733 C16 2T any day but 1T, nope.


----------



## nick name

Ooooh a Matisse Timing Checker.


----------



## upgraditus

The Stilt said:


> For 2 CCD SKUs, 2 DPC SR configuration seems to be the way to go.
> Both the 3600 and 3700X did 1800MHz UCLK on 1 DPC DR config, but most likely due to the discrepancy of the two CCDs in 3900X, it barely does 1733MHz on those DIMMs.
> Meanwhile with 2 DPC SR config there is no issue in reaching 1866MHz FCLK/UCLK. That's pretty unfortunate since 8GB DIMMs cannot be considered as desireable or future proof as 16GB ones, due to the 32GB limitation.
> Sure 16Gb ICs exist nowdays (hence allowing 16GB SR modules), but none of them can come even close to B-die in terms of frequency and timings.
> 
> Phy at AGESA defaults, except ProcODT of 40.0Ohm, which is an ASUS auto-rule for Optimem III.
> tRDRDSCL & tWRWRSCL cannot be set < 4 CLK when the UCLK is operating at the limit, but that doesn't seem to affect the latency too much.
> 4 CLK already provides 100% efficiency for intra BankGroup accesses, but obviously it would ideally be set to 2 CLKs. Same goes for disabling GearDownMode, which seems to de-stabilize UCLK when it is operating close to the limit.
> 
> Increasing cLDO_VDDP seems beneficial > 3600MHz MEMCLKs, as increasing it seems to improve the margins and hence help with potential training issues. On previous gen. products it was only useful for shifting the MEMCLK holes, which were
> present on certain CPU, motherboard and DIMM combinations. But then again, we never did this kind of MEMCLKs on those parts.
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And before you ask. No.
> Matisse version of RTC will never be public, sorry


Impressive numbers, sitting here at 72ns+ with 3600 micron e-die  Contemplating if I should at this point just fork out the extra for some b-bie...


----------



## The Stilt

upgraditus said:


> Impressive numbers, sitting here at 72ns+ with 3600 micron e-die  Contemplating if I should at this point just fork out the extra for some b-bie...


What kind of timings are they running at?
Surely you can improve the latency by tightening up tRFC and tRC for starters?


----------



## upgraditus

The Stilt said:


> What kind of timings are they running at?
> Surely you can improve the latency by tightening up tRFC and tRC for starters?



If I knew what I was doing then perhaps, I've been relying on info from others since the calc is of little use for this setup.


----------



## Nighthog

@The Stilt

Currently running Prime95 test to see stability of 1:1:1 2DPC-SR @ 3800Mhz with Micron E-die. with all stock voltages. 
Looks Ok so far, only minor glitch was some mouse stutter/lag for a moment, but it went away when I put a load on the cpu. Will have too see if it comes back or whatnot. 

I've found some buggy BIOS features that depending on which place you set the setting at you either get max 1800fclk/UCLK working(3600Mhz), but set it elsewhere in the BIOS enabled 1900fclk/uclk without issue(3800Mhz).
*AMD CBS* vs *AMD OVERCLOCKING* the later working better

I'm on a Gigabyte board.


----------



## The Stilt

Nighthog said:


> @*The Stilt*
> 
> Currently running Prime95 test to see stability of 1:1:1 2DPC-SR @ 3800Mhz with Micron E-die. with all stock voltages.
> Looks Ok so far, only minor glitch was some mouse stutter/lag for a moment, but it went away when I put a load on the cpu. Will have too see if it comes back or whatnot.
> 
> I've found some buggy BIOS features that depending on which place you set the setting at you either get max 1800fclk/UCLK working(3600Mhz), but set it elsewhere in the BIOS enabled 1900fclk/uclk without issue(3800Mhz).
> *AMD CBS* vs *AMD OVERCLOCKING* the later working better
> 
> I'm on a Gigabyte board.


1900MHz FCLK/UCLK is really good.

Single CCD CPU should help somewhat too, thou.


----------



## The Stilt

upgraditus said:


> If I knew what I was doing then perhaps, I've been relying on info from others since the calc is of little use for this setup.


Can't they do lower tRFC?
tWR you should be able to lower, but I'm not sure if that makes any difference.


----------



## upgraditus

The Stilt said:


> Can't they do lower tRFC?
> tWR you should be able to lower, but I'm not sure if that makes any difference.


Thanks for taking the time to offer pointers, I really appreciate it since I'm well out of my depth with understanding of timings. 

Have taken tRFC back to 504 (where it was for my 3466 preset) and tWR down to 24 and will re-test. Not sure how low I can go with them or if there are rules regarding correlation with other timings.

Edit: down to 69.4ns with the above.


----------



## Nighthog

I can inform and note that too high off a SoC voltage results in instability and problems when running high FCLK/UCLK. I saw many try 1.200 -> 1.250 vSOC for testing/benching but with this system of mine it's just an overall issue when trying to run higher FCLK/UCLK in 1:1:1 mode. I saw no gains whatsoever running it high.

3800Mhz Mem with 1900FCLK/UCLK can't boot with ~1.200vSoC. If it boots is soon freezes I've noted. Lower it to 1.150V I see large amount of errors in memory testing. Lower it some more toward 1.100V and it gains stability which is "stock" on this board of mine. I could even lower it down to 1.000V and still run 3800Mhz 1900FCLK/UCLK and have found Geardown Disabled 1T works like this after finding the right procODT & DrvStr values. It seems like the lower you go the better it is for stability.
I thought increasing voltage would allow higher speeds but it was the opposite effect. 

I tried to increase speed but didn't get more out of it yet for 1:1:1 mode still stuck at MAX 3800Mhz MEM & FCLK 1900Mhz 1:1:1 mode. But found geardown disabled does work with 1T timings with these still XMP timings that are horrible.


----------



## gupsterg

The Stilt said:


> For 2 CCD SKUs, 2 DPC SR configuration seems to be the way to go.
> Both the 3600 and 3700X did 1800MHz UCLK on 1 DPC DR config, but most likely due to the discrepancy of the two CCDs in 3900X, it barely does 1733MHz on those DIMMs.
> Meanwhile with 2 DPC SR config there is no issue in reaching 1866MHz FCLK/UCLK. That's pretty unfortunate since 8GB DIMMs cannot be considered as desireable or future proof as 16GB ones, due to the 32GB limitation.
> Sure 16Gb ICs exist nowdays (hence allowing 16GB SR modules), but none of them can come even close to B-die in terms of frequency and timings.
> 
> Phy at AGESA defaults, except ProcODT of 40.0Ohm, which is an ASUS auto-rule for Optimem III.
> tRDRDSCL & tWRWRSCL cannot be set < 4 CLK when the UCLK is operating at the limit, but that doesn't seem to affect the latency too much.
> 4 CLK already provides 100% efficiency for intra BankGroup accesses, but obviously it would ideally be set to 2 CLKs. Same goes for disabling GearDownMode, which seems to de-stabilize UCLK when it is operating close to the limit.
> 
> Increasing cLDO_VDDP seems beneficial > 3600MHz MEMCLKs, as increasing it seems to improve the margins and hence help with potential training issues. On previous gen. products it was only useful for shifting the MEMCLK holes, which were
> present on certain CPU, motherboard and DIMM combinations. But then again, we never did this kind of MEMCLKs on those parts.
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And before you ask. No.
> Matisse version of RTC will never be public, sorry
> 
> 
> 
> Martin778 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm surprised it even booted 1T with 2x16GB. I can run 3733 C16 2T any day but 1T, nope.
Click to expand...

 @Martin778

I think 4x8GB is in use as RTC shows 2DPC-SR.

@The Stilt

Thanks Roger and +rep :thumb: .

I can use your 3466MHz timings all the way upto 3600MHz 1:1:1, with very little bump on SOC/VDDG/VDIMM over stock, see this post which has Kahru RAM test with ~17000% and rerun.

At 3666MHz upto ~3000% is best I can get if stick to those timings. Increases in voltages, playing with ProcODT/RTT/CAD/PMU did not solve this.

So I too looked at what timings I need to loosen.

Benched SCL 4, it only seemed to lose me extreme low/high result on "Read" vs SCL 2, you can see below last row is 3666MHz with SCL 2 I have a result of 54846, where as same with SCL 4 never hit it, but also those 3 runs seem more consistent, as never got the 54134 as seen on a SCL 2 run.



Spoiler














This was where I got yesterday afternoon, hoping today can further improve timings.

PBO+150MHz (6x, 105W constraints) 3800MHz 1:1:1 data as WMV.


----------



## chakku

The Stilt said:


> For 2 CCD SKUs, 2 DPC SR configuration seems to be the way to go.
> Both the 3600 and 3700X did 1800MHz UCLK on 1 DPC DR config, but most likely due to the discrepancy of the two CCDs in 3900X, it barely does 1733MHz on those DIMMs.
> Meanwhile with 2 DPC SR config there is no issue in reaching 1866MHz FCLK/UCLK. That's pretty unfortunate since 8GB DIMMs cannot be considered as desireable or future proof as 16GB ones, due to the 32GB limitation.
> Sure 16Gb ICs exist nowdays (hence allowing 16GB SR modules), but none of them can come even close to B-die in terms of frequency and timings.
> 
> Phy at AGESA defaults, except ProcODT of 40.0Ohm, which is an ASUS auto-rule for Optimem III.
> tRDRDSCL & tWRWRSCL cannot be set < 4 CLK when the UCLK is operating at the limit, but that doesn't seem to affect the latency too much.
> 4 CLK already provides 100% efficiency for intra BankGroup accesses, but obviously it would ideally be set to 2 CLKs. Same goes for disabling GearDownMode, which seems to de-stabilize UCLK when it is operating close to the limit.
> 
> Increasing cLDO_VDDP seems beneficial > 3600MHz MEMCLKs, as increasing it seems to improve the margins and hence help with potential training issues. On previous gen. products it was only useful for shifting the MEMCLK holes, which were
> present on certain CPU, motherboard and DIMM combinations. But then again, we never did this kind of MEMCLKs on those parts.
> 
> And before you ask. No.
> Matisse version of RTC will never be public, sorry


Any chance we may see some more presets find their way into ROG BIOS?

Also I've been hearing about ideal ProcODT for the new gen being between 30-40 now, Auto setting for me sets it to 60ohm which I have success with, would you anticipate any benefit to manually lowering it?

Interestingly enough it seems like a lot of the Auto settings coincidence with the DRAM Calc suggestions for previous gens, wonder if that had any influence on new defaults. Any ideas on what I should be able to tighten with 1DPC DR on a 1 CCD chip? I get errors dropping the tRCDRD to 16 and tRAS/tRC to 32/48.



Spoiler















As for MTC we have Ryzen Master now to display timings otherwise we'd all be begging!


----------



## gupsterg

@The Stilt

Forgot to ask, I see in RTC cLDO_VDDM don't see this on C7H, will this be exposed on AGESA 1.0.0.3 or later on C7H? what is this voltage? cheers  .



chakku said:


> Also I've been hearing about ideal ProcODT for the new gen being between 30-40 now, Auto setting for me sets it to 60ohm which I have success with, would you anticipate any benefit to manually lowering it?


1DPC-SR on UEFI 2406/2501 is 60ohms for me. 1DPC-SR on UEFI 0068 is 40ohms for me. Regardless of which UEFI I use out of the 3, 3600MHz needs ProcODT 40 or fails for me.

3666MHz showed signs of lower ProODT aiding it, dunno if red herring yet. Below is all same setup, only ProODT changed in stages from 40 to 30.



Spoiler














































Above tests were with SOC: 1.043 VDDG: 0.968 VDIMM: 1.37 VTTDDR: 0.675.

I bumped VDIMM: 1.375 VTTDDR: 0.687 on ProODT: 30, got 585%



Spoiler














Then bumped SOC: 1.05 VDDG: 0.975 VDIMM: 1.38 VTTDDR: 0.675 on ProcODT: 30, got 728%.



Spoiler














My jaw was dropping, never got to OS, let alone to run RT on 2xxx with low end ProcODT.


----------



## chakku

gupsterg said:


> @The Stilt
> 
> 1DPC-SR on UEFI 2406/2501 is 60ohms for me. 1DPC-SR on UEFI 0068 is 40ohms for me. Regardless of which UEFI I use out of the 3, 3600MHz needs ProcODT 40 or fails for me.
> 
> 3666MHz showed signs of lower ProODT aiding it, dunno if red herring yet. Below is all same setup, only ProODT changed in stages from 40 to 30.
> 
> My jaw was dropping, never got to OS, let alone to run RT on 2xxx with low end ProcODT.


Interesting finds indeed. Does 0068 default to 30ohm or is it still 60 and your existing memory timings/settings wouldn't boot anymore?


----------



## gupsterg

chakku said:


> Interesting finds indeed. Does 0068 default to 30ohm or is it still 60 and your existing memory timings/settings wouldn't boot anymore?





gupsterg said:


> 1DPC-SR on UEFI 2406/2501 is 60ohms for me. *1DPC-SR on UEFI 0068 is 40ohms for me.* Regardless of which UEFI I use out of the 3, 3600MHz needs ProcODT 40 or fails for me.


Regardless of UEFI used and if ProODT is defaulting to 60 or 40, I do not get POST failure at 3600MHz, I encounter stability issue in Kahru RAM Test with incorrect ProcODT. All other settings for context are the same, only once ProcODT is 40 or defaulting to 40, Kahru RAM Test will pass high % for 3600MHz C15 1T GDMD.


----------



## Nighthog

Bios set 53.3Ohm for my E-die 4x8Gb configuration and it worked all the way to 3933Mhz XMP profile perfect on my Gigabyte Aorus board.
But it's not the best value. 48Ohm is better after some time of comparison and lower might be even better. This kit loved 43.6Ohm on gen 1 B350 board and liked it even on the X470 board with gen 1 I had but that board had issues booting below 53.3Ohm so it wasn't ideal.

30-32Ohm aren't that good as I found they were worse than 48Ohm... But still there are values to be tested in-between them.

With gen 1 I found the lower procODT the better for memory stability as far as your CPU/motherboard combo could handle it the higher you tried for frequency.


----------



## The Stilt

chakku said:


> Any chance we may see some more presets find their way into ROG BIOS?


Unless something very special emerges, then most likely not.
Frankly I see no need for them, as the timings themselves make very little difference (compare to previous gen).
The performance is defined by FCLK and UCLK and the maximum frequency those will depend on several different things (CPU specimen, CPU topology i.e. 1 or 2 CCD, motherboard and the DIMMs, in terms of the configuration and most likely PCB type too).



gupsterg said:


> @*The Stilt*
> 
> Forgot to ask, I see in RTC cLDO_VDDM don't see this on C7H, will this be exposed on AGESA 1.0.0.3 or later on C7H? what is this voltage? cheers  .


cLDO_VDDM is not adjustable on any platform, at least for the time being, and I just added it to see if AMD uses any auto-rules for it.


----------



## gupsterg

gupsterg said:


> @The Stilt
> 
> Forgot to ask, I see in RTC cLDO_VDDM don't see this on C7H, will this be exposed on AGESA 1.0.0.3 or later on C7H? what is this voltage? cheers  .
> 
> 
> 
> The Stilt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unless something very special emerges, then most likely not.
> Frankly I see no need for them, as the timings themselves make very little difference (compare to previous gen).
> The performance is defined by FCLK and UCLK and the maximum frequency those will depend on several different things (CPU specimen, CPU topology i.e. 1 or 2 CCD, motherboard and the DIMMs, in terms of the configuration and most likely PCB type too).
> 
> cLDO_VDDM is not adjustable on any platform, at least for the time being, and I just added it to see if AMD uses any auto-rules for it.
Click to expand...

I found for voltage "spend" and next to nothing performance gain, when using say 3600C14/3666C14 I was better off at 3600C15, need 1.425V/1.455 vs say 1.355V.

So far in testing nothing beats for performance/ease of gain "ability", PBO+150MHz 3600MHz using your 3466MHz timings, 1T GDMD. Simple set up of PBO, one step each on SOC/VDDG/VDIMM from default and nice gains in AIDA64, CB R15/R20, etc.

Thanks for the info as always  .

When I target say 1933MHz FCLK board will not POST, not even with lowered RAM, have I hit CPU limitation, FW or god knows ?


----------



## kazablanka

gupsterg said:


> I found for voltage "spend" and next to nothing performance gain, when using say 3600C14/3666C14 I was better off at 3600C15, need 1.425V/1.455 vs say 1.355V.
> 
> So far in testing nothing beats for performance/ease of gain "ability", PBO+150MHz 3600MHz using your 3466MHz timings, 1T GDMD. Simple set up of PBO, one step each on SOC/VDDG/VDIMM from default and nice gains in AIDA64, CB R15/R20, etc.
> 
> Thanks for the info as always  .
> 
> When I target say 1933MHz FCLK board will not POST, not even with lowered RAM, have I hit CPU limitation, FW or god knows ?


Do you see any differences with +150 settings? I am on msi x570 ace and this settings does not do anything.
I use scalar x7 only.

My mobo sets the procOdt at 36,3 Ohms by default for 3600mhz.


----------



## gupsterg

kazablanka said:


> Do you see any differences with +150 settings? I am on msi x570 ace and this settings does not do anything.
> I use scalar x7 only.
> 
> My mobo sets the procOdt at 36,3 Ohms by default for 3600mhz.


All the R5 3600/R7 2700X data in CB is from C7H, the other Ryzen CPUs are from C6H.

PBO+200MHz 1669
PBO+150MHz 1665/1663
PBO+75MHz 1646
Stock is 1632

All R5 3600 results using RAM 3600MHz, 1:1:1, The Stilt's 3466MHz timings, 1T GDMD.



Spoiler














Upto PBO+100MHz I use 1x, PBO+150MHz just will not sustain MHz in Kahru RAM Test and bench in CB R15 with scaling if I do not use at least 4x, so I set 6x for over head in my mind, PBO+200MHz 10x was used, not tested it much. This post has some data as well.


----------



## crakej

Although I can run nice and tight at 3733 CL14 IF @ 1866 I get quite nice results....

If I try to run 3800/1900 only way it boots so far is to let bios apply awful auto timings like 22 26 26 26.

Also, I can select DOCP 4266, which is meant to be 19 19 19 19, it boots, but with same awful timings, not the XMP timings. Currently trying to get it to boot with 20 20 20 20, but no luck yet. Trying various voltages and timings but just don't know what I'm doing yet.

Tried CL15, GearDown off, tried T2 as well, but not sure how T2 effects things like voltage on this chip.

Do others have the bios enter slower timings than XMP for them?

Think I can probably refine my 3733 with help from the last few pages.

Thanks for extra information @The Stilt - always helpful!


----------



## kazablanka

crakej said:


> Although I can run nice and tight at 3733 CL14 IF @ 1866 I get quite nice results....
> 
> If I try to run 3800/1900 only way it boots so far is to let bios apply awful auto timings like 22 26 26 26.
> 
> Also, I can select DOCP 4266, which is meant to be 19 19 19 19, it boots, but with same awful timings, not the XMP timings. Currently trying to get it to boot with 20 20 20 20, but no luck yet. Trying various voltages and timings but just don't know what I'm doing yet.
> 
> Tried CL15, GearDown off, tried T2 as well, but not sure how T2 effects things like voltage on this chip.
> 
> Do others have the bios enter slower timings than XMP for them?
> 
> Think I can probably refine my 3733 with help from the last few pages.
> 
> Thanks for extra information @The Stilt - always helpful!


Αre you keeping the dram boot voltage same as the dram voltage every time?


----------



## kazablanka

gupsterg said:


> All the R5 3600/R7 2700X data in CB is from C7H, the other Ryzen CPUs are from C6H.
> 
> PBO+200MHz 1669
> PBO+150MHz 1665/1663
> PBO+75MHz 1646
> Stock is 1632
> 
> All R5 3600 results using RAM 3600MHz, 1:1:1, The Stilt's 3466MHz timings, 1T GDMD.
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 282496
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Upto PBO+100MHz I use 1x, PBO+150MHz just will not sustain MHz in Kahru RAM Test and bench in CB R15 with scaling if I do not use at least 4x, so I set 6x for over head in my mind, PBO+200MHz 10x was used, not tested it much. This post has some data as well.


 Thanks I will check it.


----------



## crakej

kazablanka said:


> Αre you keeping the dram boot voltage same as the dram voltage every time?


As far as I know, yes..... is this particularly sensitive with Matisse?


----------



## gupsterg

kazablanka said:


> Αre you keeping the dram boot voltage same as the dram voltage every time?


I have always matched VBOOT & VDIMM on C6H/C7H/ZE/ZEA.



kazablanka said:


> Thanks I will check it.


NP.

I found on UEFI 0068 that scalar change only applied via AMD menu in UEFI. So if the MSI UEFI has it in a differing section perhaps that does not work.


----------



## eXteR

The Stilt said:


> And before you ask. No.
> Matisse version of RTC will never be public, sorry


Why?

It's a copyright problem or something related to AMD?


----------



## gupsterg

crakej said:


> Although I can run nice and tight at 3733 CL14 IF @ 1866 I get quite nice results....
> 
> If I try to run 3800/1900 only way it boots so far is to let bios apply awful auto timings like 22 26 26 26.
> 
> Also, I can select DOCP 4266, which is meant to be 19 19 19 19, it boots, but with same awful timings, not the XMP timings. Currently trying to get it to boot with 20 20 20 20, but no luck yet. Trying various voltages and timings but just don't know what I'm doing yet.
> 
> Tried CL15, GearDown off, tried T2 as well, but not sure how T2 effects things like voltage on this chip.
> 
> Do others have the bios enter slower timings than XMP for them?
> 
> Think I can probably refine my 3733 with help from the last few pages.
> 
> Thanks for extra information @The Stilt - always helpful!


This is where I am 3800v4.2, by about v4 I've got what I'd get I think unless hit primaries more, perhaps go 1T. Repeatable reruns, best so far ~4000% in RT.


----------



## crakej

gupsterg said:


> This is where I am 3800v4.2, by about v4 I've got what I'd get I think unless hit primaries more, perhaps go 1T. Repeatable reruns, best so far ~4000% in RT.


Thanks for sharing those! Maybe I'll spot something i'm not doing..... rep+

Edit: @gupsterg what was your ram voltage for 3733?


----------



## The Stilt

eXteR said:


> Why?
> 
> It's a copyright problem or something related to AMD?


For multiple different reasons.

The biggest reason being that AMD doesn't give out any information, which is required to support their recent platforms.
In addition to that, the methods which are required to actually access the hardware are simply sick. Three different hardware access methods and two software "APIs" are required to access the information.
That's slow, expensive and unrealiable. A total hackjob, despite the fact that AMD themselves utilize it as well...

Due to the mush of all of these different methods required, there is no tolerance for errors or changes either.
A single change made to AGESA can break the existing methods. Naturally there is also the issue with AMD branching AGESA so heavily.
Because of the differences in the firmwares and physical configurations, separate workarounds / methods are required for each of the branches, CPU generations and sometimes even different SMU FW versions.
It is impossible to maintain, when you need at least 5-6 different code paths, due to the total lack of any uniformity from AMD side.

So in short; It would be insane to keep fighting the windmills.

When the tools stay in my own use, as originally intended, I don't need to verify the functionality on n+1 different platforms, and go through the hassle of getting the binaries EV signed each and every time.
Also keeping the tools to myself will prevent the work from getting stolen, which is an additional perk


----------



## eXteR

The Stilt said:


> For multiple different reasons.
> 
> The biggest reason being that AMD doesn't give out any information, which is required to support their recent platforms.
> In addition to that, the methods which are required to actually access the hardware are simply sick. Three different hardware access methods and two software "APIs" are required to access the information.
> That's slow, expensive and unrealiable. A total hackjob, despite the fact that AMD themselves utilize it as well...
> 
> Due to the mush of all of these different methods required, there is no tolerance for errors or changes either.
> A single change made to AGESA can break the existing methods. Naturally there is also the issue with AMD branching AGESA so heavily.
> Because of the differences in the firmwares and physical configurations, separate workarounds / methods are required for each of the branches, CPU generations and sometimes even different SMU FW versions.
> It is impossible to maintain, when you need at least 5-6 different code paths, due to the total lack of any uniformity from AMD side.
> 
> So in short; It would be insane to keep fighting the windmills.
> 
> When the tools stay in my own use, as originally intended, I don't need to verify the functionality on n+1 different platforms, and go through the hassle of getting the binaries EV signed each and every time.
> Also keeping the tools to myself will prevent the work from getting stolen, which is an additional perk


Totally understandable.

Thanks for the detailed explanation. 

You deserve a beer


----------



## Nighthog

The Stilt said:


> For multiple different reasons.
> snip*


Doesn't AMD Ryzen Master now give us all this information anyway this time around with the timings, CAD BUS values etc? We didn't have that before. 
I do hope they don't break their own software in the future that will eventually happen but it's not as critical as before when your tool was the only way for us to present the info in a manageable manner.

Your work was really helpful, thanks for the work put in.

It is another matter with the awful design and manner which the AMD version presents the info but it's there nonetheless.


----------



## majestynl

gupsterg said:


> This is where I am 3800v4.2, by about v4 I've got what I'd get I think unless hit primaries more, perhaps go 1T. Repeatable reruns, best so far ~4000% in RT.


Downloaded the files. Nice m8. Good luck pushing forward. Maybe you can try CL14?

Im pretty done with 3800 profile. Tighten the timings down. Cant see major improvements vs only base timings + TRFC! Just slightly better. 
Below screenshot while running. That particular run passed 8K before i stopped! 

@The Stilt
TRFC2 and TRFC4 are looking high. Is there any improvement if we "can" get them lower?


----------



## gupsterg

@kazablanka

Today I tested with lower room ambient. The PBO+200MHz result I showed was thermally limited. So are most of my PBO+150MHz, as here is 1676 in CB R15  .



Spoiler
















crakej said:


> Thanks for sharing those! Maybe I'll spot something i'm not doing..... rep+
> 
> Edit: @gupsterg what was your ram voltage for 3733?


Not really tried 3733MHz much TBH. I fought a few days with gaining 3666MHz using The Stilt 3466MHz timings (1T GDMD), always just before ~3000% or after I'd get an issue. I tried lots of things. Then I spent nearly I day testing 3600MHz with higher % pass in tests. Then I tried say all [Auto] timings just to validate could I get 3800MHz. From there on profile fell in to place as I stopped targeting SCL 2. I believe I maybe able to go back to 1T GDMD on 3800MHz, even if I can't seems from benches I did tonight I'm not losing anything, but gaining stability.

TBH even the SOC/VDDG/VDIMM I use currently are some ball park figures which I felt would work from all the meddling I have done with this R5 3600 since 9th July.

I too like Nighthog had seen on certain targeted setting using too much voltage (may that be SOC/VDDG/VDIMM or all) made a profile fail then using more conservative approach.

For example VDDG: ~1.005V had worked well for 3666MHz any more used kill the profile quicker, dunno why. Now 3800MHz is ~1.012V, which is nuts when I look at it. Now from how I can use SOC: 1.031 VDDG: 0.956V for 3600MHz with SCL2, etc, perhaps I can tweak down them for 3800MHz.

Time will tell  .

Shocking how just ~2C lower room ambient got be nice scaling in CB R15 at same PBO+150MHz, also look at this WMV of RAM test. Last 6 screenies of this album are PBO+150MHz, 3800MHz v4.2, 1:1:1.

After so much time spent on this chip it still has had some more surprises  .



majestynl said:


> Downloaded the files. Nice m8. Good luck pushing forward. Maybe you can try CL14?
> 
> Im pretty done with 3800 profile. Tighten the timings down. Cant see major improvements vs only base timings + TRFC! Just slightly better.
> Below screenshot while running. That particular run passed 8K before i stopped!
> 
> 
> @The Stilt
> TRFC2 and TRFC4 are looking high. Is there any improvement if we "can" get them lower?


Cheers :thumb: .

You also had good results :thumb: .

C14 too much voltage spend for little gain IMO.

TRFC2/4 not used as before.


----------



## crakej

So, still stuck here at 3733. It was a breeze getting here - bit stumped as to why getting any further is so hard, guess I'm just not finding the right settings for my memory.

Many C5 and 07s that required the CLR CMos button, very time consuming, hopefully new bios won't be too long.

I wish AMD would order the ram timings in RM in the same order they appear in the bios.


----------



## gupsterg

crakej said:


> So, still stuck here at 3733. It was a breeze getting here - bit stumped as to why getting any further is so hard, guess I'm just not finding the right settings for my memory.
> 
> Many C5 and 07s that required the CLR CMos button, very time consuming, hopefully new bios won't be too long.
> 
> I wish AMD would order the ram timings in RM in the same order they appear in the bios.


This is settings txt and UEFI menus screnies which I changed and may not be in txt.

View attachment R5PBO1503800v42.zip


----------



## The Stilt

Nighthog said:


> Doesn't AMD Ryzen Master now give us all this information anyway this time around with the timings, CAD BUS values etc? We didn't have that before.
> I do hope they don't break their own software in the future that will eventually happen but it's not as critical as before when your tool was the only way for us to present the info in a manageable manner.
> 
> Your work was really helpful, thanks for the work put in.
> 
> It is another matter with the awful design and manner which the AMD version presents the info but it's there nonetheless.


Ryzen Master has been able to show these timings for quite some time now.
IIRC since TR1 came to market, or slightly earlier.


----------



## crakej

gupsterg said:


> This is settings txt and UEFI menus screnies which I changed and may not be in txt.
> 
> View attachment 282626


Thanks again!

Useful to see all the settings together. Of course I will not stop until I succeed!.....except for tonight!


----------



## The Stilt

majestynl said:


> @*The Stilt*
> TRFC2 and TRFC4 are looking high. Is there any improvement if we "can" get them lower?


You can set tRFC2 & tRFC4 to 0 CLK if you like, makes no difference.

The refresh mode is 1x (7.8µs) and cannot be changed.
tRFC is for 1x refresh, tRFC2 for 2x refresh (3.9µs) and tRFC4 for 4x refresh (1.95µs).


----------



## crakej

gupsterg said:


> This is settings txt and UEFI menus screnies which I changed and may not be in txt.
> 
> View attachment 282626


I just realized that I haven't been disabling c-states, can this help stability on Matisse? Seem to remember doing it when I had X370...


----------



## Streetdragon

So you go over 35XX Mhz on the Ram and still get a working boosting on the CPU? when i go over that ramspeed it stucks as 4.1Ghz single/multi or so


----------



## gupsterg

crakej said:


> Thanks again!
> 
> Useful to see all the settings together. Of course I will not stop until I succeed!.....except for tonight!


NP.



crakej said:


> I just realized that I haven't been disabling c-states, can this help stability on Matisse? Seem to remember doing it when I had X370...


I don't know. All the testing up til 3800MHz has been with them as whatever UEFI default is. I just wanted to have crack at 3800MHz and succeed and frankly the FW/HW did step up  .

Be aware also there is setting in AMD Overclocking menu, SOC Overclock Mode. That is supposed to do the same for SOC, I didn't turn that on.

I do plan to set all C-States back, even with them off I saw CPU "Sleep" in RM. TBH didn't notice any differing operation of down clocking/volting, perhaps not working, dunno.

This ZIP has a ~18000% run on PBO+150MHz 3800MHz v4.2 and rerun on warm POST of ~5500%.

304 tRFC is ~160ns at profile MEMCLK, which is decent enough IMO. I may try SCL 3 at some point. tFAW lowered some more also, tWR as at 10, can't go lower. tRTP is 6, only 1 step down left, which really isn't gonna gain me much; just like the rest of the subtimings.

I may drop to 3800MHz C15 (~7.84ns), as 3600MHz C14 (~7.77ns) only needed ~1.425V and that was with Gear Down Mode: Off, SCL 2.


----------



## majestynl

gupsterg said:


> [MENTION=556992]
> Cheers :thumb: .
> 
> You also had good results :thumb: .
> 
> C14 too much voltage spend for little gain IMO.
> 
> TRFC2/4 not used as before.


Cheers back! 



The Stilt said:


> You can set tRFC2 & tRFC4 to 0 CLK if you like, makes no difference.
> 
> The refresh mode is 1x (7.8µs) and cannot be changed.
> tRFC is for 1x refresh, tRFC2 for 2x refresh (3.9µs) and tRFC4 for 4x refresh (1.95µs).


aha! Thanks for the info!


----------



## Kellz

3800MHz CL15 1:1 1900 (FCLK) stable on 3600X/X570 Aorus Master

My RAM: F4-3200C14D-16GFX
1.45 vdimm
1.1 vsoc
60 proc ODT
CR 1
GDMD


----------



## The Stilt

Anyone here with a 3700X, 3800X or a 3900X CPU which has not been able to reach its advertised boost frequency, and a ASUS or MSI X570 motherboard with a Flashback feature?
If you wish to be a guinea pig, send me pm.

EDIT: Testers found, thanks.


----------



## Streetdragon

shhiii... wrong board for me...


----------



## rdr09

Kellz said:


> 3800MHz CL15 1:1 1900 (FCLK) stable on 3600X/X570 Aorus Master
> 
> My RAM: F4-3200C14D-16GFX
> 1.45 vdimm
> 1.1 vsoc
> 60 proc ODT
> CR 1
> GDMD


Absolutely amazing. I bought my FlareX for 180$ 2 yrs ago in Egypt. This month i saw its price go from 135$ to 280$ in egg.


----------



## kazablanka

The Stilt said:


> Anyone here with a 3700X, 3800X or a 3900X CPU which has not been able to reach its advertised boost frequency, and a ASUS or MSI X570 motherboard with a Flashback feature?
> If you wish to be a guinea pig, send me pm.


3700x ,msi meg x570 ace. iam waiting for your message


----------



## Martin778

What do you consider "advertised boost frequency:"? I see my CPU occassionaly peak at 4.65 but for one second max. All core in games it runs @ 4.2GHz.
I have the 3900X and MSI X570 Godlike.


----------



## The Stilt

Martin778 said:


> What do you consider "advertised boost frequency:"? I see my CPU occassionaly peak at 4.65 but for one second max. All core in games it runs @ 4.2GHz.
> I have the 3900X and MSI X570 Godlike.


4.2GHz for 3600, 4.4GHz for 3600X and 3700X, 4.5GHz for 3800X and 4.6GHz for 3900X, in a pure ST workload running on the best cores.


----------



## rdr09

ReDXfiRe said:


> @gupsterg
> 
> Forgot I had my X370 C6H, updated BIOS to 7106 (AGESA 1002) AUTO OC + 200 MHz. Have not done any too much timings tightening and probably won't have time for the mean time (have to return chip). But anyways, was fun to meddle with. 3600 does seem to have more headroom.
> 
> P.S. Forgot C6H has the worst positioning for multimeter read points lulz


Is Aida64 still a good app to check Mem Latency? If it is, what's a good number to get for Mem Latency for optimum performance? Thanks.

With GEN 1 and GEN 1+, i get about 61 for 3466 CL14. I know GEN2 gets a bit higher.


----------



## DragonQ

The Stilt said:


> 4.2GHz for 3600, 4.4GHz for 3600X and 3700X, 4.5GHz for 3800X and 4.6GHz for 3900X, in a pure ST workload running on the best cores.


I find the 65 W chips at stock do stay at or near their rated clocks most of the time during gaming. My R5 3600 is pegged at 4.2 GHz and my R7 3700X is at 4.3+ GHz.


----------



## Martin778

The Stilt said:


> 4.2GHz for 3600, 4.4GHz for 3600X and 3700X, 4.5GHz for 3800X and 4.6GHz for 3900X, in a pure ST workload running on the best cores.


Count me in, I've yet to see more than ~4050-4150MHz in single threaded cinebench on my 3900X.
I'd have to check if MSI has BIOS flashback (should have).


----------



## Boxman

Who can enlighten me how the voltages on these CPU's actually work? How do I know what voltage is actually being applied to my 3900x? The values I can read with HWInfo are all over the place. We have:

- Vcore, the voltage I set in the bios
- Individual CPU VID's, which I can also set in the bios under a separate value
- "CPU Core Voltage" SVI2 TFN

So VID is not a voltage, but an identifier. VCore is supposed to be an actual voltage, but it seems that when I put a load on my CPU, the VID starts to change itself. Is it actively regulating the voltage to match some hidden value set by AMD? Are all my voltage changes moot?

For instance, I set VID to 1.275 in the BIOS after observing that 1.225'ish is what it boils down to under stock. I set OC to manual and want to have control over the voltages, set Vcore to 1.325 LLC2. In Windows, checking with HWI, I verify manual clocks are at 3800MHz. VID is also sitting at 1.275. Then I run cinebench - VID drops (???) to 1.20 as Vcore goes from 1.32 to 1.34 wile SVI2 TFN drops from 1.325 to 1.312.

So what is going on here and how do I figure out the actual voltage across my cores? Is VID, even though it's just an identifier, affected by VDROOP? Is it trying to overcompensate for something? Or is it just blatantly ignoring my setting "just because"? Am I missing a setting? 

tldr; VID doesn't hold its value but drops a LOT, Vcore is relatively stable, and I have no idea what voltage is actually put across my cpu cores.

It makes very, very little sense to me atm. Hope someone can enlighten how these values all interact.

(Oh and the Asus CPU Per-CCX OC tool seems to set my VID to a straight 1.5V, so that's great too..)


----------



## kamil234

Watching this closely, unfortunetly i can't be the guinea pig cause i have a Gigabyte board


----------



## The Stilt

Unless you are using manual OC and manual OC only, don't touch the bios VDDCR_CPU voltage option.

In normal mode (i.e. boost is active) the CPU is in complete charge of the voltage.
VID values are what the CPU determine as the correct voltage at given frequency (A[VF]S) and more or less what it commands the VRM controller to output.
The actual output voltage depends on several different factors, such as Rll (load-line) and the amount of current the CPU is drawing.

On most motherboards by far the most accurate actual voltage reading is SVI2 TFN voltage for VDDCR_CPU. It can be monitored on HWInfo.
All motherboards also have SIO based voltage monitoring, which is usually far less accurate than the TFN (excl. newer ROG boards with differential sensing). Partially due to the accuracy of the SIO itself (ADC LSB) and partially due to the implementation.

For load voltages you should be looking at SVI2 TFN voltages.
Idle voltage measurements most likely are not accurate regardless of the method, since all of the monitoring methods have significant delay in them.


----------



## Boxman

Thanks for that info. I am in manual OC mode though, but am puzzled by the individual core VIDs changing. The VIDs seem to be tracking the voltage I input in either the BIOS or Ryzen master, but drop considerably under load. Could you comment on why that happens, and if I should just disregard that as being any meaningful reading for the actual voltage I should be using for stability when OC'ing? It seems strange to me they would have the main voltage setting only affect the VID if VID isn't the actual voltage going to the core.

Or should my VIDs not change by definition when I'm in manual OC mode? That would mean something is amiss with my specific setup.


----------



## crakej

The Stilt said:


> 4.2GHz for 3600, 4.4GHz for 3600X and 3700X, 4.5GHz for 3800X and 4.6GHz for 3900X, in a pure ST workload running on the best cores.


I find when I'm testing ST performance with CB15/20 that my fastest cores are rarely used. More often the second fastest, but often the slowest cores.

I just ran RM for an hour while I did stuff - loaded different programs, rendered a bit - filled up my memory. The fastest CCD most cores attained 4.25GHz, one of the slower cores 4.15GHz. The slower CCD all the cores had attained 4.25GHz. Ram is 3733CL14 1:1:1 1.455v PBO is on +200.

Partly related - I was going to ask if the CPU needs more power, or any other settings changed as we increase ram speed? Even if we're not 'OCing' the CPU? (Edit, you just partly answered the question while I typed this! re: CPU voltage)

I've been playing bit with PBO and see in RM where it used to show the max speed of each CCD as 4600MHz, it now says 4850. Still no cores attained 4.4 let alone 4.6, which I've only ever seen at stock - very briefly.


----------



## The Stilt

Boxman said:


> Thanks for that info. I am in manual OC mode though, but am puzzled by the individual core VIDs changing. The VIDs seem to be tracking the voltage I input in either the BIOS or Ryzen master, but drop considerably under load. Could you comment on why that happens, and if I should just disregard that as being any meaningful reading for the actual voltage I should be using for stability when OC'ing? It seems strange to me they would have the main voltage setting only affect the VID if VID isn't the actual voltage going to the core.
> 
> Or should my VIDs not change by definition when I'm in manual OC mode? That would mean something is amiss with my specific setup.


I'd need to know what voltage you mean?
With manual OC you should set the voltage from the VRM controller side, not through the CPU VID requests.
Do it from the bios and forget about doing it through Ryzen Master.

If manually set voltage changes under load, that's load-line.


----------



## Boxman

So what you're saying is, VID does nothing once you're in manual OC via the bios? I'm worried because I'm trying out the Per-CCX utility and it does seem to adjust my VID. And VID keeps jumping round. Again just to be sure, in manual mode, VID is ignored even though it jumps around?

I attached a screenshot with some graphs open. The first run is just booted up with 1.275 VID and 1.325 vCore set in the BIOS. Then I set 4000MHz on CCX0 and somehow this jumps the VID to 1.488, I run Cinebench and it drops to 1.4'ish. The other two voltages (vCore and SVI2) stay the same. Then in Ryzen master, I put the voltage back on 1.275, and again only VID changes.










It just seems so counter-intuitive that the voltage setting in ryzen master when doing manual OC would adjust VID if that didn't do something, so in that regard seeing 1.40v VID under full load does worry me.


----------



## crakej

Boxman said:


> So what you're saying is, VID does nothing once you're in manual OC via the bios? I'm worried because I'm trying out the Per-CCX utility and it does seem to adjust my VID. And VID keeps jumping round. Again just to be sure, in manual mode, VID is ignored even though it jumps around?
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> I attached a screenshot with some graphs open. The first run is just booted up with 1.275 VID and 1.325 vCore set in the BIOS. Then I set 4000MHz on CCX0 and somehow this jumps the VID to 1.488, I run Cinebench and it drops to 1.4'ish. The other two voltages (vCore and SVI2) stay the same. Then in Ryzen master, I put the voltage back on 1.275, and again only VID changes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It just seems so counter-intuitive that the voltage setting in ryzen master when doing manual OC would adjust VID if that didn't do something, so in that regard seeing 1.40v VID under full load does worry me.


Don't touch VID. The CPU will work out what VID is required`- you just set VCore. Most accurate measurement of that is the CPU Core SVI2 TFN in HWInfo.


----------



## gupsterg

Kellz said:


> 3800MHz CL15 1:1 1900 (FCLK) stable on 3600X/X570 Aorus Master
> 
> My RAM: F4-3200C14D-16GFX
> 1.45 vdimm
> 1.1 vsoc
> 60 proc ODT
> CR 1
> GDMD


3800MHz CL16 GDME seems to be beating out your setup, I think some of the subtimings adjusted may gain you some more.



Spoiler














Today managed to knock down SOC/VDDG. Originally set in UEFI 1.062/1.013, now 1.037/0.987.

This ZIP has initial test pass ~3000%, next rerun on full POST from shutdown pass ~15300%, next rerun on same POST ~3300% tested.


----------



## The Stilt

Boxman said:


> So what you're saying is, VID does nothing once you're in manual OC via the bios? I'm worried because I'm trying out the Per-CCX utility and it does seem to adjust my VID. And VID keeps jumping round. Again just to be sure, in manual mode, VID is ignored even though it jumps around?
> 
> I attached a screenshot with some graphs open. The first run is just booted up with 1.275 VID and 1.325 vCore set in the BIOS. Then I set 4000MHz on CCX0 and somehow this jumps the VID to 1.488, I run Cinebench and it drops to 1.4'ish. The other two voltages (vCore and SVI2) stay the same. Then in Ryzen master, I put the voltage back on 1.275, and again only VID changes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It just seems so counter-intuitive that the voltage setting in ryzen master when doing manual OC would adjust VID if that didn't do something, so in that regard seeing 1.40v VID under full load does worry me.


Where can I find this tool?


----------



## Boxman

crakej said:


> Don't touch VID. The CPU will work out what VID is required`- you just set VCore. Most accurate measurement of that is the CPU Core SVI2 TFN in HWInfo.


Yeah but then why does it change VID when applying a per-CCX OC to 1.48, with VID settling at 1.40, all that while SIV2 TFN stays completely unchanged? That tells me that either CPU VID does nothing or SIV2 TFN is not actually a measure for the voltage on the core. They cannot both be true, can they?

For the record, I'm not actively changing VID or intending to do so when pressing that button on the Per-CCX OC tool. It just happens.



The Stilt said:


> Where can I find this tool?


I found it in der8auer's video description of this one 



. The direct link to the tool is http://bit.ly/30zhbMz


----------



## Boxman

[doublepost, sorry]

Well I'll edit this then, from a pretty sketchy test it seems VID indeed does nothing in manual OC mode. When doing Small FFT AVX on this 3.8GHz setting, temps instantly jump to 94-95C, so I quit the test immediately. That was on VID 1.275. Setting VID to 1.20 and 1.10 (where it drops to 1.00) does not scale at all with either power usage or temperature (confirming that the power usage number is correct).

Edit2// Confirmed that least lower VID and/or Ryzen Master voltage setting in general does nothing when on Manual OC in the bios. Setting VID to 1.1v still allows me to get CCX1 to 4.5GHz.

Why setting VID is even a thing (either in BIOS or Ryzen Master) is beyond me.


----------



## The Stilt

In short: Unless you are certain that you are using manual voltage mode (VRM controller, from the bios) do not use the application ("worktool").

It is a CPU killer if the VRM controller is running in offset-mode.

I tried it with the voltage mode set to offset (or "Auto") and setting 4200MHz for CCX0/1 and 4050MHz for CCX2/3 resulted in 1.405V actual Vout during Cinebench R20.

The voltages during the default OC-Mode remain sane, regardless of the VRM controller operating mode.
This hack however causes the voltage governor to go insane.

I have no idea why someone thought it would be a good idea to release this to the public...


----------



## Bluesman

*Interesting Scaler Boost on my 3800x*

Not surprisingly I am seeing higher vCore boosts on average with the PBO Scaler at 3x.


----------



## gupsterg

@crakej

So last night I did benches and was happy with them. Rerun profile for length testing again and all well.

This morning before leaving home I setup the lowered SOC/VDDG profile, nothing else was changed. Now I benched it and was horrified as I lost performance, even though stability was not lost.

I then went back to initially used SOC/VDDG, performance was back. Lowered SOC/VDDG and gone again.

Last nights benches, room ambient ~20C.



Spoiler














Reload profile and test, room ambient ~26C.



Spoiler














Reload lowered SOC/VDDG profile, room ambient ~26C.



Spoiler


----------



## nick name

The Stilt said:


> In short: Unless you are certain that you are using manual voltage mode (VRM controller, from the bios) do not use the application ("worktool").
> 
> It is a CPU killer if the VRM controller is running in offset-mode.
> 
> I tried it with the voltage mode set to offset (or "Auto") and setting 4200MHz for CCX0/1 and 4050MHz for CCX2/3 resulted in 1.405V actual Vout during Cinebench R20.
> 
> The voltages during the default OC-Mode remain sane, regardless of the VRM controller operating mode.
> This hack however causes the voltage governor to go insane.
> 
> I have no idea why someone thought it would be a good idea to release this to the public...


Because they knew you would save everyone? Classic super hero lure?


----------



## lordzed83

gupsterg said:


> @crakej
> 
> So last night I did benches and was happy with them. Rerun profile for length testing again and all well.
> 
> This morning before leaving home I setup the lowered SOC/VDDG profile, nothing else was changed. Now I benched it and was horrified as I lost performance, even though stability was not lost.
> 
> I then went back to initially used SOC/VDDG, performance was back. Lowered SOC/VDDG and gone again.
> 
> Last nights benches, room ambient ~20C.
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 282814
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reload profile and test, room ambient ~26C.
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 282816
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reload lowered SOC/VDDG profile, room ambient ~26C.
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 282818



That's what I said and noticed myself. System can be stable BUT you are loosing performance so I think best would be to run benchmarks and find at what voltage one maintains performance and going up does not give more but going down cuts it. What You think ??


----------



## lordzed83

The Stilt said:


> In short: Unless you are certain that you are using manual voltage mode (VRM controller, from the bios) do not use the application ("worktool").
> 
> It is a CPU killer if the VRM controller is running in offset-mode.
> 
> I tried it with the voltage mode set to offset (or "Auto") and setting 4200MHz for CCX0/1 and 4050MHz for CCX2/3 resulted in 1.405V actual Vout during Cinebench R20.
> 
> The voltages during the default OC-Mode remain sane, regardless of the VRM controller operating mode.
> This hack however causes the voltage governor to go insane.
> 
> I have no idea why someone thought it would be a good idea to release this to the public...


I'w noticed same thing and its pita to use anyhow.
One question I was playing with Ryzen master and changing mhz per core in 1 ccx. Noticed something weird. If I run lets say core 1 4350 core 2 4400 core 3 4325.... The slowest set core gets dropped to 3500 not sure if its a bug or what. Any idea ??

Would be great if Bios had option to overclock/ccx atm heh.


----------



## gupsterg

lordzed83 said:


> That's what I said and noticed myself. System can be stable BUT you are loosing performance so I think best would be to run benchmarks and find at what voltage one maintains performance and going up does not give more but going down cuts it. What You think ??


I agree  .

I'm gonna stay at SOC: 1.062 VDDG: 1.013, instead of 1.037/0.986, just rerun AIDA64 again once and back where I should be.



Spoiler














I'm better off spending the time lowering some subtimings, going for SCL 3 (if it stable/perform), then finding out what value between the ~25mV difference of SOC/VDDG is break point for performance.


----------



## The Stilt

lordzed83 said:


> I'w noticed same thing and its pita to use anyhow.
> One question I was playing with Ryzen master and changing mhz per core in 1 ccx. Noticed something weird. If I run lets say core 1 4350 core 2 4400 core 3 4325.... The slowest set core gets dropped to 3500 not sure if its a bug or what. Any idea ??
> 
> Would be great if Bios had option to overclock/ccx atm heh.


Yeah, ideally this would be implemented in the bios, given it can be done without messing the voltages.

Setting different frequencies to the cores belonging to a same CCX will mess up the frequencies.
The L3 is shared between the cores of the same CCX and because of that there are limitations. So set the frequency per CCX, in case you find the need to control them separately.


----------



## shamino1978

lordzed83 said:


> I'w noticed same thing and its pita to use anyhow.
> One question I was playing with Ryzen master and changing mhz per core in 1 ccx. Noticed something weird. If I run lets say core 1 4350 core 2 4400 core 3 4325.... The slowest set core gets dropped to 3500 not sure if its a bug or what. Any idea ??
> 
> Would be great if Bios had option to overclock/ccx atm heh.


Cores on same ccx share same FID.
DID is usually 2 default.
So 4000mhz=8000/2
Did in 0.5 steps
So if 1 core is 4000, other one either (8000/2.5) or 8000/1.5 or synch 8000/2
FID decided by highest clocked core, and often it seems when there's a change to one core, the other cores drop a step as a fail safe first since the user has not requested the other cores in the same ccx to switch. 
So the step diff is a bit too big within a ccx


----------



## crakej

Has no one else had problem of fastest cores not being used?


----------



## The Stilt

crakej said:


> Has no one else had problem of fastest cores not being used?


Which workload?
Cinebench R15, R20 and at least X265 automatically control the affinity in runtime.
Might not be optimal for CPPC preferred cores.


----------



## Nighthog

gupsterg said:


> @crakej
> 
> So last night I did benches and was happy with them. Rerun profile for length testing again and all well.
> 
> This morning before leaving home I setup the lowered SOC/VDDG profile, nothing else was changed. Now I benched it and was horrified as I lost performance, even though stability was not lost.
> 
> I then went back to initially used SOC/VDDG, performance was back. Lowered SOC/VDDG and gone again.
> 
> Last nights benches, room ambient ~20C.
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 282814
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reload profile and test, room ambient ~26C.
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 282816
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reload lowered SOC/VDDG profile, room ambient ~26C.
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 282818


Glad you mentioned this, I was running some real low SoC voltage and VDDG voltages just a moment ago and still am to a extent as I test out what works and doesn't right now.
I see this might mainly be a SoC voltage thing. I can seemingly run real low VDDG voltages without issue. Started to test even lower ones to rule it out.
Seems my SoC can be lowest ~1.050V and run Prime95 without issue. But VDDG can be real low. 
Been ok with 900mv... I was trying to test 850mv but seems it was ignored and set 900 instead. I'll have to recheck that.

EDIT: got it correct now, now to just test 850mv VDDG.


----------



## Boxman

The Stilt said:


> In short: Unless you are certain that you are using manual voltage mode (VRM controller, from the bios) do not use the application ("worktool").
> 
> It is a CPU killer if the VRM controller is running in offset-mode.
> 
> I tried it with the voltage mode set to offset (or "Auto") and setting 4200MHz for CCX0/1 and 4050MHz for CCX2/3 resulted in 1.405V actual Vout during Cinebench R20.
> 
> The voltages during the default OC-Mode remain sane, regardless of the VRM controller operating mode.
> This hack however causes the voltage governor to go insane.
> 
> I have no idea why someone thought it would be a good idea to release this to the public...


Thanks for the due diligence and the fair warning. I guess it's a tool for experienced overclockers, probably it's not the best idea that he put it in the video description of his popular channel where less experienced overclockers will frequent.


----------



## crakej

The Stilt said:


> Which workload?
> Cinebench R15, R20 and at least X265 automatically control the affinity in runtime.
> Might not be optimal for CPPC preferred cores.


It was mixed workload, included a few mins of resolve rendering a short scene, loaded up lots of other stuff at same time to see what it would do. Yes, CB15 and 20 as well.

Can you recommend anything that might better demonstrate if the CPU is behaving as expected? Even in the mixed workload, if I watch it in RM, the fastest cores certainly look like they're being underutilized.

About to spend another couple of hours chasing 3800MTs. I was up really late as just couldn't put it down! Didn't want to sleep until I made that breakthrough!


----------



## Kellz

gupsterg said:


> 3800MHz CL16 GDME seems to be beating out your setup, I think some of the subtimings adjusted may gain you some more.





Spoiler




View attachment 282786




That's weird really, you only got twr and trtp tighter, I'm wondering what's wrong here or where to improve, subtimings are pretty much as tight as they get, tighter would be unstable. Does ddr4 perform a bit worse in terms of bandwidth when a bit too warm? Both my sticks are around 50C but were still stable for 18k % karhu.

I even got 2 subtimings tighter than you, tfaw, trrdl and 3 primaries tighter.

Not sure where to go from here.


----------



## Streetdragon

Got 1900Mhz ram/IF 1:1 to work.
Chaising 60.xxx in readspeed xD

Still the boost thing is still not really working.
While ramstress or cinebench the CPU voltage wont go under 1,45V. Dont know if this is ok for the long run.

Wich PBO/XFR settings are ok?
Have PBO Disabled
XFR->PBO enabled


----------



## lordzed83

shamino1978 said:


> Cores on same ccx share same FID.
> DID is usually 2 default.
> So 4000mhz=8000/2
> Did in 0.5 steps
> So if 1 core is 4000, other one either (8000/2.5) or 8000/1.5 or synch 8000/2
> FID decided by highest clocked core, and often it seems when there's a change to one core, the other cores drop a step as a fail safe first since the user has not requested the other cores in the same ccx to switch.
> So the step diff is a bit too big within a ccx


That makes it all clear. Iw spwnd whole friday evening testing core by core what they can do. And as alwaya found weak links. So at least i know what ccxs worst core can work at l. Just settinf by ccx in bios would be great hehe


----------



## lordzed83

gupsterg said:


> I agree  .
> 
> I'm gonna stay at SOC: 1.062 VDDG: 1.013, instead of 1.037/0.986, just rerun AIDA64 again once and back where I should be.
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 282826
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm better off spending the time lowering some subtimings, going for SCL 3 (if it stable/perform), then finding out what value between the ~25mV difference of SOC/VDDG is break point for performance.


Today I'w noticed another thing when testing. If You dont have enough SOC voltage pc will reboot while running HCI memtest. I'w ran ramtest 30 minutes then 80 then 60 NO PROBLEM no errors ect on 1.075soc yet hci memtest would reboot my pc in 10-15 minutes . Backed up to 1.1 passed 200% 70 minutes no problem reboot.

I remember same situation with my 1700x and HCI memtest i would run other mem test programs passing hours of tests and then pc would reboot if i had Soc voltage too low.


----------



## Nighthog

lordzed83 said:


> Today I'w noticed another thing when testing. If You dont have enough SOC voltage pc will reboot while running HCI memtest. I'w ran ramtest 30 minutes then 80 then 60 NO PROBLEM no errors ect on 1.075soc yet hci memtest would reboot my pc in 10-15 minutes . Backed up to 1.1 passed 200% 70 minutes no problem reboot.
> 
> I remember same situation with my 1700x and HCI memtest i would run other mem test programs passing hours of tests and then pc would reboot if i had Soc voltage too low.


I can concur, SoC is really important when trying HCI memtest with 1 instance per thread. Like that I had to run around ~1.340vSoC on my Ryzen 1700/B350 to pass 3733Mhz whit the same kit of memory I'm trying on my 3800X now. It's really heavy on the IMC. I was trying 3800Mhz back then as well but ran out of juice to deliver on the board I had. Needed like 1.400V+ was 1-2clicks away to get it but it could not deliver was maxed out.

Now this 3800X/X570 combo breezes it like it's nothing.

On another note VDDG @ 850mv seems not be a issue over here @ 3800/1900 1:1. Ran 1 hour prime95 b(custom blend) and no trouble. Stopped there as I wanted to use the computer rather than stress test whole day. AIDA64/Cinebench R20 saw no degradation that I could tell at a glance. Though further testing is warranted.
Haven't tested HCI in a while so good stuff you remembered me about that issue!


----------



## Mysticial

The Stilt said:


> Also keeping the tools to myself will prevent the work from getting stolen, which is an additional perk


Just curious. Do you get a lot of hate mail from FOSS and open-source "crusaders"?


----------



## lordzed83

Nighthog said:


> I can concur, SoC is really important when trying HCI memtest with 1 instance per thread. Like that I had to run around ~1.340vSoC on my Ryzen 1700/B350 to pass 3733Mhz whit the same kit of memory I'm trying on my 3800X now. It's really heavy on the IMC. I was trying 3800Mhz back then as well but ran out of juice to deliver on the board I had. Needed like 1.400V+ was 1-2clicks away to get it but it could not deliver was maxed out.
> 
> Now this 3800X/X570 combo breezes it like it's nothing.
> 
> On another note VDDG @ 850mv seems not be a issue over here @ 3800/1900 1:1. Ran 1 hour prime95 b(custom blend) and no trouble. Stopped there as I wanted to use the computer rather than stress test whole day. AIDA64/Cinebench R20 saw no degradation that I could tell at a glance. Though further testing is warranted.
> Haven't tested HCI in a while so good stuff you remembered me about that issue!


. S ATM I'd say
HA Im on 40mv less than soc atm I know its stable and was thinking whaty if ill try 950mv and see if it reboots :] I even did tests withaida and cinebench 15 and 20 and i had no score degradation at 1.075 but it's not HCI stable. So ATM I'd say its best way to check the minimum soc for given setup. PAss 200% of HCI move 100mv down run 200% again till it reboots. Also if someone is bored enough he could check is it related to memory speed. Lets say 3200cl14 needs lets say 1.025 3600cl14 needs lets say 1.065 3733 1.08 ect..
Sure It will be IMC dependant. @1usmus ill report on this soc vddg reboot test. I know Ramtest TPU Memtest and testmem5 are not affected with REBOOT on low SOC only HCI i tested this today back to back.

@gupsterg if You got time to burn Could You try to run 200% HCI Memtest see if it reboots with Yours settings you know bigger sample to investigate 

Also if playing with HCI Memtest grab RunMemtestPro 4.0 saves messing around 
https://mega.nz/#!ZA9xQYbS!FuS74BQwKXzdTM8pqzfhYQY2dz4l58LjxOT7PLiktvE



ps. Also with Lower Soc cpu mining on Nicehash rebooted my pc but was not sure what was wrong. Now I know


----------



## lordzed83

Small update. Left SoC on 1.1 and tested 900mv on VDDG aka 160mv lower than i had it 200% HCI no reboot. Now ill leave Mining over night as always and see if its not rebooted in 8 hours. Report in the morning


----------



## crakej

So,I'm still hitting a wall as far as IF goes.

I booted with just DOCP for 4266 1.35v, but reduced the speed to 3800. It boots at 20 19 19 19 39 (as you can see) with IF at 1600.

I then moved the IF up one setting, rebooted and kept going until at 1900, machine wouldn't boot. So 1900 is looking like a bit of a wall to me at the moment. I've tried everything I can think of - increasing SoC/VDDG or increasing the ram v (up to 1.45v), slackened timings to 20 20 20 20, tried having all timings on auto,

Sometimes it comes close to booting - mem training appears to be successful, fans slow, I get code 36>4F>white led comes on and usually, I get code 27 just as post finishes and screen initialises. This stops with the white led on and anything from code 50 to 57.

I literally only changed IF speed until it broke at 1900, nothing else until then.

And why do I still have this d3 code when I run RM??!?!?!

Time to give it a rest now - but would love to hear any ideas anyone might have. I really hope I don't have a CPU that can't run the IF at 1900!


----------



## ReDXfiRe

rdr09 said:


> Is Aida64 still a good app to check Mem Latency? If it is, what's a good number to get for Mem Latency for optimum performance? Thanks.
> 
> With GEN 1 and GEN 1+, i get about 61 for 3466 CL14. I know GEN2 gets a bit higher.


Still is good, but really cannot compared performance and latency between Zen, Zen+ and Zen 2. Also latency doesn't scale linearly with lower latency (there is diminishing returns). AIDA64 is good tool to compared within Zen 2 with different kits, or if by some reason, your motherboard is training at half IF speed (BIOS bug for example). 3600 CL16 is around 68-70ns? in AIDA64 with Zen 2. 

Feel free to correct my someone if I'm wrong.


----------



## MrPhilo

The Stilt said:


> In short: Unless you are certain that you are using manual voltage mode (VRM controller, from the bios) do not use the application ("worktool").
> 
> It is a CPU killer if the VRM controller is running in offset-mode.
> 
> I tried it with the voltage mode set to offset (or "Auto") and setting 4200MHz for CCX0/1 and 4050MHz for CCX2/3 resulted in 1.405V actual Vout during Cinebench R20.
> 
> The voltages during the default OC-Mode remain sane, regardless of the VRM controller operating mode.
> This hack however causes the voltage governor to go insane.
> 
> I have no idea why someone thought it would be a good idea to release this to the public...


Would you not recommend to use this tool since it messes with the voltage governor? Does it effect manual voltage or just auto voltage


----------



## Streetdragon

lordzed83 said:


> Today I'w noticed another thing when testing. If You dont have enough SOC voltage pc will reboot while running HCI memtest. I'w ran ramtest 30 minutes then 80 then 60 NO PROBLEM no errors ect on 1.075soc yet hci memtest would reboot my pc in 10-15 minutes . Backed up to 1.1 passed 200% 70 minutes no problem reboot.
> 
> I remember same situation with my 1700x and HCI memtest i would run other mem test programs passing hours of tests and then pc would reboot if i had Soc voltage too low.


what do you think is a good upper limit for SOC voltage? im at 1.150V ATM with 1.030V VDDG to get 3800/1900 fully stable. No memerrors while testing, but after 10 minutes or so i get a reboot.
So i think is still a SOC problem for me


----------



## crakej

Streetdragon said:


> what do you think is a good upper limit for SOC voltage? im at 1.150V ATM with 1.030V VDDG to get 3800/1900 fully stable. No memerrors while testing, but after 10 minutes or so i get a reboot.
> So i think is still a SOC problem for me


1usmus recommends max of 1.15v for SoC. He's also done some testing with VDDG and found that it doesn't need to be more than around 0.9v for all memory speeds, so worth dropping trying to drop that if you can - and testing off course.

https://www.overclock.net/forum/13-...membench-0-7-dram-bench-483.html#post28053430


----------



## Streetdragon

crakej said:


> 1usmus recommends max of 1.15v for SoC. He's also done some testing with VDDG and found that it doesn't need to be more than around 0.9v for all memory speeds, so worth dropping trying to drop that if you can - and testing off course.
> 
> https://www.overclock.net/forum/13-...membench-0-7-dram-bench-483.html#post28053430


ok thanks, will test my settings with lower vddg voltage.
But i think its more a problem with the IF in my chip that dont like the 1900Mhz that i want.. need some days of from work to get my rig tuned


----------



## Heuchler

The Stilt said:


> Where can I find this tool?


CCX Overclock Tool has been updated to allow control over VID



shamino1978 said:


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


----------



## gupsterg

Nighthog said:


> Glad you mentioned this, I was running some real low SoC voltage and VDDG voltages just a moment ago and still am to a extent as I test out what works and doesn't right now.
> I see this might mainly be a SoC voltage thing. I can seemingly run real low VDDG voltages without issue. Started to test even lower ones to rule it out.
> Seems my SoC can be lowest ~1.050V and run Prime95 without issue. But VDDG can be real low.
> Been ok with 900mv... I was trying to test 850mv but seems it was ignored and set 900 instead. I'll have to recheck that.
> 
> EDIT: got it correct now, now to just test 850mv VDDG.


NP. Thanks for your shares of experience as well :thumb: .



Kellz said:


> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 282786
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's weird really, you only got twr and trtp tighter, I'm wondering what's wrong here or where to improve, subtimings are pretty much as tight as they get, tighter would be unstable. Does ddr4 perform a bit worse in terms of bandwidth when a bit too warm? Both my sticks are around 50C but were still stable for 18k % karhu.
> 
> I even got 2 subtimings tighter than you, tfaw, trrdl and 3 primaries tighter.
> 
> Not sure where to go from here.


My TR rig is low airflow, dimms can hit ~55C when CPU/GPU fully loaded, leading to increased case temp, etc. I do not see performance change regardless of temp, but am running 3400MHz C15 1T own tightened subs, etc. So don't know.

Last night I tried tightening some other timings on Matisse setup, I actually lost performance IMO. Perhaps there is sweet spot, dunno, I only have 1 Mastisse setup.



lordzed83 said:


> Today I'w noticed another thing when testing. If You dont have enough SOC voltage pc will reboot while running HCI memtest. I'w ran ramtest 30 minutes then 80 then 60 NO PROBLEM no errors ect on 1.075soc yet hci memtest would reboot my pc in 10-15 minutes . Backed up to 1.1 passed 200% 70 minutes no problem reboot.
> 
> I remember same situation with my 1700x and HCI memtest i would run other mem test programs passing hours of tests and then pc would reboot if i had Soc voltage too low.
> 
> 
> 
> Nighthog said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can concur, SoC is really important when trying HCI memtest with 1 instance per thread. Like that I had to run around ~1.340vSoC on my Ryzen 1700/B350 to pass 3733Mhz whit the same kit of memory I'm trying on my 3800X now. It's really heavy on the IMC. I was trying 3800Mhz back then as well but ran out of juice to deliver on the board I had. Needed like 1.400V+ was 1-2clicks away to get it but it could not deliver was maxed out.
> 
> Now this 3800X/X570 combo breezes it like it's nothing.
> 
> On another note VDDG @ 850mv seems not be a issue over here @ 3800/1900 1:1. Ran 1 hour prime95 b(custom blend) and no trouble. Stopped there as I wanted to use the computer rather than stress test whole day. AIDA64/Cinebench R20 saw no degradation that I could tell at a glance. Though further testing is warranted.
> Haven't tested HCI in a while so good stuff you remembered me about that issue!
Click to expand...

I will run HCI today  .

Organise files by time, this is continued testing of 3800v4.2, link to ZIP.

Filename 3x AIDA64 3800v4.2 uv run 1.jpg clearly has worse results than 3x AIDA64 3800v4.2 run 1.jpg. Then I do some more runs when back on SOC 1.062 VDDG 1.013, all sound again.

Realbench passed 8hrs, why I did 8 was before on 3666MHz, a profile that passed Kahru RAM Test ~1hr failed in RealBench in ~3.5hrs. Seems either RealBench is not pushing my system and or my setup is not susceptible to falling over with it quick.

I then do AIDA64 run, again performance there. I run CB R15 multicore 3x and all where I would think it should be.

I reboot system setup SOC 1.037 VDDG: 0.986, AIDA64 did not fall as much as before, but CB R15 bombed  .

It maybe my CPU is this way, I don't know, so far only had 1x Matisse.

All I know is this:-

i) Scalar changes do work for me, without scalar change CPU does not sustain improved clocks and increased VCORE when PBO >+100MHz.

ii) On 3800MHz setup lowered SOC/VDDG passes stability test of considerable length and reruns, but performance is lost vs higher setup of ~25mV on each.



crakej said:


> And why do I still have this d3 code when I run RM??!?!?!


As I said before in another post I have the same.

The Q-Code display also acts as status code display. I believe when we open RM it is changing to show how it has "hooked" to system and we can make changes.

Elmor's ZenStates can even make Q-Code display work as displaying CPU temperature.



crakej said:


> 1usmus recommends max of 1.15v for SoC. He's also done some testing with VDDG and found that it doesn't need to be more than around 0.9v for all memory speeds, so worth dropping trying to drop that if you can - and testing off course.
> 
> https://www.overclock.net/forum/13-...membench-0-7-dram-bench-483.html#post28053430


I have spent yesterday evening and some of this morning checking. I needed higher SOC/VDDG not for stability, but to have the performance. This maybe something people may wanna see, maybe it's a quirk of my setup  .


----------



## crakej

Streetdragon said:


> ok thanks, will test my settings with lower vddg voltage.
> But i think its more a problem with the IF in my chip that dont like the 1900Mhz that i want.. need some days of from work to get my rig tuned


I'm starting to think the same 

For me, IF works at all speeds up to 1866 (See my post on prev page) - the moment I set it to 1900 - nothing - code 07 (or C5 if I power cycle), or when it does nearly boot, it fails when the white led comes on, with code 50, 51, 53, or 57. I've tried changing voltages, timings, everything I can think of, but still some experiments to do.


----------



## gupsterg

crakej said:


> I'm starting to think the same
> 
> For me, IF works at all speeds up to 1866 (See my post on prev page) - the moment I set it to 1900 - nothing - code 07 (or C5 if I power cycle), or when it does nearly boot, it fails when the white led comes on, with code 50, 51, 53, or 57. I've tried changing voltages, timings, everything I can think of, but still some experiments to do.


That happens to me on FCLK 1933MHz. Regardless if MEMCLK is lower or matched, regardless if UCLK is 1:1 or 2:1.


----------



## Streetdragon

crakej said:


> I'm starting to think the same
> 
> For me, IF works at all speeds up to 1866 (See my post on prev page) - the moment I set it to 1900 - nothing - code 07 (or C5 if I power cycle), or when it does nearly boot, it fails when the white led comes on, with code 50, 51, 53, or 57. I've tried changing voltages, timings, everything I can think of, but still some experiments to do.





gupsterg said:


> That happens to me on FCLK 1933MHz. Regardless if MEMCLK is lower or matched, regardless if UCLK is 1:1 or 2:1.


now we just have to find the sweet spots for the voltages to get it stable


----------



## crakej

Let's hope it possible....

So, I'm thinking, if the ONLY setting thats changing is the IF, which voltage would you want to raise? VDDG?, SoC


----------



## gupsterg

VDDG is IF. SOC would need increase if the headroom is not there to allow VDDG to reach set value, min keep ~40mV difference between VDDG & SOC.

Perhaps in a day or so I may image OS to SATA SSD, try some BCLK increase to see where about CPU breaks past 1900MHz FCLK. Currently the NVMe I use does not like BCLK past 100MHz, rest of the HW I have used at bumped BCLK in the past.


----------



## rdr09

ReDXfiRe said:


> Still is good, but really cannot compared performance and latency between Zen, Zen+ and Zen 2. Also latency doesn't scale linearly with lower latency (there is diminishing returns). AIDA64 is good tool to compared within Zen 2 with different kits, or if by some reason, your motherboard is training at half IF speed (BIOS bug for example). 3600 CL16 is around 68-70ns? in AIDA64 with Zen 2.
> 
> Feel free to correct my someone if I'm wrong.


I agree. It is still the easiest tool to gauge whether or not certain settings/changes to the RAM are working. I mean if you see the memory latency going down as well as the other readings improving. The influence of tuning the RAM in GEN2 or Ryzen 3000 is not as clear-cut as it was in previous gens as far as gaming is concern or even other tasks as rendering. Thank you, +rep.


----------



## crakej

gupsterg said:


> VDDG is IF. SOC would need increase if the headroom is not there to allow VDDG to reach set value, min keep ~40mV difference between VDDG & SOC.
> 
> Perhaps in a day or so I may image OS to SATA SSD, try some BCLK increase to see where about CPU breaks past 1900MHz FCLK. Currently the NVMe I use does not like BCLK past 100MHz, rest of the HW I have used at bumped BCLK in the past.


That's what I thought. I did try last night, but was getting late so will do more tests today.


----------



## gupsterg

lordzed83 said:


> @gupsterg if You got time to burn Could You try to run 200% HCI Memtest see if it reboots with Yours settings you know bigger sample to investigate
> 
> Also if playing with HCI Memtest grab RunMemtestPro 4.0 saves messing around
> https://mega.nz/#!ZA9xQYbS!FuS74BQwKXzdTM8pqzfhYQY2dz4l58LjxOT7PLiktvE


I have purchased copies of HCI Memtest v5.0 & 6.0, so I use Frikencio launch tool found here.

The same profile that has passed multiple Kahru RAM Test of upto ~15000% (~5hrs), 1x RealBench Stress mode 8hrs, had no issues in HCI Memtest v6.0. I did ~400% (~2hrs runtime) on v6.0, which has lower % over longer time than v5.0, see release notes here.

Afterwards I did benches and all as it should be  .

Room ambient was ~25C for HCI run. It used ~10W more power on wall plug meter than Kahru RAM Test, average ACB was ~30MHz lower than Kahru RAM test at similar room ambient. With room ambient of ~20C I can see ACB of ~4.34GHz when CPU loaded with Kahru.

Data ZIP.



crakej said:


> That's what I thought. I did try last night, but was getting late so will do more tests today.


Hope you get somewhere  , as perhaps info may help me with 1933MHz  .


----------



## 1usmus

crakej said:


> Has no one else had problem of fastest cores not being used?



Core marking does not correspond to reality, because there is a problem of boost.
I conducted a study of several cpu's and obtained the following results. *I have a request to public, not to distribute these pictures in the coming days, as this is part of the unreleased my review of new processors.*

The system tries to use unsuccessful cores to get the maximum boost when using the maximum allowable FIT, that is, the system does not know the real situation. This is the main reason for such a low boost. 10-14% overvoltage also present in default mode. That is, we are unable to use PB2.
I provided a full report for AMD a few weeks ago and suggesting how to solve this flaw. To get the result it will take some more time.

Also, the boost is influenced by the voltage of the SOC, if I use 1.025 I can get at 25-50 MHz the best boost for one core.


----------



## crakej

gupsterg said:


> Hope you get somewhere  , as perhaps info may help me with 1933MHz  .


Not looking too hopeful. Went right up to SoC 1.15 and VDDG at 1.10. 

It looks like it's just not going to work for me. I used to be able to boot to my desktop at 3833MTs with my 1700x, so 99% certain it's not the memory, but it's so hard to tell - it could just be one setting somewhere that it needs, though I'm having to admit this seems unlikely now.

I'm going to experiment at higher frequencies and see how high IF will go with them - maybe it will reveal something.


----------



## lordzed83

@gupsterg cool It must be IMC dependant thanks for checking. Iw run 1.1soc and 900mv VDDG over night mining No problem. Ran 200% HCI after I'w gotten up before work no problem. Left ramtest running on 1.4 volts + nicehash mining see how taht goes. Only thing i can think off is that I run tighter timuings as my 3800cl16 is 33.5-33.6ns tFAW20 also blck of 101.8 could require EXTRA juice on SOC to have it stable. More tests after work :] damn I love new toys to play around. More fun than lot boxes and surprise mechanics packed games nowadays lol.
@1usmus this review will be one of peak thing im looking forward to this week


----------



## 1usmus

lordzed83 said:


> @gupsterg cool It must be IMC dependant thanks for checking. Iw run 1.1soc and 900mv VDDG over night mining No problem. Ran 200% HCI after I'w gotten up before work no problem. Left ramtest running on 1.4 volts + nicehash mining see how taht goes. Only thing i can think off is that I run tighter timuings as my 3800cl16 is 33.5-33.6ns tFAW20 also blck of 101.8 could require EXTRA juice on SOC to have it stable. More tests after work :] damn I love new toys to play around. More fun than lot boxes and surprise mechanics packed games nowadays lol.


thanks for checking my words :thumb:
+rep


----------



## lordzed83

1usmus said:


> thanks for checking my words :thumb:
> +rep


Well ill report if pc not reboted with 900mv VDDG 1.4 on DDR 1.325 on cpu running nicehash + ramtest for 8 hours after work and report. I know with not enough on SOC pc rebbots in 1-2 hours of nicehash mining.

Also as You sugested i moved from 53ohm to 36.9 or whatever everything off besides 5 and 24x4 seems to work great and have Positive impact on latency !!! 

@crakej for 3800/1900 try what I do atm bclk 101.8 and drop IF and mem 1 click so you are still running 3800/1900 and put those cl16 timings in I'm using they are VERY easy on memories. Before left tet running i did quick memtest5 test with 1.4 and No error thats why I decided to leave ramtest running for 8 hours


----------



## Streetdragon

sooo 1900Ram/IF
tried SOC 1020-1100
+ VDDG 1030-930
From time to time i was able to boot, but in windows i loose all my USB items. They disconect.

Now i can go into Bios, but even the bios crashes. Cant even go into bios. No screen. Nothing.

Must reset Bios now. After work...


----------



## 1usmus

Streetdragon said:


> sooo 1900Ram/IF
> tried SOC 1020-1100
> + VDDG 1030-930
> From time to time i was able to boot, but in windows i loose all my USB items. They disconect.
> 
> Now i can go into Bios, but even the bios crashes. Cant even go into bios. No screen. Nothing.
> 
> Must reset Bios now. After work...


I can add a video card outage or driver death to this list.

this is also for AMD known, do not worry


----------



## Streetdragon

1usmus said:


> I can add a video card outage or driver death to this list.
> 
> this is also for AMD known, do not worry


so just do a cmos reset and everything is fine again?


----------



## Nighthog

I ran a overnight HCI MemTest with 1.050VSoC @ VDDG 850mv , procODT 43.6Ohm. seems I have some extra tuning needed to be done on MEMORY, got 3 errors but no crash or reboot. 
Most ran 900-1000%
But 1 error @ 300% another @ 900% and last one @ 60%. Not too unstable just a little more tweaking. 
TestMem5 hadn't found issue thus far but I had used another proODT value earlier so more playing needed. 

HCI is usually the most reliable memory checker I had concluded but it takes so long to run. 

Some good testing above here guys!

Regarding BCLK. I found it you can't/shouldn't connect anything directly to the CPU on my old gen 1 Ryzen 1700&X470. Use the connections trough the Southbridge/PCH. Like avoid the directly connected M.2 slot and SATA 1&2 etc. You can't boot like that, but if you use SATA 5/6 you can run ~130BCLK. There wasn't a performance benefit running like so but just more core HEAT! *Your CPU will run hotter.*

It's only advised if you can't do direct multiplier settings for target speeds. Don't go excessive, but with all the changes in Zen 2 we don't know if there are benefits this time around.


----------



## upgraditus

1usmus said:


> Core marking does not correspond to reality, because there is a problem of boost.
> I conducted a study of several cpu's and obtained the following results. *I have a request to public, not to distribute these pictures in the coming days, as this is part of the unreleased my review of new processors.*
> 
> The system tries to use unsuccessful cores to get the maximum boost when using the maximum allowable FIT, that is, the system does not know the real situation. This is the main reason for such a low boost. 10-14% overvoltage also present in default mode. That is, we are unable to use PB2.
> I provided a full report for AMD a few weeks ago and suggesting how to solve this flaw. To get the result it will take some more time.
> 
> Also, the boost is influenced by the voltage of the SOC, if I use 1.025 I can get at 25-50 MHz the best boost for one core.


It's no coincidence I ended up with 43x multi @ 1.325v for my OC then going by this. CPUZ Score of ~ 520 SC 5750 MC.

One thing I'm not sure about; when using manual OC method HWinfo and Afterburner both show 4300 clock constantly while Ryzen Master is showing varying clocks (even sleep) as low as 261 while idle and the power figures would lead me to believe that it isn't wrong either (~20w idle). Will it hurt the CPU if it's going into sleep with ~1.325v still?


----------



## Streetdragon

Streetdragon said:


> so just do a cmos reset and everything is fine again?


nevermind. Bricked a bios. Thanks god i have a secound bios.....

returned to 3533Mhz ram and IF. Loosing speed, but winning boost to 4,5XX Ghz on some cores from time to time.

Now i wait for a new Bios with less problems and retry my clocking. Hope someone will release a nice guide ill then


----------



## gupsterg

@JackCY

I was wondering if you could view the ffmpeg run wmv, is the messaging in window supposed be like that? cheers

data zip.

Some of the mins/maxs are all over the place as I was not able to sync HWINFO correctly as I initiated a test run. On hindsight I should have zero'd just as load was engaged, next time will do logs in HWINFO and am better prep'd to use the tests.



lordzed83 said:


> @gupsterg cool It must be IMC dependant thanks for checking. Iw run 1.1soc and 900mv VDDG over night mining No problem. Ran 200% HCI after I'w gotten up before work no problem. Left ramtest running on 1.4 volts + nicehash mining see how taht goes. Only thing i can think off is that I run tighter timuings as my 3800cl16 is 33.5-33.6ns tFAW20 also blck of 101.8 could require EXTRA juice on SOC to have it stable. More tests after work :] damn I love new toys to play around. More fun than lot boxes and surprise mechanics packed games nowadays lol.


NP, I guess so.

Woah what a warm day today, was nice to get some high ambient testing done.


----------



## Nighthog

Streetdragon said:


> nevermind. Bricked a bios. Thanks god i have a secound bios.....


Were you able to recover the borked BIOS with BIOS flashing or flashback? 

That's important as I managed to brick my main BIOS on my older Gigabyte B350 that only had dual-bios twice!, no flashback or recovery available. I don't want the same situation again. 
It's important to be able to recover!


----------



## Streetdragon

Nighthog said:


> Were you able to recover the borked BIOS with BIOS flashing or flashback?
> 
> That's important as I managed to brick my main BIOS on my older Gigabyte B350 that only had dual-bios twice!, no flashback or recovery available. I don't want the same situation again.
> It's important to be able to recover!


The x570 Master has a Q-Flash. So switch to the other bios, plug in USB stick with the bios und predd q-Flash.
I think most of the x570 has qflash


----------



## crakej

1usmus said:


> I can add a video card outage or driver death to this list.
> 
> this is also for AMD known, do not worry


I've had these symptoms when trying for 1900/3800. USB going strange and also some failed boots when the display is initialising (white led on, training complete right?)

Thanks for the shares. I was looking at reducing VDDG earlier, but below 0.995v I was getting strange problems with sound being corrupted a bit/not playing back right. Tested SoC from 1.03 to 1.1v.

Also found out today that for me - currently my max is 3733MTs/1866 IF - So you might think that's the max I can run IF at - what I actually found, was that if I booted at higher ram frequencies, the max IF frequency I can attain goes *down*.

I was rather hoping the opposite would happen!

I have spent SO many hours changing setting, rebooting (with no help from safeboot!) since I got my CPU. I hope I will get some fruits for my labours! 

And even better my Virgin cable has been down since lunch time, had to use my phone to get connected!


----------



## Streetdragon

crakej said:


> I've had these symptoms when trying for 1900/3800. USB going strange and also some failed boots when the display is initialising (white led on, training complete right?)
> 
> Thanks for the shares. I was looking at reducing VDDG earlier, but below 0.995v I was getting strange problems with sound being corrupted a bit/not playing back right. Tested SoC from 1.03 to 1.1v.
> 
> Also found out today that for me - currently my max is 3733MTs/1866 IF - So you might think that's the max I can run IF at - what I actually found, was that if I booted at higher ram frequencies, the max IF frequency I can attain goes *down*.
> 
> I was rather hoping the opposite would happen!
> 
> I have spent SO many hours changing setting, rebooting (with no help from safeboot!) since I got my CPU. I hope I will get some fruits for my labours!
> 
> And even better my Virgin cable has been down since lunch time, had to use my phone to get connected!


So we sit in the same boat  Hopefully some biosupdates fill help us a bit. the differenz between 1866 and 1900 should be minimal. but the number just sounds better^^


----------



## majestynl

gupsterg said:


> My TR rig is low airflow, dimms can hit ~55C when CPU/GPU fully loaded, leading to increased case temp, etc. I do not see performance change regardless of temp, but am running 3400MHz C15 1T own tightened subs, etc. So don't know.


My Dimms can also hit high temps if i run a normal OC on them. Zero issues.... 
But the actual issue starts with High Speed OC and tight timings. Just when i push them to their limits. Going above ~42c give me instant issues/Errors while testing!
Thats why im cooling them. And can say... ZERO ISSUES with 3800/1900 +TT 



gupsterg said:


> That happens to me on FCLK 1933MHz. Regardless if MEMCLK is lower or matched, regardless if UCLK is 1:1 or 2:1.


Same here! FCLK on 1933 = C5 
Didn't spent much time on it, maybe playing with more settings will pass the C5 ..dunno! Will test later!



upgraditus said:


> One thing I'm not sure about; when using manual OC method HWinfo and Afterburner both show 4300 clock constantly while Ryzen Master is showing varying clocks (even sleep) as low as 261 while idle and the power figures would lead me to believe that it isn't wrong either (~20w idle). Will it hurt the CPU if it's going into sleep with ~1.325v still?


AFAIK, 3rd party monitoring tools aren't fast enough to measure things correctly on current platform!



crakej said:


> I've had these symptoms when trying for 1900/3800. USB going strange and also some failed boots when the display is initialising (white led on, training complete right?)
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for the shares. I was looking at reducing VDDG earlier, but below 0.995v I was getting strange problems with sound being corrupted a bit/not playing back right. Tested SoC from 1.03 to 1.1v.
> 
> Also found out today that for me - currently my max is 3733MTs/1866 IF - So you might think that's the max I can run IF at - what I actually found, was that if I booted at higher ram frequencies, the max IF frequency I can attain goes *down*.
> 
> I was rather hoping the opposite would happen!
> 
> I have spent SO many hours changing setting, rebooting (with no help from safeboot!) since I got my CPU. I hope I will get some fruits for my labours!
> 
> And even better my Virgin cable has been down since lunch time, had to use my phone to get connected!


OC'ing FCLK depends on your silicon quality i think. So probably its getting unstable and causing side-effects ?!!


----------



## lordzed83

crakej said:


> I've had these symptoms when trying for 1900/3800. USB going strange and also some failed boots when the display is initialising (white led on, training complete right?)
> 
> Thanks for the shares. I was looking at reducing VDDG earlier, but below 0.995v I was getting strange problems with sound being corrupted a bit/not playing back right. Tested SoC from 1.03 to 1.1v.
> 
> Also found out today that for me - currently my max is 3733MTs/1866 IF - So you might think that's the max I can run IF at - what I actually found, was that if I booted at higher ram frequencies, the max IF frequency I can attain goes *down*.
> 
> I was rather hoping the opposite would happen!
> 
> I have spent SO many hours changing setting, rebooting (with no help from safeboot!) since I got my CPU. I hope I will get some fruits for my labours!
> 
> And even better my Virgin cable has been down since lunch time, had to use my phone to get connected!


I'w uploaded You my 3800 cmo profile if ya want Tryn it out. No ******** volts in there ect check it out. You could upp ddr volts to 1.45 and have a look in fan settings as those are for my minimal air mixing in case setting hehe


----------



## crakej

Streetdragon said:


> So we sit in the same boat  Hopefully some biosupdates fill help us a bit. the differenz between 1866 and 1900 should be minimal. but the number just sounds better^^


Lol - I want 1900 IF because that's what most people have got!..... and I'm an OCholic 

I can't hel,p thinking that a) it was real easy to get IF to 1866, so easy, I really did think that extra 66MHz would prob be attainable but I'd have to push volts a bit further than others.

However. It feels kinda like a brick wall. You expect things to scale gradually - even steeply, but not a wall like this. I've tried nearly everything I can think of!

The IF is everywhere, the chiplets, space i between them, and the IO die. Maybe our ram is holding the fabric back somehow? Maybe I have a crap IO die that needs more of some other voltage? Or is a crappy CCD holding me back?

I'll keep trying tomorrow!

Edit: those of us affected find that when we power on trying for 1900/3800, it just goes to C5 almost immediately - no mem training is attempted, no power cycle, nothing, just code C5


----------



## crakej

lordzed83 said:


> I'w uploaded You my 3800 cmo profile if ya want Tryn it out. No ******** volts in there ect check it out. You could upp ddr volts to 1.45 and have a look in fan settings as those are for my minimal air mixing in case setting hehe


Thanks man - will try this out later. Will be interesting to see how you've set it up. 
@majestynl 

Yes, it's possible one or two of us lost the silicon lottery, but I'm still thinking there may be a solution coming forward. Optimistic yes.....for now!


----------



## crakej

lordzed83 said:


> I'w uploaded You my 3800 cmo profile if ya want Tryn it out. No ******** volts in there ect check it out. You could upp ddr volts to 1.45 and have a look in fan settings as those are for my minimal air mixing in case setting hehe


Which board/bios you on? Can't load the file - incompatible platform.

You could save it in a R Master profile....

Edit: though saying that, don't like RM setting timings.....how does it do it? Does it change bios settings?


----------



## Sin_Chase

I've seen some discussion on this topic within other threads about memorysspeed at or above 3600 affecting boost and idle. But this seems to be a specific issue I think warrants further exploration and data. I'm unsure if it's CPU SKU or Board Vendor specific or simply as a result of settings/configuration. It's repeatable behaviour for me however. Perhaps someone with a more technical / expert background can shed some light? @The Stilt

3900X - Stock PB2 Only. No PBO/XFR
Auros X570 Master f5g AGESA 1.0.0.3AB


3600 Memory / 1800 IF
Max Boost - ~4250

Power Plan. 
Ryzen Balanced - No idle 
Windows Balanced 85/100 - 0.9v idle 

3733 Memory / 1866 IF
Max Boost - ~4250 

Power Plan 
Ryzen Balanced - No idle 
Windows Balanced 85/100 - 0.9v idle 


3533 Memory / 1766 IF
Max Boost - ~4525 

Power Plan 
Ryzen Balanced - 0.5v idle 
Windows Balanced 85/100 - Not required 

All settings between all 3 scenarios were identical.

VCORE Normal / +-0 
VDDG 1050 
DDR 4.10 
LLC Standard 
Phase Modulation eXm Perf 

I've created a shared spreadsheet for people to contribute to if they wish. Would be interested to see if there are any observable patterns. 

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1sKrR3PzSvdAKIk8go-fWwwmffsNfJBgWH6XVGgzpTTo/edit


----------



## CJMitsuki

crakej said:


> I can't hel,p thinking that a) it was real easy to get IF to 1866, so easy, I really did think that extra 66MHz would prob be attainable but I'd have to push volts a bit further than others.
> 
> However. It feels kinda like a brick wall. You expect things to scale gradually - even steeply, but not a wall like this. I've tried nearly everything I can think of!
> 
> The IF is everywhere, the chiplets, space i between them, and the IO die. Maybe our ram is holding the fabric back somehow? Maybe I have a crap IO die that needs more of some other voltage? Or is a crappy CCD holding me back?
> 
> I'll keep trying tomorrow!
> 
> Edit: those of us affected find that when we power on trying for 1900/3800, it just goes to C5 almost immediately - no mem training is attempted, no power cycle, nothing, just code C5


Honestly, i feel like this is a bug or an something. As Crakej said, its easy to get to a certain point then a brick wall. It doesnt sound like silicon limitation behavior. I can get 3800 at 1900 IF at cl 14 with pretty much the tightest timings you could hope to get before they begin to show a negative affect. However as soon as I go above 1900/3800 I get an automatic C5 with no kind of training or anything and the QLED ALWAYS stops on the VGA LED which im pretty sure is the white one. Now I tested going up in BCLK a small amount at a time and 1908/3816 is perfectly fine with no errors at 10000% ramtest but the moment I travel beyond that then the C5 error occurs. Now if this were silicon limitation then you wouldnt just go from completely stable to brick wall C5 error, especially within a small increase such as with BCLK. You would have mem training boots and possibly a BSOD but more than likely youd just get some errors in memory testing. I also think its a bug since I can increase Cas Latency or voltage or anything for extra stability but nothing matters. Its a hard stop on a C5 error with having to do a CMOS clear to go forward. This isnt the behavior of silicon quality IMO. It just feels like a bug in the bios or similar which will get ironed out later. Im fairly positive I can push this memory to 3933 cl14 if this werent happening.


----------



## Streetdragon

crakej said:


> Lol - I want 1900 IF because that's what most people have got!..... and I'm an OCholic
> 
> I can't hel,p thinking that a) it was real easy to get IF to 1866, so easy, I really did think that extra 66MHz would prob be attainable but I'd have to push volts a bit further than others.
> 
> However. It feels kinda like a brick wall. You expect things to scale gradually - even steeply, but not a wall like this. I've tried nearly everything I can think of!
> 
> The IF is everywhere, the chiplets, space i between them, and the IO die. Maybe our ram is holding the fabric back somehow? Maybe I have a crap IO die that needs more of some other voltage? Or is a crappy CCD holding me back?
> 
> I'll keep trying tomorrow!
> 
> Edit: those of us affected find that when we power on trying for 1900/3800, it just goes to C5 almost immediately - no mem training is attempted, no power cycle, nothing, just code C5





CJMitsuki said:


> Honestly, i feel like this is a bug or an something. As Crakej said, its easy to get to a certain point then a brick wall. It doesnt sound like silicon limitation behavior. I can get 3800 at 1900 IF at cl 14 with pretty much the tightest timings you could hope to get before they begin to show a negative affect. However as soon as I go above 1900/3800 I get an automatic C5 with no kind of training or anything and the QLED ALWAYS stops on the VGA LED which im pretty sure is the white one. Now I tested going up in BCLK a small amount at a time and 1908/3816 is perfectly fine with no errors at 10000% ramtest but the moment I travel beyond that then the C5 error occurs. Now if this were silicon limitation then you wouldnt just go from completely stable to brick wall C5 error, especially within a small increase such as with BCLK. You would have mem training boots and possibly a BSOD but more than likely youd just get some errors in memory testing. I also think its a bug since I can increase Cas Latency or voltage or anything for extra stability but nothing matters. Its a hard stop on a C5 error with having to do a CMOS clear to go forward. This isnt the behavior of silicon quality IMO. It just feels like a bug in the bios or similar which will get ironed out later. Im fairly positive I can push this memory to 3933 cl14 if this werent happening.


i can boot with 3800/1900 and tighter timings. everything ok with higher volts. vddg somewhere at 1.00V and SOC over 1.15V. But when stressing i get a reboot without error. Just black screen and a clean+fast reboot. Maybe i test with soc up to 1.2V.
soc under 1.1V with 1900IF wont boot or start usb bugging.
Maybe its a Gigabyte problem or so. Dont know^^

Edit: Maybe its because i use 4 Dimms?


----------



## gupsterg

majestynl said:


> My Dimms can also hit high temps if i run a normal OC on them. Zero issues....
> But the actual issue starts with High Speed OC and tight timings. Just when i push them to their limits. Going above ~42c give me instant issues/Errors while testing!
> Thats why im cooling them. And can say... ZERO ISSUES with 3800/1900 +TT


So far only been to ~43C on dimms here, was non issue, but am using looser timings & lower VDIMM.

See this ZIP, organise files by date, file RT PBO+150 3800v4.2 1.068 1.013 1.4 0.7 room 30C PASS 6100%.wmv.

Yesterday afternoon I tweaked SOC to 1.068, as then on multimeter I never noted below ~1.05V, which should aid the 1.013V setup of VDDG I use. SOC 1.062V can bounce down to 1.044V at times for me.

*** edit ***

Looking at your bench result vs my setup seems C14 really isn't giving much gains for additional 100mV VDIMM ...


----------



## lordzed83

crakej said:


> Which board/bios you on? Can't load the file - incompatible platform.
> 
> You could save it in a R Master profile....
> 
> Edit: though saying that, don't like RM setting timings.....how does it do it? Does it change bios settings?


Guess it wont work that way


----------



## dspx

There might be a possible bug which lowers the CPU boost clock when using DRAM frequencies of 3600 or higher. Did anyone try testing this?

https://old.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/ch1kkl/3900x_memory_speeds_3600_or_above_limit_boost/


----------



## Streetdragon

dspx said:


> There might be a possible bug which lowers the CPU boost clock when using DRAM frequencies of 3600 or higher. Did anyone try testing this?
> 
> https://old.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/ch1kkl/3900x_memory_speeds_3600_or_above_limit_boost/


yep. i tried it.
And AMD knows the bug already. We have to wait for a fix or we have to choose between working boost or fast mem


----------



## rdr09

gupsterg said:


> That happens to me on FCLK 1933MHz. Regardless if MEMCLK is lower or matched, regardless if UCLK is 1:1 or 2:1.


gups, i must have missed it. Did you bench to check performance differences between changes in your RAM settings? At least Cinebench runs. I saw how your latencies are getting lower and lower. Thanks.


----------



## lordzed83

@Streetdragon @1usmus. Since It's oven in my home and in uk was playing with more tests before work if it goes for VDDG. Right so i had 2 hours of Aida stress tes pass last night and 30 minute loop of cb20 and 30 of realbencl ect. So started playing around with Y-Cruncher and something interesting came up when running PI benchmark with 0 1 7 start command. With 900mv on vddg IT WONT PASS Error or reboot. Upped to 1000 and same situation. I got VDDG to 1060mv no reboot passed 3 times in row.
Also had a look how VDDG affects power draw temps going so with 900mv max power peaks at 201-202 wats 1000mv got it up to 208-209 and 1060mv 211-214.
I need to try s0me other benchmarks if i can replicate this. I'w ran CB20x3 and aida mem bench before each of them ycruncher runs runs to see if performance. Nope performance was not affected. So in general VDDG of 900mv is enough for like most benchmarks tasks general usage ycruncher Pi benchmark Not enough besides that This baby pumps out heat on Tdie hehe. There is also posibility that using 101.8 bclk is reason VDDG needs more Juice. After work ill go back to 100 same 3800/1800/4300 and test behaviour of VDDG on normal blck 
@gupsterg @majestynl if ya got a minute try few of them ycruncher Pi runs interested how it will be with Yours settings  ofc having ambient temps this high have effect also 
@CJMitsuki you are also playing around with Bclk have You had a play with VDDG like what are You running atm

@Streetdragon give vddg 1.060 and see if pc reboots at that. 4 dims could require more SoC deffo for my 2 sticks 1.1 with LLC4 is enough. What volts do You have under load on SoC ??


btw. I know tooltip in bios says VDDG could help with bckl overclocking. It's interesting that its only this benchmark I found cant work with 900mv and bclk. Need more testing


----------



## gupsterg

rdr09 said:


> gups, i must have missed it. Did you bench to check performance differences between changes in your RAM settings? At least Cinebench runs. I saw how your latencies are getting lower and lower. Thanks.


Cinebench doesn't scale with RAM for me. I tried stock CPU with 3600MHz The Stilt's 3466MHz timings, 1T, GDMD and these had SCLK 2, which when used with >3600MHz MEMCLK can exhibit errors in RAM Test. Then stock CPU 3666MHz, again The Stilt 3466MHz setup.

Below is 5 way compare where all is same, except RAM timings changed.



Spoiler














At stage 4 I reached point of diminishing return.

Today I did some testing with lower settings, again seemed to lose performance ever so slightly, than gain any.

First rerun 3800 v4.2.



Spoiler














Then drop only tFAW from 36 to 32.



Spoiler














Then add in 15-15-15-36-52.



Spoiler














Undo all that and try just tFAW 30.



Spoiler














Any thing other than 3800 v4.2 out of above I see no point in stability testing.

SCLK 3 equals issues, so that out of the window.

Gear Down Mode Off with C15 only works if I loosen other timings, where I lose performance, VDIMM was still kept 1.4V.

Basically for voltages used, looking at others results I think I'm in an AOK place for gains/stability/voltages.

Here are 6 runs of 3800 v4.2 with not CPU/DF C-States [Auto], previously I have been using [Disabled].



Spoiler






















I see no loss in performance having C-States [Auto], I see no gains with SOC OC Mode either.

I have lowered TjMax from 95C to 85C, as last night board lost PWM and for god know how many hours system was running HCI with only pump running. See WMV in this ZIP.

As I have yet to lose performance in Cinebench with lowered TjMax I may even go 80C.


----------



## majestynl

lordzed83 said:


> @gupsterg @majestynl if ya got a minute try few of them ycruncher Pi runs interested how it will be with Yours settings  ofc having ambient temps this high have effect also .


Will do later, remind me if i forgot it pls. My 3800x also arrived today. 




crakej said:


> @majestynl
> 
> Yes, it's possible one or two of us lost the silicon lottery, but I'm still thinking there may be a solution coming forward. Optimistic yes.....for now!


Sure lets be optimistic then! 



gupsterg said:


> So far only been to ~43C on dimms here, was non issue, but am using looser timings & lower VDIMM.
> 
> See this ZIP, organise files by date, file RT PBO+150 3800v4.2 1.068 1.013 1.4 0.7 room 30C PASS 6100%.wmv.
> 
> Yesterday afternoon I tweaked SOC to 1.068, as then on multimeter I never noted below ~1.05V, which should aid the 1.013V setup of VDDG I use. SOC 1.062V can bounce down to 1.044V at times for me.


Thanks for the share.... But probably the VDDG will also have some droop! 



gupsterg said:


> *** edit ***
> 
> Looking at your bench result vs my setup seems C14 really isn't giving much gains for additional 100mV VDIMM ...
> 
> View attachment 283202


AIDA isnt showing that much difference always. Im curious about other tests/bench results. Their must be gain somewhere 

btw: Did you saw this article ? https://lab501.ro/procesoare-chipseturi/amd-ryzen-3000-part-iv-ddr4-scaling-english-version/25

In other sections of the article they are comparing games etc. But sadly not the 3800 1:1 ram OC's


----------



## Streetdragon

@lordzed83 nice finding! +Rep 
Will try 1.06V Vddg(Wich is the auto voltage)
So has a loadline too? Must test that. So far i only checked the voltage in Ryzen master tool and it said 1.1V. So not enough diggits^^ Must enable it in HW Info.

But not sure if i wanna test it today or tomorrow. its way to hot and i dont wanna heat my bedroom more up as its needed xD


----------



## VeritronX

For some reason the VID requested is lower on my MSI B450I board running 1.0.0.3ab bios then on my Giga X370 K7 using 1.0.0.2.. on the giga the cpu will ask for up to 1.5v briefly and will happily boost to 4.4ghz (3600X) while on the msi it never asks for more than 1.45v and I've never seen it go over 4.325Ghz on one core and 4.3Ghz on any of the others in any ST task =\


----------



## gupsterg

lordzed83 said:


> @[MENTION=442759]gupsterg @majestynl if ya got a minute try few of them ycruncher Pi runs interested how it will be with Yours settings  ofc having ambient temps this high have effect also


Will do ASAP  .



gupsterg said:


> Yesterday afternoon I tweaked SOC to 1.068, as then on multimeter I never noted below ~1.05V, which should aid the 1.013V setup of VDDG I use. SOC 1.062V can bounce down to 1.044V at times for me.
> 
> 
> majestynl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for the share.... But probably the VDDG will also have some droop!
Click to expand...

This slide is in context of VCORE, from AMD ISSCC "Zeppelin" presentation, which AFAIK only on the servers chips VCORE is using LDO, bypassed for us mainstream peeps. The other domains still use the LDO, ie voltages with CLDO in front, so CLDO_VDDG/CLDO_VDDP.



Spoiler
















majestynl said:


> AIDA isnt showing that much difference always. Im curious about other tests/bench results. Their must be gain somewhere
> 
> btw: Did you saw this article ? https://lab501.ro/procesoare-chipset...ish-version/25
> 
> In other sections of the article they are comparing games etc. But sadly not the 3800 1:1 ram OC's


I reckon AIDA64 is best case for this context. No doubt nice to see yours and CJMitsuki with 3800MHz C14  .

Perhaps with later AGESA we'll see more of a gain with tighter timings. I recall once on 1xxx just an AGESA change improved ns by ~6 or so IIRC, perhaps something like that will happen for Matisse.


----------



## crakej

@gupsterg shame you don't have them any more for comparison. They work pretty well for me. On 1700x they ran 3600CL14 GD enabled really easily. Been easy on here as well - seems IF is limiting me. They do run at 4266+ and I will see if I can get them fast enough to cancel out not running 1:1. I've read someone had them running at 4600 but I've never tried. I did discover yesterday that I have to reduce my max IF as frequency rises, but not had time to tweak to see if this can be fixed with a voltage or timing change.

Does anyone know what MEMVDDIO and MEM VTT are?

Edit: forgot! When I leave VDDG on auto, bios will set it at something stupid like 1.13v or more, above SoC! Anyone else seen this?


----------



## gupsterg

crakej said:


> @gupsterg shame you don't have them any more for comparison. They work pretty well for me. On 1700x they ran 3600CL14 GD enabled really easily. Been easy on here as well - seems IF is limiting me. They do run at 4266+ and I will see if I can get them fast enough to cancel out not running 1:1. I've read someone had them running at 4600 but I've never tried. I did discover yesterday that I have to reduce my max IF as frequency rises, but not had time to tweak to see if this can be fixed with a voltage or timing change.
> 
> Does anyone know what MEMVDDIO and MEM VTT are?
> 
> Edit: forgot! When I leave VDDG on auto, bios will set it at something stupid like 1.13v or more, above SoC! Anyone else seen this?


Yeah would have been great to try the Vipers. Currently only have 8 dimms of G.Skill 3200MHz C14, all pretty much the same for clocking/flexibility for timings, etc.

MEMVDDIO = VDIMM

MEM VTT = VTTDDR

Yes I have seen CLDO_VDDP & VDDG rise as per AMD auto rule when clock RAM >3600MHz. As SOC plane supplies those, they can not exceed value for it.


----------



## Nighthog

CJMitsuki said:


> Honestly, i feel like this is a bug or an something. As Crakej said, its easy to get to a certain point then a brick wall. It doesnt sound like silicon limitation behavior. I can get 3800 at 1900 IF at cl 14 with pretty much the tightest timings you could hope to get before they begin to show a negative affect. However as soon as I go above 1900/3800 I get an automatic C5 with no kind of training or anything and the QLED ALWAYS stops on the VGA LED which im pretty sure is the white one. Now I tested going up in BCLK a small amount at a time and 1908/3816 is perfectly fine with no errors at 10000% ramtest but the moment I travel beyond that then the C5 error occurs. Now if this were silicon limitation then you wouldnt just go from completely stable to brick wall C5 error, especially within a small increase such as with BCLK. You would have mem training boots and possibly a BSOD but more than likely youd just get some errors in memory testing. I also think its a bug since I can increase Cas Latency or voltage or anything for extra stability but nothing matters. Its a hard stop on a C5 error with having to do a CMOS clear to go forward. This isnt the behavior of silicon quality IMO. It just feels like a bug in the bios or similar which will get ironed out later. Im fairly positive I can push this memory to 3933 cl14 if this werent happening.


I can concur on finding the Brick wall for FCLK/UCLK @ 1900... or as you saw.. 1908Mhz (3816).
When I tried BCLK adjustments to attempt 1933Mhz it failed to boot and BIOS would recover and boot with 1908Mhz FCLK with 3816Mhz Memory. At least a little extra.
I usually get 07 & 15/17 or C3/C8 errors on the Debug depending on what combinations I try to push 1933. ALL are "reserved" in the table for Codes. Much help that was. BCLK was most successful to get a little closer.

I also think there is a BIOS/AGESA limit to this not a silicon limit. I don't think they have allowed/enabled speeds above to function yet. 

Otherwise I bricked my MAIN BIOS & Windows attempting to bench Cinebench R20 @ 4500Mhz a try too many. Taking a little while getting back up and running.


----------



## crakej

gupsterg said:


> Yeah would have been great to try the Vipers. Currently only have 8 dimms of G.Skill 3200MHz C14, all pretty much the same for clocking/flexibility for timings, etc.
> 
> MEMVDDIO = VDIMM
> 
> MEM VTT = VTTDDR
> 
> Yes I have seen CLDO_VDDP & VDDG rise as per AMD auto rule when clock RAM >3600MHz. As SOC plane supplies those, they can not exceed value for it.


That's good to know as we can't test it. I guess if my chip dies on auto setting they would replace it, but I was surprised to see VDDG so high.

Re: MEMVDDIO. That's what I thought, but have you looked in the AMD OC menu where there are settings for these - I don't really understand what they're for, but the MEMVDDIO setting is pre-set at 1200mv - you can see this when you enable the settings. You can't just put in 1400mv - it's some strange kind of offset or something. It shows an equation for the setting, but I haven't worked out what it is yet!


----------



## gupsterg

@lordzed83

Organise files by date, this ZIP has 2x SuperPi 32M on same POST as when I'd tested RAM Test again today, 1x on fresh POST. No issues encountered on running SuperPi.

You wanted Y-Cruncher benchmark, not stress test?


----------



## MrPhilo

When I see people do Aida64 test, do they always run the full test for a reason, am I missing something?

If you double click the 'Memory', it just runs that line.


----------



## rdr09

gupsterg said:


> Cinebench doesn't scale with RAM for me. I tried stock CPU with 3600MHz The Stilt's 3466MHz timings, 1T, GDMD and these had SCLK 2, which when used with >3600MHz MEMCLK can exhibit errors in RAM Test. Then stock CPU 3666MHz, again The Stilt 3466MHz setup.
> 
> Below is 5 way compare where all is same, except RAM timings changed.
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 283218
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At stage 4 I reached point of diminishing return.
> 
> Today I did some testing with lower settings, again seemed to lose performance ever so slightly, than gain any.
> 
> First rerun 3800 v4.2.
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 283220
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then drop only tFAW from 36 to 32.
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 283222
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then add in 15-15-15-36-52.
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 283224
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Undo all that and try just tFAW 30.
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 283226
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Any thing other than 3800 v4.2 out of above I see no point in stability testing.
> 
> SCLK 3 equals issues, so that out of the window.
> 
> Gear Down Mode Off with C15 only works if I loosen other timings, where I lose performance, VDIMM was still kept 1.4V.
> 
> Basically for voltages used, looking at others results I think I'm in an AOK place for gains/stability/voltages.
> 
> Here are 6 runs of 3800 v4.2 with not CPU/DF C-States [Auto], previously I have been using [Disabled].
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 283232
> 
> 
> View attachment 283234
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see no loss in performance having C-States [Auto], I see no gains with SOC OC Mode either.
> 
> I have lowered TjMax from 95C to 85C, as last night board lost PWM and for god know how many hours system was running HCI with only pump running. See WMV in this ZIP.
> 
> As I have yet to lose performance in Cinebench with lowered TjMax I may even go 80C.


I see that the Aida results were quite close, so that would really show no difference. I was hoping you can bench an optimized stock setting of the RAM and compare it to your best OC result. Thanks again.


----------



## nick name

MrPhilo said:


> When I see people do Aida64 test, do they always run the full test for a reason, am I missing something?
> 
> If you double click the 'Memory', it just runs that line.


Holy crap. Good find! I always right-click the Start Benchmark button, but your method is way better.


----------



## lordzed83

gupsterg said:


> @lordzed83
> 
> Organise files by date, this ZIP has 2x SuperPi 32M on same POST as when I'd tested RAM Test again today, 1x on fresh POST. No issues encountered on running SuperPi.
> 
> You wanted Y-Cruncher benchmark, not stress test?


ye ycruncher benchmark you know start with 0--->1---->7 thats the 90second or so 11gb of mem run. Ill be home soon and see if its the BCLK not at 100. I was quite stunned to see this not pass TBH when everything else works no problem hehe. Also Vddt you mentioned I need to check if this could have effect maybe I'm looking in wrong place. goot at least 3 things to check for tonight 
Ycruncher PI run uses multi thread and I assume it detects IF instability when normal super Pi does not afaik runs single core. And gotta add that its 28c atm in the office in Nottingham and 39 in my Work Van cause no AC GOD DAMN IT

And i got 5k run up hill home lol


----------



## upgraditus

majestynl said:


> AFAIK, 3rd party monitoring tools aren't fast enough to measure things correctly on current platform!


Yes I'm aware of the polling rate difference, hence inconsistencies between tools. More concerned about my question regarding cores going to sleep with manual voltage applied. At stock they would drop to .2v before sleep so not sure if running manual is doing them any good. I honestly expected it just to sit at a fixed clock with manual OC, but Ryzen Master proved my expectations incorrect.


----------



## upgraditus

MrPhilo said:


> When I see people do Aida64 test, do they always run the full test for a reason, am I missing something?
> 
> If you double click the 'Memory', it just runs that line.


When I see people do Aida64 test, does literally everyone all have a paid for version, am I missing something?


----------



## kamil234

upgraditus said:


> When I see people do Aida64 test, does literally everyone all have a paid for version, am I missing something?



Yeah, you're probably missing the download link to the pirated version, lmao


----------



## Streetdragon

lordzed83 said:


> @Streetdragon @1usmus. Since It's oven in my home and in uk was playing with more tests before work if it goes for VDDG. Right so i had 2 hours of Aida stress tes pass last night and 30 minute loop of cb20 and 30 of realbencl ect. So started playing around with Y-Cruncher and something interesting came up when running PI benchmark with 0 1 7 start command. With 900mv on vddg IT WONT PASS Error or reboot. Upped to 1000 and same situation. I got VDDG to 1060mv no reboot passed 3 times in row.
> Also had a look how VDDG affects power draw temps going so with 900mv max power peaks at 201-202 wats 1000mv got it up to 208-209 and 1060mv 211-214.
> I need to try s0me other benchmarks if i can replicate this. I'w ran CB20x3 and aida mem bench before each of them ycruncher runs runs to see if performance. Nope performance was not affected. So in general VDDG of 900mv is enough for like most benchmarks tasks general usage ycruncher Pi benchmark Not enough besides that This baby pumps out heat on Tdie hehe. There is also posibility that using 101.8 bclk is reason VDDG needs more Juice. After work ill go back to 100 same 3800/1800/4300 and test behaviour of VDDG on normal blck
> @gupsterg @majestynl if ya got a minute try few of them ycruncher Pi runs interested how it will be with Yours settings  ofc having ambient temps this high have effect also
> @CJMitsuki you are also playing around with Bclk have You had a play with VDDG like what are You running atm
> 
> @Streetdragon give vddg 1.060 and see if pc reboots at that. 4 dims could require more SoC deffo for my 2 sticks 1.1 with LLC4 is enough. What volts do You have under load on SoC ??
> 
> 
> btw. I know tooltip in bios says VDDG could help with bckl overclocking. It's interesting that its only this benchmark I found cant work with 900mv and bclk. Need more testing


ohhh yeah^^ 1,060V Vddg was doing the trick^^ 1.050 is unstable.
SOC set in the bios to 1.175. In the screenshot is the voltage that HWINFO is reading

So far so good :thumb:

edit: added mem test aida


----------



## Sin_Chase

So I've been graphing out some power usage plots between memory speeds and also the impact of adjusting the VDDG. I've noted that with a manually set VDDG of 1000mv my 3600 and 3733 boost clocks improve beyond 4250 max up to 4300-4400ish. As a result i decided to plot power differences between VDDG of 1000mv and 950mv also. All readings were logged from a single core Cinebench R20 run.


*Memory Speed Comparisons - Power Consumption*











The take away from this plot is that there is a noticeable jump in Core Power usage from 3533 to 3600 but almost no jump at all from 3600 to 3733. The SoC power consumption has a marginal bump for each increase in memory speed but overall nothing significant.


*VDDG Comparisons at 3600 - Power Consumption*











Reducing VDDG universally reduces power consumptions as expected. It's also seemingly linear across all the readings.




*CPU Vcore Comparisons*












Having changed nothing else increasing memory speed lowers CPU Vcore




*Comparison Between Core Boosting Behaviour*

I appreciate the 3600 graph is a mess but I found it interesting that on a 3533 run Cores #3 and #5 consistently boost to higher frequencies whilst the other cores sit relatively static. Whereas at 3600 it's a total mess with everything bouncing everywhere, not sure if anything can be taken away from that.


----------



## lordzed83

@Streetdragon @gupsterg Guys I think I cracked what does the VDDG got to do with reboot on stability testing and uycruncher bench thing. So came back from work got to 100bclk with 900mv vddg. 1 run black screen reboot second black screen reboot ok 1000mv 1 run reboot 2 run reboot. 1025 1st run PASS !!!! second run Core error(not enuff volts) 3rd run reboot. Ok then extra swapped voltage from 1.25 to 1.378 on cpu 1025 vddg. Run 1 reboot run2 reboot ok then next up 1060mv vddg. Run 1 PASS Run 2 pc reboots BUT due to Thermal protection not black screen rebbot. Stopped at post withcpu temperature fail aka protection kicked in. Now this got me thinking. Dialled back to 1.25 on core dropped my 4300 to 4275 dropped vddg to 900mv and did 1 hour worth of boting up running ycruncher pi then 3 runs of cb20. Changing VDDP testiung its effect on scores and stability NO PROBLEMS.
My conclusion is that since its hot as hell in my room ambient higher than typical one by 8-9c cpu needs More juice than 1.25 to maintain stability. Adding Extra 130mv to cpu gives extra 7c on the tclc/tdie from what i seen and Incressing VDDG helps to maintain cpu stability at cost of... even higher temps that even my cooling system is not able to keep below 115c on tdie with stupid high temperatures we got in Nottingham atm On Friday when I was testng VDDG 1060 and cpu on 1.343 temoerature in my room was around 21c so i was not hittingh thermal limit on cpu 

Like seriously this ycruncher pi benchmark pops more peak heat in 2 minutes than 2 hours of AIDA loop 

Anyway on VDDP topic i tested from 815 to 1005. I do not recommend going sub 900mv 855 i was 15-18 cb20 3 runs restart 3 runs reboot 3 runs restart 3 runs reboot loop compared to 900. Moving to 945 and 1005mv gave no extra points vs 900mv.

This is what 3 hours of rebooting every 4 -5 minutes and testing *** showed on my end. So if i was You i would try something else. Set VDDG on 900mv and try LOWER Vcore till You get a CRASH/ibnstability when stress testing watch temperatures on hwmonitor. On my system 106-107c PEAK on Tdie is where 900mv VDDG is enough to maintain reboot free system with [email protected] with 28c Ambient temp.

@1usmus have a read on my different VDDG test  and some VDDP


----------



## Streetdragon

when i lower vddg i am not stable. 
Lowert SOC to 1.16V. Still testing and looks good.
Temps OK


----------



## lordzed83

Sin_Chase said:


> So I've been graphing out some power usage plots between memory speeds and also the impact of adjusting the VDDG. I've noted that with a manually set VDDG of 1000mv my 3600 and 3733 boost clocks improve beyond 4250 max up to 4300-4400ish. As a result i decided to plot power differences between VDDG of 1000mv and 950mv also. All readings were logged from a single core Cinebench R20 run.
> 
> 
> *Memory Speed Comparisons - Power Consumption*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The take away from this plot is that there is a noticeable jump in Core Power usage from 3533 to 3600 but almost no jump at all from 3600 to 3733. The SoC power consumption has a marginal bump for each increase in memory speed but overall nothing significant.
> 
> 
> *VDDG Comparisons at 3600 - Power Consumption*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reducing VDDG universally reduces power consumptions as expected. It's also seemingly linear across all the readings.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *CPU Vcore Comparisons*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Having changed nothing else increasing memory speed lowers CPU Vcore
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Comparison Between Core Boosting Behaviour*
> 
> I appreciate the 3600 graph is a mess but I found it interesting that on a 3533 run Cores #3 and #5 consistently boost to higher frequencies whilst the other cores sit relatively static. Whereas at 3600 it's a total mess with everything bouncing everywhere, not sure if anything can be taken away from that.


Nice teat with numbers. I can add that vddg got quite impact on cpu tempa with this ycruncher wvery 50mv above 900 is like 2c extra on tdie temp. Ofc rep added


----------



## lordzed83

Streetdragon said:


> when i lower vddg i am not stable.
> Lowert SOC to 1.16V. Still testing and looks good.
> Temps OK


Try dropping 50mhz from cpu and then have a look if 900mv works. Im actually interestes after em 3 hours hehe. I rebooted more times today than in last 7 days combined lol


----------



## Streetdragon

My cpu is running at stock. I dont have a manuel OC

edit tried ycrunch. Powerlimiting on cpu. Max temp was 84,4°

run fin. will lower the soc vddg tomorrow a bit more or so


----------



## lordzed83

Streetdragon said:


> My cpu is running at stock. I dont have a manuel OC
> 
> edit tried ycrunch. Powerlimiting on cpu. Max temp was 84,4°
> 
> run fin. will lower the soc vddg tomorrow a bit more or so


Ace forgot You got 32gb not 16 that also will have impact. Glad my rebooting was usefull


----------



## CJMitsuki

What I run with is 102.2 bclk, 1908/3816mhz, 1.15v SOC, 1.11v VDDG and all runs stable. Can probably lower to 1.125v SOC and 1.08v VDDG but have been working so much I havent had time to do any in depth testing since im stable. 
Cinebench isnt memory sensitive so it wont be a good way to compare for memory performance. I dont like Aida64 for memory performance comparisons either, Geekbench and SiSoft Sandra are much better. Personally I stick to GB3 and 4 bc they are faster and will put a decent amount of stress on the system and the memory scores are quite consistent as ive found that if you are running memory that is unstable you tend to get a lower memory score than with a good stable setup. Aida64 doesnt really care if it is stable or not, it will still show good numbers across the board in most unstable setups. Cinebench pretty much just wants cpu stability unless you just have terrible memory instability which would affect any application.


----------



## lordzed83

CJMitsuki said:


> What I run with is 102.2 bclk, 1908/3816mhz, 1.15v SOC, 1.11v VDDG and all runs stable. Can probably lower to 1.125v SOC and 1.08v VDDG but have been working so much I havent had time to do any in depth testing since im stable.
> Cinebench isnt memory sensitive so it wont be a good way to compare for memory performance. I dont like Aida64 for memory performance comparisons either, Geekbench and SiSoft Sandra are much better. Personally I stick to GB3 and 4 bc they are faster and will put a decent amount of stress on the system and the memory scores are quite consistent as ive found that if you are running memory that is unstable you tend to get a lower memory score than with a good stable setup. Aida64 doesnt really care if it is stable or not, it will still show good numbers across the board in most unstable setups. Cinebench pretty much just wants cpu stability unless you just have terrible memory instability which would affect any application.


Thats why I'm playing with ycruncher much more than on zen 1 and zen+ This Pi benchmark puts my system on knees Aida stress test and realbench are on the ez side  Ill try geekbench had it installed somewhere lol


----------



## The Stilt

I could use a debug dump (custom tool) on 3600, 3600X and 3800X CPUs.
Anybody wants to provide, it takes around a minute?


----------



## CJMitsuki

The Stilt said:


> I could use a debug dump (custom tool) on 3600, 3600X and 3800X CPUs.
> Anybody wants to provide, it takes around a minute?


If i were home i would help but am at work. Do you know why the multiplier is locked at 36x when you change the bclk? This is very annoying on w7 as you have to use Ryzen Master to restore PBO functionality and RM does not work on W7. I feel like PBO should still work out of the bios instead of having to enable it once inside the OS instead of having the multi locked to the base of 36x on the 3700x.


----------



## The Stilt

CJMitsuki said:


> If i were home i would help but am at work. Do you know why the multiplier is locked at 36x when you change the bclk? This is very annoying on w7 as you have to use Ryzen Master to restore PBO functionality and RM does not work on W7. I feel like PBO should still work out of the bios instead of having to enable it once inside the OS instead of having the multi locked to the base of 36x on the 3700x.


On which board is this?
Sounds like a bios bug, but I must admit that I haven't even tried adjusting the BCLK myself.


----------



## CJMitsuki

The Stilt said:


> CJMitsuki said:
> 
> 
> 
> If i were home i would help but am at work. Do you know why the multiplier is locked at 36x when you change the bclk? This is very annoying on w7 as you have to use Ryzen Master to restore PBO functionality and RM does not work on W7. I feel like PBO should still work out of the bios instead of having to enable it once inside the OS instead of having the multi locked to the base of 36x on the 3700x.
> 
> 
> 
> On which board is this?
> Sounds like a bios bug, but I must admit that I haven't even tried adjusting the BCLK myself.
Click to expand...

This is on the C7H non wifi using 2501 bios.


----------



## gupsterg

lordzed83 said:


> ye ycruncher benchmark you know start with 0--->1---->7 thats the 90second or so 11gb of mem run. Ill be home soon and see if its the BCLK not at 100. I was quite stunned to see this not pass TBH when everything else works no problem hehe. Also Vddt you mentioned I need to check if this could have effect maybe I'm looking in wrong place. goot at least 3 things to check for tonight
> Ycruncher PI run uses multi thread and I assume it detects IF instability when normal super Pi does not afaik runs single core. And gotta add that its 28c atm in the office in Nottingham and 39 in my Work Van cause no AC GOD DAMN IT
> 
> And i got 5k run up hill home lol


Organise files by time this ZIP has 3 runs of Y-Cruncher. Did not need to adjust profile.



MrPhilo said:


> When I see people do Aida64 test, do they always run the full test for a reason, am I missing something?
> 
> If you double click the 'Memory', it just runs that line.


Depends what mood I'm in and how much time I have. Usually when looking for RAM gains after tweaking I run only 2x RAM and 1x all and create screenie as you have seen of mine.



rdr09 said:


> I see that the Aida results were quite close, so that would really show no difference. I was hoping you can bench an optimized stock setting of the RAM and compare it to your best OC result. Thanks again.


Will do as soon as I can  , I'll try say 2133MHz (what UEFI default to) and say 3200MHz (AMD Official speed for Matisse).



Sin_Chase said:


> So I've been graphing out some power usage plots between memory speeds and also the impact of adjusting the VDDG. I've noted that with a manually set VDDG of 1000mv my 3600 and 3733 boost clocks improve beyond 4250 max up to 4300-4400ish. As a result i decided to plot power differences between VDDG of 1000mv and 950mv also. All readings were logged from a single core Cinebench R20 run.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> *Memory Speed Comparisons - Power Consumption*
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The take away from this plot is that there is a noticeable jump in Core Power usage from 3533 to 3600 but almost no jump at all from 3600 to 3733. The SoC power consumption has a marginal bump for each increase in memory speed but overall nothing significant.
> 
> 
> *VDDG Comparisons at 3600 - Power Consumption*
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reducing VDDG universally reduces power consumptions as expected. It's also seemingly linear across all the readings.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *CPU Vcore Comparisons*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Having changed nothing else increasing memory speed lowers CPU Vcore
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Comparison Between Core Boosting Behaviour*
> 
> I appreciate the 3600 graph is a mess but I found it interesting that on a 3533 run Cores #3 and #5 consistently boost to higher frequencies whilst the other cores sit relatively static. Whereas at 3600 it's a total mess with everything bouncing everywhere, not sure if anything can be taken away from that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler


+rep for testing and share :thumb: .



The Stilt said:


> I could use a debug dump (custom tool) on 3600, 3600X and 3800X CPUs.
> Anybody wants to provide, it takes around a minute?


You don't even have ask Roger over here  , always willing to run xyz for you  .


----------



## lordzed83

The Stilt said:


> I could use a debug dump (custom tool) on 3600, 3600X and 3800X CPUs.
> Anybody wants to provide, it takes around a minute?


I could run ya 3900 after work if its any use for You.
@CJMitsuki geekbench fun run does not put much sress I see sisoft on other hand not bad at all. How long does it take for full pc check tho wanted quick run b4 work 40 minutes not enough haha.


----------



## majestynl

The Stilt said:


> I could use a debug dump (custom tool) on 3600, 3600X and 3800X CPUs.
> Anybody wants to provide, it takes around a minute?


I Just installed a 3800x yesterday. So i can do a dump tonight if you sent me over the tool.


----------



## crakej

The Stilt said:


> On which board is this?
> Sounds like a bios bug, but I must admit that I haven't even tried adjusting the BCLK myself.


On 3900 here if useful.


----------



## Jackalito

CJMitsuki said:


> This is on the C7H non wifi using 2501 bios.



There's a new BIOS for C7H (2602) using AGESA 1.0.0.3AB posted from Shamino in ROG forums. Link:
https://rog.asus.com/forum/showthread.php?112279


Hope it solves those issues :thumb:


----------



## VeritronX

I can do a dump from my 3600X if it's still helpful.


----------



## Biggd0gg

And I can do one with a 3600.


----------



## crakej

With limited testing, I still can't attain 3800MTs/1900MHz 

Safebot works well - just hold power button in until system is off, then turn straight back on for safe mode. No removing batteries or anything else required!

Cold/hard resets cause mem training to happen again - sometimes.

Was wondering @The Stilt - do you still recommend using auto for tRDWR? If I leave it auto it still has different values for chan a and b. I've also seen bios put different values for tWRRD sometimes - chan a was 2 and chan b was 3.


----------



## The Stilt

tRDWR and couple others seem quirky on Zen+ and newer, so I'd leave them alone.


----------



## elmor

CJMitsuki said:


> If i were home i would help but am at work. Do you know why the multiplier is locked at 36x when you change the bclk? This is very annoying on w7 as you have to use Ryzen Master to restore PBO functionality and RM does not work on W7. I feel like PBO should still work out of the bios instead of having to enable it once inside the OS instead of having the multi locked to the base of 36x on the 3700x.


Sounds like a BIOS auto rule, try manually setting the CPU Ratio to the max base clock (36x on 3700x), Core Performance Boost = Enabled and CPU Core Voltage = Offset +0.00625 before increasing the reference clock.


----------



## Axilya

Excuse if I'm intruding in a wrong thread, but do we expect to be able to override "Max CPU Boost Clock" above +200Mhz?


----------



## MrPhilo

crakej said:


> With limited testing, I still can't attain 3800MTs/1900MHz
> 
> Safebot works well - just hold power button in until system is off, then turn straight back on for safe mode. No removing batteries or anything else required!
> 
> Cold/hard resets cause mem training to happen again - sometimes.
> 
> Was wondering @The Stilt - do you still recommend using auto for tRDWR? If I leave it auto it still has different values for chan a and b. I've also seen bios put different values for tWRRD sometimes - chan a was 2 and chan b was 3.


Is your TCWL on 14? Try 16 and see if it'll boot, at 14 it wouldn't let me boot past 3800, I would get RAM errors like C5 or 7 or something. Also TRTP to 10 if it's not stable if you get it to boot.


----------



## nick name

MrPhilo said:


> When I see people do Aida64 test, do they always run the full test for a reason, am I missing something?
> 
> If you double click the 'Memory', it just runs that line.


Bro. Brooooo. You can double-click individual boxes and it will only run the test for that box. Did you know that it does that too? And then you can re-test individual boxes instead of running all of them again. How did I not know this?

Sorry for the off-topic.


----------



## crakej

MrPhilo said:


> Is your TCWL on 14? Try 16 and see if it'll boot, at 14 it wouldn't let me boot past 3800, I would get RAM errors like C5 or 7 or something. Also TRTP to 10 if it's not stable if you get it to boot.


Already tried - but thanks.

Been too hot to do things today so testing resumes in the morning!


----------



## BLUuuE

nick name said:


> Bro. Brooooo. You can double-click individual boxes and it will only run the test for that box. Did you know that it does that too? And then you can re-test individual boxes instead of running all of them again. How did I not know this?
> 
> Sorry for the off-topic.


You can also right click the start benchmark button and click run memory tests only.


----------



## nick name

BLUuuE said:


> You can also right click the start benchmark button and click run memory tests only.


Yeah, that one I knew. But this new discovery is soooooo much better.


----------



## gupsterg

gupsterg said:


> Yeah would have been great to try the Vipers. Currently only have 8 dimms of G.Skill 3200MHz C14, all pretty much the same for clocking/flexibility for timings, etc.
> 
> MEMVDDIO = VDIMM
> 
> MEM VTT = VTTDDR
> 
> Yes I have seen CLDO_VDDP & VDDG rise as per AMD auto rule when clock RAM >3600MHz. As SOC plane supplies those, they can not exceed value for it.
> 
> 
> 
> crakej said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's good to know as we can't test it. I guess if my chip dies on auto setting they would replace it, but I was surprised to see VDDG so high.
> 
> Re: MEMVDDIO. That's what I thought, but have you looked in the AMD OC menu where there are settings for these - I don't really understand what they're for, but the MEMVDDIO setting is pre-set at 1200mv - you can see this when you enable the settings. You can't just put in 1400mv - it's some strange kind of offset or something. It shows an equation for the setting, but I haven't worked out what it is yet!
Click to expand...

CLDO_VDDG & CLDO_VDDP can't exceed SOC, as you tend to use low SOC it would never have reached the "bounce" by AMD "auto rule".

I thought I took the screenies for that portion of UEFI menus, looks like I didn't. Currently I can't take PC to UEFI, as it's in use. The help strings cover how to set them up, input is hexadecimal.

The menus did not work for me, I can't recall if I was on UEFI 2406 or 0068 or 2501 at the time. I set values and used DMM and saw no change.



Axilya said:


> Excuse if I'm intruding in a wrong thread, but do we expect to be able to override "Max CPU Boost Clock" above +200Mhz?


This has also been rattling around in my head, maybe UEFI mod would allow it.


----------



## Biggd0gg

Axilya said:


> Excuse if I'm intruding in a wrong thread, but do we expect to be able to override "Max CPU Boost Clock" above +200Mhz?


MSI already lets you set Max CPU Boost Clock up to +500Mhz, but it never boosts above +200.


----------



## lordzed83

@gupsterg have you had time to play around with CLDO_VDDP ?? I remember ages ago 400mv was standard.


----------



## 1usmus

The Stilt said:


> tRDWR and couple others seem quirky on Zen+ and newer, so I'd leave them alone.


hi Mate 
do you happen to have 0066? I need him for research
please


----------



## 1usmus

@Sin_Chase


Spoiler






Sin_Chase said:


> So I've been graphing out some power usage plots between memory speeds and also the impact of adjusting the VDDG. I've noted that with a manually set VDDG of 1000mv my 3600 and 3733 boost clocks improve beyond 4250 max up to 4300-4400ish. As a result i decided to plot power differences between VDDG of 1000mv and 950mv also. All readings were logged from a single core Cinebench R20 run.
> 
> 
> *Memory Speed Comparisons - Power Consumption*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The take away from this plot is that there is a noticeable jump in Core Power usage from 3533 to 3600 but almost no jump at all from 3600 to 3733. The SoC power consumption has a marginal bump for each increase in memory speed but overall nothing significant.
> 
> 
> *VDDG Comparisons at 3600 - Power Consumption*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reducing VDDG universally reduces power consumptions as expected. It's also seemingly linear across all the readings.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *CPU Vcore Comparisons*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Having changed nothing else increasing memory speed lowers CPU Vcore
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Comparison Between Core Boosting Behaviour*
> 
> I appreciate the 3600 graph is a mess but I found it interesting that on a 3533 run Cores #3 and #5 consistently boost to higher frequencies whilst the other cores sit relatively static. Whereas at 3600 it's a total mess with everything bouncing everywhere, not sure if anything can be taken away from that.






on 1003AB I do not see such


----------



## lordzed83

1usmus said:


> @Sin_Chase
> 
> on 1003AB I do not see such


Cause performance on 1.0.0.3AB on V7H tanked noticeable amount. Could be that.


----------



## gupsterg

lordzed83 said:


> @gupsterg have you had time to play around with CLDO_VDDP ?? I remember ages ago 400mv was standard.


1xxx/2xxx was 0.95V AFAIK, I just used that on them. 3xxx is 0.9V AFAIK, again just using that. I didn't see the need to adjust TBH.

So far besides normal usage the PBO+150 3800 v4.2 profile has not had an issue in any testing I have done since 21/07. Seems to POST fine from shutdowns, restarts from OS, even letting it idle and rerunning a "load" hasn't shown instability. TBH seems it is a nice R5 3600 sample. I noted another owner highlighting on another forum, his R5 3600 hitting 1.5V at stock (ie 4.2GHz boost), mine at stock is ~1.325V, PBO+150 is ~1.425V.


----------



## Streetdragon

I tested now the older bios version with AGESa 1.0.0.2.
Now i have with my tuned Ram/IF 3800/1900 working boost AND IDLE!

The single score got a bit better, but not by much. The main advantage is working idle with lower clocks and lower voltage.
Im happy so far


----------



## crakej

1usmus said:


> @Sin_Chase
> 
> on 1003AB I do not see such


https://rog.asus.com/forum/showthread.php?112279-X370-X470-AGESA-1003AB-Bioses

Edit: Sorry 1usmus - I typed before I thought about what you said!


----------



## Sin_Chase

1usmus said:


> @Sin_Chase
> 
> on 1003AB I do not see such


Which board?

I'm on am Auros Master running 1.0.0.3AB

A Gigabyte rep confirmed 3600+ memory causing odd power issues and they could replicate it but didn't think it was limited to just them.


----------



## Maracus

Streetdragon said:


> I tested now the older bios version with AGESa 1.0.0.2.
> Now i have with my tuned Ram/IF 3800/1900 working boost AND IDLE!
> 
> The single score got a bit better, but not by much. The main advantage is working idle with lower clocks and lower voltage.
> Im happy so far


Glad it worked for you too. The only problem I have with 1.0.0.2 is the memory latency went up 5-8ns, I will have to play around with the IF maybe somehow (Gigabyte x470 Gaming 7) its been gimped in the bios.

Edit: Looking at your latency it looks fine, think I will explore the bios setting for the IF a bit more, at least boost/idle behavior is normal on 1.0.0.2 and if i can get the latency down to what I was seeing on 1.0.0.3ab ill be happy to wait for the next AGESA release


----------



## gupsterg

@The Stilt

Today started on profiling 4x8GB, noted besides tRDWR & tWRRD being differing on channels, also tWRWRSD, tWRWRDD, tRDRDSD & tRDRDDD go a skew. Normal I guess for Matisse?



Spoiler














Also what does PMU menu [Auto] default to for all toggle-able settings?



Spoiler














In your share of RAM setup, even though on 2DPC-SR, you used BGSA, is that optimal on Matisse?



Spoiler














Early Page Activate, what is that?

Cheers & sorry for all the questions  .



Axilya said:


> Excuse if I'm intruding in a wrong thread, but do we expect to be able to override "Max CPU Boost Clock" above +200Mhz?
> 
> 
> 
> gupsterg said:
> 
> 
> 
> This has also been rattling around in my head, maybe UEFI mod would allow it.
> 
> 
> 
> Biggd0gg said:
> 
> 
> 
> MSI already lets you set Max CPU Boost Clock up to +500Mhz, but it never boosts above +200.
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

I found a setting BoostFmax, seems to be non functioning .


Spoiler


----------



## crakej

gupsterg said:


> @The Stilt
> 
> Today started on profiling 4x8GB, noted besides tRDWR & tWRRD being differing on channels, also tWRWRSD, tWRWRDD, tRDRDSD & tRDRDDD go a skew. Normal I guess for Matisse?
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 283984
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also what does PMU menu [Auto] default to for all toggle-able settings?
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 283986
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In your share of RAM setup, even though on 2DPC-SR, you used BGSA, is that optimal on Matisse?
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 283988


Is this (PMU) menu useful when using 2 sticks? Are those the settings that should be used?

I have found BGSA to be beneficial even though used to having that and BGS disabled until now.....


----------



## kazablanka

guys is anyone here with 3900x and 3800mhz on ram to post an aida64 memory benchmark ? 
thanks


----------



## lordzed83

kazablanka said:


> guys is anyone here with 3900x and 3800mhz on ram to post an aida64 memory benchmark ?
> thanks


with full settings mem used Teamgroup 4133 8 pack edition


----------



## kazablanka

lordzed83 said:


> with full settings mem used Teamgroup 4133 8 pack edition


Thanks! nice results have you try 15-17-15-15-30-45? It sould be stable with 1.46-1.48v
this kit is 4000 c18-19-19-19


----------



## Streetdragon

kazablanka said:


> guys is anyone here with 3900x and 3800mhz on ram to post an aida64 memory benchmark ?
> thanks


https://www.overclock.net/forum/10-...nical-matisse-not-really-45.html#post28060872

my score with steam etc in the background


----------



## kazablanka

Streetdragon said:


> https://www.overclock.net/forum/10-...nical-matisse-not-really-45.html#post28060872
> 
> my score with steam etc in the background


Nice! i think i'll go for a 3900x soon


----------



## Boxman

Anyone else pushed their 3900x to 4.7 GHz single-core yet? 

Man is this thin finicky at high frequencies. Interestingly, it doesn't really seem to scale well with voltage anymore in this range, rather temperature becomes a LOT more important. For instance, 4.65 GHz was stable at 1.375v for multiple CB20 single runs, but would crash out at 1.475. I had to find a good balance between voltage and temps for the 4.7 GHz run, which was only barely stable enough for CB.

Since temp was so much more important, I did everything in my power to cool the chip down that last bit. Single degrees actually mattered in stability, quite a lot. So I lowered SoC voltage to save some power there, and put all other cores at 1000MHz just so the CPU would start cool on the benchmark. Tdie at load was about 50 C. 

Also had to do some magic with affinity for the score, and noticed another little quirk; the start of CB20 single, between the black screen and the first box starting (about 3.5 seconds), is actually fully multithreaded. It only truly switches to singlethread when the box appears. So I was having horrible scores in the beginning since my other cores were at 1000MHz each, and the first part would take upwards of 12 seconds - costing me 10-ish CB20 marks.

So... I loaded my highest stable per-ccx OC, got the 4700 single-core profile ready in Ryzen Master, clicked "run", waited for the first box to appear, set affinity immediately to my fastest core, hit apply on the 4.7 profile, close Ryzen Master and wait. Worth it though, 544 CB20 marks.


----------



## gupsterg

crakej said:


> Is this (PMU) menu useful when using 2 sticks? Are those the settings that should be used?
> 
> I have found BGSA to be beneficial even though used to having that and BGS disabled until now.....


On 1xxx/2xxx BGS: [Off] BGSA: [On] was best for when using 1 dimm per channel, single rank/sided dimms, any other setup BGS: [On] BGSA: [Off] was best.

PMU menu allows you to tinker with IMC, see Elmor's post here.


----------



## The Stilt

It seems that my 3700X has gone bad.

I'm going to wrap up this platform for now and give it another try in couple months, after the issues have (hopefully) been sorted.


----------



## nick name

The Stilt said:


> It seems that my 3700X has gone bad.
> 
> I'm going to wrap up this platform for now and give it another try in couple months, after the issues have (hopefully) been sorted.


Oof. Any idea of what the cause of death is?


----------



## Nighthog

The Stilt said:


> It seems that my 3700X has gone bad.
> 
> I'm going to wrap up this platform for now and give it another try in couple months, after the issues have (hopefully) been sorted.


Degraded or become faulty? 

Anything particular one should know off if it was degradation?

I've done a few quick benches with not recommended voltages but not really too much though.


----------



## The Stilt

nick name said:


> Oof. Any idea of what the cause of death is?


It isn't completely dead, just unstable.



Nighthog said:


> Degraded or become faulty?
> 
> Anything particular one should know off if it was degradation?
> 
> I've done a few quick benches with not recommended voltages but not really too much though.


It had quite a rough life, as it went through the Fmax & Pmax testing and sometimes exceeded Tjmax (95°C) at the same time because of that.
It never exceeded ~ 1.33V in high current conditions, however the workloads definitely were the worst-case possible (FMA3, specifically selected to produce Pmax).

I cannot say definitely, if it is the CPU which has gone bad, but currently there is no way for me to get it to work properly.
I've already tried all of the usual tricks, such as erasing and reprogramming the bios completely, but without any luck. So it definitely isn't a bios / motherboard issue, and besides the 3900X still works fine.

Based on the temperatures and currents alone, I wouldn't run 256-bit workloads on these CPUs anywhere near their Fmax.


----------



## Nighthog

@The Stilt
If you never went above 1.33V for any run it doesn't seem good. I would off thought they would live forever at those voltages.
Though I've noted more than ~1.325V isn't feasible for AVX loads even on Custom Water cooling because of temperatures hitting 90++ territory in seconds @ 4.2-4.3Ghz territory (y-cruncher) and crashing because of it.


----------



## Streetdragon

i think it has a reason, that the cpu voltage drops down to 1,18V under heavy loads.

I will let it do its thing and its fast enough^^

BTW went back to 3733/1867 RAM/IF with VDDG 960mV and SOC 1.1V

Cant get 3800/1900 stable. bench/stresstest are running fine but game crashes


----------



## FlanK3r

The Stilt said:


> It isn't completely dead, just unstable.
> 
> 
> 
> It had quite a rough life, as it went through the Fmax & Pmax testing and sometimes exceeded Tjmax (95°C) at the same time because of that.
> It never exceeded ~ 1.33V in high current conditions, however the workloads definitely were the worst-case possible (FMA3, specifically selected to produce Pmax).
> 
> I cannot say definitely, if it is the CPU which has gone bad, but currently there is no way for me to get it to work properly.
> I've already tried all of the usual tricks, such as erasing and reprogramming the bios completely, but without any luck. So it definitely isn't a bios / motherboard issue, and besides the 3900X still works fine.
> 
> Based on the temperatures and currents alone, I wouldn't run 256-bit workloads on these CPUs anywhere near their Fmax.


I bought corupted 6700K after launch and I had also one 9900K very unstable on stock clocks and settings, sometimes it happens ...


----------



## Boxman

Let's not forget that no AMD rep has ever given a safe high-current voltage for these chips (source), the 'safe voltage' that's thrown around originates from this very topic by said topic starter, and are AFAIK extrapolated from FIT values belonging to his chip. We also don't know for sure if these chips are supposed to run the same speeds at all workloads and what the boosting algorithm of these chips do to mitigate dangerous situations for workloads that put more stress/heat on the silicon. 

I myself made a topic where I observed significantly lower voltage + clocks on my Ryzen 3900x when running specifically intensive AVX workloads (Prime95 small FFT), running colder than for instance Cinebench, while it boosts normally otherwise. This may simply be part of what AMD deems safe and thus implements in the 'stock' & warranted operation. Hence running this same workload at a manual OC with a voltage that is fine in other, lighter work-loads, disregards AMD's own 'safe-operation' tables.

Let's also not forget that this chip *has been operated beyond TJmax*, and thus beyond the absolute maximum temperature AMD gives in their specsheet for faultless operation. Going beyond that value is thus in AMD's eyes dangerous/damaging for the chip.

*This is just to curb any rumors of "bad chips" from leaving this forums, to avoid starting another bandwagon that AMD people (especially on reddit, I'll give you that) seem eager to run with. It is not a dig to @The Stilt in any way or form, but just an attempt to curb misinerpretations*

Sometimes passer-by's tend to read something, take it out of context and run with it, and before you know it "unstable Zen 2" is a meme over on /r/amd...


----------



## The Stilt

Boxman said:


> Let's not forget that no AMD rep has ever given a safe high-current voltage for these chips (source), the 'safe voltage' that's thrown around originates from this very topic by said topic starter, and are AFAIK extrapolated from FIT values belonging to his chip. We also don't know for sure if these chips are supposed to run the same speeds at all workloads and what the boosting algorithm of these chips do to mitigate dangerous situations for workloads that put more stress/heat on the silicon.
> 
> I myself made a topic where I observed significantly lower voltage + clocks on my Ryzen 3900x when running specifically intensive AVX workloads (Prime95 small FFT), running colder than for instance Cinebench, while it boosts normally otherwise. This may simply be part of what AMD deems safe and thus implements in the 'stock' & warranted operation. Hence running this same workload at a manual OC with a voltage that is fine in other, lighter work-loads, disregards AMD's own 'safe-operation' tables.
> 
> Let's also not forget that this chip *has been operated beyond TJmax*, and thus beyond the absolute maximum temperature AMD gives in their specsheet for faultless operation. Going beyond that value is thus in AMD's eyes dangerous/damaging for the chip.
> 
> *This is just to curb any rumors of "bad chips" from leaving this forums, to avoid starting another bandwagon that AMD people (especially on reddit, I'll give you that) seem eager to run with. It is not a dig to @The Stilt in any way or form, but just an attempt to curb misinerpretations*
> 
> Sometimes passer-by's tend to read something, take it out of context and run with it, and before you know it "unstable Zen 2" is a meme over on /r/amd...


A fair point :thumb:


----------



## Keith Myers

The Stilt said:


> It isn't completely dead, just unstable.
> 
> 
> 
> It had quite a rough life, as it went through the Fmax & Pmax testing and sometimes exceeded Tjmax (95°C) at the same time because of that.
> It never exceeded ~ 1.33V in high current conditions, however the workloads definitely were the worst-case possible (FMA3, specifically selected to produce Pmax).
> 
> I cannot say definitely, if it is the CPU which has gone bad, but currently there is no way for me to get it to work properly.
> I've already tried all of the usual tricks, such as erasing and reprogramming the bios completely, but without any luck. So it definitely isn't a bios / motherboard issue, and besides the 3900X still works fine.
> 
> Based on the temperatures and currents alone, I wouldn't run 256-bit workloads on these CPUs anywhere near their Fmax.


I came to the same conclusion after I experienced a once or twice a day thermal shutdown. My cpu was running at 80°C. 24/7 at 4100-4200Mhz. I tried down clocking and it made no difference, even to base clock 3800Mhz. Finally I thought what I had I changed between the 2700X and the 3900X. Answer: I switched to the 256-bit AVX application because it was faster by 3 minutes than the SSE41 app which I had always used for 1800X or 2700X. The AVX was handicapped on the earlier Ryzens and the SSE41 app always beat it in performance. So I reverted to the SSE41 app and immediately dropped 15° C. I would like to run the AVX app but I cannot with my current cooling solution which is a 360mm rad and custom block. So SSE41 app it is. System has stayed crunching for over a day now with no issues.


----------



## gupsterg

@The Stilt

Cheers for share on what occurred.
@Boxman @Keith Myers

+rep  .
@lordzed83

I can see a use for increasing CLDO_VDDP, same as what The Stilt highlighted in his post on RAM setup for Matisse.

On 27th I started testing 4x8GB, 3800MHz would not POST unless I used ProcODT 34. Initially SOC: 1.081 VDDG: 1.018 was used, same VDIMM as 2x8GB at same frequency/timings (1.4V). Later with reruns I went to SOC: 1.093 VDDG: 1.025, this was fine for testing when POST was from shutdown and even if I stopped test and rerun on same POST, if the system had a reboot from OS then the profile could fail at ~2600%. I tried various things, solution seems like increasing CLDO_VDDP 0.925V. Below is a rerun on warm post ~13K%/8hrs.



Spoiler


----------



## crakej

@The Stilt - I notice that PE modes 1-4 are available in bios 2602 for the CH7.

Are these useable by Matisse? And what about PBO? Surely they can't be used together, or is it a choice between PBO and PE?


----------



## gupsterg

crakej said:


> And what about PBO? Surely they can't be used together, or is it a choice between PBO and PE?


ASUS Performance Enhancer is menu of presets using Precision Boost Overdrive.


----------



## Unoid

I feel bad having to run 2x16gb B-Dies at 2933 because Asrock can't update their x370 BIOS's. I was stuck at 2933 on my 1700, now that I have a 3800x I want to finally do some overclocking to 3600. Even with a BIOS update to 1.0.0.3(/AB) what are the odds my ram will still be stuck at 2933? Can x370 limit it?


----------



## Boxman

x370 in itself has nothing to do with RAM performance. It's essentially just a 'dumb' chipset downstream of the CPU, that does nothing more than hand out some I/O (PCIe, USB, Sata).

The only thing that limits your RAM is your IMC (which is located on the CPU) and overall motherboard quality / topology (how well the traces are laid out).

Not sure which board you have exactly but there are a TON of Asrock x370 beta bioses floating around with 1.0.0.3AB too.


----------



## Unoid

Boxman said:


> x370 in itself has nothing to do with RAM performance. It's essentially just a 'dumb' chipset downstream of the CPU, that does nothing more than hand out some I/O (PCIe, USB, Sata).
> 
> The only thing that limits your RAM is your IMC (which is located on the CPU) and overall motherboard quality / topology (how well the traces are laid out).
> 
> Not sure which board you have exactly but there are a TON of Asrock x370 beta bioses floating around with 1.0.0.3AB too.



I've read the issues as well. I have the taichi + some model x370, fatal1ty professional


----------



## datspike

x370 fatal1ty professional (It's the fatality k4 / x, i was wrong) and killer boards are known for the worst memory oc capabilites on 3xx chipsets


----------



## Unoid

datspike said:


> x370 fatal1ty professional and killer boards are known for the worst memory oc capabilites on 3xx chipsets


I'm confused how the fatal1ty professional can be? It's teh exact same board as the taichi, but extra features (wifi, 5GBe)


----------



## Grin

datspike said:


> x370 fatal1ty professional and killer boards are known for the worst memory oc capabilites on 3xx chipsets


Yeah, add to this ‘Max 3000 club’ Asus x370 prime pro what I have


----------



## datspike

Unoid said:


> I'm confused how the fatal1ty professional can be? It's teh exact same board as the taichi, but extra features (wifi, 5GBe)


Yup. It's the fatality k4 / x, i was wrong


----------



## 1nterceptor

datspike said:


> x370 fatal1ty professional and killer boards are known for the worst memory oc capabilites on 3xx chipsets


Much like the C6H with it's "T-topology"... In essence, it will do better with 4 sticks of ram instead of the usual 2.
I guess that's why they changed the topology to "Daisy-chain" on later models...


----------



## datspike

1nterceptor said:


> Much like the C6H with it's "T-topology"... In essence, it will do better with 4 sticks of ram instead of the usual 2.
> I guess that's why they changed the topology to "Daisy-chain" on later models...


I don't have any issues pushing 3800C14 with Micron Rev.E on the C6H, and that's the realistic limit for the 3xxx right now :/


----------



## 1nterceptor

datspike said:


> I don't have any issues pushing 3800C14 with Micron Rev.E on the C6H, and that's the realistic limit for the 3xxx right now :/


On 2 sticks? Even though rev.E is great for OC, you got some great speeds/latencies there... Nice.


----------



## iNeri

CJMitsuki said:


> This is on the C7H non wifi using 2501 bios.


Hi.

Its because when using bclk PBO change to disabled, force it to enabled and you should be ok.


----------



## Bluesman

Unoid said:


> I feel bad having to run 2x16gb B-Dies at 2933 because Asrock can't update their x370 BIOS's. I was stuck at 2933 on my 1700, now that I have a 3800x I want to finally do some overclocking to 3600. Even with a BIOS update to 1.0.0.3(/AB) what are the odds my ram will still be stuck at 2933? Can x370 limit it?


I use Beta bios 5.64 with my x370 Taichi. No problem with memory OC. Currently, I am using some timings from Stilt for 3733 and got 64ns latency. It is rock solid after 3 hrs. with RamTest.

With an aggressive CL, I found that while the memory was fine, cache errors were a problem. At 3733, I went with 16-17-17-17 to eliminate a bothersome cache error that would show up after 1.5 hours. It was really annoying, and I am convinced it is bios based. I know from others here that my FlareX B-die can hit more aggressive timings at 3733. Still, I won't complain about my reduced latency at these settings.

I also have a 3800x and love it.


----------



## Bluesman

*High Voltage with PBO2*

AMD just released a new chipset driver and Ryzen Master Overdrive: https://community.amd.com/community...te-5-let-s-talk-clocks-voltages-and-destiny-2

The RMO addresses temp reporting and voltage reporting issues in monitoring software. Here is a quote from their "Update 5 Brief":


> NEW BEHAVIOR: Report the average voltage requested of the regulators, which presents a
> “whole chip” view that factors in sleeping cores, idle cores, and active cores. This is the closest
> any software monitoring tool can come to portraying the true electrical conditions of the chip,
> and it’s the same model our own Precision Boost 2 algorithm uses to make electrical-related
> boost decisions.


Now I use PBO2 with a 7x multiplier and 100Mhz setting for a 700Mhz boost on my 3800x. When I run RAMTest I get consistent voltage accross all cores of 1.441 to 1.448. Yet, my temp is around 56C using the NEW Ryzen Master, and averages 63C under HWInfo. (I guess I should mention that all cores are constantly running at 4.325 - 4.375Mhz. with the RAMTest software running.)

So the PBO2 algorithm is selecting very high voltages due to my low core temp? I thought with Zen2 chips we should only be at 1.31-1.385? This behavior is very unusual.


----------



## CJMitsuki

iNeri said:


> Hi.
> 
> Its because when using bclk PBO change to disabled, force it to enabled and you should be ok.


That doesnt work. It will still boot into the OS with no boosting no matter what settings are changed. Ryzen Master shows it as being in Manual OC mode so once you change bclk in bios on C7H it must be set to override PBO and go into manual OC at 36x multiplier or if you set multiplier to Auto it will underclock the multiplier to something like 35.5x to offset the bclk and stay clocse to the 3600mhz clocks upon booting into OS. The only way to counter this is by opening Ryzen Master and clicking the Creator Mode tab and applying a PBO setting through that software. Its very frustrating as I would love to be able to have my 3700x retain the 4.4ghz all core and 4.5ghz+ on multiple cores when im running W7 or Linux. Since Ryzen Master only seems to work with W10 that means you cannot have the CPU boosting with a bclk increase outside of W10. Hopefully this is not intended as I feel that using the bclk is the best way to manipulate the boost characteristics for higher CPU clocks and higher memory freqs at 1:1. Without the boosting however it is trash and I despise W10 and would much rather be using W7 and Linux, plus w7 is pretty much the only way to get decent benches on HWBOT aside from DICE, LN2, etc. I had bclk working with boost on my old 2700x and was able to push it to 4.5ghz with a 4.45ghz all core boost. 

Aside from this dilemma the 2602 C7H bios is full of buggy behavior although it did give me a very tiny bump to memory stability allowing me to lower a couple of timings but nothing really worth speaking on. Its hard to pinpoint what the bugs actually are as it just acts strangely from boot to boot. It did however bring back my performance enhancer option although it isnt worth using anymore except maybe for using PE3 when trying to make a better single core boost profile but that would need higher bclk increases and I think the bios needs time to mature a bit more for higher bclk increases on this board at least. Maybe Zen 2 is sensitive to bclk overclocking. :questionm

All in all it is fun discovering nuances of a new generation of Ryzen processors just as it was with Ryzen+. Its not difficult to get the cpu to boost nicely as Ive heard many complain about and the power consumption during normal use (web surfing, streaming, etc.) is really amazing. Almost as amazing as the jump in effective latency vs the prior generation which Im fairly certain was around 49-50ns at my best 2700x profile vs around sub 28ns so far on my 3700x. Id call that a massive leap in solving the worst problem for Ryzen 1st gen and Ryzen+. Maybe we will see them nearly half the effective latency again with the 7nm+ process or 5nm which would put them on par with Intels current effective latency from what Ive seen anyway. Enough carrying on from me, im going to just sit back and have fun as this generation goes through its maturing process. Wish I had more time to record and post all my testing but I barely have time for sleep as a single dad but maybe ill make some time soon...sleep is overrated anyway :sleepsmil


----------



## datspike

CJMitsuki said:


> Almost as amazing as the jump in effective latency vs the prior generation which Im fairly certain was around 49-50ns at my best 2700x profile vs around sub 28ns so far on my 3700x.


How do you measure that?

About enabling PBO manually via RM - there is a CLI version of Ryzen Master out there as this reddit post shows, hovewer I cant find how to get that version sadly.


----------



## Hwgeek

Can AMD silently make new stepping with N7P in future ? like in old days on Athlon 64 there were new stepping with lower power usage and better ocing, same happened on Intel Q6600 105W down to 95W G0?


----------



## CJMitsuki

datspike said:


> How do you measure that?
> 
> About enabling PBO manually via RM - there is a CLI version of Ryzen Master out there as this reddit post shows, hovewer I cant find how to get that version sadly.


SiSoft Sandra has a particular test that will measure it and Passmark Performance Test resembles SiSofts results very closely on their latency test.


----------



## Bluesman

*Obsession with CPU Voltage is Dumb (My Conclusion)*



Bluesman said:


> Now I use PBO2 with a 7x multiplier and 100Mhz setting for a 700Mhz boost on my 3800x. When I run RAMTest I get consistent voltage accross all cores of 1.441 to 1.448. Yet, my temp is around 56C using the NEW Ryzen Master, and averages 63C under HWInfo. (I guess I should mention that all cores are constantly running at 4.325 - 4.375Mhz. with the RAMTest software running.)
> 
> So the PBO2 algorithm is selecting very high voltages due to my low core temp? I thought with Zen2 chips we should only be at 1.31-1.385? This behavior is very unusual.


Thanks to this excellent and informative rant by Boxman on reddit, I have now answered my own questions:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/cjzax5/amd_cant_say_this_publicly_so_i_will_half_of_the/

The answer is a real Duh! for me. If I examine stats in HWInfo, I see that the CPU Core Power (SV12 TFN) in Watts is on average 44.391 and at 56C for RAMTest (4.325Ghz or higher for all cores). Using AIDA64 CPU stress test my CPU Core Power Watts is on average 52.289 at 63C (4.275Ghz on average).

So my conclusion, is that CPU voltage is not the full picture. PBO2 is regulating boost based on the general voltage range of 0.919 - 1.500 but that is not the whole story. It is also boosting based on current demands. We see the whole picture with the CPU Core Power readings, and can get a hint of where this is by looking at CPU temp. and boost Ghz in the new Ryzen Master.

Thanks for the insight Boxman!


----------



## CJMitsuki

Bluesman said:


> AMD just released a new chipset driver and Ryzen Master Overdrive: https://community.amd.com/community...te-5-let-s-talk-clocks-voltages-and-destiny-2
> 
> The RMO addresses temp reporting and voltage reporting issues in monitoring software. Here is a quote from their "Update 5 Brief":
> 
> 
> Now I use PBO2 with a 7x multiplier and 100Mhz setting for a 700Mhz boost on my 3800x. When I run RAMTest I get consistent voltage accross all cores of 1.441 to 1.448. Yet, my temp is around 56C using the NEW Ryzen Master, and averages 63C under HWInfo. (I guess I should mention that all cores are constantly running at 4.325 - 4.375Mhz. with the RAMTest software running.)
> 
> So the PBO2 algorithm is selecting very high voltages due to my low core temp? I thought with Zen2 chips we should only be at 1.31-1.385? This behavior is very unusual.


Thats why you should test using small negative vcore offsets to see if it helps. I use a -.0375v offset and I usually get around 1.39v with 4.375ghz all core and around 1.42v for 4.475ghz on roughly 4-6 cores


----------



## crakej

Hwgeek said:


> Can AMD silently make new stepping with N7P in future ? like in old days on Athlon 64 there were new stepping with lower power usage and better ocing, same happened on Intel Q6600 105W down to 95W G0?


They just announced the 9 3900 65w part. 24 cores at 65 watts!


----------



## crakej

Is VDDG the only voltage that's relevant to IF? Is there anything else we could try, to stabilize IF at 1900?

VDDG can't be measured easily, but I did check out my probe-it voltages the other day, which revealed a few things about what actual voltages are. Interesting that SoC is 0.02v lower than what RM reports, and also that what RM shows as 'CPU Core' is actually showing something closer to VID, so when people are seeing high voltages, they're not that high on VCore - and the watts are so low when voltage is 'high' that they're not a problem.


----------



## gupsterg

Just a share.

Dunno if it is my HW or targeted settings.

I testing CLDO_VDDP changes from ~900mV to 950mV and found values past 925mV worsened stability and degraded POST ability for 3800MHz 1:1:1 on 4x8GB SS/SR Samsung B die.

The test case was set profile, go to OS and reboot, ie test on warm POST, as my HW/targeted setting had show this type of test case was quicker to fail. It also seems even though I can enter a 1mV increment for CLDO_VDDP it's actually a ~3mV step from referencing Ryzen Master.


----------



## crakej

gupsterg said:


> Just a share.
> 
> Dunno if it is my HW or targeted settings.
> 
> I testing CLDO_VDDP changes from ~900mV to 950mV and found values past 925mV worsened stability and degraded POST ability for 3800MHz 1:1:1 on 4x8GB SS/SR Samsung B die.
> 
> The test case was set profile, go to OS and reboot, ie test on warm POST, as my HW/targeted setting had show this type of test case was quicker to fail. It also seems even though I can enter a 1mV increment for CLDO_VDDP it's actually a ~3mV step from referencing Ryzen Master.


Interesting. I wonder why the bios sets cLDO VDDP (so high) at 1.09v when we OC memory? I keep forgetting to put it back....


----------



## mongoled

Im just posting this here as im unsure if its an anomaly

Quite simply I left everything on auto and dialed in the following config 

tCL16 / tRCDRD15 / tRCDWR15 / tRP15 / tRAS30 / tRC52 / tRFC303 / tFAW36 / tWR24

3800/1900 mhz coupled

RAM is on auto @ 1.35v!


----------



## lordzed83

mongoled said:


> Im just posting this here as im unsure if its an anomaly
> 
> Quite simply I left everything on auto and dialed in the following config
> 
> tCL16 / tRCDRD15 / tRCDWR15 / tRP15 / tRAS30 / tRC52 / tRFC303 / tFAW36 / tWR24
> 
> 3800/1900 mhz coupled
> 
> RAM is on auto @ 1.35v!


VERY possible lookign by how my memory tyweeking with cl16 is going !!! Im on tight timings and 1.4 is enough


----------



## gupsterg

crakej said:


> Interesting. I wonder why the bios sets cLDO VDDP (so high) at 1.09v when we OC memory? I keep forgetting to put it back....


AMD "auto rule", perhaps some chips like, perhaps some don't, dunno.

CLDO_VDDG also seems like ~3mV step, even though we can enter as 1mV steps, again referencing Ryzen Master once I change value.



mongoled said:


> Im just posting this here as im unsure if its an anomaly
> 
> Quite simply I left everything on auto and dialed in the following config
> 
> tCL16 / tRCDRD15 / tRCDWR15 / tRP15 / tRAS30 / tRC52 / tRFC303 / tFAW36 / tWR24
> 
> 3800/1900 mhz coupled
> 
> RAM is on auto @ 1.35v!


Those 3600MHz C15 G.Skill are showing their quality, nice result :thumb: .


----------



## drmrlordx

Bluesman said:


> Thanks to this excellent and informative rant by Boxman on reddit, I have now answered my own questions:
> https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/cjzax5/amd_cant_say_this_publicly_so_i_will_half_of_the/
> 
> The answer is a real Duh! for me. If I examine stats in HWInfo, I see that the CPU Core Power (SV12 TFN) in Watts is on average 44.391 and at 56C for RAMTest (4.325Ghz or higher for all cores). Using AIDA64 CPU stress test my CPU Core Power Watts is on average 52.289 at 63C (4.275Ghz on average).
> 
> So my conclusion, is that CPU voltage is not the full picture. PBO2 is regulating boost based on the general voltage range of 0.919 - 1.500 but that is not the whole story. It is also boosting based on current demands. We see the whole picture with the CPU Core Power readings, and can get a hint of where this is by looking at CPU temp. and boost Ghz in the new Ryzen Master.
> 
> Thanks for the insight Boxman!


I think that if we profile enough applications for our own samples, we could probably create a reasonable picture of what voltages are safe based on current draw. @the_Stilt has given us a good starting point - voltages between 1.325v and 1.47v are "safe" depending on current demand. The question is, what current demands correspond to which "safe" voltages? And things are further complicated by rising voltages increasing current demand.

The most-intense workload I've attempting on my 3900x thus far is Prime95 small FFTs. Due to temperatures of 77C, I have not attempted anything higher than 1.2875v vcore with Medium LLC on an x570 Aorus Master. That's at 4250 MHz all-core static. Ryzen Master claims TDC of 129a, while HWiNFO64 reports around 130a. My assumption is that if I had sufficient cooling to avoid topping out temps @ 95C, running this workload @ 1.325v would produce current draw in the ballpark of 140-145a.

On the other end of the spectrum, I have tested SuperPi mod 1.5 XS @ 1.4v and gotten current draw of 16a. Ramping voltage as high as 1.47v would probably get current draw up to maybe 20a?

If you look at current draw, you can scale your voltage between 1.325v and 1.47v to figure out what is probably "safe" for that scenario. Or you could simplify things and just look at power output. Stuff that pulls significantly less current also draws less power.

I am going to throw out some guesses:

140a (Prime95 Small FFTs) - 1.325v, cooling pending
110a (CBR20, or something close to it) - 1.36125v
103a (CBR15, or something close to it) - 1.3697/ 1.37v

etc.

Don't forget to adjust for current trending upward as you raise vcore! The above are only guesses. My method was:

(((140 - actual current draw) / 120) * (1.47 - 1.325)) + 1.325

Alternatively you could set a total power dissipation target. Mine would be in the ballpark of 160W since temps climb to 77C (prime95 small FFTs, 1.2875v) under those conditions. That would only work for MT workloads though, and in sporadic workloads (like games) you would have to look at peak power consumption.

edit: I'd like to point out that the two proposed methods do not necessarily agree. For example, when running CBR20 MT 4400 MHz @ 1.356v, power draw is in the ballpark of 142W . . . well below that of my Prime95 run, and definitely well below what would be the power draw of Prime95 running @ 1.325v vcore.


----------



## Bluesman

*TDP is the Big Clue*



drmrlordx said:


> I think that if we profile enough applications for our own samples, we could probably create a reasonable picture of what voltages are safe based on current draw. @the_Stilt has given us a good starting point - voltages between 1.325v and 1.47v are "safe" depending on current demand. The question is, what current demands correspond to which "safe" voltages? And things are further complicated by rising voltages increasing current demand.


I think TDP is the big clue. When you OC the voltage times current gives you get the watts power. I think for our chips (I have a 3800X) it is 105 watts. That coupled with the SOC gives you a limit of 142 watts or something (I forget).

So if you OC at a particular voltage, watch the current draw relative to your watts target. I'm not a big fan of Prime95 because it is far from real world for my tastes. (At 16 or 24 threads running high clocks, you are throwing a lot of heat and stress at the CPU with Prime95.) Use AIDA or RealBench to get a better feel for stablity and watts.

As I mentioned earlier, I like to use PBO2 and let the AMD microcode do the work.

ADDENDUM: I do run Prime95 sometimes for a stability check but I always put a Thermal Limit in the Bios of 85C. With PBO, you can really see the microcode reduce the clocks because of total watts on the CPU. You see both voltage and current drop quickly after 82C or so.

ADDENDUM2: Just ran AIDA FPU which really stresses my system, Peak CPU Package Power in HWInfo was 113.556 and the average was 108.020. Not sure this equates to TDP but if it does I'd say this test exceeds the CPU TDP of 105. PBO had the all core clocks around 4.050 which is low for many stress tests. My CPU temp was at about 83-84C with my AIO.

Good luck.


----------



## Ironcobra

mongoled said:


> Im just posting this here as im unsure if its an anomaly
> 
> Quite simply I left everything on auto and dialed in the following config
> 
> tCL16 / tRCDRD15 / tRCDWR15 / tRP15 / tRAS30 / tRC52 / tRFC303 / tFAW36 / tWR24
> 
> 3800/1900 mhz coupled
> 
> RAM is on auto @ 1.35v!


As a quiet observer of this thread due to my brain being half the size of some of you I thought Id chime in on your settings, I was able to reproduce these settings. How do my dimm temps and everything else look? My dram voltage was a little higher than yours 1.373 but we have different sticks. Thanks by the way to all of you putting in this tedious kind of work so us guys without the time some of you have can keep the system running tight. I assume this is okay to run 24/7 for a gaming rig?

Ram: F4-3600C16D-16GTZR


----------



## lolerk52

Hey @The Stilt, just curious if you've told AMD about what you found that might be causing the boost issues?


----------



## mongoled

Ironcobra said:


> As a quiet observer of this thread due to my brain being half the size of some of you I thought Id chime in on your settings, I was able to reproduce these settings. How do my dimm temps and everything else look? My dram voltage was a little higher than yours 1.373 but we have different sticks. Thanks by the way to all of you putting in this tedious kind of work so us guys without the time some of you have can keep the system running tight. I assume this is okay to run 24/7 for a gaming rig?


hi mate 

when you ran the aida64 test did you have background apps running such as AV ?

Is your aida64 version up to date?

Im asking as your results look a little low throughput and little higher in latency compared to the numbers im getting on my MSI motherboard.

Your RAM temp is considerably lower than mine also.


----------



## mongoled

gupsterg said:


> Those 3600MHz C15 G.Skill are showing their quality, nice result :thumb: .


Cheers dude, yes they are 
:cheers: 

I was unsure if they (the ram), or the motherboard were duds as with my previous Ryzen chips stable clock was 3200mhz!

Now they have the performance I expected, it only took about three years (since date of purchase)


----------



## Ironcobra

mongoled said:


> hi mate
> 
> when you ran the aida64 test did you have background apps running such as AV ?
> 
> Is your aida64 version up to date?
> 
> Im asking as your results look a little low throughput and little higher in latency compared to the numbers im getting on my MSI motherboard.
> 
> Your RAM temp is considerably lower than mine also.


I only use windows defender, my aida is up to date. I did use 3800 safe and then change the few settings you listed. 3800 safe would not boot for me cl14. Im thinking the difference in mobos is the slight difference in our benches. I can tell you I definitely notice the snappiness of windows and opening apps coming from 3600safe. Also maybe a 3600 vs 3600x difference?


----------



## Takla

MrPhilo said:


> When I see people do Aida64 test, do they always run the full test for a reason, am I missing something?
> 
> If you double click the 'Memory', it just runs that line.


Well thanks a lot for this tip. I saw some people with only the memory row being shown and was wondering how they got this to work.


----------



## mongoled

Ironcobra said:


> I only use windows defender, my aida is up to date. I did use 3800 safe and then change the few settings you listed. 3800 safe would not boot for me cl14. Im thinking the difference in mobos is the slight difference in our benches. I can tell you I definitely notice the snappiness of windows and opening apps coming from 3600safe. Also maybe a 3600 vs 3600x difference?


Hi,

AV would mainly effect the latency, it also effects the throughput but to a lesser degree.

I cannot boot neither the safe nor fast preset for 3800 mhz unless I use the vdimm voltages that are designated in the calculator.

Otherwise I get an error code and have to reset the BIOS.

If anything it would be the BIOS release for your motherboard as maybe being the issue as our motherboards are in similar category, i.e. flagships for x370.

You have the latest chipset drivers installed ??

Should not be any difference in memory benches with regards to 3600 to 3600x.

If you are happy with the performance then just enjoy it

 

Some of us are just stubborn in that we want to eek out as much performance as we can


----------



## Speedster159

How is the 9900K @ 5Ghz compared to the max boosted 3700X? Ignoring the price but look at temps?


----------



## Ironcobra

mongoled said:


> Hi,
> 
> AV would mainly effect the latency, it also effects the throughput but to a lesser degree.
> 
> I cannot boot neither the safe nor fast preset for 3800 mhz unless I use the vdimm voltages that are designated in the calculator.
> 
> Otherwise I get an error code and have to reset the BIOS.
> 
> If anything it would be the BIOS release for your motherboard as maybe being the issue as our motherboards are in similar category, i.e. flagships for x370.
> 
> You have the latest chipset drivers installed ??
> 
> Should not be any difference in memory benches with regards to 3600 to 3600x.
> 
> If you are happy with the performance then just enjoy it
> 
> 
> 
> Some of us are just stubborn in that we want to eek out as much performance as we can


Yeah latest chipset released a couple days ago. Im not going to worry about eeking until the platform matures. The couple games I play AC: odyssey, squad and insurgency sandstorm are butter smooth along with the new test driver from nvidia 435.80 Im happy frametimes are the lowest i have ever experienced. I do think my h115i is having a problem I was getting into the 80s gaming and during that stress test I shut down and gave the block a few whacks along with shaking the hoses now im idling at 32 and gaming at 48-50. Memtest high 50s. Thats a 35c difference from earlier today. Hopefully its just air pockets but it is a corsair product. Thanks again.


----------



## Duvar

What do you think about that?
3800 @ 1.36V stable with tuned timings, but i will check if i can optimize it further.

The second picture was before i bumped down the voltage even more.
The DRAM Calc Bench is not my best score, but my best score with 1.36V^^


----------



## Jackalito

Duvar said:


> What do you think about that?
> 3800 @ 1.36V stable with tuned timings, but i will check if i can optimize it further.
> 
> The second picture was before i bumped down the voltage even more.
> The DRAM Calc Bench is not my best score, but my best score with 1.36V^^



Awesome results there, mate, and with just 1.36V 
What sticks are you using?
Can you share your full sttings for the RAM OC?
Thanks! :thumb:


----------



## Duvar

Jackalito said:


> Awesome results there, mate, and with just 1.36V
> What sticks are you using?
> Can you share your full sttings for the RAM OC?
> Thanks! :thumb:


3600 CL17-18-18... GSkill RGB 2x8GB^^
I think many of you with B Dies will be able to use this settings.
Give it a try. Leave Boot Voltage @ 1.5V at first andy start with 1.5V and try to go down with the voltage.
If its booting, try 1.45V and so on.


----------



## drmrlordx

Bluesman said:


> I think TDP is the big clue.


I hope not. The world would be a boring place if I were stuck at 142W package power and 105W core power. PBO isn't doing much to improve system performance on my end (static OC blows it away). Even in ST workloads like SuperPi, PBO does not help.


----------



## Jackalito

Duvar said:


> 3600 CL17-18-18... GSkill RGB 2x8GB^^
> I think many of you with B Dies will be able to use this settings.
> Give it a try. Leave Boot Voltage @ 1.5V at first andy start with 1.5V and try to go down with the voltage.
> If its booting, try 1.45V and so on.



Thanks, man! +Rep for sharing! :thumb:


----------



## Duvar

Jackalito said:


> Thanks, man! +Rep for sharing! :thumb:


Here you can see my different RAM-Profiles @ SotTR Bench https://extreme.pcgameshardware.de/prozessoren/470191-sammelthread-amd-ryzen-1990.html#post9964486


----------



## Jackalito

Duvar said:


> Here you can see my different RAM-Profiles @ SotTR Bench https://extreme.pcgameshardware.de/prozessoren/470191-sammelthread-amd-ryzen-1990.html#post9964486



Interesting, thanks!


----------



## kazablanka

Has anyone notice that the ihs is not as straight as it should ? This wateblock is used on 1700-2600x-2700x and this is the first time that the ihs scracth the copper plate. I am wondering if this is the reason of high light load temps


----------



## The Stilt

lolerk52 said:


> Hey @*The Stilt* , just curious if you've told AMD about what you found that might be causing the boost issues?


It has been reported over three weeks ago.


----------



## Nighthog

Gotten 4066Mhz Memory stable now with 1900 FCLK in 4x8GB configuration. 

Asynchronous and not the best latency scores etc but I wanted to see what it's capable off. I'll still try more but seems this might be the limit on pure Mhz on these memory sticks.
Only 1.45V needed.


----------



## Bluesman

*Fixed OC Graph*



drmrlordx said:


> I hope not. The world would be a boring place if I were stuck at 142W package power and 105W core power. PBO isn't doing much to improve system performance on my end (static OC blows it away). Even in ST workloads like SuperPi, PBO does not help.


You mean like this? Source:https://twitter.com/HardwareNumb3rs/status/1157593620981174272


----------



## drmrlordx

Bluesman said:


> You mean like this? Source:https://twitter.com/HardwareNumb3rs/status/1157593620981174272


It's a useful graph, but it doesn't tell us how safe are any of those voltages. It also doesn't show current draw for any of the data points. Sadly.


----------



## RossiOCUK

@gupsterg
Can you me a BIOS txt dump for me? Of your 24/7 / Stable setup.

TIA


----------



## CJMitsuki

drmrlordx said:


> It's a useful graph, but it doesn't tell us how safe are any of those voltages. It also doesn't show current draw for any of the data points. Sadly.


There are plenty of statements from AMD themselves stating safe voltages and current draw doesnt necessarily equate to performance. If you dont find it exciting that AMD single handed made Intel increase core count after purposely stifling processor technology then idk what to tell you. We would still be running 4 core processors for the most part right now and paying through the nose for them. CPUs are more accessible now and mainstream performance as a whole a grown by leaps and bounds since Ryzen was released.


----------



## CJMitsuki

Nighthog said:


> Gotten 4066Mhz Memory stable now with 1900 FCLK in 4x8GB configuration.
> 
> Asynchronous and not the best latency scores etc but I wanted to see what it's capable off. I'll still try more but seems this might be the limit on pure Mhz on these memory sticks.
> Only 1.45V needed.


4200 can be attained but unfortunately there really arent any scenarios that ive seen where youll ever want to have your memory async. The latency penalty is too much to even consider doing it.


----------



## upgraditus

kazablanka said:


> Has anyone notice that the ihs is not as straight as it should ? This wateblock is used on 1700-2600x-2700x and this is the first time that the ihs scracth the copper plate. I am wondering if this is the reason of high light load temps


Just a guess here, but I doubt they CNC stock IHS and just stamp them from sheet, so it will come with imperfections from that manufacturing process. I have seen high edges around IHS myself in the past, not on Ryzen 3000 since I didn't check, but it's surely going to cause some loss of contact as the gap needed to be made up by TIM will become larger as you aproach these "lips".


----------



## CJMitsuki

upgraditus said:


> Just a guess here, but I doubt they CNC stock IHS and just stamp them from sheet, so it will come with imperfections from that manufacturing process. I have seen high edges around IHS myself in the past, not on Ryzen 3000 since I didn't check, but it's surely going to cause some loss of contact as the gap needed to be made up by TIM will become larger as you aproach these "lips".


The high edges are more than likely from the solder cooling. As it cools it is going to shrink to some degree and pull down on the IHS id like to think.


----------



## gupsterg

RossiOCUK said:


> @gupsterg
> Can you me a BIOS txt dump for me? Of your 24/7 / Stable setup.
> 
> TIA


When using 2x8GB below has had no issues in Kahru RAM Test overnight + HCI Memtest v6.0, RealBench (~8hrs), P95 non AVX (~7.5hrs), x264/ffmpeg/handbrake encoding 1hr each tested, no issues in various posts and reruns on differing posts.

View attachment 2501_R5_C7H_16GB_.zip


Strangely 4x8GB I seem to be able to get decent stability with same memclk & timings with lower SOC & VDDG. No performance lost with lower voltage which I had experienced on 2x8GB. Dunno if the differing ProODT has aided this and or the MBIST Data eye pattern 4 setup or it's complete "red herring"  .



Spoiler



Room ambient at start of run ~19C, middle of run ~22C and at video capture ~24C.









Still got to test this setup more. UEFI 0068 has better post process IMO than 2406/2501/2602. Also it's better to use the Extreme Tweaker SOC/CLDO_VDDG/CLDO_VDDP settings than AMD Overclocking menu, where as other listed UEFIs better to use AMD menu.


----------



## lordzed83

drmrlordx said:


> It's a useful graph, but it doesn't tell us how safe are any of those voltages. It also doesn't show current draw for any of the data points. Sadly.


safety depends on cooling power used. If you can coold down 1.5 volt to 70c under load still will live longer than 1.3 at 90c. I'w ran so called unsafe voltage for 14 months on 24/7 cpu load 100% most of tthat time. For normal joe using pc 6 hours a day taht would be 6 years of useage. Zero problems. Hope You know we had cpus dying on stock settings on this forum right ??


----------



## lordzed83

kazablanka said:


> Has anyone notice that the ihs is not as straight as it should ? This wateblock is used on 1700-2600x-2700x and this is the first time that the ihs scracth the copper plate. I am wondering if this is the reason of high light load temps


ye it will if you use crap instead of good TIM


----------



## RossiOCUK

gupsterg said:


> When using 2x8GB below has had no issues in Kahru RAM Test overnight + HCI Memtest v6.0, RealBench (~8hrs), P95 non AVX (~7.5hrs), x264/ffmpeg/handbrake encoding 1hr each tested, no issues in various posts and reruns on differing posts.
> 
> View attachment 285936
> 
> 
> Strangely 4x8GB I seem to be able to get decent stability with same memclk & timings with lower SOC & VDDG. No performance lost with lower voltage which I had experienced on 2x8GB. Dunno if the differing ProODT has aided this and or the MBIST Data eye pattern 4 setup or it's complete "red herring"  .
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> Room ambient at start of run ~19C, middle of run ~22C and at video capture ~24C.
> 
> https://youtu.be/B5cWS3Z0aww
> 
> 
> 
> Still got to test this setup more. UEFI 0068 has better post process IMO than 2406/2501/2602. Also it's better to use the Extreme Tweaker SOC/CLDO_VDDG/CLDO_VDDP settings than AMD Overclocking menu, where as other listed UEFIs better to use AMD menu.


Thanks.
My CH6 is currently throwing up C5 errors when tightening timings at just 3466MHz (4x8GB (2x GSKill F4-4000C18D-16GTZSW)). Sat at 18,18,18,18,38,56 1T with auto subs. If I decrease to 16,16,16,16,38,56 1T I get C5 hang on boot until i clear CMOS. 

SOC @ 1.025v
DRAM @ 1.40v
DRAM Boot @ 1.4v
CLDO_VDDG @ 0.985v

¯\_(ツ)_/¯


----------



## Streetdragon

I think my 3900x is worse than i thought. GTA5 3733 1/1 and 3800 1/1 everything is unstable. tries different VDDG sooc vddp settings .everything ends in reboots while gaming. Bench/stresstest is ok. But gaming -> Reboots. What a joke.....


----------



## gupsterg

RossiOCUK said:


> Thanks.
> My CH6 is currently throwing up C5 errors when tightening timings at just 3466MHz (4x8GB (2x GSKill F4-4000C18D-16GTZSW)). Sat at 18,18,18,18,38,56 1T with auto subs. If I decrease to 16,16,16,16,38,56 1T I get C5 hang on boot until i clear CMOS.
> 
> SOC @ 1.025v
> DRAM @ 1.40v
> DRAM Boot @ 1.4v
> CLDO_VDDG @ 0.985v
> 
> ¯\_(ツ)_/¯



If your SOC is set at 1.025V, actual will be lower IMO. Which will mean there is not enough gap between it and CLDO_VDDG for it to be effective.

As I started to increase RAM frequency past 3666MHz on 4x8GB I was getting Q-CODE: C5 at POST. When I set ProcODT as 40 I was able to get 3733MHz to POST. Then 3800MHz would not POST without ProcODT of 34.3. Looking at Noko59's share on 4x8GB 3733MHz on C6H with 3xxx CPU it may also need same tweak of ProODT as I saw on C7H.

IMO also use gear down mode on, leave Command Rate [Auto]. You may wanna also set VTTDDR manually, some of the recent C7H UEFI I have used don't automatically set VTTDDR as 1/2 of VDIMM.

On another note I believe the setting of Data Eye Pattern to 4 was a red herring in my setup. It seems to me from further testing, whatever is in Data Eye menu does not apply unless MBIST is changed from default disabled to enabled.



Spoiler


----------



## RossiOCUK

gupsterg said:


> If your SOC is set at 1.025V, actual will be lower IMO. Which will mean there is not enough gap between it and CLDO_VDDG for it to be effective.
> 
> As I started to increase RAM frequency past 3666MHz on 4x8GB I was getting Q-CODE: C5 at POST. When I set ProcODT as 40 I was able to get 3733MHz to POST. Then 3800MHz would not POST without ProcODT of 34.3. Looking at Noko59's share on 4x8GB 3733MHz on C6H with 3xxx CPU it may also need same tweak of ProODT as I saw on C7H.
> 
> IMO also use gear down mode on, leave Command Rate [Auto]. You may wanna also set VTTDDR manually, some of the recent C7H UEFI I have used don't automatically set VTTDDR as 1/2 of VDIMM.
> 
> On another note I believe the setting of Data Eye Pattern to 4 was a red herring in my setup. It seems to me from further testing, whatever is in Data Eye menu does not apply unless MBIST is changed from default disabled to enabled.
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 286230


Cheers, I shall check SOC voltage reports and see how low it's going and bump it up a notch if needs be. 

Chould VTTDDR be 1/2 of VDIMM at all times? i.e I set VDIMM to 1.4v so set VTTDDR to 0.7v? I never needed to adjust this previously, but may as well give it a go. 

ProODT is a good shout, though didn't think it made a difference when setting timings, only frequency?
@gupsterg
I found this Interesting: https://www.amd.com/system/files/documents/ryzen-master-quick-reference-guide.pdf

Page 35 shows both SOC and CLDO_VDDG at 1.1v.


----------



## drmrlordx

lordzed83 said:


> safety depends on cooling power used. If you can coold down 1.5 volt to 70c under load still will live longer than 1.3 at 90c.


Who can cool down 1.5v on a 3900x? Maybe with sub-ambient. I threw a MO-RA3 at mine and it'll heat up to 77C (retested, it's closer to 74C) running Prime95 Small FFTs when set to all-core of 4225 MHz (1.25v or so). These things are HOT. It isn't just temps or voltage, it's also current draw, those there's a direct correlation between current and temps so for a given cooling configuration, you can just monitor temps and use that as a baseline. But not everyone has the same cooling configuration.

Personally I do not like to let mine run over around 72C for any extended period of time. Trying to dial in a proper overclock to meet those parameters in all workloads has been a challenge (mostly I just retreat to 4375 MHz @ 1.31875v and avoid Prime95/similar). PBO seems to work like crap thus far so that isn't any help.



> Hope You know we had cpus dying on stock settings on this forum right ??


Actually I didn't.



CJMitsuki said:


> There are plenty of statements from AMD themselves stating safe voltages and current draw doesnt necessarily equate to performance.


. . . what? I can tell you that it definitely "equates to performance" when dialing in a static OC. Sure I can get 4450 MHz all-core working in CBR20 with 1.4v or so. Do I want to run that 24/7 in everything but a pure AVX2 workload? I'm not 100% sure about that. The performance on this chip is so high that I don't think I need that kind of power right now anyway. Temps stay lower in that config than the above-stated settings for Prime95, and I'm reasonably certain 1.25v is "safe" at those current levels (1.325v should be "safe" for any current level, at least according to @the_Stilt). At the same time, trying to make sense of The_Stilt's statements regarding voltage ranges derived from his CPU's FIT tables would indicate that max "safe" voltage for the approximate current draw of CBR20 would be somewhere in the range of 1.36-1.37v. That's enough for maybe 4425 MHz? I think? At least on my chip.

Auto OC definitely seems capable of killing a 3900x. PBO isn't really helping much right now, either. I keep losing performance when using it. So sad.



> If you dont find it exciting that AMD single handed made Intel increase core count after purposely stifling processor technology then idk what to tell you. We would still be running 4 core processors for the most part right now and paying through the nose for them. CPUs are more accessible now and mainstream performance as a whole a grown by leaps and bounds since Ryzen was released.


Where did you get any of that? I categorically refuse to buy Intel products, and have done so since 1997.


----------



## gupsterg

RossiOCUK said:


> Cheers, I shall check SOC voltage reports and see how low it's going and bump it up a notch if needs be.
> 
> Chould VTTDDR be 1/2 of VDIMM at all times? i.e I set VDIMM to 1.4v so set VTTDDR to 0.7v? I never needed to adjust this previously, but may as well give it a go.
> 
> ProODT is a good shout, though didn't think it made a difference when setting timings, only frequency?
> 
> @gupsterg
> I found this Interesting: https://www.amd.com/system/files/documents/ryzen-master-quick-reference-guide.pdf
> 
> Page 35 shows both SOC and CLDO_VDDG at 1.1v.


The suggestion is 1/2 of VDIMM, but just like other aspects you may find your HW/targetted setting may want differing value. One thing I miss on C7H is how the C6H had more finer control on VTTDDR setting, you can do ~6mV steps.

Yeah ProcODT seems to be frequency than timings. I just highlighted my experience so perhaps you could target a differing frequency, maybe on that you could get differing timings. Perhaps you not gaining the timings is a UEFI quirk, dunno TBH, I unsubbed from the C6H thread fair while ago and only in passing very occasionally read it.

Don't know what to make of the AMD PDF stating 1.1V as starting point for SOC/CLDO_VDDG for memory OC. You see when I once set greater than 1.1V SOC in AMD menu of UEFI it did not apply. Only way to have higher was to use Extreme Tweaker menu. So don't know if that PDF highlighting 1.1V means starting point to use and then lower or we should go higher. The Stilt's suggestion in this post.

Today's P95 WMV.


----------



## lordzed83

@drmrlordx well i know guy at OCUK that got Phase cooler on hes rig. So he can cool down 1.5volt  I still cant remember whos got AC units outlet hooked up directly to front of hes pc case that is sealed off from outside was running very high volts 24/7 with that setup cause of cooling. So There are some people that got better cooling than Myself. And I consider running massive external radiator as best possible option for Custom water loop so only those 2 options are step UP.
For me if it's stable its stable. I tsted 1 hour on my spare rig with 3600/x570 running 94c on cpu contant for 1 hour no reboot no crash no FRIES. So I feel safe running checks with IBT and Ycruncher peaking at like 85c



@gupsterg True about that. That's why I use 1.425/0.7125 cause thats options we have or next step is 1.45/0.7250


----------



## drmrlordx

lordzed83 said:


> @drmrlordx well i know guy at OCUK that got Phase cooler on hes rig. So he can cool down 1.5volt


Yeah, that'll do it. Man I need a carbon nanotube (CNT) waterblock and IHS or something.


----------



## lordzed83

drmrlordx said:


> Yeah, that'll do it. Man I need a carbon nanotube (CNT) waterblock and IHS or something.


You hears about new EXPERT waterblocks that 8pack is working on ??? Without cold plate just Direct mounted to IHS with 2 seal. So You loose TIM and COLDPLATE. Very interesting


----------



## SpeedyIV

lordzed83 said:


> You hears about new EXPERT waterblocks that 8pack is working on ??? Without cold plate just Direct mounted to IHS with 2 seal. So You loose TIM and COLDPLATE. Very interesting



Can you provide a link to more info about this? I am reading that a lot of AIO coolers are not designed for chiplet architecture with the CCX's not under the center of the IHS. Seems like Ryzen may benefit from a cold plate redesign. Thanks.


----------



## majestynl

SpeedyIV said:


> Can you provide a link to more info about this? I am reading that a lot of AIO coolers are not designed for chiplet architecture with the CCX's not under the center of the IHS. Seems like Ryzen may benefit from a cold plate redesign. Thanks.


----------



## Keith Myers

It'll probably take a year before any new designs hit the market for the new offset die design of Ryzen 3000. The vendors will be tentative about sinking development money into new products until they are certain Zen 2 is a marketing success and not a fad or flash in the pan.


----------



## mongoled

lordzed83 said:


> You hears about new EXPERT waterblocks that 8pack is working on ??? Without cold plate just Direct mounted to IHS with 2 seal. So You loose TIM and COLDPLATE. Very interesting


Will look at the video below when I get a chance, but wanted to say, that this has/had been done before several years ago.

The issue then was that the PCB substrate of the CPU ended up absorbing moisture from the direct die cooling, so unless they have changed the substrate so that it does not absorb water im unsure how this is going to work....


----------



## drmrlordx

lordzed83 said:


> You hears about new EXPERT waterblocks that 8pack is working on ??? Without cold plate just Direct mounted to IHS with 2 seal. So You loose TIM and COLDPLATE. Very interesting


Hmmm looks interesting. Too bad I used LM on my CPU IHS. Getting that stuff off is not easy (without lapping, ugh already killed one 3900x doing that). Letting old LM deposits work their way into my loop would not be a good idea. Otherwise I like the concept.



mongoled said:


> Will look at the video below when I get a chance, but wanted to say, that this has/had been done before several years ago.
> 
> The issue then was that the PCB substrate of the CPU ended up absorbing moisture from the direct die cooling, so unless they have changed the substrate so that it does not absorb water im unsure how this is going to work....


The proposed product would seal onto the IHS. Water should never touch the PCB unless the seals aren't on there correctly. Or at least, that seems to be what's in the works.

I will say though, that multi-wall nanotubes have thermal conductivity in excess of 2000 W/mK:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1290072912000932

Using materials like that opens up a lot of possibilities. Eventually we're going to need stuff like that when we hit Zen4 on 5nm or . . . whatever.


----------



## polkfan

The Stilt said:


> It has been reported over three weeks ago.


Read all of the 55 pages here at this site and i guess 1 month later this issue is still happening as i never seen 4.4ghz on my 3700X yet


I would love to know the technical reason why this is happening a user said that AGESA 1.0.0.1 was boosting correctly but ever since then it hasn't


----------



## The Stilt

polkfan said:


> Read all of the 55 pages here at this site and i guess 1 month later this issue is still happening as i never seen 4.4ghz on my 3700X yet
> 
> 
> I would love to know the technical reason why this is happening a user said that AGESA 1.0.0.1 was boosting correctly but ever since then it hasn't


AMD has made several changes to the SMU FW, which affects how the CPU boosts.
New temperature limits have been introduced and the existing ones have been adjusted, along with certain voltage related parameters.

So the behavior doesn't appear to be a bug.


----------



## Bluesman

The Stilt said:


> AMD has made several changes to the SMU FW, which affects how the CPU boosts.
> New temperature limits have been introduced and the existing ones have been adjusted, along with certain voltage related parameters.
> 
> So the behavior doesn't appear to be a bug.


I'm seeing much better boosting behavior on my 3800x. I've had five cores hit 4525.8 Mhz in one session. In the past usually only one or two cores would boost to this level.

With AGESA 1.0.0.3ABB, I'm also seeing longer sustained clocks at 4400 - 4450MHZ. I've had all 8 cores at or over 4450MHZ in one gaming session. Temps are also lower as CPU Package Power appears to be lower for Prime95 and other stress programs. I think they are matching current draw to high voltage better with this AGESA. In the gaming session mentioned above, average CPU Package Power watts was only 39 (peaks at 55-57), with voltage spikes of 1.5 on all 8 cores.


----------



## polkfan

Makes me wonder is their something wrong with my chip? I mean several cores jump to 4375mhz and they all boost to at least 4325mhz. 

I tried stock too without PBO on. This is on a 360 rad so i wouldn't think temps would be a issue. I tried playing games that use only one core i even forced dolphin emulator to just use 1 core but 4375mhz is the max my CPU will go. 

Granted when gaming its locked at 4250mhz anyways i mean we are talking 25mhz but still 

Edit that picture is with PBO on x10 scaler and after 24 hours of my PC being on doing web browsing and gaming and watching movies


----------



## polkfan

I'm trying again with Auto OC at 200mhz and gonna see but last time i never got even 4375mhz doing that but i'm not sure i had PBO at 10X last time i tried i'll edit if i get lower frequency's again with auto OC on


----------



## Bluesman

polkfan said:


> I'm trying again with Auto OC at 200mhz and gonna see but last time i never got even 4375mhz doing that but i'm not sure i had PBO at 10X last time i tried i'll edit if i get lower frequency's again with auto OC on


Just for fun, set your multiplier to 4x not 10x with the 200mhz setting. Also, if I recall you have set a thermal threshold of 85C; therefore, just for fun set your TDC to 83C. I am speculating that the voltage/current slope changes when you specify a TDC value lower, commensurate with you new low thermal threshold of 85C. I got much lower temps and higher clocks when I did this.

Good luck.


----------



## The Stilt

Setting the thermal limits below stock (95°C) make no difference, since the boost algorithm already uses lower limits.

The original limits for Ryzen 3000 SKUs were:

- 3600 = 4100MHz (80-95°C) / 4200MHz (< 80°C)
- 3600X = 4200MHz (80-95°C) / 4400MHz (< 80°C)
- 3700X = 4200MHz (80-95°C) / 4400MHz (< 80°C)
- 3800X = 4300MHz (80-95°C) / 4550MHz (< 80°C)
- 3900X = 4400MHz (80-95°C) / 4650MHz (< 80°C)

Since then, it appears that the HighTemperature limit has been reduced further to 75°C (from 80°C).
New SMUs also have introduced "MiddleTemperature" limit, but that gets disabled when PBO is enabled.

HWInfo is also able to display these limits (fused values).


----------



## polkfan

The Stilt said:


> Setting the thermal limits below stock (95°C) make no difference, since the boost algorithm already uses lower limits.
> 
> The original limits for Ryzen 3000 SKUs were:
> 
> - 3600 = 4100MHz (80-95°C) / 4200MHz (< 80°C)
> - 3600X = 4200MHz (80-95°C) / 4400MHz (< 80°C)
> - 3700X = 4200MHz (80-95°C) / 4400MHz (< 80°C)
> - 3800X = 4300MHz (80-95°C) / 4550MHz (< 80°C)
> - 3900X = 4400MHz (80-95°C) / 4650MHz (< 80°C)
> 
> Since then, it appears that the HighTemperature limit has been reduced further to 75°C (from 80°C).
> New SMUs also have introduced "MiddleTemperature" limit, but that gets disabled when PBO is enabled.
> 
> HWInfo is also able to display these limits (fused values).



I give up lol simply put 101 for my APU-CPU bus speed now getting 4.4ghz with PBO on at X10 scaler i tried everything else that people where saying doesn't work. Not sure Amd will be seen in good light if they don't fix these issues their chips should be hitting max turbo with even their own cooler if not they shouldn't advertise it that way. I read others who had worse then me(as its not a big deal to me). iNeri is running a 102 bus speed and it seems fine but i'm gonna stick to 101.


----------



## baakstaff

The Stilt said:


> Setting the thermal limits below stock (95°C) make no difference, since the boost algorithm already uses lower limits.
> 
> The original limits for Ryzen 3000 SKUs were:
> 
> - 3600 = 4100MHz (80-95°C) / 4200MHz (< 80°C)
> - 3600X = 4200MHz (80-95°C) / 4400MHz (< 80°C)
> - 3700X = 4200MHz (80-95°C) / 4400MHz (< 80°C)
> - 3800X = 4300MHz (80-95°C) / 4550MHz (< 80°C)
> - 3900X = 4400MHz (80-95°C) / 4650MHz (< 80°C)
> 
> Since then, it appears that the HighTemperature limit has been reduced further to 75°C (from 80°C).
> New SMUs also have introduced "MiddleTemperature" limit, but that gets disabled when PBO is enabled.
> 
> HWInfo is also able to display these limits (fused values).


So are those limits for any boost as long as there's still power/current budget to play with, or do those only apply to the cores capable of those frequencies?


----------



## The Stilt

baakstaff said:


> So are those limits for any boost as long as there's still power/current budget to play with, or do those only apply to the cores capable of those frequencies?


All of the Fmax limits apply on all cores, by default.
Some might reach them and the others may not.


----------



## Bluesman

For my 3800x, I start to throttle in Prime95 at 80C still (4200 down to 4125 due to 85C threshold setting). I have an AIO and big fans on the VRMs, so maybe I get a pass by 75C?

Just to be clear, earlier I was referring to lowering the TDC value relative to the default (95). I seem to be getting different voltage/current relationships after doing this. Who knows, there is a lot of variablity in testing this chip.


----------



## VPII

The Stilt said:


> Setting the thermal limits below stock (95°C) make no difference, since the boost algorithm already uses lower limits.
> 
> The original limits for Ryzen 3000 SKUs were:
> 
> - 3600 = 4100MHz (80-95°C) / 4200MHz (< 80°C)
> - 3600X = 4200MHz (80-95°C) / 4400MHz (< 80°C)
> - 3700X = 4200MHz (80-95°C) / 4400MHz (< 80°C)
> - 3800X = 4300MHz (80-95°C) / 4550MHz (< 80°C)
> - 3900X = 4400MHz (80-95°C) / 4650MHz (< 80°C)
> 
> Since then, it appears that the HighTemperature limit has been reduced further to 75°C (from 80°C).
> New SMUs also have introduced "MiddleTemperature" limit, but that gets disabled when PBO is enabled.
> 
> HWInfo is also able to display these limits (fused values).


Hi @The Stilt if I may ask, are these temps by passed when doing a manual overclock. My reason for asking is I never run my cpu stock or PBO. At my Ryzen 9 3900x is stable at 4.2ghz using 1.2vcore. I can also run 4.92ghz using 1.25vcore stable running IBT very memory preset. Im not interested in using prime95, temps is like 4 to 5c more. When I run IBT very high mem preset with 1.25vcore core temps is a little over 73c. I can also run 4.317ghz at 1.28vcore passing IBT but temps about 77c.









Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk


----------



## crakej

I'm a bit confused @The Stilt ...

On AGESA 1002, I've had temps going up to 95c and more, with no obvious loss of performance when manually OCing. PBO I see hitting 45.9x sometimes, though I had expected it to work a bit differently - I thought a single core would boost up and get some work done, but I only see it happen on light loads.

AGESA 1003AB, PBO works so long as I set IA OC Tuner to <auto> - up to 44.75, again, only for light (very light) loads, limit still says 95c.

Won't lowering this lower performance, and can we change this in the bios? Should we stick with the new limits AMD is setting? This seems a bit of a mess really - the day anyone shows me their 3900x boosting to 4600 under anything other than a light load I'll be amazed.

Can I also ask about PE modes and whether they're worth trying on Matisse? I tried turning on PE2 once and instead of boosting cpu speed was dropping below 4GHz - complete opposite to what I expected, but it was very unscientific - I didn't change any of my other settings and not read up properly on how to use it yet. Is it worth looking at?

Many thanks!


----------



## Nighthog

I did some testing with PBO + XFR[+25-200Mhz] (/AUTO OC) on mine 3800X on AGESA 1.0.0.3ABB yesterday.

XFR Boost works to the extent that your cores silicon is good enough to have headroom to have higher clocks than stock. My best 2 cores can do about +50Mhz above the 4.5Ghz limit as ~peaks but not sustained. 
Your still limited to the stock voltage limits though, it just takes advantage of the extra headroom when you allow and enable it for what may be left there in the silicon to give from the binning that was done from AMD.
It works in this instance so people can actually use it, but silicon plays a role in if you get anything out of it. 

PBO in itself I noticed the Scalar adjusts the voltage table to be used for multi-core loads. 1x-10X scalar seemed to work with 0.006V increments of increases. so a 10X scalar gave a ~0.060V increase in multi-core voltage from stock. 
This worked initially and the multi-core boost seemed to work for 2 reboots and gave a 4.3Ghz under CB R20 multi-core. Then I changed a setting in BIOS and the boosting reverted to stock but the voltage table stayed the same.
Basically there is a BUG with the boost behaviour for PBO. It stops working and doesn't start working again when reverting changes. 

I tried many things but basically only a freshly flashed BIOS had the PBO Boost work shortly. I got maybe around ~50Mhz extra with the voltage increase with 10X scalar in CB R20.
Stock it stays 110Watts 4.225-4.250Ghz. PBO with scalar increased the voltage table so usually it goes 120Watts but the Boost when it worked gave a small increase to 4.3Ghz. But it broke with changes made in BIOS. The voltage table stayed increased but the clocks stayed the same as stock. You ended up only overvolting the CPU for no gains.
I could not get better than stock boosting thereafter so it was just as good as stock PB but now you only had more wattage and heat for no benefit. 

So People can enable the XFR (/AUTO_OC) for +25-200 Max boost peak to take advantage of that but skip the PBO & Scalar functions as they are unreliable and might just increase your voltage/wattage for no benefit.


----------



## The Stilt

Entering OC-Mode (ratio != base ratio) will disable the boost related features and limiters.
AFAIK the only limiter that remains in OC-Mode is the thermal protection limit (115°C).


----------



## VPII

The Stilt said:


> Entering OC-Mode (ratio != base ratio) will disable the boost related features and limiters.
> AFAIK the only limiter that remains in OC-Mode is the thermal protection limit (115°C).


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.


----------



## The Stilt

VPII said:


> 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.


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.


----------



## VPII

The Stilt said:


> 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.


Thank you for the advice

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk


----------



## gupsterg

@The Stilt @elmor

In PMU menu of AGESA ComboPi-AM4 1.0.0.3AB I see 2 new settings, any info you guys can share? What is usual default if you guys know? cheers :thumb: .


----------



## The Stilt

No idea.
Those (like anything else) has not been documented at any level.


----------



## Keith Myers

@The Stilt, can you explain why Cpu Voltage in the BIOS is locked to 1.093V whenever you keep Cpu Voltage in Auto and simply change to a manual multiplier? And yet Cpu Voltage never changes when you change multiplier?? Why is that so different from any other ASUS BIOS I have used. Cpu voltage always used to scale in Auto with increasing requested clocks. I can set a manual multiplier from 36 to 43, yet the Cpu Voltage never changes.

For me to run my desired 41.5 multiplier, I have to put Cpu Voltage to Offset and add 0.1875V to that locked 1.093V to achieve my desired operating voltage or 1.27V for my normal workload. That sags down to around 1.24V under my load. If I don't add an offset, the cpu always tries to run at 1.093V and fails at 4150Mhz.

Never saw this behavior on the 1002 BIOS or any earlier.


----------



## The Stilt

Keith Myers said:


> @*The Stilt* , can you explain why Cpu Voltage in the BIOS is locked to 1.093V whenever you keep Cpu Voltage in Auto and simply change to a manual multiplier? And yet Cpu Voltage never changes when you change multiplier?? Why is that so different from any other ASUS BIOS I have used. Cpu voltage always used to scale in Auto with increasing requested clocks. I can set a manual multiplier from 36 to 43, yet the Cpu Voltage never changes.
> 
> For me to run my desired 41.5 multiplier, I have to put Cpu Voltage to Offset and add 0.1875V to that locked 1.093V to achieve my desired operating voltage or 1.27V for my normal workload. That sags down to around 1.24V under my load. If I don't add an offset, the cpu always tries to run at 1.093V and fails at 4150Mhz.
> 
> Never saw this behavior on the 1002 BIOS or any earlier.


The voltage only increases automatically during manual OC, if the motherboard manufacturer has implemented an "auto-rule" (pre-defined behavior, e.g. if ratio >= 40.0x set vcore 1.300). Its ODMs own doing, not something what the CPU itself is doing.

If no auto-rule is present, the CPU should use P0 voltage (which can be seen in CBS PStates) during manual oc.


----------



## Keith Myers

*I don't understand the comment*



The Stilt said:


> The voltage only increases automatically during manual OC, if the motherboard manufacturer has implemented an "auto-rule" (pre-defined behavior, e.g. if ratio >= 40.0x set vcore 1.300). Its ODMs own doing, not something what the CPU itself is doing.
> 
> If no auto-rule is present, the CPU should use P0 voltage (which can be seen in CBS PStates) during manual oc.


I don't understand what you mean that only doing a manual OC, the voltage changes. I AM doing a manual OC. I take the CPU Multiplier off Auto and input a manual multiplier for manual OC. The cpu voltage never changes.


----------



## eXteR

Keith Myers said:


> I don't understand what you mean that only doing a manual OC, the voltage changes. I AM doing a manual OC. I take the CPU Multiplier off Auto and input a manual multiplier for manual OC. The cpu voltage never changes.


 if the motherboard manufacturer has implemented an "auto-rule" (pre-defined behavior, e.g. if ratio >= 40.0x set vcore 1.300)


Read the whole sentence...


----------



## gupsterg

The Stilt said:


> No idea.
> Those (like anything else) has not been documented at any level.


OK, cheers :thumb: .



crakej said:


> Interesting that SoC is 0.02v lower than what RM reports, and also that what RM shows as 'CPU Core' is actually showing something closer to VID, so when people are seeing high voltages, they're not that high on VCore - and the watts are so low when voltage is 'high' that they're not a problem.


In regard to SOC and most other voltages RM shows set value not actual effective.

On ComboPi-AM4 1.0.0.3AB only way to have idle voltage as ComboPi-AM4 1.0.0.2 is to enable Global C-State Control, regardless if CPU is stock or PBO OC.

ECO Mode: [Enabled] Global C-State Control: [Auto]



Spoiler














ECO Mode: [Disabled] Global C-State Control: [Enabled]



Spoiler














OS fully updated, using Chipset driver pack 1.07.07.0725, RM is current latest version. 



Bluesman said:


> I'm seeing much better boosting behavior on my 3800x. I've had five cores hit 4525.8 Mhz in one session. In the past usually only one or two cores would boost to this level.
> 
> With AGESA 1.0.0.3ABB, I'm also seeing longer sustained clocks at 4400 - 4450MHZ. I've had all 8 cores at or over 4450MHZ in one gaming session. Temps are also lower as CPU Package Power appears to be lower for Prime95 and other stress programs. I think they are matching current draw to high voltage better with this AGESA. In the gaming session mentioned above, average CPU Package Power watts was only 39 (peaks at 55-57), with voltage spikes of 1.5 on all 8 cores.


I felt I had a good CPU until I used UEFI with AGESA ComboPi-AM4 1.0.0.3AB. PBO+150MHz on every prior UEFI yield always nice ACB of 4.3GHz to 4.34GHz depending on room ambient. Same settings are pants on this UEFI, compare data in WMV within this ZIP.



The Stilt said:


> AMD has made several changes to the SMU FW, which affects how the CPU boosts.
> New temperature limits have been introduced and the existing ones have been adjusted, along with certain voltage related parameters.
> 
> So the behavior doesn't appear to be a bug.


Oh my, I do hope they bring back SMU FW with similarities of boost as AGESA 1.0.0.2.

I also find how strange it is that on ComboPi-AM4 1.0.0.3AB I have to set Global C-State Control as on even when CPU default to get like down volting as AGESA 1.0.0.2 where I left this setting on [Auto].

Seems a total fad of AGESA to me.



Keith Myers said:


> @The Stilt, can you explain why Cpu Voltage in the BIOS is locked to 1.093V whenever you keep Cpu Voltage in Auto and simply change to a manual multiplier? And yet Cpu Voltage never changes when you change multiplier?? Why is that so different from any other ASUS BIOS I have used. Cpu voltage always used to scale in Auto with increasing requested clocks. I can set a manual multiplier from 36 to 43, yet the Cpu Voltage never changes.
> 
> For me to run my desired 41.5 multiplier, I have to put Cpu Voltage to Offset and add 0.1875V to that locked 1.093V to achieve my desired operating voltage or 1.27V for my normal workload. That sags down to around 1.24V under my load. If I don't add an offset, the cpu always tries to run at 1.093V and fails at 4150Mhz.
> 
> Never saw this behavior on the 1002 BIOS or any earlier.
> 
> 
> 
> The Stilt said:
> 
> 
> 
> The voltage only increases automatically during manual OC, if the motherboard manufacturer has implemented an "auto-rule" (pre-defined behavior, e.g. if ratio >= 40.0x set vcore 1.300). Its ODMs own doing, not something what the CPU itself is doing.
> 
> If no auto-rule is present, the CPU should use P0 voltage (which can be seen in CBS PStates) during manual oc.
> 
> 
> 
> Keith Myers said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't understand what you mean that only doing a manual OC, the voltage changes. I AM doing a manual OC. I take the CPU Multiplier off Auto and input a manual multiplier for manual OC. The cpu voltage never changes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

I see PState 0 ceiling VID as 1100mV on my R5 3600 when I check PState menu.

If I only change ratio to 36.25x CPU goes to 1.2V.



Spoiler


----------



## gupsterg

R5 3600 (Batch: BF 1922SUT)
ASUS ROG Crosshair VII Hero Wifi (UEFI 2602, AGESA ComboPi-AM4 1.0.0.3AB)
F4-3200C14Q-32GVK

CPU Stock

RAM/IF: 3800MHz/1900MHz

SOC: 1.093V VDDG: 1.025V CLDO_VDDP: 0.901V VDDP: 1.05V
VBOOT: 1.4V VDIMM: 1.4V VTTDDR: 0.7V
ProcODT: 34.3, RTT/CAD Bus drive strength/timings [Auto]

Changed only MR6VrefDQ Control in PMU Training menu.

1h, 2h, 10h, 24h, 36h, 48h, 56h all result in Q-Code: F9, 3x board would try to POST, each time it would fail, settings would reset and board would then POST.

Meddling with setting has not proved what is default. Meddling with setting clearly destroyed POST ability of profile.

*** edit ***

This info seems right for this setting IMO...









Source link.

Reading this line:-



> The VrefDQ can be set using mode registers MR6 and it needs to be set correctly by the memory controller during the VrefDQ calibration phase.


Does not seem as if this can be a fixed value, as may change on training...


----------



## Yoizhik

Medusa666 said:


> My motherboard is an ASUS X370 CH6.
> 
> I have Vcore set to 1,25v in BIOS, and it also shows in BIOS during boot.
> 
> I don't understand why the VID values are 1,1v, while the Vcore value is still 1,25v?


I've the same issue mate, how did you fix this?


----------



## Keith Myers

eXteR said:


> if the motherboard manufacturer has implemented an "auto-rule" (pre-defined behavior, e.g. if ratio >= 40.0x set vcore 1.300)
> 
> 
> Read the whole sentence...


I still don't understand. Are you saying that ASUS has set an "auto-rule" that never changes vcore now when cpu frequency changes? How would they ever expect the cpu to run without adequate voltage?


----------



## gupsterg

Keith Myers said:


> I still don't understand. Are you saying that ASUS has set an "auto-rule" that never changes vcore now when cpu frequency changes? How would they ever expect the cpu to run without adequate voltage?


Previous gens when I changed ratio, I'd be stuck at ceiling VID of PState 0, which was AMD FW rule AFAIK.

Say in my previous post the R5 3600 is showing 48h as VID for PState 0 of 3600MHz, 48h to decimal = 72, 72 x 0.00625V = 0.45V, 1.55V - 0.45V = 1.1V.

This time around I'm seeing 1.2V, either the calc is not as it used to be or there is an "Auto rule" applying +100mV.


----------



## monza1412

Is it safe have a lower SOC voltage than cLDO_VDDP and cLDO_VDDG?? The motherboard that I'm currently using set a 0.906v voltage at the NORMAL setting in bios.
I'm not seeing any anomalies or stability issues whatsoever, but I don't know if that significant drop is harmful in the long run.
Is the SOC voltage chip dependant, or that NORMAL value is set by the motherboard itself? I mean its allowed to have such a variance or should be strictly 1.1v?


----------



## Keith Myers

gupsterg said:


> Previous gens when I changed ratio, I'd be stuck at ceiling VID of PState 0, which was AMD FW rule AFAIK.
> 
> Say in my previous post the R5 3600 is showing 48h as VID for PState 0 of 3600MHz, 48h to decimal = 72, 72 x 0.00625V = 0.45V, 1.55V - 0.45V = 1.1V.
> 
> This time around I'm seeing 1.2V, either the calc is not as it used to be or there is an "Auto rule" applying +100mV.


Thanks Gupsterg, Pstates have always been greek to me. I never had understood them so have never touched or gone near them. I have always just set the manual cpu multiplier I want and the cpu voltage moved to the needed value magically. I never needed to touch cpu voltage, the cpu/BIOS did it for me. Very different on this 3900X.


----------



## crakej

Yoizhik said:


> I've the same issue mate, how did you fix this?


VCore is the voltage for ALL the CPU cores. VID is what each core is using. Usually, VCore should be showing higher than your VID voltages.....


----------



## Yoizhik

crakej said:


> VCore is the voltage for ALL the CPU cores. VID is what each core is using. Usually, VCore should be showing higher than your VID voltages.....


but even if i change vcore to 1.325V and do some aida64 stress tests, vid's stand still at 1.1V and doesn't change at all (i'm monitoring it simultaneously on hwinfo64) so i think this is why my system is not stable and i wonder how can i fix this.


----------



## CJMitsuki

crakej said:


> VCore is the voltage for ALL the CPU cores. VID is what each core is using. Usually, VCore should be showing higher than your VID voltages.....





Yoizhik said:


> but even if i change vcore to 1.325V and do some aida64 stress tests, vid's stand still at 1.1V and doesn't change at all (i'm monitoring it simultaneously on hwinfo64) so i think this is why my system is not stable and i wonder how can i fix this.



Umm, im not positive but I dont think thats entirely accurate Crake. IIRC VID is the Voltage Identifier and not a voltage at all. It is what the CPU is requesting but once you set a manual voltage you have essentially overridden the CPUs voltage request and it is ignored in favor of the manual override. The VID is what the CPU would be requesting had the request not been overridden. I may not be 100% right but thats how I understood it. Basically dont worry about the VID since it isnt a voltage but only a request by the CPU.


----------



## VeritronX

Vcore is the voltage actually being supplied to all the cores, VID is the voltage each core is requesting from the motherboard. If you are using a manual voltage the motherboard will ignore what the cpu is asking for and use your set voltage, if operating normally the motherboard will try to give the cpu whatever is the highest requested voltage.


----------



## RossiOCUK

Will we return to 1.0.0.2 boosts at some point does anyone know? My 3900X doesn't hit 4.6GHz at any load regardless of temperature on 1.0.0.3 but 1.0.0.2 is boosting lovely as expected.


----------



## xeizo

My 3700X runs happy with 1.0.0.2, great performance, but I have a 3900X incoming and I saw some posts about 3900X having problems with 1.0.0.2(not which problems). I wonder if I do anything wrong by staying at 1.0.0.2 until better AGESA is out?

"Upgrading" to 1.0.0.3ABB would mean the 3900X will boost worse than my 3700X currently does, I really wonder why AMD does this? Have they already had a bunch of burnt out chips because of too high temp limits?


----------



## gupsterg

Keith Myers said:


> Thanks Gupsterg, Pstates have always been greek to me. I never had understood them so have never touched or gone near them. I have always just set the manual cpu multiplier I want and the cpu voltage moved to the needed value magically. I never needed to touch cpu voltage, the cpu/BIOS did it for me. Very different on this 3900X.


NP  , always so helpful so gotta be the same with you chap  .



RossiOCUK said:


> Will we return to 1.0.0.2 boosts at some point does anyone know? My 3900X doesn't hit 4.6GHz at any load regardless of temperature on 1.0.0.3 but 1.0.0.2 is boosting lovely as expected.


We're at the mercy of AMD IMO  ....


----------



## Yoizhik

CJMitsuki said:


> Umm, im not positive but I dont think thats entirely accurate Crake. IIRC VID is the Voltage Identifier and not a voltage at all. It is what the CPU is requesting but once you set a manual voltage you have essentially overridden the CPUs voltage request and it is ignored in favor of the manual override. The VID is what the CPU would be requesting had the request not been overridden. I may not be 100% right but thats how I understood it. Basically dont worry about the VID since it isnt a voltage but only a request by the CPU.


Thanks for the reply. Does that mean my cpu is broken since it doesn't request more but only 1.1v @4.3-4.4GHz?


----------



## CJMitsuki

Yoizhik said:


> CJMitsuki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Umm, im not positive but I dont think thats entirely accurate Crake. IIRC VID is the Voltage Identifier and not a voltage at all. It is what the CPU is requesting but once you set a manual voltage you have essentially overridden the CPUs voltage request and it is ignored in favor of the manual override. The VID is what the CPU would be requesting had the request not been overridden. I may not be 100% right but thats how I understood it. Basically dont worry about the VID since it isnt a voltage but only a request by the CPU.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for the reply. Does that mean my cpu is broken since it doesn't request more but only 1.1v @4.3-4.4GHz?
Click to expand...

No, as long as the manual voltage you entered is what is displayed under vCore it is fine. The VID really doesnt matter once you set a manual voltage afaik


----------



## Yoizhik

CJMitsuki said:


> No, as long as the manual voltage you entered is what is displayed under vCore it is fine. The VID really doesnt matter once you set a manual voltage afaik


thanks +rep


----------



## majestynl

Yoizhik said:


> thanks +rep


Use (SVI2 TFN) sensor for accurate cpu voltage measurements!


----------



## polkfan

We should all storm into Amd's office and demand 1.0.0.1 boost behavior.


----------



## The Stilt

RossiOCUK said:


> Will we return to 1.0.0.2 boosts at some point does anyone know? My 3900X doesn't hit 4.6GHz at any load regardless of temperature on 1.0.0.3 but 1.0.0.2 is boosting lovely as expected.


Who knows, but I don't think its very likely.
Its not like AMD rolls a dice to decide what changes will be made.


----------



## SDhydro

Yoizhik said:


> I've the same issue mate, how did you fix this?


Don't look at vid for voltage reading but look up at the top for CPU vcore and that's the cpu voltage.


----------



## Keith Myers

Yoizhik said:


> Thanks for the reply. Does that mean my cpu is broken since it doesn't request more but only 1.1v @4.3-4.4GHz?


It is if you expect the voltage to automagically move to the correct value when in Auto. It doesn't. So you have to either enter a Manual voltage or add an appropriate Offset. I had to use an offset to get to the correct voltage for my 41.5 clock multiplier.


----------



## Synoxia

So far the 3700x experience has been ridicolous.
2501 bios: fan error not working. It was a modded bios so i have to lose HPET > OFF capabilities. OK.
2606 bios: everything working except the damn cpu not boosting to advertised speeds, even with a noctua d15. Even if i enabled PBO. Just stuck at 55c idle 4.2ghz. Awesome.


----------



## gupsterg

A day or so ago when googling for DDR4 info I came across this PDF, page four has an interesting graph on margin of say DRAM/Package/Board/Chip/Data window. Noting the shrinking margin I thought this correlated well with how when I moved to 4x8GB I could only gain post on ProcODT of 34.3 when targetting 3800MHz.

At the time when I first used 4x8GB on my R5 3600 I used UEFI 2501 for ASUS ROG Crosshair VII Hero WiFi, default ProcODT on [Auto] was 60 for that one. System posted with 3600MHz and also 3666MHz, 3733MHz it wouldn't until I set ProODT 40. 3800MHz did not post until I set ProcODT as 34.3. I continued stability testing I had decent passes and all was fine.

Curiosity had been eating away at me on why was ProODT behaving this way, why on 4x8GB I'm using lower value, why is it only posting on a specific ProODT. In the past I had seen 1xxx/2xxx post on wider range of ProcODT and just lose stability if incorrect, only if ProODT was wildly out was post affected.

I decided to move the dimms around the slots.

I changed from:-



Code:


B1: #87 B2: #89 A1: #84 A2: #88

to



Code:


B1: #89 B2: #87 A1: #88 A2: #84

I could now gain post on 3800MHz with wider range of ProODT, 34.3, 40, 43.6 and 60, any others resulted in post failure.

I then moved dimms again.



Code:


B1: #84 B2: #87 A1: #89 A2: #88

I could gain post on 34.3 36.9 40 43.6 48, still testing others.

I do not know if this is specific to my HW and or targetted settings, but felt it maybe something that users of 4 dimms may wish to know.


----------



## RossiOCUK

gupsterg said:


> A day or so ago when googling for DDR4 info I came across this PDF, page four has an interesting graph on margin of say DRAM/Package/Board/Chip/Data window. Noting the shrinking margin I thought this correlated well with how when I moved to 4x8GB I could only gain post on ProcODT of 34.3 when targetting 3800MHz.
> 
> At the time when I first used 4x8GB on my R5 3600 I used UEFI 2501 for ASUS ROG Crosshair VII Hero WiFi, default ProcODT on [Auto] was 60 for that one. System posted with 3600MHz and also 3666MHz, 3733MHz it wouldn't until I set ProODT 40. 3800MHz did not post until I set ProcODT as 34.3. I continued stability testing I had decent passes and all was fine.
> 
> Curiosity had been eating away at me on why was ProODT behaving this way, why on 4x8GB I'm using lower value, why is it only posting on a specific ProODT. In the past I had seen 1xxx/2xxx post on wider range of ProcODT and just lose stability if incorrect, only if ProODT was wildly out was post affected.
> 
> I decided to move the dimms around the slots.
> 
> I changed from:-
> 
> 
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> B1: #87 B2: #89 A1: #84 A2: #88
> 
> to
> 
> 
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> B1: #89 B2: #87 A1: #88 A2: #84
> 
> I could now gain post on 3800MHz with wider range of ProODT, 34.3, 40, 43.6 and 60, any others resulted in post failure.
> 
> I then moved dimms again.
> 
> 
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> B1: #84 B2: #87 A1: #89 A2: #88
> 
> I could gain post on 34.3 36.9 40 43.6 48, still testing others.
> 
> I do not know if this is specific to my HW and or targetted settings, but felt it maybe something that users of 4 dimms may wish to know.



What do #84 #87 #88 & #89 reference?


----------



## gupsterg

RossiOCUK said:


> What do #84 #87 #88 & #89 reference?


Last 2 digits of serial of dimms. Just a way to identify which dimm I was placing where.

G.Skill quad kits all dimm serials are in sequence. I bought this kit open box. I believe some one mixed a dimm from another like kit. Manufacture date stamp is same though on all four. I gained a heavy discount few years back because of the serials not being in sequence.


----------



## RossiOCUK

gupsterg said:


> Last 2 digits of serial of dimms. Just a way to identify which dimm I was placing where.
> 
> G.Skill quad kits all dimm serials are in sequence. I bought this kit open box. I believe some one mixed a dimm from another like kit. Manufacture date stamp is same though on all four. I gained a heavy discount few years back because of the serials not being in sequence.


Thought as much, just wanted to clarify.

I have 2x 16GB kits bought 2 years apart. I currently run as:

A1: New A2: Old B1: New B2: Old


----------



## gupsterg

RossiOCUK said:


> Thought as much, just wanted to clarify.
> 
> I have 2x 16GB kits bought 2 years apart. I currently run as:
> 
> A1: New A2: Old B1: New B2: Old


NP  .

If I still had the C6H it would have been interesting to see what happened with all this HW on T-Topology.


----------



## RossiOCUK

gupsterg said:


> NP  .
> 
> If I still had the C6H it would have been interesting to see what happened with all this HW on T-Topology.


Well, i'm having a terrible time  stuck at 3600 cl16. 

Going to try the new beta tonight and finally sacrifice the AGESA 1.0.0.2 boost speeds


----------



## polkfan

Synoxia said:


> So far the 3700x experience has been ridicolous.
> 2501 bios: fan error not working. It was a modded bios so i have to lose HPET > OFF capabilities. OK.
> 2606 bios: everything working except the damn cpu not boosting to advertised speeds, even with a noctua d15. Even if i enabled PBO. Just stuck at 55c idle 4.2ghz. Awesome.


 brdtoledo at this thread 

https://www.overclock.net/forum/11-...chi-overclocking-thread-607.html#post28091214

Showed that the 3700X boost correctly on Linux so perhaps this is a Windows+Amd driver issue?


----------



## HalongPort

Who knows since AMD is remaining silent.
AFAIK there are some reports on Reddit about 3900X which suddenly died.
GBT-Matthew and the ASUS guy on the ROG forum implied that the current state of boost is intended and won't change.

The worst thing is the silence from AMD. 

I have got a 3800X and an Aorus Pro which won't boost with more than 4166 MHz on all core and I get the same CB20 MT scores as a 3700X.
People with a 3700X or even 3600X (but with Asus/Asrock X370/X470 boards) are boosting higher than me.

What am I supposed to do now before my exchange time runs out?
Gambling that this is going to be fixed or return my CPU for false advertising/not correct boosting?


----------



## polkfan

HalongPort said:


> Who knows since AMD is remaining silent.
> AFAIK there are some reports on Reddit about 3900X which suddenly died.
> GBT-Matthew and the ASUS guy on the ROG forum implied that the current state of boost is intended and won't change.
> 
> The worst thing is the silence from AMD.
> 
> I have got a 3800X and an Aorus Pro which won't boost with more than 4166 MHz on all core and I get the same CB20 MT scores as a 3700X.
> People with a 3700X or even 3600X (but with Asus/Asrock X370/X470 boards) are boosting higher than me.
> 
> What am I supposed to do now before my exchange time runs out?
> Gambling that this is going to be fixed or return my CPU for false advertising/not correct boosting?


It's like Amd wants to be sued so they are trying everything to make it happen lol. False advertising boost speeds. 

Sometimes i wonder if they do these things to get them in stock again. 

If i bought a 3800X and it wasn't even boosting at the 3700X levels i would be mad. Mine at least goes to 4375mhz on 3 cores and at least reaches 4325mhz on all cores. 

Just to make sure you are on the latest bios and have Windows 1903 installed plus the latest chipset driver from Amd.


----------



## HalongPort

polkfan said:


> It's like Amd wants to be sued so they are trying everything to make it happen lol. False advertising boost speeds.
> 
> Sometimes i wonder if they do these things to get them in stock again.
> 
> If i bought a 3800X and it wasn't even boosting at the 3700X levels i would be mad. Mine at least goes to 4375mhz on 3 cores and at least reaches 4325mhz on all cores.
> 
> Just to make sure you are on the latest bios and have Windows 1903 installed plus the latest chipset driver from Amd.


Yes and I tried several suggestions by users.
The worst thing is that the offical statement from Gigabyte is like: Well, one CPU may boost on this board but not on that board and you/we don't know why.
I'm also not alone, there are many people on Reddit, this forum and even Youtubers complaining about brokens boosts.

As an example watch this Video by der8auer.
Same board as mine but paired with an 3900X and he has got the same problems with correct boosting.


----------



## Bluesman

*Windows Scheduler Changed???*



polkfan said:


> brdtoledo at this thread
> 
> https://www.overclock.net/forum/11-...chi-overclocking-thread-607.html#post28091214
> 
> Showed that the 3700X boost correctly on Linux so perhaps this is a Windows+Amd driver issue?


I got a windows update yesterday, that was in addition to 1903. Suddenly, my AIDA64 and CB20 scores are higher. Using PBO and PBO2 I hit 5059 which is an all time high for me. I repeated and got the same score. (I am on a 3800x.) Usually, I am at 5042 or 5037 at these settings.


----------



## polkfan

Bluesman said:


> I got a windows update yesterday, that was in addition to 1903. Suddenly, my AIDA64 and CB20 scores are higher. Using PBO and PBO2 I hit 5059 which is an all time high for me. I repeated and got the same score. (I am on a 3800x.) Usually, I am at 5042 or 5037 at these settings.


I like want to analyze your whole setup lol since you are getting the right turbo's for your chip! 

haha thanks for sharing though that is a nice score man!


----------



## gupsterg

Spoiler






gupsterg said:


> A day or so ago when googling for DDR4 info I came across this PDF, page four has an interesting graph on margin of say DRAM/Package/Board/Chip/Data window. Noting the shrinking margin I thought this correlated well with how when I moved to 4x8GB I could only gain post on ProcODT of 34.3 when targetting 3800MHz.
> 
> At the time when I first used 4x8GB on my R5 3600 I used UEFI 2501 for ASUS ROG Crosshair VII Hero WiFi, default ProcODT on [Auto] was 60 for that one. System posted with 3600MHz and also 3666MHz, 3733MHz it wouldn't until I set ProODT 40. 3800MHz did not post until I set ProcODT as 34.3. I continued stability testing I had decent passes and all was fine.
> 
> Curiosity had been eating away at me on why was ProODT behaving this way, why on 4x8GB I'm using lower value, why is it only posting on a specific ProODT. In the past I had seen 1xxx/2xxx post on wider range of ProcODT and just lose stability if incorrect, only if ProODT was wildly out was post affected.
> 
> I decided to move the dimms around the slots.
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> I changed from:-
> 
> 
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> B1: #87 B2: #89 A1: #84 A2: #88
> 
> to
> 
> 
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> B1: #89 B2: #87 A1: #88 A2: #84
> 
> I could now gain post on 3800MHz with wider range of ProODT, 34.3, 40, 43.6 and 60, any others resulted in post failure.
> 
> I then moved dimms again.
> 
> 
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> B1: #84 B2: #87 A1: #89 A2: #88
> 
> I could gain post on 34.3 36.9 40 43.6 48, still testing others.
> 
> I do not know if this is specific to my HW and or targetted settings, but felt it maybe something that users of 4 dimms may wish to know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RossiOCUK said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do #84 #87 #88 & #89 reference?
> 
> 
> 
> gupsterg said:
> 
> 
> 
> Last 2 digits of serial of dimms. Just a way to identify which dimm I was placing where.
> 
> G.Skill quad kits all dimm serials are in sequence. I bought this kit open box. I believe some one mixed a dimm from another like kit. Manufacture date stamp is same though on all four. I gained a heavy discount few years back because of the serials not being in sequence.
> 
> 
> 
> RossiOCUK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thought as much, just wanted to clarify.
> 
> I have 2x 16GB kits bought 2 years apart. I currently run as:
> 
> A1: New A2: Old B1: New B2: Old
> 
> 
> 
> gupsterg said:
> 
> 
> 
> NP  .
> 
> If I still had the C6H it would have been interesting to see what happened with all this HW on T-Topology.
> 
> 
> 
> RossiOCUK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, i'm having a terrible time  stuck at 3600 cl16.
> 
> Going to try the new beta tonight and finally sacrifice the AGESA 1.0.0.2 boost speeds
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...





@RossiOCUK

Today I tried:-



Code:


B1: #84 B2: #87 A1: #88 A2: #89

If I had to describe in one word post ability on this config for 3800MHz it was a "crapfest".

To recap:-

B1: #87 B2: #89 A1: #84 A2: #88 only 34.3, only have 1 record of post on 60 and it was flaky for reuse.

B1: #89 B2: #87 A1: #88 A2: #84 34.3, 40, 43.6 and 60 usable for post.

B1: #84 B2: #87 A1: #89 A2: #88 34.3 36.9 40 43.6 48 usable for post.

B1: #84 B2: #87 A1: #88 A2: #89 out of range 30 to 60 I only got post on 43.6, on repost Q-Code: F9 and profile reset, on this setup I would have assumed my IMC is a dud.


----------



## RossiOCUK

gupsterg said:


> @RossiOCUK
> 
> Today I tried:-
> 
> 
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> B1: #84 B2: #87 A1: #88 A2: #89
> 
> If I had to describe in one word post ability on this config for 3800MHz it was a "crapfest".
> 
> To recap:-
> 
> B1: #87 B2: #89 A1: #84 A2: #88 only 34.3, only have 1 record of post on 60 and it was flaky for reuse.
> 
> B1: #89 B2: #87 A1: #88 A2: #84 34.3, 40, 43.6 and 60 usable for post.
> 
> B1: #84 B2: #87 A1: #89 A2: #88 34.3 36.9 40 43.6 48 usable for post.
> 
> B1: #84 B2: #87 A1: #88 A2: #89 out of range 30 to 60 I only got post on 43.6, on repost Q-Code: F9 and profile reset, on this setup I would have assumed my IMC is a dud.


That's quite interesting. Swapping mine over didn't make such a big difference at all. My current way around (A1: New A2: Old B1: New B2: Old) looks to be the most flexible. But all boot 3600 between 34.3 and 43.6.

In other news, whilst tinkering, I finally managed to get 3600 CL14.


----------



## Bluesman

*Memory, PBO, PBO2*



polkfan said:


> I like want to analyze your whole setup lol since you are getting the right turbo's for your chip!
> 
> haha thanks for sharing though that is a nice score man!


Thanks @polkfan! I've had fun modifying my PBO settings. :--) My infinity fabric is at 1866 with memory at 3733. Timings are not great but super stable at 16-17-17-36. Below is my AIDA64 Benchmark. AGESA 1.0.0.3 ABB with Stilt memory settings from this thread https://www.overclock.net/forum/28052342-post259.html

PBO is PPT-124 (142 default); TDC-85 (95 default); EDC-110 (140 default). Thermal Threshold changed to 85C (default 95C).

PBO2 (XFR2) is 4X and boost setting is 150Mhz. I have played with this endlessly and this gives me the best boost to thermals. Keeping the thermals down, and associated cpu package power low, was key to boost highs and duration.


----------



## ver_21

Bluesman said:


> I'm seeing much better boosting behavior on my 3800x. I've had five cores hit 4525.8 Mhz in one session. In the past usually only one or two cores would boost to this level.
> 
> With AGESA 1.0.0.3ABB, I'm also seeing longer sustained clocks at 4400 - 4450MHZ. I've had all 8 cores at or over 4450MHZ in one gaming session. Temps are also lower as CPU Package Power appears to be lower for Prime95 and other stress programs. I think they are matching current draw to high voltage better with this AGESA. In the gaming session mentioned above, average CPU Package Power watts was only 39 (peaks at 55-57), with voltage spikes of 1.5 on all 8 cores.



What board/bios are you running?


I used to be able to get good PB core performance (4550) from my 3800X on MSI Ace BIOS 110, but everyting since is stuck in the 4300-4375 range, and dips to 4100-4200 for rendering.




NM, just saw your last post--you're on an ASRock Taichi 370? what the heck did i buy a 570 for???


----------



## Bluesman

ver_21 said:


> What board/bios are you running?
> 
> 
> I used to be able to get good PB core performance (4550) from my 3800X on MSI Ace BIOS 110, but everyting since is stuck in the 4300-4375 range, and dips to 4100-4200 for rendering.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NM, just saw your last post--you're on an ASRock Taichi 370? what the heck did i buy a 570 for???


Yeah, I have a Taichi 370 running the new 5.80 bios. I don't remember the VRM specs but they are very good - temps under stress at 53C with air on 'em. VRM temps, I think, are another key to the puzzle. Folks with cheap 350 boards or boards with poor VRM implementation are going to have trouble with PBO. (I also have a Corsair AIO - 115i Pro.)

If you can get temps under control, I think you will see better boosts, sustained longer. (Your good, earlier PBO was probably with AGESA 1.0.0.2 bios which was the best for boost. We will probably not see those boosts again though, for reasons AMD only knows.)


----------



## ver_21

Bluesman said:


> Thanks @*polkfan* ! I've had fun modifying my PBO settings. :--) My infinity fabric is at 1866 with memory at 3733. Timings are not great but super stable at 16-17-17-36. Below is my AIDA64 Benchmark. AGESA 1.0.0.3 ABB with Stilt memory settings from this thread https://www.overclock.net/forum/28052342-post259.html
> 
> PBO is PPT-124 (142 default); TDC-85 (95 default); EDC-110 (140 default). Thermal Threshold changed to 85C (default 95C).
> 
> PBO2 (XFR2) is 4X and boost setting is 150Mhz. I have played with this endlessly and this gives me the best boost to thermals. Keeping the thermals down, and associated cpu package power low, was key to boost highs and duration.


I plugged in these settings and now, instead of PB running cores at 4300-4375, I am actually getting 4425 to 4525.

Can you elaborate about the relationship of these settings?

For example, the +150 seems to correspond to my cpu max PB jump from 4375 to 4525. But if I set that at the max +500, it doesn't seem to do anything at all. So something else is factoring in. if I want to try to re-achieve 4550, I think I want to set boost to +200, but any thoughts on how I should adjust the others?

Why are the defaults set higher but delivering lower clocks than when they are adjusted downward--thermal parameters?


So I upped boost to +200, kept the other settings, and it looks like my boost cap actually went down 50, to 4475. HWiNFO also seems to be reading funny.


PPT/TDC/EDC seem to be affecting voltage to the cores?


I wish all of these settings were available in Ryzen Master. I wouldn't have to reboot to get at XFR2 and Thermal Threshold.


----------



## gamervivek

gupsterg said:


> A day or so ago when googling for DDR4 info I came across this PDF, page four has an interesting graph on margin of say DRAM/Package/Board/Chip/Data window. Noting the shrinking margin I thought this correlated well with how when I moved to 4x8GB I could only gain post on ProcODT of 34.3 when targetting 3800MHz.
> 
> At the time when I first used 4x8GB on my R5 3600 I used UEFI 2501 for ASUS ROG Crosshair VII Hero WiFi, default ProcODT on [Auto] was 60 for that one. System posted with 3600MHz and also 3666MHz, 3733MHz it wouldn't until I set ProODT 40. 3800MHz did not post until I set ProcODT as 34.3. I continued stability testing I had decent passes and all was fine.
> 
> Curiosity had been eating away at me on why was ProODT behaving this way, why on 4x8GB I'm using lower value, why is it only posting on a specific ProODT. In the past I had seen 1xxx/2xxx post on wider range of ProcODT and just lose stability if incorrect, only if ProODT was wildly out was post affected.
> 
> I decided to move the dimms around the slots.
> 
> I changed from:-
> 
> 
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> B1: #87 B2: #89 A1: #84 A2: #88
> 
> to
> 
> 
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> B1: #89 B2: #87 A1: #88 A2: #84
> 
> I could now gain post on 3800MHz with wider range of ProODT, 34.3, 40, 43.6 and 60, any others resulted in post failure.
> 
> I then moved dimms again.
> 
> 
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> B1: #84 B2: #87 A1: #89 A2: #88
> 
> I could gain post on 34.3 36.9 40 43.6 48, still testing others.
> 
> I do not know if this is specific to my HW and or targetted settings, but felt it maybe something that users of 4 dimms may wish to know.


Getting similar behavior with ProcODT here, 34 stabilises 3800MHz on 16x2 kit, while can't even boot with over 48. 
It should've been the opposite, with higher values helping with higher clocks.


----------



## polkfan

ver_21 said:


> I plugged in these settings and now, instead of PB running cores at 4300-4375, I am actually getting 4425 to 4525.
> 
> Can you elaborate about the relationship of these settings?
> 
> For example, the +150 seems to correspond to my cpu max PB jump from 4375 to 4525. But if I set that at the max +500, it doesn't seem to do anything at all. So something else is factoring in. if I want to try to re-achieve 4550, I think I want to set boost to +200, but any thoughts on how I should adjust the others?
> 
> Why are the defaults set higher but delivering lower clocks than when they are adjusted downward--thermal parameters?
> 
> 
> So I upped boost to +200, kept the other settings, and it looks like my boost cap actually went down 50, to 4475. HWiNFO also seems to be reading funny.
> 
> 
> PPT/TDC/EDC seem to be affecting voltage to the cores?
> 
> 
> I wish all of these settings were available in Ryzen Master. I wouldn't have to reboot to get at XFR2 and Thermal Threshold.


Its so broken lol i'm trying his settings again i noticed that my cores aren't locked so far to 4.3 but i get the same thing you do if i set the auto OC to 200 my speed goes down, no one is going to tell me that is normal lol


----------



## polkfan

So far this is what i got with Auto OC

200mhz stuck at 4.3ghz
175mhz stuck at 4325mhz
150mhz stuck at 4350mhz
125mhz stuck at 4350mhz
100mhz stuck 4375mhz

That's the max turbo that i'm seeing on each frequency it's just so odd gonna try 75mhz and 25mhz too.


----------



## Bluesman

ver_21 said:


> I plugged in these settings and now, instead of PB running cores at 4300-4375, I am actually getting 4425 to 4525.
> 
> Can you elaborate about the relationship of these settings?
> 
> For example, the +150 seems to correspond to my cpu max PB jump from 4375 to 4525. But if I set that at the max +500, it doesn't seem to do anything at all. So something else is factoring in. if I want to try to re-achieve 4550, I think I want to set boost to +200, but any thoughts on how I should adjust the others?
> 
> Why are the defaults set higher but delivering lower clocks than when they are adjusted downward--thermal parameters?
> 
> 
> So I upped boost to +200, kept the other settings, and it looks like my boost cap actually went down 50, to 4475. HWiNFO also seems to be reading funny.
> 
> 
> PPT/TDC/EDC seem to be affecting voltage to the cores?
> 
> 
> I wish all of these settings were available in Ryzen Master. I wouldn't have to reboot to get at XFR2 and Thermal Threshold.


In answer to your question, I'll start with the limit on a 3800x. AMD states that it is 4500Mhz not 4525 or 4550. Many have stated that you can't boost beyond the FIT limit set in the microcode. Still, I have hit 4525Mhz on numerous cores and you hit 4550Mhz! Realistically, we should be happy with 4500Mhz. (I am not and that is why my settings get me 4525Mhz but I'm a rebel.)

Now for the tough part. We are all blind men trying to describe an elephant based on what end we are touching. I've got the ass end so I think it is a donkey! So my comments are soley my own but shaded by some knowledge I gained from posts here that may or may not be correct. Or my interepretation may or may not be correct!

PPT: See https://www.anandtech.com/show/14605/the-and-ryzen-3700x-3900x-review-raising-the-bar/19 and https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/ceakbs/if_you_want_to_save_powerreduce_thermals_reduce/ 
My interpretation - 142PPT is too high for a 3800x because it only has one CCD. It is probably around 134, so drop it to reduce thermals and increase performance. I equate PPT to CPU PACKAGE POWER; it is not but it gives me something of a ballpark number. I reduced to 124 and got my best performance. YMMV

TDC: Since I lowered my cpu thermal threshold to 85C, I found reducing this number from 95A to 85A gave me my best performance boost. Again, this is with a 3800x + ASROCK 370 Taichi and with your board it may differ.

EDC: Trial and Error with the other two fixed gave me 110A. YMMV

PBO2 (XFR2): Initially I thought that the multiplier was matched to the boost Mhz. So 4x150=600; thus 3900 + 600 gives me a limit of 4500 the max for 3800x. Now I think this is entirely wrong based on this post:https://www.overclock.net/forum/28086356-post556.html
So a multiplier of 4x gives you a voltage boost from stock voltage at 3900Mhz of 0.024 volts. So then what is the Mhz boost number? Hell if I know but it works best at 150Mhz for my system. Real scientific huh?

There you have it. The sum total of knowledge on PBO from a blind man at the ass end of an elephant.


----------



## polkfan

Bluesman

Do you use Amd High performance plan or Amd balance? 

In theory it would make sense that balance would have more headroom for a few cores as the others downclock plus you would think it would lower temps when you are just using a few cores.


----------



## Bluesman

polkfan said:


> Bluesman
> 
> Do you use Amd High performance plan or Amd balance?
> 
> In theory it would make sense that balance would have more headroom for a few cores as the others downclock plus you would think it would lower temps when you are just using a few cores.


I use AMD Balanced for the reasons you state.


----------



## Synoxia

Which performance power plan is better? Bitsum highest performance or amd high performance?
Which temp readings are more reliable? Ryzen master or hwinfo? Can't believe this processor runs this hot at idle.


----------



## thegr8anand

The Stilt said:


> The voltage only increases automatically during manual OC, if the motherboard manufacturer has implemented an "auto-rule" (pre-defined behavior, e.g. if ratio >= 40.0x set vcore 1.300). Its ODMs own doing, not something what the CPU itself is doing.
> 
> If no auto-rule is present, the CPU should use P0 voltage (which can be seen in CBS PStates) during manual oc.





CJMitsuki said:


> Umm, im not positive but I dont think thats entirely accurate Crake. IIRC VID is the Voltage Identifier and not a voltage at all. It is what the CPU is requesting but once you set a manual voltage you have essentially overridden the CPUs voltage request and it is ignored in favor of the manual override. The VID is what the CPU would be requesting had the request not been overridden. I may not be 100% right but thats how I understood it. Basically dont worry about the VID since it isnt a voltage but only a request by the CPU.





VeritronX said:


> Vcore is the voltage actually being supplied to all the cores, VID is the voltage each core is requesting from the motherboard. If you are using a manual voltage the motherboard will ignore what the cpu is asking for and use your set voltage, if operating normally the motherboard will try to give the cpu whatever is the highest requested voltage.



If i set vcore in the bios, then vid doesn't matter as cpu is getting the vcore voltage always, correct? Does it mean vdroop and llc don't matter in this case? When i set manual vcore in bios it always stays the same on idle or load (cinebenchR20). So in this case manual vcore in bios should never be above 1.325v?


----------



## polkfan

Been testing my setup like crazy lol so its weird at 10X scaler i get 4375mhz at 100mhz OC(same as 0mhz BTW) but at 1X i get 4350mhz at 100mhz auto oc.

So maybe a mix of Bluesman settings and tweaking my own chip might be a good idea. 


Makes no sense my temps are great below 70C always even gaming since i own a 360 rad. If i had unlimited money i'd throw this under ice.

PBO 10X
200mhz stuck at 4.3ghz
175mhz stuck at 4325mhz
150mhz stuck at 4350mhz
125mhz stuck at 4350mhz
100mhz stuck at 4375mhz
75mhz stuck at 4350mhz
25mhz stuck at 4350mhz

PBO 1X
200mhz stuck at 4.3ghz
175mhz stuck at 4325mhz
150mhz stuck at 4350mhz
125mhz stuck at 4350mhz
100mhz stuck at 4350mhz
75mhz stuck at 4350mhz
25mhz stuck at 4350mhz


That's with my PBO set to motherboard which puts everything to the boards limits.

Edit 

So now i'm testing 100mhz auto OC at PBO 2X-10X scaling gonna try each setting to see which one hits 4375mhz more often bored so why not lol. Then I agree with Bluesman about trying to get your chip to use less power so it can run cooler and then maybe hit higher turbos or for the chip to hit turbos more often.

From what i notice it looks like my "slower" cores are running slightly higher frequency's so i gained a little still gonna try and get my CPU to use less power for the same if not more performance.

To check for single core peaks i'm just watching youtube and browsing i also put dolphin emulator on just one core to check for turbo speeds. 

Windows 10 sucks at Ryzen usage it rarely puts single core loads on my fastest core and cores 4-7 should be sleeping but they randomly jump to 4.2-4.3ghz doing zero usage. Something still needs to be improved between the drivers and windows 10.


----------



## polkfan

https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/crlee8/is_everyone_just_ok_with_amd_now_putting_the_max/

OMG so many comments about the boost issue and this is a new thread. WOW Amd must have patched this for a major reason perhaps the chips where dying or starting to degrade overtime? I never go on Reddit i was surprised to see that many people upset some even saying they won't buy the chip to its fixed.


----------



## Bluesman

polkfan said:


> https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/crlee8/is_everyone_just_ok_with_amd_now_putting_the_max/
> 
> OMG so many comments about the boost issue and this is a new thread. WOW Amd must have patched this for a major reason perhaps the chips where dying or starting to degrade overtime? I never go on Reddit i was surprised to see that many people upset some even saying they won't buy the chip to its fixed.


We need to be careful about such reddit threads. A lot of Intel-fan boys get on these threads to bash AMD and pretend to be Zen owners.

Here we know there is an AGESA issue but some of us are getting good clocks in spades. Others are static overclocking with great success. No doubt PBO can be improved but this new tech. needs time to mature. Me, I have been gaming my brains out and having fun tweaking my 3800x. Most fun since my Phenom II days...


----------



## polkfan

Bluesman said:


> We need to be careful about such reddit threads. A lot of Intel-fan boys get on these threads to bash AMD and pretend to be Zen owners.
> 
> Here we know there is an AGESA issue but some of us are getting good clocks in spades. Others are static overclocking with great success. No doubt PBO can be improved but this new tech. needs time to mature. Me, I have been gaming my brains out and having fun tweaking my 3800x. Most fun since my Phenom II days...


OMG thanks to you i hit 4.4ghz on my CPU now i want to say thank you so much for your help

Combination of me trying auto OC until i could get a speed that didn't lower my max turbo and then your PBO settings i now have this 3700X hitting its max turbo!

We need to make your info widely known!


----------



## thegr8anand

polkfan said:


> OMG thanks to you i hit 4.4ghz on my CPU now i want to say thank you so much for your help
> 
> Combination of me trying auto OC until i could get a speed that didn't lower my max turbo and then your PBO settings i now have this 3700X hitting its max turbo!
> 
> We need to make your info widely known!



On 1003ABB everything at default and Ryzen High performance power plan one core boosts upto 4550. On 1002 it did reach 25-50mhz more. Even running ram at XMP and manual oc reduces the boost. In my case drastically when manual oc to 3733mhz. see below. Everything is on all auto in bios with just ram settings changed to show the difference.


----------



## polkfan

That is a good point i first went after my memory and then started to tweak the rest as most gains are from memory. 

Maybe i will try 2133 1.2V on my memory to see if my chip changes too with slower ram. 

Not that i would keep it at that lol right now running my memory at 1.45V but i have 3600mhz with 14 timings


----------



## Nighthog

thegr8anand said:


> On 1003ABB everything at default and Ryzen High performance power plan one core boosts upto 4550. On 1002 it did reach 25-50mhz more. Even running ram at XMP and manual oc reduces the boost. In my case drastically when manual oc to 3733mhz. see below. Everything is on all auto in bios with just ram settings changed to show the difference.


We can drastically see the difference in speeds in idle and voltages used for 3733Mhz RAM.

The PB behavior is drastically diffrent.

Core voltage doesn't go 1.500V giving slower speeds, voltage is what will enable the cores to clock higher in bursts & also we see that idle voltage & speeds don't go as low as normal. The high idle-voltage bug behaviour everyone was complaining about?

Which motherboard did you have? I think the high voltage/wattage under 3600+ RAM speeds was fixed for Gigabyte but I've not heard about it fixed for any other Vendor.


----------



## thegr8anand

Voltage is not an issue as almost all the cores go to sleep. On load like CineBench R20 all core boost drops to 4050mhz with 1.3v. My mobo is Asus C7H.


----------



## mongoled

Guys and gals,

can you try this and report back.

Use the weakest CPU LLC setting and see if anything has changed with regards to boost clocks


----------



## polkfan

mongoled said:


> Guys and gals,
> 
> can you try this and report back.
> 
> Use the weakest CPU LLC setting and see if anything has changed with regards to boost clocks


I'll give it a go today i was gonna mess around with slower memory and see the boost behavior since i know i'm pushing the memory controller.

Edit actually i can already say haha since auto is 5(which is the lowest) on my asrock x370 so perhaps i should change it to 1?

If i had to make a hypothesis i would say turbo would be worse with more voltage as heat would increase. These chips mainly seem to be highly sensitive to temps more so then any other processor i think with my chip 4.4 only happens on one core at like 45C

Well in just a few min my chip already hit 4375mhz on 2 cores at 1 LLC


Edit yeah i think it actually improves my boost speeds i see my chip hit higher turbos more often with LLC set to 1(highest setting)


----------



## mongoled

polkfan said:


> I'll give it a go today i was gonna mess around with slower memory and see the boost behavior since i know i'm pushing the memory controller.
> 
> Edit actually i can already say haha since auto is 5(which is the lowest) on my asrock x370 so perhaps i should change it to 1?
> 
> If i had to make a hypothesis i would say turbo would be worse with more voltage as heat would increase. These chips mainly seem to be highly sensitive to temps more so then any other processor i think with my chip 4.4 only happens on one core at like 45C
> 
> Well in just a few min my chip already hit 4375mhz on 2 cores at 1 LLC
> 
> 
> Edit yeah i think it actually improves my boost speeds i see my chip hit higher turbos more often with LLC set to 1(highest setting)


 Now add a frequency boost (in the PBO settings) of 75mhz and PBO scaler x4 and report back


----------



## 1usmus

Why do you touch all these settings (PBO , Scalar , PB2 , Sense Mi Skew)? this is a fiction, most of the settings are just decoration. Zen 2 product is not for enthusiasts, everything blocked from us, blocked mathematical performance , increased IF throughput and FCLK OC. Hard stretching. Don't wait for a miracle


----------



## Grin

Don’t wait for a miracle, do wait for a mod bios with all staff unlocked ;-)


----------



## polkfan

1usmus said:


> Why do you touch all these settings (PBO , Scalar , PB2 , Sense Mi Skew)? this is a fiction, most of the settings are just decoration. Zen 2 product is not for enthusiasts, everything blocked from us, blocked mathematical performance , increased IF throughput and FCLK OC. Hard stretching. Don't wait for a miracle


Mainly out of boredom lol sorry i just love trying to tweak out my PC i know Zen 2 is pushed 95% to the max out of box but i want that extra 5%.


----------



## Takla

Grin said:


> Don’t wait for a miracle, do wait for a mod bios with all staff unlocked ;-)


Keep dreaming.
It is not the mainboard vendors who lock out settings. It is AMD themselves who keeps their mouth shut and doors locked. Not even the people who develop these bioses have access to ANY kind of documentation of the microcode of ryzen 3000. You can follow the gigabyte rep on reddit. He is very active and has dropped plenty of hints on the current situation so far.


----------



## polkfan

Takla said:


> Keep dreaming.
> It is not the mainboard vendors who lock out settings. It is AMD themselves who keeps their mouth shut and doors locked. Not even the people who develop these bioses have access do ANY kind of documentation of the microcode of ryzen 3000. You can follow the gigabyte rep on reddit. He is very active and has dropped plenty of hints on the current situation so far.


Can you link me the site i'm not to familiar to Reddit


----------



## Takla

polkfan said:


> Can you link me the site i'm not to familiar to Reddit


https://old.reddit.com/user/GBT_Matthew


----------



## polkfan

I tested slower memory and found my CPU to boost the same regardless. 

My guess is if you are seeing a difference its over heat as when i turned it down i noticed my SOC voltage dropped to 1V instead of 1.1V. 


These chips really like to run at low temps to get the most out of the boost. I truly do wish this was a bigger issue with youtubers and tech journalist


----------



## edu616

What settings did you used are you talking about, the ones he posted for he's PPT, EDC and TDC? Thanks!





thegr8anand said:


> polkfan said:
> 
> 
> 
> OMG thanks to you i hit 4.4ghz on my CPU now i want to say thank you so much for your help
> 
> Combination of me trying auto OC until i could get a speed that didn't lower my max turbo and then your PBO settings i now have this 3700X hitting its max turbo!
> 
> We need to make your info widely known!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 1003ABB everything at default and Ryzen High performance power plan one core boosts upto 4550. On 1002 it did reach 25-50mhz more. Even running ram at XMP and manual oc reduces the boost. In my case drastically when manual oc to 3733mhz. see below. Everything is on all auto in bios with just ram settings changed to show the difference.
Click to expand...


----------



## mongoled

1usmus said:


> Why do you touch all these settings (PBO , Scalar , PB2 , Sense Mi Skew)? this is a fiction, most of the settings are just decoration. Zen 2 product is not for enthusiasts, everything blocked from us, blocked mathematical performance , increased IF throughput and FCLK OC. Hard stretching. Don't wait for a miracle



I believe its about doing our best in understanding what is doable and what is not doable within the confines that have been set by AMD.

In this way, the hope is, in that we will be able to find ways to 'trick' the CPU (algorithm) to do things which its not 'meant to do'.

Through my own investigations, lowering the LLC level (i.e. applying more v droop) allows the CPU to boost higher, but it is a fine margin what is stable and what is not.

Once you have increased more vdroop you need to apply more voltage to gain stability, but of course, you will run into other 'issues', so its all about finding theright balance to get that extra 5%.

Ofcourse, we wish we had more control over what these CPU do, but we need to remember, these are extremely complex CPU and 99.9999% of the population wouldnt know what to do with an 'unlocked' CPU.

Most likely, we would kill many CPUs before we find the balance of what we can do and what we cant do.....


----------



## Propetya

Bluesman said:


> In answer to your question, I'll start with the limit on a 3800x. AMD states that it is 4500Mhz not 4525 or 4550. Many have stated that you can't boost beyond the FIT limit set in the microcode. Still, I have hit 4525Mhz on numerous cores and you hit 4550Mhz! Realistically, we should be happy with 4500Mhz. (I am not and that is why my settings get me 4525Mhz but I'm a rebel.)
> 
> Now for the tough part. We are all blind men trying to describe an elephant based on what end we are touching. I've got the ass end so I think it is a donkey! So my comments are soley my own but shaded by some knowledge I gained from posts here that may or may not be correct. Or my interepretation may or may not be correct!
> 
> PPT: See https://www.anandtech.com/show/14605/the-and-ryzen-3700x-3900x-review-raising-the-bar/19 and https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/ceakbs/if_you_want_to_save_powerreduce_thermals_reduce/
> My interpretation - 142PPT is too high for a 3800x because it only has one CCD. It is probably around 134, so drop it to reduce thermals and increase performance. I equate PPT to CPU PACKAGE POWER; it is not but it gives me something of a ballpark number. I reduced to 124 and got my best performance. YMMV
> 
> TDC: Since I lowered my cpu thermal threshold to 85C, I found reducing this number from 95A to 85A gave me my best performance boost. Again, this is with a 3800x + ASROCK 370 Taichi and with your board it may differ.
> 
> EDC: Trial and Error with the other two fixed gave me 110A. YMMV
> 
> PBO2 (XFR2): Initially I thought that the multiplier was matched to the boost Mhz. So 4x150=600; thus 3900 + 600 gives me a limit of 4500 the max for 3800x. Now I think this is entirely wrong based on this post:https://www.overclock.net/forum/28086356-post556.html
> So a multiplier of 4x gives you a voltage boost from stock voltage at 3900Mhz of 0.024 volts. So then what is the Mhz boost number? Hell if I know but it works best at 150Mhz for my system. Real scientific huh?
> 
> There you have it. The sum total of knowledge on PBO from a blind man at the ass end of an elephant.


Do you have any ideas for mine 3600X? PBO PPT/TDC/EDC , scalar etc.... 
I just get it 4325 - (4350 rarely) in single core boost with 7306 bios. (C6H) 
I want the 4.4


----------



## CJMitsuki

In the case of Asus, it is absolutely a bios revision affecting the boost. While keeping the most up to date chipset drivers on my 3700x with the 2501 bios I can use PBO and get boosts to push to 4.5ghz single core but memory stability is slightly worse as I can not use 3800 with a 1:1 unless I manipulate it using BCLK then I am able to achieve 3815mhz @ cl14 15-15-22-36 by running 1867mhz DRAM/FCLK and a 102.2mhz BCLK. Now on 2602 this completely changed, while I could hit 3800 with a 1:1 setup and even push it further with a BCLK increase ending up with 3822mhz with the same timings as previous bios. On the CPU side of things there was a huge regression in boosting as now, even with increasing BCLK and removing the 88w limit on PBO and maxing it out at 395w the boosting algorithm would counteract my BCLK increase with an opposing reduction in core ratio essentially always keeping me around 4.35ghz all core when I had been able to hit 4.425ghz all core in the previous revision. I had to finally just give up on that since it looked like they had essentially took increasing PBO boosting behavior through BCLK out of the hands of the user by actively dropping the cpu multiplier as the BCLK increased. 



The boosting behavior is not really something that bothers me all too much but the way the memory overclocking goes from pushing clocks at an amazing pace to falling off a cliff and never seeing errors to that point is something that is as odd as it is frustrating. You go from dialing in a great 3815mhz timing setup to increasing it with BCLK by only 8mhz more and then you are unable to boot, It wont even go through a failed PMU memory training routine nor will it even try to boot but gives a C5 error and you have to safe boot and drop back. Im sorry but that does not feel like a natural limitation of the silicon but a something else entirely. Neither time on any bios has getting memory stable ever been an issue as I pretty much dialed in my most aggressive memory timings and they ran without a hitch and it was so easy to get 3800 @ 1:1 with the subtimings tightened to their max that it feels like their is an insane amount of headroom left and that the limitations are not silicon based but a combination of immature bios and AMD needing to pull their heads out and clean up the AGESA. I have never once been overclocking and it go from pushing clocks and timings with no problem to it falling off a sharp cliff with memory. Youd most certainly start to get errors as you approach the limits of the particular memory die or the CPU silicon but that isnt the case here. Something just feels like it isnt a natural silicon limitation but some limit imposed either directly or indirectly due to the maturity of the AGESA along with the vendors bios. 



I feel like 1900 fclk is not the limit @ 1:1 but some oversight/error by AMD in the underlying AGESA, bios, or rather a combination of both causing this. I doubt its a malicious intent but rather them being overwhelmed with all the releases on the CPU and GPU side right now and they dont have the staff to dedicate to something this deep just yet. Once things calm down a bit maybe something will fix the issues. Until then the performance is still amazing and its fun trying to find ways to optimize performance through the newer options in the bios such as "Data Eye". 



Oh Yeah and ASUS needs to go ahead and release that Crosshair Impact mini DTX board already :notontopi Im tired of waiting to upgrade to the new chipset


----------



## lordzed83

@CJMitsuki ye something feels odd i can runmy setting all second and tier timings tight as hell at 1.4 but going down from cl16 to cl14 is plain no go tried up to 1.55 volts errors no mater what i try. I think extra 150mv would get cl16 to cl14 but nope...


----------



## Bluesman

*In the Dark with a Dim Flashlight*



Propetya said:


> Do you have any ideas for mine 3600X? PBO PPT/TDC/EDC , scalar etc....
> I just get it 4325 - (4350 rarely) in single core boost with 7306 bios. (C6H)
> I want the 4.4


First, I would change my cpu thermal threshold from 95C to 85C.

Since we are working with 6 cores, chances are the PPT is too high at 124, my setting for a 3800x. Try it but if you get poor results, move down to 118 or 112.

Keep my TDC at 85A and EDC at 110A.

Now the tough part. You're going to have to experiment on multiplier and Mhz boost. Try 2X and 75Mhz to start then play up to 4X and 100 or 150Mhz. This will be tedious but we're tweaking right? Pay attention to thermals and CPU PACKAGE POWER (watts) in HWINFO. If CB20 is hitting 110 watts then that is a clue about a PPT setting that might work; i.e. 112.

Again, I want to emphasize that I am no expert in this and I am only trying give some suggestions. AMD is not about to share intellectual property about Ryzen boost that Intel could and would copy. We are all in the dark with a dim flashlight!

Good luck.


----------



## Propetya

Thank you very much for your help!
Unfortunately, whatever I set up does not affect a single core boost (and allcore)!


----------



## polkfan

Bluesman said:


> First, I would change my cpu thermal threshold from 95C to 85C.
> 
> Since we are working with 6 cores, chances are the PPT is too high at 124, my setting for a 3800x. Try it but if you get poor results, move down to 118 or 112.
> 
> Keep my TDC at 85A and EDC at 110A.
> 
> Now the tough part. You're going to have to experiment on multiplier and Mhz boost. Try 2X and 75Mhz to start then play up to 4X and 100 or 150Mhz. This will be tedious but we're tweaking right? Pay attention to thermals and CPU PACKAGE POWER (watts) in HWINFO. If CB20 is hitting 110 watts then that is a clue about a PPT setting that might work; i.e. 112.
> 
> Again, I want to emphasize that I am no expert in this and I am only trying give some suggestions. AMD is not about to share intellectual property about Ryzen boost that Intel could and would copy. We are all in the dark with a dim flashlight!
> 
> Good luck.


Finally after about a month of owning this CPU i actually decided last night to test for stability on my memory and for me to call stable i require 1500% coverage on all tests haha(took 10 hours). 

I also reapplied thermal compound on my CPU i always used a pea size amount for years but this time i made a tiny X in the middle. 

What is freaking crazy is when i run one core test in R15 my temps are higher then when i run all my cores in memtest lol.


----------



## GBT-MatthewH

Takla said:


> https://old.reddit.com/user/GBT_Matthew


Im on here too  

Re: Boost -

So we can only adjust the inputs, not the equation, nor the output. So we can tell the boost "use X voltage, set PPT to X" etc... What the boost algorithm does with that information is locked in the AGESA.

Re: Bios -

Anything under "AMD CBS" and "AMD Overclocking" is a black box. We can hide/unhide functions. We cannot change the values, reword the menus, etc. This is all apart of the AGESA. This is why you see FCLK Under "AMD CBS" and Infinity fabric dividers under "AMD Overclocking". So the questions I have seen multiple times (IE Why is it listed in 2 places? Which takes precedent?) are questions we cannot answer any better than you. We can do various A-B testing and try to decern answers, but we cannot give you the _* actual answer*_, just the observed effects.

This is why I have said since the first week of launch - In general 1002 and 1003 (no combo) had the highest _ on average_ boost results. That being said, some still get higher boost with AGESA 1003X, some get worse on 1002/1003, some get lower boost (than they expected) on all AGESA... Again this is all test and report observable results. I cannot tell you why, just what I have seen.


----------



## HalongPort

Can someone with an 3800X tell me, how high his package power is when running Cinebench 20 multi with default BIOS settings?


----------



## polkfan

GBT-MatthewH said:


> Im on here too
> 
> Re: Boost -
> 
> So we can only adjust the inputs, not the equation, nor the output. So we can tell the boost "use X voltage, set PPT to X" etc... What the boost algorithm does with that information is locked in the AGESA.
> 
> Re: Bios -
> 
> Anything under "AMD CBS" and "AMD Overclocking" is a black box. We can hide/unhide functions. We cannot change the values, reword the menus, etc. This is all apart of the AGESA. This is why you see FCLK Under "AMD CBS" and Infinity fabric dividers under "AMD Overclocking". So the questions I have seen multiple times (IE Why is it listed in 2 places? Which takes precedent?) are questions we cannot answer any better than you. We can do various A-B testing and try to decern answers, but we cannot give you the _* actual answer*_, just the observed effects.
> 
> This is why I have said since the first week of launch - In general 1002 and 1003 (no combo) had the highest _ on average_ boost results. That being said, some still get higher boost with AGESA 1003X, some get worse on 1002/1003, some get lower boost (than they expected) on all AGESA... Again this is all test and report observable results. I cannot tell you why, just what I have seen.


Wow thanks so much for being on the forums! I tried everything to contact Amd directly about why they changed the boost behavior do you guys have any word on this? My guess is they had to for stability or they where seeing degradation. People are pretty upset about this on the forums and you probably read the comments at Reddit as well. 

People buying $500 CPU and never seeing their single core turbo on even custom loop setups isn't a good thing.


----------



## GBT-MatthewH

polkfan said:


> Wow thanks so much for being on the forums! I tried everything to contact Amd directly about why they changed the boost behavior do you guys have any word on this? My guess is they had to for stability or they where seeing degradation. People are pretty upset about this on the forums and you probably read the comments at Reddit as well.
> 
> People buying $500 CPU and never seeing their single core turbo on even custom loop setups isn't a good thing.


I have 0 information on why things changed, only that _ something _ changed. The patch was for SMU, but how/why that affected boost behavior is still a mystery. It should be noted that this is just an observation about average boost behavior before and after. Again, just to be crystal clear, what typical boost behavior actually looks, under what conditions, and * any * information on how settings are implemented/precedence/broken implementation/etc under "AMD" menus are all questions you need to direct to towards AMD.


----------



## Bluesman

HalongPort said:


> Can someone with an 3800X tell me, how high his package power is when running Cinebench 20 multi with default BIOS settings?


Around 110 watts.


----------



## Takla

GBT-MatthewH said:


> Im on here too
> 
> Re: Boost -
> 
> So we can only adjust the inputs, not the equation, nor the output. So we can tell the boost "use X voltage, set PPT to X" etc... What the boost algorithm does with that information is locked in the AGESA.
> 
> Re: Bios -
> 
> Anything under "AMD CBS" and "AMD Overclocking" is a black box. We can hide/unhide functions. We cannot change the values, reword the menus, etc. This is all apart of the AGESA. This is why you see FCLK Under "AMD CBS" and Infinity fabric dividers under "AMD Overclocking". So the questions I have seen multiple times (IE Why is it listed in 2 places? Which takes precedent?) are questions we cannot answer any better than you. We can do various A-B testing and try to decern answers, but we cannot give you the _* actual answer*_, just the observed effects.
> 
> This is why I have said since the first week of launch - In general 1002 and 1003 (no combo) had the highest _ on average_ boost results. That being said, some still get higher boost with AGESA 1003X, some get worse on 1002/1003, some get lower boost (than they expected) on all AGESA... Again this is all test and report observable results. I cannot tell you why, just what I have seen.


Thanks a lot for the insight. And your active interaction with the community in general. I really wish there were more officials like you with this attitude.


----------



## CJMitsuki

Bluesman said:


> First, I would change my cpu thermal threshold from 95C to 85C.
> 
> Since we are working with 6 cores, chances are the PPT is too high at 124, my setting for a 3800x. Try it but if you get poor results, move down to 118 or 112.
> 
> Keep my TDC at 85A and EDC at 110A.
> 
> Now the tough part. You're going to have to experiment on multiplier and Mhz boost. Try 2X and 75Mhz to start then play up to 4X and 100 or 150Mhz. This will be tedious but we're tweaking right? Pay attention to thermals and CPU PACKAGE POWER (watts) in HWINFO. If CB20 is hitting 110 watts then that is a clue about a PPT setting that might work; i.e. 112.
> 
> Again, I want to emphasize that I am no expert in this and I am only trying give some suggestions. AMD is not about to share intellectual property about Ryzen boost that Intel could and would copy. We are all in the dark with a dim flashlight!
> 
> Good luck.





Propetya said:


> Thank you very much for your help!
> Unfortunately, whatever I set up does not affect a single core boost (and allcore)!


I think I may have a solution for the poor boosting performance due to the changes. If you have a tab in your "AMD CBS" menu called "SMU Options" then go to it and see if there are a couple of options named "CPPC" and "CPPC Preferred Cores" they will be set to AUTO but go ahead and set "CPPC" to Enabled and make sure all of those PPT and EDC options are set mack to their max so your cpu wont have an excuse to be dialed back. Save and Exit into the OS and download *Power Settings Utility.
*
Next open the utility as admin and scroll down and "processor performance autonomous mode" and try the enabled vs disabled setting and see if it makes a difference just make sure to hit apply to enable the setting. You can also play with many of the processor power management settings and tweak when and how fast your processor boosts and idles as well as how fast it reacts to loads and many other things that are hidden by microsoft. Its pretty safe to do so, just hit the "Export" button and save your current configuration file and play around with the options and if you like it you can export more setups and run them whenever or if you dont like it and want to revert back to normal then just hit the "Import" button and load your initial config you saved and Apply.
Ok, onto the next thing that may help you a bit more that I found useful. Download *QuickCPU* Install and then run the program as Administrator and look toward the bottom of the GUI at the 3 sliders and push all 3 to the right and hit apply and check your clocks in HwInfo64.

I went from gettting a 4.35ghz all core and 4.4ghz single core to getting 4.465ghz all core for short bursts and 4.5ghz single core after the process stated above. Hopefully this helps.


----------



## Propetya

CJMitsuki said:


> I think I may have a solution for the poor boosting performance due to the changes. If you have a tab in your "AMD CBS" menu called "SMU Options" then go to it and see if there are a couple of options named "CPPC" and "CPPC Preferred Cores" they will be set to AUTO but go ahead and set "CPPC" to Enabled and make sure all of those PPT and EDC options are set mack to their max so your cpu wont have an excuse to be dialed back. Save and Exit into the OS and download *Power Settings Utility.
> *
> Next open the utility as admin and scroll down and "processor performance autonomous mode" and try the enabled vs disabled setting and see if it makes a difference just make sure to hit apply to enable the setting. You can also play with many of the processor power management settings and tweak when and how fast your processor boosts and idles as well as how fast it reacts to loads and many other things that are hidden by microsoft. Its pretty safe to do so, just hit the "Export" button and save your current configuration file and play around with the options and if you like it you can export more setups and run them whenever or if you dont like it and want to revert back to normal then just hit the "Import" button and load your initial config you saved and Apply.
> Ok, onto the next thing that may help you a bit more that I found useful. Download *QuickCPU* Install and then run the program as Administrator and look toward the bottom of the GUI at the 3 sliders and push all 3 to the right and hit apply and check your clocks in HwInfo64.
> 
> I went from gettting a 4.35ghz all core and 4.4ghz single core to getting 4.465ghz all core for short bursts and 4.5ghz single core after the process stated above. Hopefully this helps.



Big THX guys again! 

I've set the all provided parameters, but unfortunately it's useless. Bios/OS too 
I feel like it's just a decoration for PBO in this new bios (1.0.0.3AB patched). :/ 
Thank you for your efforts!!


----------



## Saiger0

Guys, what max. sustained voltage does FIT allow on your chip while stressing it? When I max out all the cpu limits and run prime95, my chip still gets around 1.36V (at around 85-90c). That seems a bit much if you ask me.
I have a 3700x btw.


----------



## Bluesman

Saiger0 said:


> Guys, what max. voltage does FIT allow on your chip? When I max out all the cpu limits and run prime95, my chip still gets around 1.36V (at around 85-90c). That seems a bit much if you ask me.
> I have a 3700x btw.


1.5V on 3800x for a few nanoseconds.


----------



## Saiger0

Bluesman said:


> 1.5V on 3800x for a few nanoseconds.


Ah my wording was wrong I meant on what voltage does your chip balance out. Meaning the (theoretical) max. safe voltage for the cpu. As I said mine was around 1.36v, which seems too high for me considering the stated 1.325 from the first post (unless I got that wrong).
Ofc my 3700x also does 1.5v for a couple ns


----------



## Bluesman

*Voltage Issue*



Saiger0 said:


> Ah my wording was wrong I meant on what voltage does your chip balance out. Meaning the (theoretical) max. safe voltage for the cpu. As I said mine was around 1.36v, which seems too high for me considering the stated 1.325 from the first post (unless I got that wrong).
> Ofc my 3700x also does 1.5v for a couple ns


You are now on a topic of great controversy. There are two sides: 1) high voltage bad; 2) high voltage OK if matched with lower current load and hence lower CPU Package Power in watts. However, I have a game that runs at 37 watts where the voltage runs on average at 1.44V on PBO1+2. Is that bad? (This game runs on average about 47C.)

In the end, high temps can and do cause problems. I have set my CPU thermal threshold at 85C, down from the default of 95C. I also have tweaked both PBO 1 + 2 to give me lower temps and higher performance on my 3800x.

Still you have decide what is right for you. If you are doing a static OC, then I personally would want to be in the 1.31 to 1.35 voltage range. If you are using PBO 1+ 2 then the chip and AGESA AI are running things. And you either trust AMD or not.


----------



## Ironcobra

Bluesman said:


> You are now on a topic of great controversy. There are two sides: 1) high voltage bad; 2) high voltage OK if matched with lower current load and hence lower CPU Package Power in watts. However, I have a game that runs at 37 watts where the voltage runs on average at 1.44V on PBO1+2. Is that bad? (This game runs on average about 47C.)
> 
> In the end, high temps can and do cause problems. I have set my CPU thermal threshold at 85C, down from the default of 95C. I also have tweaked both PBO 1 + 2 to give me lower temps and higher performance on my 3800x.
> 
> Still you have decide what is right for you. If you are doing a static OC, then I personally would want to be in the 1.31 to 1.35 voltage range. If you are using PBO 1+ 2 then the chip and AGESA AI are running things. And you either trust AMD or not.


As a I am a trained sparky, voltage means nothing without current or watts. Thats why you can be hit with 20000 volts on a taser with no current but let 5 amps hit you with 120 volts, not so funny.


----------



## Saiger0

Bluesman said:


> You are now on a topic of great controversy. There are two sides: 1) high voltage bad; 2) high voltage OK if matched with lower current load and hence lower CPU Package Power in watts. However, I have a game that runs at 37 watts where the voltage runs on average at 1.44V on PBO1+2. Is that bad? (This game runs on average about 47C.)
> 
> In the end, high temps can and do cause problems. I have set my CPU thermal threshold at 85C, down from the default of 95C. I also have tweaked both PBO 1 + 2 to give me lower temps and higher performance on my 3800x.
> 
> Still you have decide what is right for you. If you are doing a static OC, then I personally would want to be in the 1.31 to 1.35 voltage range. If you are using PBO 1+ 2 then the chip and AGESA AI are running things. And you either trust AMD or not.


Exactly. Thats why I need as much data as possible. So far 1.36v adn 1,325 are the only ones I got. The "answer" proably lies in the middle for the average chip. 
For now I wont push my cpu over 1.3v all core and the extra ~0.05V wont result in more than 50mhz but I´d dtill like to know what the limit is.


----------



## gupsterg

RossiOCUK said:


> That's quite interesting. Swapping mine over didn't make such a big difference at all. My current way around (A1: New A2: Old B1: New B2: Old) looks to be the most flexible. But all boot 3600 between 34.3 and 43.6.
> 
> In other news, whilst tinkering, I finally managed to get 3600 CL14.
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler


Ahh, perhaps maybe down to topology difference.



gamervivek said:


> Getting similar behavior with ProcODT here, 34 stabilises 3800MHz on 16x2 kit, while can't even boot with over 48.
> It should've been the opposite, with higher values helping with higher clocks.


Ok, yeah agree from previous gen experience higher should be better.



GBT-MatthewH said:


> Im on here too
> 
> Re: Boost -
> 
> So we can only adjust the inputs, not the equation, nor the output. So we can tell the boost "use X voltage, set PPT to X" etc... What the boost algorithm does with that information is locked in the AGESA.
> 
> Re: Bios -
> 
> Anything under "AMD CBS" and "AMD Overclocking" is a black box. We can hide/unhide functions. We cannot change the values, reword the menus, etc. This is all apart of the AGESA. This is why you see FCLK Under "AMD CBS" and Infinity fabric dividers under "AMD Overclocking". So the questions I have seen multiple times (IE Why is it listed in 2 places? Which takes precedent?) are questions we cannot answer any better than you. We can do various A-B testing and try to decern answers, but we cannot give you the _* actual answer*_, just the observed effects.
> 
> This is why I have said since the first week of launch - In general 1002 and 1003 (no combo) had the highest _ on average_ boost results. That being said, some still get higher boost with AGESA 1003X, some get worse on 1002/1003, some get lower boost (than they expected) on all AGESA... Again this is all test and report observable results. I cannot tell you why, just what I have seen.


+rep for info  .

I've found "AMD Overclocking" menu retains settings to reapply when board fails to post and self recovers.

For example I set a bad RAM OC profile, board goes Q-Code: F9, retries ~3 times, then posts on fail safe settings to recover. Upon entering UEFI AMD CBS settings will have reset, AMD Overclocking will not.

Say I have SOC set as 1056mV in AMD Overclocking, the value will be there to reapply on Save & Exit on failed post recovery, it will not be applied for that instance of post though (ie fail safe post).


----------



## dspx




----------



## gupsterg

dspx said:


> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> https://youtu.be/o2SzF3IiMaE


Saw that shared on reddit, watched with interest, my opinion is it's not mobo.

When using PBO+150MHz on AGESA ComboPi-AM4 1.0.0.2 UEFI, my CPU will do average ACB of ~4.3-4.34GHz, depending on application loading it and temperature. On AGESA ComboPi-AM4 1.0.0.3AB/ABB UEFI it will not break past 4.275GHz.


----------



## SexySale

Hi guys,
Let's help der8uer in this research:





Please, follow the instructions and let us all try to get to the bottom of this.


----------



## thegr8anand

I do wish sometimes i'd have gone with 9900K instead of 3900x and be done with this mess.


----------



## VPII

thegr8anand said:


> I do wish sometimes i'd have gone with 9900K instead of 3900x and be done with this mess.


Well then do it. I' sure your 3900X will be sold pretty quickly seen that availability is an issue most of the time. Seriously, if you take your time to do a manual overclock using 1.325 vcore as your base then you might actually get some happiness. For me it is not about single core boost but all core which is why I'm pretty happy with a 4.325ghz all core at 1.3125vore. The stock boost is limited by the mobo bios or Agesa which came from AMD. The best Agesa I found for boost was actually the 1.0.0.2.


----------



## gupsterg

SexySale said:


> Hi guys,
> Let's help der8uer in this research:
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> https://youtu.be/l-G1Ukrg-Wk
> 
> 
> 
> Please, follow the instructions and let us all try to get to the bottom of this.


As much as I would like to, I believe my CPU samples data for that context would be useless.

Regardless of if I use UEFI with AGESA 1.0.0.2 or 1.0.0.3AB or 1.0.0.3ABB, at stock if I were to load Kahru RAM Test on I would have ACB of 4.2GHz. It's only when I do PBO + xxxMHz does average boost clock behaviour change.

The only other thing I have noted is, at stock, AGESA 1.0.0.2 ACB of 4.2GHz for RAM Test results in average CPU Core Voltage SVI2 TFN ~1.325V, AGESA 1.0.0.3AB/ABB ACB of 4.2GHz for RAM Test results in average CPU Core Voltage SVI2 TFN ~1.375V.


----------



## polkfan

Ironcobra said:


> As a I am a trained sparky, voltage means nothing without current or watts. Thats why you can be hit with 20000 volts on a taser with no current but let 5 amps hit you with 120 volts, not so funny.


Thank you finally someone who also puts this to rest! 

I have been saying this over and over again lol. 

1.5V is 100% safe as long as your temps are good, under load you should see 1.33V or so


----------



## polkfan

VPII said:


> Well then do it. I' sure your 3900X will be sold pretty quickly seen that availability is an issue most of the time. Seriously, if you take your time to do a manual overclock using 1.325 vcore as your base then you might actually get some happiness. For me it is not about single core boost but all core which is why I'm pretty happy with a 4.325ghz all core at 1.3125vore. The stock boost is limited by the mobo bios or Agesa which came from AMD. The best Agesa I found for boost was actually the 1.0.0.2.


See i think the opposite Ryzen has both great single and multithreaded performance but i mean it clearly has better multithreaded performance with all the cores its the single core performance that we where promised with the higher-end models. I mean a 3900X should be hitting 4.6Ghz in single core tasks not 4.3 that some are getting. 

However a 12 core running at 4.2ghz all core under applications is just fine and expected to be honest. Heck i was surprised that my 3700X boosted all of my 8 cores at 4.2ghz under load 


Edit also guys try and see if you can lower your SOC voltage to 1V and your dram voltage i did this and i'm seeing lower temps by around 5-6C. Lower temps = higher turbos


----------



## thegr8anand

VPII said:


> Well then do it. I' sure your 3900X will be sold pretty quickly seen that availability is an issue most of the time. Seriously, if you take your time to do a manual overclock using 1.325 vcore as your base then you might actually get some happiness. For me it is not about single core boost but all core which is why I'm pretty happy with a 4.325ghz all core at 1.3125vore. The stock boost is limited by the mobo bios or Agesa which came from AMD. The best Agesa I found for boost was actually the 1.0.0.2.




Good for you. My 3rd and 4th ccx on ccd2 won't go above 4275 and 4225 mhz respectively.


----------



## xeizo

Agesa 1.0.0.2


----------



## polkfan

thegr8anand said:


> Good for you. My 3rd and 4th ccx on ccd2 won't go above 4275 and 4225 mhz respectively.


So what is the highest turbo that you see under 1.0.0.3ABB


----------



## mongoled

Hi guys,

I dont want to make a new thread and as my question is relevant to Matisse so I will ask here.

We know from prior advise that we can use prime95 custom 1344k FFT, run in place, to test the stability of the vCore subsystem of the CPU.

In the past when I used this method I dont seem to remember that the RAM was being tested.

However, with my 3600x, the RAM is definitely being tested as the temperature rises higher than when stress testing with memtest.

I dont think this is what I should be seeing.

If this is indeed the case i.e. the RAM should not be tested, then the 1344k FFT size seem not to be correct size to test the vCore subsystem of the CPU.

Is anybody else able to validate if what I remember is correct or not (or test with an Intel CPU) and report back.

Thanks


----------



## gupsterg

mongoled said:


> Hi guys,
> 
> I dont want to make a new thread and as my question is relevant to Matisse so I will ask here.
> 
> We know from prior advise that we can use prime95 custom 1344k FFT, run in place, to test the stability of the vCore subsystem of the CPU.
> 
> In the past when I used this method I dont seem to remember that the RAM was being tested.
> 
> However, with my 3600x, the RAM is definitely being tested as the temperature rises higher than when stress testing with memtest.
> 
> I dont think this is what I should be seeing.
> 
> If this is indeed the case i.e. the RAM should not be tested, then the 1344k FFT size seem not to be correct size to test the vCore subsystem of the CPU.
> 
> Is anybody else able to validate if what I remember is correct or not (or test with an Intel CPU) and report back.
> 
> Thanks


Reference The Stilt's post again, link.


----------



## mongoled

gupsterg said:


> Reference The Stilt's post again, link.


Thanks for that,

dont understand the reasons why der8auer and others are still actively promoting the use of 1344k while testing the stability of Ryzen CPU that are going to be sold into the retail chain.

Why would Casekings.de and others ignore the data and just peddle old truths ??


----------



## gupsterg

mongoled said:


> Thanks for that,
> 
> dont understand the reasons why der8auer and others are still actively promoting the use of 1344k while testing the stability of Ryzen CPU that are going to be sold into the retail chain.
> 
> Why would Casekings.de and others ignore the data and just peddle old truths ??


The thing is Silicon Lottery/Casekings.de/8 [email protected] and even any of us, all have our own differing methods. So I don't think Casekings.de and others is promoting old truths.

As I don't do manually set ratio OC on my R5 3600 I don't do the FFT test The Stilt stated. I run the version of P95 as he stated and disabled AVX/AVX2/FMA3 via local.txt, but I use 8K 4096K 27000MB to test:-

i) Stock CPU with RAM OC.
ii) PBO+xxxMHz with RAM OC.


----------



## mongoled

gupsterg said:


> The thing is Silicon Lottery/Casekings.de/8 [email protected] and even any of us, all have our own differing methods. So I don't think Casekings.de and others is promoting old truths.
> 
> As I don't do manually set ratio OC on my R5 3600 I don't do the FFT test The Stilt stated. I run the version of P95 as he stated and disabled AVX/AVX2/FMA3 via local.txt, but I use 8K 4096K 27000MB to test:-
> 
> i) Stock CPU with RAM OC.
> ii) PBO+xxxMHz with RAM OC.



Yes, but us as individuals is completely different to when selling in retail channel.

Anyhow, its no biggie, just found it strange that they test with settings which also stress the memory subsystem..............

I generally do what you do with regards to prime95 settings, however for quick and dirty tests I wanted to use the fastest means of finding instability with the CPU and custom small FFTs achieves this.


----------



## gupsterg

mongoled said:


> Yes, but us as individuals is completely different to when selling in retail channel.
> 
> Anyhow, its no biggie, just found it strange that they test with settings which also stress the memory subsystem..............
> 
> I generally do what you do with regards to prime95 settings, however for quick and dirty tests I wanted to use the fastest means of finding instability with the CPU and custom small FFTs achieves this.


Even the differing entities selling via retail channels use differing methods  . What Silicon Lottery do, Caseking.de don't, what OCuk (which AFAIK is owned by Caseking) don't do as their resident overclocker is 8 Pack compared with der8auer over in Germany.

I have used small custom FFT on other Ryzen systems, just not with this one so far.


----------



## lordzed83

gupsterg said:


> The thing is Silicon Lottery/Casekings.de/8 [email protected] and even any of us, all have our own differing methods. So I don't think Casekings.de and others is promoting old truths.
> 
> As I don't do manually set ratio OC on my R5 3600 I don't do the FFT test The Stilt stated. I run the version of P95 as he stated and disabled AVX/AVX2/FMA3 via local.txt, but I use 8K 4096K 27000MB to test:-
> 
> i) Stock CPU with RAM OC.
> ii) PBO+xxxMHz with RAM OC.


That's spot on. Everyone I jknow tests different. Like ME its ycruncher PI pass 10xveryhigh AVX IBT pass aida 1 hour stress test pass and nicehash 10+hours pass and got 3 hour long rendering project in power director for test. I cant remember when was last time I used prime.OFC HCI and ramtest pass. Thats what I consider stable for my use.


----------



## ver_21

Anyone done much with BCLK? Here's what I'm getting:


----------



## srg3037

I have messed with BCLK on my 3900X as well. I do get the occasional WHEA correctable Code 17 error but I cant tell if that is a harmless error (Gigabyte has not released the updated BIOS for the x470 Gaming Wifi 7 yet that fixes the WHEA errors). Currently running 102.75 but I can go to 103.5 but the WHEA errors increase. Other than the WHEA errors everything runs stable and the benchmark score increase with the clock speed.


----------



## Ironcobra

polkfan said:


> Thank you finally someone who also puts this to rest!
> 
> I have been saying this over and over again lol.
> 
> 1.5V is 100% safe as long as your temps are good, under load you should see 1.33V or so


I believe the higher idle voltages we are seeing near idle conditions makes it easier for the chip to respond faster when needed as higher voltage/potential makes for a faster response when current is needed, this chip is changing states so much it really makes sense for a higher potential to be there ready for action. Some people are really freaking out over this but if you watch current and watts during these idle conditions there very low and if theres no change in temps I think we might learn this is normal moving forward. My chip definitely drops to the low 1.3s under load. And in the electrical world higher voltage=lower current=more efficiency and less heat/resistance. I mean I could be wrong but thats basic ac/dc theory.


----------



## gupsterg

Ironcobra said:


> I believe the higher idle voltages we are seeing near idle conditions makes it easier for the chip to respond faster when needed as higher voltage/potential makes for a faster response when current is needed, this chip is changing states so much it really makes sense for a higher potential to be there ready for action. Some people are really freaking out over this but if you watch current and watts during these idle conditions there very low and if theres no change in temps I think we might learn this is normal moving forward. My chip definitely drops to the low 1.3s under load. And in the electrical world higher voltage=lower current=more efficiency and less heat/resistance. I mean I could be wrong but thats basic ac/dc theory.


Doubt the higher vcore is to allow potential for improved CPU state change.

Some of my observations.

I had higher idle vcore on AGESA ComboPi-AM4 1.0.0.3AB when Ryzen Master is open, ~1.35V. I enabled Global C-State Control in UEFI and it then showed monitoring data as when using a UEFI with ComboPi-AM4 1.0.0.2, ~0.2V idle. But HWINFO would only show 3600MHz ~1V at idle on AGESA ComboPi-AM4 1.0.0.3AB, version 6.11.3890 in use at the time, UEFI with ComboPi-AM4 1.0.0.2 it would show 2200MHz ~0.9V.

Now on newer beta of HWINFO, even on AGESA ComboPi-AM4 1.0.0.3AB or AGESA ComboPi-AM4 1.0.0.3ABB, I see 2200MHz ~0.9V idle. Ryzen Master is showing ~0.2V idle even without enabling Global C-State Control on UEFI with AEGSA ComboPi-AM4 1.0.0.3ABB. 

I think the increased sensitivity of boost mechanism, plus teething issues of FW/SW are cause for some of the oddities we're observing at present.


----------



## ver_21

srg3037 said:


> I have messed with BCLK on my 3900X as well. I do get the occasional WHEA correctable Code 17 error but I cant tell if that is a harmless error (Gigabyte has not released the updated BIOS for the x470 Gaming Wifi 7 yet that fixes the WHEA errors). Currently running 102.75 but I can go to 103.5 but the WHEA errors increase. Other than the WHEA errors everything runs stable and the benchmark score increase with the clock speed.



I like that Master board. I think I saw last night that the latest BIOS might correct some/all of the WHEA for GB x570s? Not sure what version it was supposed to be.


I'm running on an MSI Ace, BIOS version 120 (releases are at 144 beta, atm). Frustrations with Boost Override made me determined to try BCLKing. I think it presents some additional issues with RAM and PCIe 4.0--it's hard to be sure, but I suspect not all GPUs tolerate BLCK OCing. And I don't think I can use such tight timings with RAM. We'll see, it's a work in progress, but it seems stable (so maybe I should leave well-enough alone).


I am wondering if HWiNFO is direct-measuring or calculating core frequencies achieved by BCLK. Ryzen Master does not seem to record frequencies correctly once BCLK is used.


----------

