# AMD Curve Optimizer any guides / experience



## jesdals (Dec 6, 2020)

My first couple of attemps with the curve optimizer in the PBO settings on the Aorus Master X570 ended with reboots and WHEAs 

But did some more tinkering today and with PBO limits at 250 (W/A/A) and a per core negative on 5. I finaly got it stable - not sure what to think of the result and could use some guidance to go furter from here. Did try negative 10 on all cores first - but that did not fly well...





The core 0 result is up between my best, but still testing settings on my new AIO setup.

Did a GPUz bench - but nothing special there compared to earlier test



Had some better result in both single and multi results

Any one with some experience or knowledge about any good guides?

I tried raising the negative value of core 0 and 3 (the first and the fourth), but after 20 minutes it crashed and leaving core 0 on negative 10 was not possible - did give a higher boost and single core score ind GPUz



But unfortunately not stable



It did give a improved single core score

Now trying to increase the negative offset on the low boosting core did not seem to make any difference. The result below is with core 6, 8 and 10 at negative 10.




Changing the same low boosting cores to a positive 5 did not show much difference - but was not stable and crashed after 20-30 minutes


----------



## jesdals (Jan 8, 2021)

Here is my latest PBO settings with F31 bios for Auros Master X570


----------



## Zach_01 (Jan 9, 2021)

Scalar X4 must push a kind of “stupid” amounts of voltage to the CPU cores. You should be aware and considered about this and the potential damage/degradation.
I wouldn’t use more than x2-3.


----------



## jesdals (Jan 9, 2021)

Tuthfully theres not much guide to go by - based my settings on some of Builzoids rambling and test. But will try the 2x setting - first test with cpu benchmark in CPUid gives a bit lower cpu speed in multi and single core.

But you migth have a point about TDC and EDC limits - lowering them to 135 gave a supriceing change in mulit and single core performance



will do some stability test with these settings

Did a run with Hardware Info open, it gave above 4400 MHz all core and 4975 MHz single core - it does seem to improve results will do some more testing and try lowering the TDC/EDC even more
- apperently it alsow give lower cpu temps at max load



Result with Hardinfo running



It seems stable - lowering it to 130 and try stability here



130 was stable will try 120 now



Did gain some single core headroom



During stress test I saw these results cpu temp is interesting




Setting TDC/EDC to 100 raised single core performance but lowers multicore performance



will do some more testing of temps and stability


----------



## juanyunis (Jan 9, 2021)

So I ended up with a pretty nice PBO setup with a 5950X and a X570 AORUS Master running latest F31. I have reached CPU-Z 680 single core and 13k multicore. Cinebench R20 11400 and Cinebench R23: 29100. My CPU never goes beyond 89C and also many cores are able to boost at 5-5.1Ghz, while the rest are able to go 4.9+. Using OCCT with Linpack test my all core clocks are between 4.4-4.5Ghz.

I live in a very hot and humid area, my ambient temperatures are about 28C at the moment but it can go as far as 34C, I'm not using any AC, just case airflow and 240mm AIO with push/pull configuration. I'm planning on switching to a 360mm AIO with push/pull too.

These are the settings:
CPU Voltage: Normal with +0.04378 Offset
CPU LLC: Auto
PPT: 270
TDC: 140
EDC: 140
Curve: All cores -25
Scalar: Auto
Max Boost: 50Mhz
Platform Temperature: Auto


----------



## Zach_01 (Jan 9, 2021)

While within operating temp of 95C it is still on the very high side at 89C.
@jesdals is on a much better spot with his last settings of 120A.
Look and compare his temps, Avg. and Max Core voltage (SVI2 TFN) and his readings on VRM, Power(POUT/Input).
Unfortunately his HWiNFO does not report any CPU PPT (W) or SMU(power) values but still through VRM (W) values you can directly compare it since you both have the same board.
VRM readings may be inaccurate but still comparisons can be made.
It would be better to be able to compare CPU PPT(W)+PowerReportingDeviation (when going 100% CPU load only) but still...

I dont know how exactly curve optimizer works since I lack a 5000 series CPU but take it easy with those voltages.
I would be pleased if anyone of you can show details and screenshots of the CurveOptimizer menu. Thanks!


----------



## juanyunis (Jan 9, 2021)

@Zach_01 well, according to AMD technicians It is by design however if I can get the same performance with lower temperatures I will welcome that. Gonna try with TDC/EDC at 120.

@jesdals do you mind sharing your latest PBO settings like I did. Thanks.


----------



## mtcn77 (Jan 9, 2021)

juanyunis said:


> PPT: 270
> TDC: 140
> EDC: 140


It is not how you do things. Also, 1.538v - I hope it is due to a fault in the sensor.
If you are looking for ST scores you clamp PPT, and otherwise for MT you keep PPT just 10% above EDC.
Those scores are too high. Better safe than sorry.








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

The much anticipated Zen 3 architecture has finally been launched close to a year and a half after Zen 2 while remaining on the same 7nm TSMC process. AMD's recently released Ryzen 3000XT showed there are frequency gains to be had just by manufacturing improvements over time. The question is...




					www.elmorlabs.com


----------



## Zach_01 (Jan 9, 2021)

mtcn77 said:


> It is not how you do things. Also, 1.538v - I hope it is due to a fault in the sensor.
> If you are looking for ST scores you clamp PPT, and otherwise for MT you keep PPT just 10% above EDC.
> Those scores are too high. Better safe than sorry.
> 
> ...


And actually his max Vcore is 1.556V as the SVI2 TFN is the most accurate sensor according to HWiNFO author. VID is just a request under a voltage/speed/load table.
And yet again what matters is the voltage under heavy and constant stress. This 1.55V could just be under very light load (low A) and short boost, as all Zen2/3 behave like this. Still it’s an indicator of higher voltages overall and I agree that it should be lower. Even with performance losses if necessary.


----------



## jesdals (Jan 9, 2021)

Here is my settings - I do believe I will go up to 125 EDC/TDC



And my curve settings


----------



## juanyunis (Jan 9, 2021)

I adjusted to 250/120/120 and I see good CPU-Z but cinebench scores dropped. While running OCCT I noticed that my all core clocks dropped to 4.3Ghz, temps are way better tho.


----------



## jesdals (Jan 9, 2021)

Lowering the third setting to 130 did give better boost



Not still sure have to use the Elmo guide, but will test these settings some more - CPU-z result seems lower on multi about 4150MHz when running all core






mtcn77 said:


> It is not how you do things. Also, 1.538v - I hope it is due to a fault in the sensor.
> If you are looking for ST scores you clamp PPT, and otherwise for MT you keep PPT just 10% above EDC.
> Those scores are too high. Better safe than sorry.
> 
> ...


Thanks for sharing that link to Elmo - havent found much about these settings

BTW when tinkering with the dual bios on the Gigabyte boards - do one save in the first slot as "bios 1" and if you end up in the other due to too optimistic setting make a "bios 2" saving there - then its more easy to find your way around  I personally have a USB pen stored internally for bios and stuf - it makes thinks so much easier.


----------



## Zach_01 (Jan 9, 2021)

jesdals said:


> Here is my settings - I do believe I will go up to 125 EDC/TDC
> View attachment 183248
> And my curve settings
> View attachment 183249
> ...





juanyunis said:


> I adjusted to 250/120/120 and I see good CPU-Z but cinebench scores dropped. While running OCCT I noticed that my all core clocks dropped to 4.3Ghz, temps are way better tho.View attachment 183251


Thanks a lot for screenshots, I really appreciate it!
From what I see I think around 120-125A would be the best setting for performance, temperature and overall silicon stress.


----------



## mtcn77 (Jan 9, 2021)

juanyunis said:


> I adjusted to 250/120/120


If you selected that,  V²*I=(1.556V)²*120A=290.5watts, you are limiting your power just 16% at 250watts. You can do much better, in fact the reason 'the curve optimiser' exists is to help you do it.
You couldn't lower voltage bins quite as you could elevate them using the scalar option.
Cores don't need to have max boost, you cannot feed them the same power. Some are leaky, some are resistant. The gist is having the best of both worlds.



Zach_01 said:


> Thanks a lot for screenshots, I really appreciate it!


It really makes a difference that people follow through on such nuances.


----------



## juanyunis (Jan 9, 2021)

After testing and testing all day I was able to find a sweet spot for my system.
Temps are "decent" never exceding above 80-81C while running cinebench r20/r23, cpu-z bench and OCCT (Linkpack and default). 9 of my cores were able to go between 5-5.1Ghz, the others were able to reach 4.9Ghz+.
CPU-Z scores and pretty good IMO, Cinebench R20 11200, R23 28700.


----------



## Zach_01 (Jan 10, 2021)

juanyunis said:


> After testing and testing all day I was able to find a sweet spot for my system.
> Temps are "decent" never exceding above 80-81C while running cinebench r20/r23, cpu-z bench and OCCT (Linkpack and default). 9 of my cores were able to go between 5-5.1Ghz, the others were able to reach 4.9Ghz+.
> CPU-Z scores and pretty good IMO, Cinebench R20 11200, R23 28700.
> View attachment 183277
> View attachment 183278


Better...
Do you remember maybe what was the SVI2 TFN Core voltage during those 100% load benches/tests? I’m just curious!
There might be some difference between OCCT and CB R20/23 also.


----------



## juanyunis (Jan 10, 2021)

These are my settings.


----------



## Zach_01 (Jan 10, 2021)

Thanks!
I was asking about HWiNFO reported “current” value of the “CPU Core Voltage (SVI2 TFN)” sensor at the time of the bench/stress test run.


----------



## juanyunis (Jan 10, 2021)

@Zach_01 I just made a screen recording (The scores dropped I guess because i was running multiple apps and doing screen recording). Real time Cinebench R20 (Colors look washed out because my monitor is HDR)


----------



## mtcn77 (Jan 10, 2021)

juanyunis said:


> @Zach_01 I just made a screen recording (The scores dropped I guess because i was running multiple apps and doing screen recording). Real time Cinebench R20 (Colors look washed out because my monitor is HDR)


Just do another test and do a screen capture at the right temperature that the actual test was running in order to find out about just how much it was tapping at the time. Power is related to the temperature.
Again, your results can get better if you lock the cores at a similar pace. There is no need for boost when running MT, forget it altogether really. You can get away with much lower EDC's than that. Remember, EDC is only necessary for single boost which out of 16 cores, it is a minor portion of PPT sum. If you allow your cpu to run cooler, you'll get the benefits even in ST loading.
Would you believe it when Intel was having the prime of its mobile division(before the axe fell) they were researching into melting thermal paste materials in order to boost for longer. It is all a condition of temperature management.


----------



## Zach_01 (Jan 10, 2021)

Just a screenshot after start and before it ends would be ok, no need to record.
Any way I saw it.

Roughly 1.1V, 125A and 169W PPT with a 105% PowerReportingDeviation.

The actual (true) power is 169/1.05= 161W

Applying voltage and current to @mtcn77 equation it comes close
V^2*I= (1.1*1.1) * 125 = 151W

Taking into account the accuracy and refresh/polling period of each sensor it adds up.

Thank you, that’s all I wanted.


----------



## juanyunis (Jan 10, 2021)

Actually hw info locked up, but I can confirm that  the voltage gets lower when doing multicore.

I need the single boost clocks for gaming. I use this computer for running some VMs 24/7 and heavy gaming. Some times for compiling code.

So what do you guys think I should do to have the best of both worlds multicore and single core?

So I ran another test and took 3 screenshots. Hopefully I did it right. 

Screenshot 1 (After starting the test)




Screenshot 2 (In the middle of the test)




Screenshot 3 (At the end)


----------



## bubbleawsome (Jan 10, 2021)

I'm new to Ryzen but I've got a 5900x I'm trying to tune some. I see EDC is the limiter for most situations, but would I want to keep it around 120A if I'm running the stock 1.5v maximum? It's closer to 1.22v under all-core load, but it will hit 1.48v under single core loads.


----------



## juanyunis (Jan 10, 2021)

@bubbleawsome does your reach more than 1.5V? Or close like 1.498V? What is your motherboard? If you are running everything stock at the moment you can try enabling PBO in advanced mode and put some initial values, if your processor is 65W TDP then maybe you can try running PPT at 220, TDC/EDC at 120 and the curve -15, scalar auto and platform thermal auto, max boost at 0.

Edit: I though you had a 5800X, still those settings apply to you, you can increase the PPT to 240.


----------



## Zach_01 (Jan 10, 2021)

juanyunis said:


> Actually hw info locked up, but I can confirm that  the voltage gets lower when doing multicore.
> 
> I need the single boost clocks for gaming. I use this computer for running some VMs 24/7 and heavy gaming. Some times for compiling code.
> 
> ...


The second is the one with max load, on the last was already finished.



bubbleawsome said:


> I'm new to Ryzen but I've got a 5900x I'm trying to tune some. I see EDC is the limiter for most situations, but would I want to keep it around 120A if I'm running the stock 1.5v maximum? It's closer to 1.22v under all-core load, but it will hit 1.48v under single core loads.


Sounds about right... As for what is the best EDC value has no straight answer. It depends, mostly on temp.
From my understanding, using the curve optimizer with custom PBO limits you are by passing some of the protection of the chip. Mostly on current. It should be used with care and awareness of what is what. Temperature is an indication of stress but doesn’t tell the whole story. EDC too.

For example (and I’m going to use random numbers) having EDC, let’s say 140A at 70C is ok, but having 140A at 90C is not. The speed or voltage at those 2 cases is less significant but still play a role.
Same applies to every EDC value. It’s the combination of current(A), voltage and temp.

Keep temperature as far as possible from max operating limit (95C), under 80C I would suggest, EDC in reasonable levels (120~130) and all other (voltage, speed, watt) will fall were they should.

I’m not afraid of the 1.45-1.5V on single thread, nor the 200W PPT on multi.
It’s the high temp/EDC combination that can tear the chip’s internal traces rather quickly.



juanyunis said:


> @bubbleawsome does your reach more than 1.5V? Or close like 1.498V? What is your motherboard? If you are running everything stock at the moment you can try enabling PBO in advanced mode and put some initial values, if your processor is 65W TDP then maybe you can try running PPT at 220, TDC/EDC at 120 and the curve -15, scalar auto and platform thermal auto, max boost at 0.


The 5900X has the exact same stock PBO limits with 5950X.

I believe those are

PPT: 142W
EDC: 140A
TDC: 90A


----------



## juanyunis (Jan 10, 2021)

@Zach_01 for some reason I read 5800X lol. So what do you think about my screenshots? Should I keep it like that? Or try to tune it more? Like I said before I'm using the pc for VMs and some heavy gaming. Do you think moving to a 360mm radiator from a 240mm would help?


----------



## Zach_01 (Jan 10, 2021)

5800X has also the same limits with 5900X/5950X.

As for the AIO, not too much I would say, on the same ambient/case conditions. It would probably improve temp by a little but not so much that can justify the cost of it and the potential performance gains, if there is any.

It’s not like going from conventional cooling (air/water) that always rely on ambient temp, to a sub-zero cooler, like a chiller.


----------



## bubbleawsome (Jan 10, 2021)

juanyunis said:


> @bubbleawsome does your reach more than 1.5V? Or close like 1.498V? What is your motherboard? If you are running everything stock at the moment you can try enabling PBO in advanced mode and put some initial values, if your processor is 65W TDP then maybe you can try running PPT at 220, TDC/EDC at 120 and the curve -15, scalar auto and platform thermal auto, max boost at 0.
> 
> Edit: I though you had a 5800X, still those settings apply to you, you can increase the PPT to 240.


The motherboard is the MSI MEG Unify, and ryzen master and HWinfo say it's running right about 1.485v but HWinfo CPU Core Current (Effective) goes up to 1.500v sometimes. I tend to get errors going over about -10 in the voltage curve.


Zach_01 said:


> The second is the one with max load, on the last was already finished.
> 
> 
> Sounds about right... As for what is the best EDC value has no straight answer. It depends, mostly on temp.
> ...


I'll keep that in mind and try out those PBO limits. I'd like to say it never ever goes over 80c with the dark rock pro 4 I've got on there, but once the case heats up CCD1 can reach towards 85c as is. I don't think I've ever seen it pass 85c though no matter what I'm doing.


----------



## mtcn77 (Jan 10, 2021)

bubbleawsome said:


> The motherboard is the MSI MEG Unify, and ryzen master and HWinfo say it's running right about 1.485v


What is up with the voltage? MSI takes the high load as primary, so you might want to consider 1.25v as the maximum.


----------



## bubbleawsome (Jan 10, 2021)

mtcn77 said:


> What is up with the voltage? MSI takes the high load as primary, so you might want to consider 1.25v as the maximum.


That is with a single core load, under 24-thread loads it's down as low as 1.114v. I'll do a quick average while gaming and see where it's trending.


----------



## mtcn77 (Jan 10, 2021)

bubbleawsome said:


> I'll do a quick average while gaming and see where it's trending.


It would be better if you checked how much ST heats up the working core. Don't encroach upon TjMax too much.


----------



## bubbleawsome (Jan 10, 2021)

mtcn77 said:


> It would be better if you checked how much ST heats up the working core. Don't encroach upon TjMax too much.


The highest I've ever seen on either CCD even with the case and room as warm as they get is 87c on CCD1. Since then I've done some tuning and never seen it that hot again. Under the gaming I've just done the hottest it got was 80.0c, with the measured TDC and EDC maxing out in the high 50A range, voltage maxing at 1.49 effective but averaging 1.43 effective. Not sure what the difference is between voltage and voltage effective


----------



## mtcn77 (Jan 10, 2021)

bubbleawsome said:


> Not sure what the difference is between voltage and voltage effective


Probably vdroop.
What I recon is, this power optimizer does not sit well with overvolting.
I thought I could explain it using the boost bins if it were applying overvoltage at the highest bin, therefore dropping the lower bins to an undervolted setting, but there is no precedence AMD could setup such a novelty. If it had been, that would be great, overclocking just the highest bin setting, that is.


----------



## Zach_01 (Jan 10, 2021)

*"Core 0, 1, 2... VID"* is the requested voltage of each core.

The power supply system cannot supply individual core voltages, only one voltage can be supplied to the CCDs (1 or 2)
So...

*"CPU Core VID (effective)"* is the one and only voltage request by the CPU. But that is not what the CPU is getting. Its only a request.
*"Vcore"* is what the board reports for CPU voltage by its own(board) sensor.
*"VR OUT"* is what the VRM reports for CPU voltage by its own(VRM) sensor.
*"CPU Core Voltage (SVI2 TFN)" *is what actually, or as closest as possible, the CPU is getting and it is read internally (in CPU).

According to HWiNFO author the SVI2 TFN is the most accurate and close to the true value that the CPU is getting. I've write it before a few posts back.

I have red box all these voltage sensors for easy location



Also, Ryzen CPUs do not have dedicated temp report of each core like Intels. They do have a few dozen sensors per CCD though. Instead of reporting dedicated (static) core sensors, they report the *"Tctl/Tdie"* which is the hotest spot inside all package (CCD1, CCD2, IOD). This one is switching between all package sensors (could be over 100) almost instantly and report always the highest one.
The *"Die (average)" *temp is the average of all package sensors or only of all CCD1/2 sensors.
The *"CCD1, CCD2 (Tdie)" *is from a dedicated(static) sensor located on one side of each CCD.

When the CPU is fully loaded all 4 values should be around the same as heat is destributed almost equally to all die area. When load is light or medium (like gaming) these values are different as not all parts of the CPU is loaded equally.


----------



## bubbleawsome (Jan 10, 2021)

Ah, very useful. In that case I'm seeing SVI2 at 1.49 is the highest it's ever been, usually closer to 1.47. Tctl/Tdie is maxing right under 80, CCD1 tends about 2-4c hotter than CCD2 even under multicore. I figure that's due to the leakier cores being on that one


----------



## Zach_01 (Jan 10, 2021)

bubbleawsome said:


> Ah, very useful. In that case I'm seeing SVI2 at 1.49 is the highest it's ever been, usually closer to 1.47. Tctl/Tdie is maxing right under 80, *CCD1 tends about 2-4c hotter than CCD2 even under multicore. I figure that's due to the leakier cores being on that one*


Not exactly... It may indicate that CCD1 is doing more work and running higher speeds than CCD2.
See the screenshot  the* "Core 0, 1, 2... Clock (perf  #x/x)"*? Those numbers are the order of the performance cores. The second number represents the order hardcoded in the CPU and first is the choice of Win scheduler for core loading order. #1 is the highest perf.
Depending on scheduler,  PowerPlan and Chipset drivers, Windows may be "smart" enough to load the proper cores for best performance and low possible latency. This is important for single threaded or reduced threaded applications like gaming.
You can see it by *the average values* of...
1. The* "Core 0, 1, 2... T0, T1 Effective Clock"*
2. The *"Core 0, 1, 2... T0, T1 Usage" *
3. The *"Core 0, 1, 2... Ratio" *
4. The *"Core 0, 1, 2... C0 Residency" *

The higher perf #x/x cores should have higher *average values* on the above 4 multiple readings.
Check all those under various loads and see if the high performance cores are getting the most load.


----------



## jesdals (Jan 10, 2021)

Did some testing with
PPT: 130
TDC: 125
EDC: 90
Curve: - 5 on highperformance cores 0, 3, 12 and 15 and - 10 on the rest

But here the multicore performance in the CPU-Z benchmark is stil beneath 4125MHz - but tempc stay under 60c

Now changeing those settings to these below seems to raise multicore performance above 4300MHz and give 5100MHz singlecore boost - but it cost on temps that get above 60c



will do some testing on above settings and try to tweak them - curve settings is stil as shown above


----------



## Zach_01 (Jan 10, 2021)

jesdals said:


> Did some testing with
> PPT: 130
> TDC: 125
> EDC: 90
> ...


Did you really wanted those PBO settings?
Stock are this

PPT: 142
TDC: 90
EDC: 140

Did you accidentally confuse EDC with TDC and wanted them like this?

PPT: 130
TDC: 90
EDC: 125


----------



## jesdals (Jan 10, 2021)

Setting
PPT: 250
TDC: 90
EDC: 125

Actually gave lower multi performance below 4100MHz - but temps under 60c

Will do some testing with
PPT: 250
TDC: 125
EDC: 110

These settings give me above 4375MHz multicore - but above 75c on temps single core is still high




Wil test stability here and see if I can find a sweat spot


----------



## juanyunis (Jan 10, 2021)

@jesdals i think you found a pretty sweet spot already, you still reach 5ghz boost, no clock stretching voltage lower than 1.5V and temperatures are less than 80C., . It makes me want to try it now. 

What scores you got for cpu-z ST/MT. Have you changed any other bios settings? Are you still using turbo for LLC and Auto voltage for cpu core?


----------



## jesdals (Jan 10, 2021)

Still stability testing but got this CPU-Z bench result - not to shabby


----------



## juanyunis (Jan 10, 2021)

jesdals said:


> Still stability testing but got this CPU-Z bench result - not to shabby
> 
> View attachment 183369


Is this with your latest settings? Also, I asked you if you wanted any other bios settings like voltage etc. It looks pretty good, do you have cinebench?


----------



## mtcn77 (Jan 10, 2021)

The thing is, you won't lose performance should you decrease these settings. We still have the temperature going for us. So, if you were to decrease EDC somewhat, MT scores would start to pick up since it would redirect power to more stable workloads(PPT). You should definitely chart it out starting from a very throttled setting up to where you want to be. Keep PPT there and just advance EDC in increments, maybe 5-10A each time. If you get to a point where MT core average crests over, do the other curve optimizer stuff alongside it. Just don't leave it to doubt.


----------



## jesdals (Jan 10, 2021)

juanyunis said:


> Is this with your latest settings? Also, I asked you if you wanted any other bios settings like voltage etc. It looks pretty good, do you have cinebench?


Here is my current settings (did try to lower the target to 300MHz to see if it makes a difference)



My cpu settings is basic - usally I would disable AMD Cool&Quiet



My Loadline settings is the same above in previous test



My Samsung B-die voltage and XMP is the only special setting in general



Did start with SoC adjustment to 1150 but have lowered in this and above settings



My current VDDG settings - may raise them again for a new try at higher Infinity setting with some of the new tweaks



My PBO settings - juanyunis did manage above 5GHz with a low setting of the target overide so if It does anything is not sure - my previous settings was 500MHz

These settings give 4450MHz and above multicore performanze during CPU-z benchmark and single core above 4925MHz but temps above 75c

Will test this some more and try setting scalar to auto next


----------



## juanyunis (Jan 10, 2021)

@jesdals thank you for the settings. I was able to tweak a little bit more to get more performance. 

I'm currently running a stability test using Aida with a -30 on the curve using cpu core voltage normal with dynamic +0.050, cpu llc in auto, 250/125/125 for PBO, and +50Mhz for max boost.

I get 685/12980 in CPU-Z, Cinebench R20 11220, R23 28700 and Temps are below 80.


----------



## Zach_01 (Jan 10, 2021)

I believe there is a reason why TDC by default is lower than EDC. Take a look the descriptions of each PB limit

_Package Power Tracking (“PPT”): The PPT threshold is the allowed socket power consumption permitted across the voltage rails supplying the socket. Applications with high thread counts, and/or “heavy” threads, can encounter PPT limits that can be alleviated with a raised PPT limit._

_Default for Socket AM4 is at least 142W on motherboards rated for 105W TDP processors._
_Default for Socket AM4 is at least 88W on motherboards rated for 65W TDP processors._
_Thermal Design Current (“TDC”): The maximum current (amps) that can be delivered by a specific motherboard’s voltage regulator configuration *in thermally-constrained scenarios*._

_Default for socket AM4 is at least 95A on motherboards rated for 105W TDP processors._
_Default for socket AM4 is at least 60A on motherboards rated for 65W TDP processors._
_Electrical Design Current (“EDC”): The maximum current (amps) that can be delivered by a specific motherboard’s voltage regulator configuration in a peak (“spike”) condition for a short period of time._

_Default for socket AM4 is 140A on motherboards rated for 105W TDP processors._
_Default for socket AM4 is 90A on motherboards rated for 65W TDP processors._
From my understanding by having TDC=EDC you remove the thermally constrained scenario protection. I dont really know if this thermally-constrained scenario would be reflected to CPU temp readings directly or the CPU "sees" and monitor something else internally that we as users dont have access to.
Also the EDC limit as it states its for peak and short timed boosting.

Just some food for thoughts

This article by GN is over a year old and was for Zen2 but I dont think anything has changed to Zen3 for the general principles of the chips.









						Explaining AMD Ryzen Precision Boost Overdrive (PBO), AutoOC, & Benchmarks
					

With the launch of the Ryzen 3000 series processors, we’ve noticed a distinct confusion among readers and viewers when it comes to the phrases “Precision Boost 2,” “XFR,” “Precision Boost Overdrive,” which is different from Precision Boost, and “AutoOC.” There is also a lot of confusion about...




					www.gamersnexus.net
				




Edit: typo


----------



## juanyunis (Jan 10, 2021)

@Zach_01 thank you for your thoughts. They are very helpful. I will try playing with different bues for TDC and EDC. It does make sense.


----------



## harm9963 (Jan 10, 2021)

195 195 125 -30 from AMD OC menu, not PBO   =195 watts / 73c  for my system .
Added 10 min throttle test , watts stay the same , temp went to 77c .


----------



## juanyunis (Jan 11, 2021)

Well, I think I have something nice, I know you guys won't like it @mtcn77 and @Zach_01 but haha this is the best I have ever achieved, I ran AIDA stability test for about 6 hours without any issue.











harm9963 said:


> 195 195 125 -30 from AMD OC menu, not PBO   =195 watts / 73c  for my system .
> Added 10 min throttle test , watts stay the same , temp went to 77c .


wow, this is incredible, could you provide your PBO settings (scalar, max boost override, etc.), also voltage/offset, LLC


----------



## harm9963 (Jan 11, 2021)

juanyunis said:


> Well, I think I have something nice, I know you guys won't like it @mtcn77 and @Zach_01 but haha this is the best I have ever achieved, I ran AIDA stability test for about 6 hours without any issue.
> 
> View attachment 183487View attachment 183488View attachment 183489
> 
> ...


  Give it a go 


http://imgur.com/a/hdElP39


----------



## juanyunis (Jan 11, 2021)

@harm9963 wow, thank you so much for the settings I think I have a winner, Best CPU-Z score I have ever had, great Cinebench R20 and R23 scores, voltage CPU Core SVI never goes beyond 1.469V) and temperatures are okish, never reaching 90C which is OK for Zen 3 CPU (According to AMD Technicians) and not thermal throttling. 

I think you might have a better cooling solution and your ambient temperature is lower, I'm thinking of getting the Artic Liquid Freezer II 360mm. Could you tell me what you have? Thanks!

1. Voltage: Auto
2. LLC: Auto
3. 200/200/145 for PPT/TDC/EDC
4. Curve -30
5. Scalar: Auto
6. Max Boost Override: +50Mhz
7. Platform Thermal: Auto


----------



## mtcn77 (Jan 11, 2021)

You see! Now, that is a good score! If you look, you are at EDC max and 75% PPT. Keep dialing it in, I'm sure there is more to come.
PS: at this setting there is zero difference between PPT:200 and PPT:250 - both are limited by EDC which is a good thing in order to overcome temperature instabilities.


juanyunis said:


> I think I have something nice


----------



## juanyunis (Jan 11, 2021)

Yes!! I understand now, however according to @Zach_01 is not good for the chip to have the same TDC/EDC. What do you think? I could dial it in an have it the same, and HW info will show 100% for PPT/TDC/EDC.


----------



## mtcn77 (Jan 11, 2021)

juanyunis said:


> According to AMD Technicians


I wouldn't trust them. That skin head is no good in comparison to @The Stilt .


----------



## harm9963 (Jan 11, 2021)

juanyunis said:


> @harm9963 wow, thank you so much for the settings I think I have a winner, Best CPU-Z score I have ever had, great Cinebench R20 and R23 scores, voltage CPU Core SVI never goes beyond 1.469V) and temperatures are okish, never reaching 90C which is OK for Zen 3 CPU (According to AMD Technicians) and not thermal throttling.
> 
> I think you might have a better cooling solution and your ambient temperature is lower, I'm thinking of getting the Artic Liquid Freezer II 360mm. Could you tell me what you have? Thanks!
> 
> ...


Artic Liquid Freezer II 360mm , if you can find one in stock.
Arctic Liquid Freezer II 420  FTW​


----------



## mtcn77 (Jan 11, 2021)

juanyunis said:


> @Zach_01 is not good for the chip to have the same TDC/EDC.


Zach knows his beef. TDC is there to save you from having to worry about TjMax. If you feel safe - the temperature is not rising to PTTL that is - feel free to overlook it, since it is a thermal throttle point in the FIT scale.

So, one thing I had been adamantly quarreling about was EDC vs PPT since EDC more precisely tunes to a set level. However that is against people's expectations, it starts and continues too steady. If you are one of those people that want the cheap thrills, you can limit via PPT. It will provide a nice boost curve and as the cpu heats up you will notice it pushing back a little bit. However I find it crude with this level of control, but if you are running short stretches, you will notice a bump in your performance if you can balance it out. Say, your consumption is 180, so try PPT:180 and EDC some higher value than your current 125 median.


----------



## jesdals (Jan 11, 2021)

Im using the Arctic Liquid Freezer II 360 as well - but please not that there is a new mounting mekanismen and it give problems on some boards.


----------



## juanyunis (Jan 11, 2021)

@jesdals i think i might have to go with EK new 360 AIO, it's on par with Liquid Freezer, Artic's one has the fan that cools VRM, but I think for our X570 AORUS master is not really important according to what Steve from GN said.


----------



## jesdals (Jan 11, 2021)

Leaving the curve settings (-10/-5) I get almost the same GPU-z result as Juan




will try to see if I ca do negative 30  Negative 30 cant boot un my setup - will test negative 20 for stability



If stable it looks promising


----------



## juanyunis (Jan 11, 2021)

are you using my settings? if you are, then i can confirm that your ambient temperature and your cooling solution is giving you so much gains, specially ST scores and @harm9963 gets more gains because he has the 420mm one, probably good ambient temperature too.


----------



## jesdals (Jan 11, 2021)

juanyunis said:


> are you using my settings? if you are, then i can confirm that your ambient temperature and your cooling solution is giving you so much gains, specially ST scores and @harm9963 gets more gains because he has the 420mm one, probably good ambient temperature too.


I kept my loadline settings and the 500MHz target (wishfull thinking) but since I couldnt boot with negative 30 - I went with negative 20 - if stable I give negative 25 a try. Doing the benchmark I saw above 4500MHz all core speeds


----------



## juanyunis (Jan 11, 2021)

Funny enough I just tried -35 same settings (Could it be a golden/platinum sample I have?) I used and it booted and ran all benchmarks, and i got incredible performance, for example Cinebench R20 got 11490 and R23 got 29107, so far my best results yet. CPU-Z same ST but MT got 10 points more.

I think for stability purposes and to be on the safe side, I'm gonna leave my settings like this:

1. Voltage: auto
2. LLC: Auto
3. For PBO, PPT: 200, TDC: 137, EDC: 145, Curve -30, Scalar: Auto, Max Boost Override: 0 Mhz, Platform Thermal: Auto

I get about same performance in ST/MT and same Cinebench results, but I think it should be stable.


----------



## jesdals (Jan 11, 2021)

-20 seems stable, temps are high with these settings




That 700 mark is just not possible


----------



## juanyunis (Jan 11, 2021)

@jesdals that's incredible. What settings?


----------



## jesdals (Jan 11, 2021)

The same as before



but no 700 today


----------



## juanyunis (Jan 11, 2021)

I think I'm gonna wait for a better thermal solution lol, it feels like my 5950X doesn't like my ambient temperature and 240MM AIO.

I made a little experiment just for fun lol, I opened the case, put fans to max and added an external fan pointing to the CPU and my MT score is up using my latest settings (at some point they reached over 13200 but didn't save it lol), so yeah looks like my lower performance compared to you is because of thermals lol.





--------------------------EDIT------------------------------------

Another update, I limited my PPT to 180 (down from 200) and adjusted the TDC to 125 (down from 137), increased Max Boost Override to 500Mhz (thanks @jesdals) and also set the Platform Thermal to 82C, my CPU-Z scores are about the same (685 ST and 13K MT), Cinebench R20 dropped a little bit to 11350, R23 got more points (weird) 29220 and also some games that increased the temperature like crazy (Assassin's Creed Odyssey) now are being restricted to a max of 82C (It was previously running at 87C~90C).

Most cores go beyond 5Ghz, some of them reached 5.1Ghz, 5.17Ghz and 5.25GHZ.

I think this is my sweet spot for my ambient temperature which is 27C with no AC (Feels like 30C - Accuweather says that today's range was 26~32C) with a high humidity (78%).

When a heavy MT application/process is running, the CPU doesn't go beyond 80C, and when some rogue game/app/process tries to increase temp, the limit I put will throttle the processor to avoid going beyond 82C. This should keep my CPU happy and avoid future degradation.


----------



## harm9963 (Jan 12, 2021)

jesdals said:


> The same as before
> View attachment 183586
> but no 700 today


Final tweak  195 195 125 -30 ,  PBO  1st   2nd AMD OC    3rd XRF   combination  lost it,   found it again by luck !  forgot the order ,man that sucks , auto auto auto , disable  ,enable 

Peak means very little , race between a rabbit and a tortoise ends with a moral: "Slow and steady wins the race"  , plus temps were 73c in 10 min test, but one kickup at 77c .

One more test ,before I go to sleep


----------



## mtcn77 (Jan 12, 2021)

harm9963 said:


> Peak means very little


Like I said, EDC peaks will mean very little as long as the cpu temperature is yet to normalize from a cold boot. You get a nice boost of "unobtanium", but pay for it down the line with slowing down. Overclocking beyond your cpu cooling requirements is good because you get plenty of current in the short term which enables all your target performance benchmarks without specifically getting to 100% stability. It is like the casual "ice bucket" that record holders use.


----------



## AMD718 (Jan 12, 2021)

Just adding mine for reference. This is my first pass at PBO CO on my 5950, Aorus B550 Master





PPT=200, TDC=200, EDC=150
Scalar @ 4x
CPU +200 Mhz
PBO Thermal Throttle = 80c
[CO]
Core 0        Negative, 15
Core 1        Negative, 5
Core 2        Negative, 15
Core 3        Negative, 15
Core 4        Negative, 15
Core 5        Negative, 15
Core 6        Negative, 10
Core 7        Negative, 15
Core 8        Negative, 10
Core 9        Negative, 15
Core 10        Negative, 15
Core 11        Negative, 5
Core 12        Negative, 15
Core 13        Negative, 15
Core 14        Negative, 15
Core 15        Negative, 15

I feel I can do much better but I've wanted to make sure this is 100% rock solid stable before loosening up negative offsets. So, it's been a week with dozens of benchmarks, tests, OCCT, etc. and I haven't had a single crash, reboot WHEA, or anything. I'm feeling good about these settings as a stable baseline I can progress from.

Cooler is NH-D15


----------



## thesmokingman (Jan 12, 2021)

Why are you using a positive offset then trimming with negative voltage (another -offset) in the curve optimizer? It seems a bit redundant. In either case ya both are pushing 200w so I'm not surprised by the perf.


----------



## juanyunis (Jan 12, 2021)

thesmokingman said:


> Why are you using a positive offset then trimming with negative voltage (another -offset) in the curve optimizer? It seems a bit redundant. In either case ya both are pushing 200w so I'm not surprised by the perf.


were you referring to my previous tests? if you are, then my reason was that leaving the voltage in auto causes high spikes, making my system reach the thermal limit at the time (90C), when i switched to normal with a positive offset (found that info in a reddit post) i found that the clocks were good, performance was pretty good and my temperatures were about 10C cooler. (I know it sounds stupid, maybe a BIOS bug but it worked) however i have moved on from that a found a better tune for my system and ambient temperature.


----------



## thesmokingman (Jan 12, 2021)

juanyunis said:


> were you referring to my previous tests? if you are, then my reason was that leaving the voltage in auto causes high spikes, making my system reach the thermal limit at the time (90C), when i switched to normal with a positive offset (found that info in a reddit post) i found that the clocks were good, performance was pretty good and my temperatures were about 10C cooler. (I know it sounds stupid, maybe a BIOS bug but it worked) however i have moved on from that a found a better tune for my system and ambient temperature.


Yea, I was. I'd just add that be careful with the settings cuz often they can overlap. Also, these high spikes... did you mean spikes in temp? Are you watching the main temp sensor and not die average?


----------



## juanyunis (Jan 12, 2021)

thesmokingman said:


> Yea, I was. I'd just add that be careful with the settings cuz often they can overlap. Also, these high spikes... did you mean spikes in temp? Are you watching the main temp sensor and not die average?


Oh I'm currently using this:

Voltage: Auto
LLC: Auto
PBO: 180 PPT, 125 TDC, 145 EDC, -25 Curve, Auto Scalar, 200Mhz Max Boost Override and 80C Platform Thermal Limit

This is giving awesome performance and keeping my voltages under control and the temps too.

Yes, spikes in temperature, I was watching CCX temps.


----------



## thesmokingman (Jan 12, 2021)

juanyunis said:


> Oh I'm currently using this:
> 
> Voltage: Auto
> LLC: Auto
> ...


Ah that's why. That is NORMAL behavior. The individual die temps will light up as it switches contexts. I find die average more relevant.

Also we should realize that the for those with dual CCD chips, you have 3 sensors a main sensor show all core temps and your two CCD die temps. The main temp sensor will fluctuate like mad all the time because you're seeing 12-16 temps all lumped into one sensor. And given how fast the cpu switches contexts, you can see why this is not an accurate reflection of the cpu temps overall.


----------



## juanyunis (Jan 12, 2021)

thesmokingman said:


> Ah that's why. That is NORMAL behavior. The individual die temps will light up as it switches contexts. I find die average more relevant.
> 
> Also we should realize that the for those with dual CCD chips, you have 3 sensors a main sensor show all core temps and your two CCD die temps. The main temp sensor will fluctuate like mad all the time because you're seeing 12-16 temps all lumped into one sensor. And given how fast the cpu switches contexts, you can see why this is not an accurate reflection of the cpu temps overall.


I'm confused lol.

Which temp sensor in hw info should we use for people with dual CCX?

I was looking at both CCX temp sensors when doing my tests.

And the spikes where while doing benchmarks, before I could get 89C while starting running CPU-Z, and then drop to 80C all cores. When I changed to normal voltage and positive offset the spikes were upto 77C and all core about 70C. But @mthembo and @Zach_01 told me that I was getting very high voltages over 1.5V and even tho temps were below 80C those voltages are not safe.


----------



## thesmokingman (Jan 12, 2021)

juanyunis said:


> I'm confused lol.
> 
> Which temp sensor in hw info should we use for people with dual CCX?
> 
> ...


Up to 1.5v is NORMAL for low current workloads, ie. single core boost. Anyone who tells you different fundamentally misunderstands the architecture. You will never see 1.5v with all the cores loaded.

Again, seeing the high temp spikes is directly because you are watching individual core temps as they react to context switches. And by reducing voltage you are limiting what the chip can boost to. Thus yea, you'd then see lower boost temp and thus are also getting lowered single core performance along with it. 

As I wrote before I don't even bother looking at the main temp sensor. I only pay attention to die average. If you have a motherboard with the error code display, you can set it to show temps. That temp off the motherboard effectively = socket temp which is close to die average.


----------



## harm9963 (Jan 12, 2021)

juanyunis said:


> I'm confused lol.
> 
> Which temp sensor in hw info should we use for people with dual CCX?
> 
> ...


Easy


----------



## juanyunis (Jan 12, 2021)

harm9963 said:


> Easy


Yes, that is what I always look. But @thesmokingman says that we have to pay attention to average.

@thesmokingman my voltages were going beyong 1.5V, like 1.56V.


----------



## harm9963 (Jan 12, 2021)

juanyunis said:


> Yes, that is what I always look. But @thesmokingman says that we have to pay attention to average.
> 
> @thesmokingman my voltages were going beyong 1.5V, like 1.56V.


ST TEST !


----------



## thesmokingman (Jan 12, 2021)

Another sensor to be aware of is the core voltage. That sensor shows voltages for all the individual cores and average voltage so you have to keep that in mind. It's annoying actually so we have to compare the voltage vs the load to know if the voltage we are seeing is per core or average voltage for the whole die.



juanyunis said:


> Yes, that is what I always look. But @thesmokingman says that we have to pay attention to average.
> 
> @thesmokingman my voltages were going beyong 1.5V, like 1.56V.


You shouldn't be seeing 1.56v unless you raised your LLC or some other setting, or its a reading issue with your board.


----------



## juanyunis (Jan 12, 2021)

thesmokingman said:


> Another sensor to be aware of is the core voltage. That sensor shows voltages for all the individual cores and average voltage so you have to keep that in mind. It's annoying actually so we have to compare the voltage vs the load to know if the voltage we are seeing is per core or average voltage for the whole die.
> 
> 
> You shouldn't be seeing 1.56v unless you raised your LLC or some other setting, or its a reading issue with your board.


This was the HW info when I ran that test (-30 on the curve using cpu core voltage normal with dynamic +0.050, cpu llc in auto, 250/125/125 for PBO, and +50Mhz for max boost), so that why @Zach_01 and @mtcn77 got worried.


----------



## thesmokingman (Jan 12, 2021)

juanyunis said:


> This was the HW info when I ran that test, so that why @Zach_01 and @mtcn77 got worried.
> 
> View attachment 183750


Ok, hmm you're highlighting the core clock perf which just shows what the boost clock is, or what is possible. It's not what the clocks really are running at. The Effective clock is where you see what the clocks really are and how you judge whether you're in a low current load or high current load. In your screen above I see 1.5v right? In the max you see 1.56v. It might be a reading inaccuracy cuz the cpu algorithms max out at 1.5v so any overage would either be an error in reading, settings or issue with your board.

Effective clock vs instant (discrete) clock | HWiNFO Forum


----------



## juanyunis (Jan 12, 2021)

thesmokingman said:


> Ok, hmm you're highlighting the core clock perf which just shows what the boost clock is, or what is possible. It's not what the clocks really are running at. The Effective clock is where you see what the clocks really are and how you judge whether you're in a low current load or high current load. In your screen above I see 1.5v right? In the max you see 1.56v. It might be a reading inaccuracy cuz the cpu algorithms max out at 1.5v so any overage would either be an error in reading, settings or issue with your board.
> 
> Effective clock vs instant (discrete) clock | HWiNFO Forum


Oh no, I wasn't highlighting it for that, I was just showing that all my cores were able to pass 5Ghz, effective clocks were accurate when doing multicore. Also I think CPU Core VID is what the core is asking for voltage right? (I think) if you see most of them requested over 1.5V. Anyway this test was a couple of days ago, it not what I'm running right now.


----------



## thesmokingman (Jan 12, 2021)

juanyunis said:


> Oh no, I wasn't highlighting it for that, I was just showing that all my cores were able to pass 5Ghz, effective clocks were accurate when doing multicore. Also I think CPU Core VID is what the core is asking for voltage right? (I think) if you see most of them requested over 1.5V. Anyway this test was a couple of days ago, it not what I'm running right now.


Yea, regarding VID. What board are you using and what version of hwinfo is that? It looks to be setup in a way that is asking for too much VID voltage. You can see the individual core VID above core clocks. Your chip is asking 1.544v VID on each core at max. Needless to say it should NOT be doing that.


----------



## juanyunis (Jan 12, 2021)

X570 AORUS Master rev 1.2, latest BIOS F30 with AGESA 1.1.0.0 Patch D. HW info version is v6.40-4330 (Latest), the reason for the high VID and high Core Voltage SVI could be because I had a high PPT/TDC/EDC running with positive voltage offset.

But this is no longer the case. This is my current HW info.


----------



## thesmokingman (Jan 12, 2021)

juanyunis said:


> X570 AORUS Master rev 1.2, latest BIOS F30 with AGESA 1.1.0.0 Patch D. HW info version is v6.40-4330 (Latest), the reason for the high VID and high Core Voltage SVI could be because I had a high PPT/TDC/EDC running with positive voltage offset.
> 
> But this is no longer the case. This is my current HW info.
> 
> View attachment 183759


It's probably when you had the positive offset?


----------



## juanyunis (Jan 12, 2021)

thesmokingman said:


> It's probably when you had the positive offset?


Yes! It was, +0.050 I think with auto CPU LLC.


----------



## Zach_01 (Jan 12, 2021)

I wasnt worried exactly for the 1.56V. Only pointing to it because the CPU would never do that by each own, and one should be aware of it. Of course, as @thesmokingman said, this high 1.45~1.55Vcore is only during single/reduced threaded loads. Even in games you can get an avg of 1.45+V* avg.* Its normal.
I only told @juanyunis to take it easy on voltage because at the time the temp was around 80~85C for all core load, indicating potential too high voltages/speeds than normal. And power draw was over 200W.

From what I see from the 5000 series the all core voltage is (and should be) well below 1.2V

----------------------------------

I've said these(below) a few times around multiple threads/topics.

By the author of HWiNFO
All readings under "CPU AMD Ryzen XXXX (Enhanced)" is pulled straight from CPU.
Individual VIDs are just a request probably based on a speed/load/current table.
"CPU Core VID (effective)" is the final CPU request for voltage.
"CPU Core Voltage (SVI2 TFN)" is the most accurate voltage reading of what the CPU is getting.

"CPU (Tctl/Tdie)" is the hotspot temp that switches through a large number of sensors to report always the highest.
"CPU CCD (Tdie)" is the "traditional" edge temp of each CCD. This a fixed located sensor reading on some side of CCD.
"CPU Die (average)" is the average of all sensors on both CCDs (could be over 100). At this point it is unclear if this avg includes IOD sensors also. No one but AMD knows this.

----------------------------------

On a full (100%) load scenario it doesnt matter which one you see. The heat is almost equal everywhere and all report about the same temp.
Its on single and reduced threaded loads that sensors start to differentiate. On idle, browsing, watching videos the hotspot can be 10~15C above the other. On gaming the difference is reduced to 5~10C or less.


----------



## juanyunis (Jan 12, 2021)

I just had access to CTR Tuner 2.0 RC3. (from 1usmus patreon) and tried it with my system it reported my cpu as a bronze sample and it gave me very low scores, way lower than my manual tuned PBO. Probably with CTR 2.1 with curve optimization it will get better.


----------



## Zach_01 (Jan 12, 2021)

juanyunis said:


> I just had access to CTR Tuner 2.0 RC3. (from 1usmus patreon) and tried it with my system it reported my cpu as a bronze sample and it gave me very low scores, way lower than my manual tuned PBO. Probably with CTR 2.1 with curve optimization it will get better.


Keep in mind that @1usmus may have tune the app in a more conservative way than your manual settings. We dont know if the app targets for 200W or 150W or whatever it takes account.
From my understanding it's supposed to tune the CPU and not decisively overclock/overvoltage to gain performace at all cost...

The rating (bronze, silver, gold, platinum) of the CPU is surely playing major role.


----------



## mtcn77 (Jan 12, 2021)

juanyunis said:


> I just had access to CTR Tuner 2.0 RC3. (from 1usmus patreon) and tried it with my system it reported my cpu as a bronze sample and it gave me very low scores, way lower than my manual tuned PBO. Probably with CTR 2.1 with curve optimization it will get better.


That just goes to show you need more voltage.
It is not the same as in the bulldozer series when E meant lower voltage and normal meant high leakiness. Now it is about the resistance vs. the low voltage scale. It actually means you are safer, but high temperature can initiate electromigration anyway. Keep things in check.

TL;DR: I've been thinking, couldn't AMD make a single best case example like high PPT low EDC when the cpu temperature is cold and low PPT high EDC when it is hot? By low and high I mean in small steps of 5 units just until it frees, or falls within the FIT threshold limiter.


----------



## juanyunis (Jan 13, 2021)

Yeah that would be a nice feature to have in a Bios @mtcn77 

Anyway, today I spent some time tweaking my curve value, instead of using one value for everything I discovered a post in reddit about using OCCT to test curve stability per core and it does work! 

So my curve started at -30 for per core, then I had to tune values for core 2, 3 and 4. For core 2 and 3, I had to use -25. For core 4, I had to use -15.

So at the end of the day my settings are:

1. Voltage: auto
2. CPU LLC: auto
3. PBO Advanced settings:
a. PPT: 180
b. TDC: 125
c. EDC: 145
d. Curve: see above
e. Scalar: Auto
f. Max Boost Override: 150Mhz
g. Platform Thermal Limit: 82C (thinking on leaving 85C)

After tuning the curve, my cinebench r20 / r23 scores went up (probably because of effective clocks were more stable). 

For anyone interested in tuning the curve follow this guide: (you should only use this if you are using a curve value) 
1. Download OCCT
2. Open the App
3. Open Task Manager, go to Details, find OCCT app, right click and select Set Affinity
4. Select the core (single) you want to test (for example for core 0 in CCX, you have to select Core 0 and Core 1 in Set Affinity window, this is because each core has 2 threads) and click OK. 
4. In OCCT select small data set, SSE instruction set, 3 or 5 minutesand and thread count to 1
5. Click start and wait for the test to complete or find error. 

Notes:
If the test finds an error you have to go to bios and change the curve value for that specific core until you don't get errors. 

*You have to repeat the process for each core.*


----------



## TheDeeGee (Jan 13, 2021)

Seems while my Negative 20 was stable during load, it reboots the PC without an error during idle due to too low voltage.


----------



## juanyunis (Jan 13, 2021)

TheDeeGee said:


> Seems while my Negative 20 was stable during load, it reboots the PC without an error during idle due to too low voltage.


My guess is that my motherboard plays a big part on it. Even with my high value for the curve -30 for all cores I never had a reboot. I did get a couple of WHEA errors reported but they didn't cause any crash/reboot, that's why I used OCCT to resolve those WHEAs

I have an X570 AOURUS Master with latest BIOS running CPU LLC in auto, this board is know for its great VRM and power delivery so maybe it has a way to compensate.

I used to have a X570 MSI Gaming Plus and it was giving me so many power issues with my 5950X and 4 memory sticks. I was unable to enable PBO because doing so my all core clocks in some apps/programs will get stuck at 546Mhz and also my memory was unable to run higher than 3400CL14. So that's why I decided on getting a better board, and buildzoid liked the new one I have.

What CPU/motherboard do you have?


----------



## jesdals (Jan 13, 2021)

TheDeeGee said:


> Seems while my Negative 20 was stable during load, it reboots the PC without an error during idle due to too low voltage.


Try to disable eco mode in bios


----------



## juanyunis (Jan 13, 2021)

@jesdals @harm9963 could you guys run an AIDA cache and memory benchmark. I have noticed that my L3 speed drops about half (370GB/s) when doing custom limits in PBO. As soon I put Auto with the curve L3 cache speed increases to 780GB/s. Wondering why. @Zach_01 @mtcn77 @thesmokingman you guys might know why.


----------



## harm9963 (Jan 14, 2021)

juanyunis said:


> @jesdals @harm9963 could you guys run an AIDA cache and memory benchmark. I have noticed that my L3 speed drops about half (370GB/s) when doing custom limits in PBO. As soon I put Auto with the curve L3 cache speed increases to 780GB/s. Wondering why. @Zach_01 @mtcn77 @thesmokingman you guys might know why.


BIOS vs BIOS  for my system 
Settings the same .


----------



## juanyunis (Jan 14, 2021)

@harm9963 interesting! thank you for sharing, so you think that it might be a BIOS bug? in my case using the motherboard limits I get stunning results for Cinebench R20 / R23, great CPU-Z and excellent AIDA results at the cost of getting close 90C temp, but I guess is fine.


----------



## harm9963 (Jan 14, 2021)

juanyunis said:


> @harm9963 interesting! thank you for sharing, so you think that it might be a BIOS bug? in my case using the motherboard limits I get stunning results for Cinebench R20 / R23, great CPU-Z and excellent AIDA results at the cost of getting close 90C temp, but I guess is fine.
> 
> View attachment 183910 View attachment 183911 View attachment 183912 View attachment 183913 View attachment 183914





juanyunis said:


> My guess is that my motherboard plays a big part on it. Even with my high value for the curve -30 for all cores I never had a reboot. I did get a couple of WHEA errors reported but they didn't cause any crash/reboot, that's why I used OCCT to resolve those WHEAs
> 
> I have an X570 AOURUS Master with latest BIOS running CPU LLC in auto, this board is know for its great VRM and power delivery so maybe it has a way to compensate.
> 
> ...


Pass all test with OCCT , when i did power test ,my UPS alarm went off , never had that happen ,  know it works  , test once a month , will start pc and run for a while, 510 watts .


----------



## juanyunis (Jan 14, 2021)

harm9963 said:


> Pass all test with OCCT , when i did power test ,my UPS alarm went off , never had that happen ,  know it works  , test once a month , will start pc and run for a while, 510 watts .


@harm9963 i foresaw that when I bought my UPS. Mine is 1050w with sinusoidal wave. I'm able to run my machine at max, I also have a Mac attached to it and a huge 43.4 super ultra wide monitor.


----------



## harm9963 (Jan 14, 2021)

Fresh installed insider build , basically reinstalled windows , stock voltage still , stock clocks , only AMD OC menu   ,and power supply setting from Ryzen Dram Calculator , also no PBO .



juanyunis said:


> @harm9963 i foresaw that when I bought my UPS. Mine is 1050w with sinusoidal wave. I'm able to run my machine at max, I also have a Mac attached to it and a huge 43.4 super ultra wide monitor.


Called support, they want me to make sure outlet is grounded,  will go to home depot , spend 4 dollars for outlet tester  .


----------



## jesdals (Jan 14, 2021)

Temps is evry thing tho - we had a sub zero winther day here - so gave it a go



same settings - but simply lower room temp


----------



## Durvelle27 (Jan 14, 2021)

I’ve been playing around with it

On my 5800Z I can do -25 on all cores which helps me hit 5040MHz which lower power


----------



## Zach_01 (Jan 14, 2021)

Durvelle27 said:


> I’ve been playing around with it
> 
> On my 5800Z I can do -25 on all cores which helps me hit 5040MHz which lower power
> 
> View attachment 183967


Those VIDs are just requests as we already said many times. And no one can tell anything useful from your screen shot.

What is the “Core voltage (SVI2 TFN)” and what is the CPU PPT/EDC/TDC?
Temperature?


----------



## Durvelle27 (Jan 14, 2021)

Zach_01 said:


> Those VIDs are just requests as we already said many times. And no one can tell anything useful from your screen shot.
> 
> What is the “Core voltage (SVI2 TFN)” and what is the CPU PPT/EDC/TDC?
> Temperature?








I’ll get more later


----------



## harm9963 (Jan 14, 2021)

Durvelle27 said:


> View attachment 183974
> View attachment 183975
> I’ll get more later


Use log .


----------



## Durvelle27 (Jan 14, 2021)

harm9963 said:


> Use log .


Will do


----------



## harm9963 (Jan 14, 2021)

Durvelle27 said:


> Will do



Example of my HWiNFO64


----------



## Durvelle27 (Jan 14, 2021)

harm9963 said:


> Example of my HWiNFO64


I no longer have a GPU in the rig so once i have a GPU in it i'll post back


----------



## Zach_01 (Jan 14, 2021)

Durvelle27 said:


> View attachment 183974
> View attachment 183975
> I’ll get more later


Even though EDC is pretty high, PPT is around stock value (if true, I can’t see PowerReportingDeviation) and temp is somewhat ok under 80C.
Have you tried just to limit EDC? Everything else as is. Try 140-150A.
I’m not suggesting this for better performance, but for better protection of the chip. Longevity maybe.

Common mistake is to observe only min/max values during a test. Average values have their meaning too. For example higher avg effective clock would mean more sustained clocks. And many others are useful too for different kind of evaluation.


----------



## juanyunis (Jan 14, 2021)

@Zach_01 I found the reason for L3 cache speed drop, it is because of EDC, if we increase the TDC, we need to increase EDC. For example, what i found that worked is using the math formula "rule of 3", I knew that the stock values for my 5950X were 95 TDC and 145 for EDC, then using the new value of 140 for TDC I calculated the EDC at 215, and the cache speed went back to original value.

               Stock                       Custom PBO
===============================
TDC         95                 |               140
-----------------------------------------------------
EDC         145               |               215
-----------------------------------------------------

Also If use motherboard limits in PBO, it gives me the same values so I guess is by design.


----------



## harm9963 (Jan 14, 2021)

TDC 95 | 140
----------------  used setting , results below.
EDC 145 | 215

My old BIOS 5809 was better vs 5821 , but then again , beta phase's , learning as we  go


----------



## juanyunis (Jan 14, 2021)

@harm9963 looks like. 
However if you compare this to your previous Aida result this one has more L3 cache speed. In the previous one using 5821 you got values on the 300GB/s range now you are getting close to 700GB/s.

So it does prove my point, TDC/EDC ratio matters for L3 cache speeds.


----------



## harm9963 (Jan 14, 2021)

juanyunis said:


> @harm9963 looks like however if you compare this to your previous Aida result this one has more L3 cache speed. In the previous one using 5821 you got values on the 300GB/s range now you are getting close to 700GB/s.
> 
> So it does prove my point, TDC/EDC ratio matters for L3 cache speeds.


Good job 


Other side affect is watts , I set for 210 watts , it only used 197 watts 

Room temp is 75F .


----------



## juanyunis (Jan 14, 2021)

harm9963 said:


> Good job
> 
> 
> Other side affect is watts , I set for 210 watts , it only used 197 watts
> ...


Thanks. We are all working together to optimize our zen 3 processors .

By the way you didn't lost any performance at all or gained more temperature. Are you still using curve optimization? Also what are your settings? (voltage, cpu llc, scalar, max boost override, platform thermal limit)


----------



## harm9963 (Jan 14, 2021)

juanyunis said:


> Thanks. We are all working together to optimize our zen 3 processors .
> 
> By the way you didn't lost any performance at all or gained more temperature. Are you still using curve optimization? Also what are your settings? (voltage, cpu llc, scalar, max boost override, platform thermal limit)


210 140  215 / -30 AMD OC menu, and Ryzen Dram Calculator power setting, thermal limit 100 , everything else stock.

Did some fine tuning,  lower the LLC 1,power switch to 300 ,    Good job  again 
Update went back to LLC 3 /power switch to auto !


----------



## Zach_01 (Jan 15, 2021)

@harm9963 you do know that with paint app, if you past your screenshots there you have the ability to write with prettier letters with different sizes and color and with or without text background. It’s text function on Paint.
Will make your posts nicer and easy to read...


----------



## thesmokingman (Jan 15, 2021)

juanyunis said:


> @harm9963 interesting! thank you for sharing, so you think that it might be a BIOS bug? in my case using the motherboard limits I get stunning results for Cinebench R20 / R23, great CPU-Z and excellent AIDA results at the cost of getting close 90C temp, but I guess is fine.
> 
> View attachment 183910 View attachment 183911 View attachment 183912 View attachment 183913 View attachment 183914


Still using additive voltage I see. Be warned, you can still degrade the chip with PBO just by forcing it to use a +offset.


----------



## harm9963 (Jan 15, 2021)

New BIOS 5830 , nice boost , no water cooling , just AIO .


----------



## juanyunis (Jan 15, 2021)

thesmokingman said:


> Still using additive voltage I see. Be warned, you can still degrade the chip with PBO just by forcing it to use a +offset.


Nope, that was auto voltage and auto llc. I stopped using positive offset the moment I was told it was bad, so that is PBO and bios alone.


----------



## thesmokingman (Jan 15, 2021)

juanyunis said:


> Nope, that was auto voltage and auto llc. I stopped using positive offset the moment I was told it was bad, so that is PBO and bios alone.


Its not my cpu but you are obviously getting a huge voltage input from somewhere.


----------



## juanyunis (Jan 15, 2021)

thesmokingman said:


> In not my cpu but you are obviously getting a huge voltage input from somewhere.


It could be by using high EDC (motherboard limits), it is basically the one that gives more multicore score for me and more cache speed.


----------



## harm9963 (Jan 15, 2021)

love new BIOS 5830 !


----------



## jesdals (Jan 16, 2021)

Another cold day gave room for some more low temp testing - so far W250 T200 E130 i best - above did not improve multi score



with the 6900xt my chipset is never that cold in normal condition


----------



## juanyunis (Jan 16, 2021)

jesdals said:


> Another cold day gave room for some more low temp testing - so far W250 T200 E130 i best - above did not improve multi score
> View attachment 184192
> with the 6900xt my chipset is never that cold in normal condition


That is just unreal, what settings for voltage and PBO, curve? Also run a an Aida test to see l3 cache speed.


----------



## mtcn77 (Jan 16, 2021)

harm9963 said:


> lower the LLC 1


LLC isn't incrementally ordered, it is at its peak at 1.
Have fun ruining your chip.



jesdals said:


> far W250 T200 E130 i best


This won't work. You set EDC lower than TDC which should be the other way around. Also, TDC won't kick in until PTTL temperature, afaik. So far, good job circumventing safety protocols.


----------



## harm9963 (Jan 16, 2021)

mtcn77 said:


> LLC isn't incrementally ordered, it is at its peak at 1.
> Have fun ruining your chip.
> 
> 
> This won't work. You set EDC lower than TDC which should be the other way around. Also, TDC won't kick in until PTTL temperature, afaik. So far, good job circumventing safety protocols.


Ryzen Dram Calculator , power supply setting calls for 3 or 4, so please show some documentation to back up your assertions please


----------



## mtcn77 (Jan 16, 2021)

harm9963 said:


> to back up your assertions


Not an assertion, 5 is default while 8 is the least level setting. If you are doing this with incidental knowledge, I cannot help you.


----------



## jesdals (Jan 16, 2021)

Final and best result for boost - W250T200E130 rest the same as above




Lost the router because of the cold - so had to stop testing - but did break 5,3GHz 

Giving more than T=200 did not bring any boost performance and E=130, sweet spot some where around these values


----------



## harm9963 (Jan 16, 2021)

mtcn77 said:


> Not an assertion, 5 is default while 8 is the least level setting. If you are doing this with incidental knowledge, I cannot help you.





http://imgur.com/a/U562wHh




mtcn77 said:


> Not an assertion, 5 is default while 8 is the least level setting. If you are doing this with incidental knowledge, I cannot help you.


----------



## Zach_01 (Jan 16, 2021)

jesdals said:


> View attachment 184192
> with the 6900xt my chipset is never that cold in normal condition


I know what you mean. The place of the chipset is terrible...
In this screenshot your chipset temp is around 30C. This temp is followed by BIOS to control PCH fan. You can confirm this temp inside BIOS SmartFan5 and Gigabyte SIV.
What you see as a stand alone HWiNFO chipset temp is something else. Maybe some voltage controller/regulator.


----------



## harm9963 (Jan 16, 2021)

200 140 215 / -30  stock clock / using  Dram Calculator for Ryzen , power supply settings .


----------



## mtcn77 (Jan 16, 2021)

harm9963 said:


> http://imgur.com/a/U562wHh


The last time usmus was mentioned, the Stilt warned against it, now that he is gone, be wary of that.


----------



## thesmokingman (Jan 16, 2021)

jesdals said:


> Final and best result for boost - W250T200E130 rest the same as above
> View attachment 184195
> Lost the router because of the cold - so had to stop testing - but did break 5,3GHz
> 
> Giving more than T=200 did not bring any boost performance and E=130, sweet spot some where around these values


You need to update to the latest hwinfo beta. You're missing some stats most importantly the power draw.



mtcn77 said:


> LLC isn't incrementally ordered, it is at its peak at 1.
> Have fun ruining your chip.
> 
> 
> This won't work. You set EDC lower than TDC which should be the other way around. Also, TDC won't kick in until PTTL temperature, afaik. So far, good job circumventing safety protocols.


They're new to this so they're going thru that phase... lol.



harm9963 said:


> Ryzen Dram Calculator , power supply setting calls for 3 or 4, so please show some documentation to back up your assertions please


That doesn't mean you should follow it now does it? Dram calc doesn't calc anything, it's based on a set of assumptions.


----------



## SesioN (Jan 17, 2021)

Hey guys,

can it be that I have such a bad CPU?? Probably bronze?

I've the following specs:

MB: Gigabyte X570 AORUS MASTER v1.2
CPU: 5950X
RAM: G.SKill TridentZ 32GB Kit DDR4-3200 CL14 (Running in XMP profile currently)
Cooling: AiO ARCTIC Liquid Freezer II 360 (In general very well cooled pc-case with many good fans and proper air-flow concept)
Bios: F32a
(same results on previous official one)

*I tested like all possible settings.*

Curve optimizer all cores -5 leads to instant blue screen when windows is loading. No matter what settings I try.

Example settings:

Vcore: auto
LLT: auto
PBO: 200/140/140
boost override +50 Mhz
curve optimizer: all core -5

I've tested all combinations. No matter what I blue screen or not stable or totally hot.
I can do like curve optimizer all core -2 then it doesn't blue screen. But on CPU-Z Benchmark quickly goes over 80c


----------



## jesdals (Jan 17, 2021)

It could be memory issue - try to set your memory to CL 16 with more lose settings and se if that change anything. What kind of modules are there on your memory - I am running 4x8gb Samsung B-die, that why my settings demand 1.52V on memory. You can se my Artic Coolers behavior in the pages above - but 80c boost is nothing special. Bios F32a is that one of the upcomming betas? could also be why its buggy - try F31


----------



## SesioN (Jan 17, 2021)

jesdals said:


> It could be memory issue - try to set your memory to CL 16 with more lose settings and se if that change anything. What kind of modules are there on your memory - I am running 4x8gb Samsung B-die, that why my settings demand 1.52V on memory. You can se my Artic Coolers behavior in the pages above - but 80c boost is nothing special



Those are also samsung B-die. I'm testing now with CL16.

So using curve optimizer can make the memory unstable? If so, how to counter it? just put more voltage on the memory?


----------



## jesdals (Jan 17, 2021)

I think its more a genral stability issue - but what is your Infinity settings - you can se my bios settings above. But running 16GB modules is more tricky than 8gb. But if your running 3200MHz try setting voltage to 1.35 manually in bios - it may help running above that speed might take some more juice - at 1900MHz Infinity/3800MHz my memory need 1.52v at my settings. Please vil out your System Specs in the profile on Techpowerup,


----------



## SesioN (Jan 17, 2021)

jesdals said:


> I think its more a genral stability issue - but what is your Infinity settings - you can se my bios settings above. But running 16GB modules is more tricky than 8gb. But if your running 3200MHz try setting voltage to 1.35 manually in bios - it may help running above that speed might take some more juice - at 1900MHz Infinity/3800MHz my memory need 1.52v at my settings. Please vil out your System Specs in the profile on Techpowerup,



I guess it's not the memory.

I've tested 1.5V on memory with 3000 Mhz CL16... WHEA BLUE SCREEN with optimizer all core negative 10 

Also running infinity fabric 1:1 with memory, so 3000 Mhz = 1500

It must be the worst CPU ever, i'll just send it back..

eg:
PBO: 200/140/140
curve: -10 all core
boost +0
memory: 1.5v 3000 CL16

= blue screen

Curve: -2 all core = no blue screen


----------



## jesdals (Jan 17, 2021)

1.5 might be to much at 3000MHz memory runs hot - but try the 3200 at 1.4 and see if it still crashes - but also did it behave the same with F31 bios?


----------



## SesioN (Jan 17, 2021)

jesdals said:


> 1.5 might be to much at 3000MHz memory runs hot - but try the 3200 at 1.4 and see if it still crashes - but also did it behave the same with F31 bios?



F31 same results.

Just tested following settings:

PBO: 200/200/130
curve: -10 all core
boost +100 Mhz
memory: 1.4v 3200 CL16

= windows doesn't even boot as it crashed and restarted mid-boot..

However, curve -8 booted.. So I guess I have some really bad cores?

Here results with those settings





Here one more... screenshot = mittle of cpu-z benchmark multicore

All other settings auto
PBO: 200/200/130
curve: -8 all core
boost +100 Mhz
memory: 1.4v 3200 CL16


----------



## harm9963 (Jan 17, 2021)

SesioN said:


> F31 same results.
> 
> Just tested following settings:
> 
> ...


Pull your MB battery out and RAM, reinstall , had the same problem a while back .


----------



## SesioN (Jan 17, 2021)

harm9963 said:


> Pull your MB battery out and RAM, reinstall , had the same problem a while back .


Sadly no change, -10 on curve always results in instant instability..

Also another issue I've noticed:
- First time I turn on the bios (before applying any changes whatsoever) it runs "smooth", eg each keyboard input results in instant action in bios
- After initial configuration, when I come back to bios, the bios is totally lagged, eg slow to input (looks like delayed/low fps etc)

Do you guys also have this?


----------



## harm9963 (Jan 17, 2021)

SesioN said:


> Sadly no change, -10 on curve always results in instant instability..
> 
> Also another issue I've noticed:
> - First time I turn on the bios (before applying any changes whatsoever) it runs "smooth", eg each keyboard input results in instant action in bios
> ...


Might have to wait for a new  BIOS ,  or reinstalled window and chipset , AGESA V2 PI 1.2.0.0  since I got my 5950X, 4 BETA BIOS updates, plus two with my old 5800X .


----------



## juanyunis (Jan 17, 2021)

SesioN said:


> Sadly no change, -10 on curve always results in instant instability..
> 
> Also another issue I've noticed:
> - First time I turn on the bios (before applying any changes whatsoever) it runs "smooth", eg each keyboard input results in instant action in bios
> ...


I do have that issue with lagged bios. It happens when you turn off CSM. A workaround is to press Ctrl + Alt + F6, this will lower the resolution and make it faster.

It is weird that you are getting such crappy results. I used to have a MSI X570 Gaming Plus, and that board was not able to properly run my 5950X and my 4x8GB RAM (I had it stuck at 3400Mh CL, wouldn't post beyond that),,
any change on PBO resulted in huge losses in performance in some multicore apps like cinebench, getting all core clocks of 546Mhz. That's why I switched to the X570 Aorus Master and my ram is running at 3800Mhz CL16.

I tried the F32a bios, it made my master able to boot beyond 1900 FCLK but with whea errors, also voltages were increased to cpu compared to F31.

You should share screenshot of your bios settings, also run PBO like this 210 / 140 / 145, scalar auto, curve -5, max boost override 0, platform thermal limit 90. Use cpu voltage in auto and cpu llc in auto.

Also it might be your windows settings, disable fast startup in power and sleep settings, and if you use gigabyte fast boot disable that.


----------



## SesioN (Jan 17, 2021)

juanyunis said:


> I do have that issue with lagged bios. It happens when you turn off CSM. A workaround is to press Ctrl + Alt + F6, this will lower the resolution and make it faster.
> 
> It is weird that you are getting such crappy results. I used to have a MSI X570 Gaming Plus, and that board was not able to properly run my 5950X and my 4x8GB RAM (I had it stuck at 3400Mh CL, wouldn't post beyond that),,
> any change on PBO resulted in huge losses in performance in some multicore apps like cinebench, getting all core clocks of 546Mhz. That's why I switched to the X570 Aorus Master and my ram is running at 3800Mhz CL16.
> ...



With the settings that you proposed.

CPU-Z Result after test:





While test is running multicore:


----------



## juanyunis (Jan 17, 2021)

So is it stable with -10? It is, try increasing max boost override to 50Mhz and test again, and if it does work, then go back to 0Mhz and test -15.


----------



## SesioN (Jan 17, 2021)

juanyunis said:


> So is it stable with -10? It is, try increasing max boost override to 50Mhz and test again, and if it does work, then go back to 0Mhz and test -15.


Nope, that was with curve -5, as you asked me to.

On -10 I get a blue screen.

EDIT:
With your proposed settings but with boost override 100 Mhz, same result, no difference between override 0 or 100 (Still curve -5)


----------



## juanyunis (Jan 17, 2021)

So now you have to test core by core to see which one is giving you the bsod. In PBO curve optimizer put per core and put -5 from core 1 to core 15, for core 0 put -10. If it does boost try doing the same for next core.


----------



## SesioN (Jan 17, 2021)

juanyunis said:


> So now you have to test core by core to see which one is giving you the bsod. In PBO curve optimizer put per core and put -5 from core 1 to core 15, for core 0 put -10. If it does boost try doing the same for next core.


Yeah I figured that already. Thanks allot for trying to help, really appreciated!

But I don't think this is the way to go, I will just send this CPU back (The company that I ordered it at has a 30 days return policy with no questions asked) and will get another one.

I cba to pay so much money (925€) and have a cpu that gets bsod at curve -10...


----------



## juanyunis (Jan 17, 2021)

If you do have the option, then yeah. In my case once out of the box is hard to return it unless there are real problems with it (remember PBO is actually overclocking). 

My 5950X was unstable on core 4, (I'm running that one in -15, core 2 and 3 are running -20 and everything else at -25).

What power supply do you have? Could it be the PSU not delivering appropriate power.


----------



## harm9963 (Jan 17, 2021)

SesioN said:


> Yeah I figured that already. Thanks allot for trying to help, really appreciated!
> 
> But I don't think this is the way to go, I will just send this CPU back (The company that I ordered it at has a 30 days return policy with no questions asked) and will get another one.
> 
> I cba to pay so much money (925€) and have a cpu that gets bsod at curve -10...


Are you using PBO or AMD OC menu , plus did  you deenergized your system, i hold for 10 sec,  before you pulled the MB battery


http://imgur.com/a/hdElP39


----------



## Zach_01 (Jan 17, 2021)

SesioN said:


> Yeah I figured that already. Thanks allot for trying to help, really appreciated!
> 
> But I don't think this is the way to go, I will just send this CPU back (The company that I ordered it at has a 30 days return policy with no questions asked) and will get another one.
> 
> I cba to pay so much money (925€) and have a cpu that gets bsod at curve -10...


The money you paid was for the CPU to do what was advertised as. And doing -10 curve is surely not one of them. It’s a shame IMHO...
These practices should not get adopted by others, because it’s no different from a manufacturer refusing to RMA a product when it is truly defective.


----------



## thesmokingman (Jan 17, 2021)

This thread has gotten silly stupid. OC just for the sake of oc.


----------



## juanyunis (Jan 17, 2021)

thesmokingman said:


> This thread has gotten silly stupid. OC just for the sake of oc.


Well, it was fun trying to tune PBO. For me, I was looking for more performance, better thermals and also less power. I have achieved that without going crazy for scores or compromises. I kept stock voltages, stock llc and I'm not even using a manual oc for the SoC. FCLK 1900 and properly tuned/tested PBO. I think that is what we should go for.


----------



## mtcn77 (Jan 17, 2021)

harm9963 said:


> Are you using PBO or AMD OC menu , plus did  you deenergized your system, i hold for 10 sec,  before you pulled the MB battery
> 
> 
> http://imgur.com/a/hdElP39


I swear during the bulldozer years, no true overclocker ever used a motherboard other than the sabretooth. It really was that hyperbolic, please don't copy them. You needn't hand solder every trace in order to kick start the ROM. Cut down the irony please.



thesmokingman said:


> This thread has gotten silly stupid. OC just for the sake of oc.


I think the experts can devote themselves to hardware engineering instruction manuals rather than the forum one timers.


----------



## harm9963 (Jan 18, 2021)

New beta BIOS  for ASUS X470 PRO PRIME 5833 ,  will test all day 
First test , ONLY RAM set to 3800CL14 XMP .
10Min test is revealing , 500 point higher ,true barometer test , Carroll Shelby “*Horsepower sells* cars, *torque* wins races.”


			https://dlcdnets.asus.com/pub/ASUS/mb/SocketAM4/PRIME_X470-PRO/PRIME-X470-PRO-ASUS-5833.ZIP
		


Tested PBO , way to hot ,
PBO 22000 points/ ten min test vs AMD OC menu / 200 140 215 / 27800 points , both throttle , PBO is sever !
PassMark will brutalize a weak cooling system .


----------



## Det0x (Jan 19, 2021)

I see you guys tuning your systems with weaksauce PPT/TDC/EDC settings optimized for CPU-Z only.. 
This is fine if your having bad cooling, but it will underperform in everything else (compared to cpu-z), i would suggest finding a more balanced option

@ jesdals

Your 5950x is clockstretching alot, ~710 cpu-z singlethread is effective 5100mhz, not 5300mhz 


jesdals said:


> Final and best result for boost - W250T200E130 rest the same as above
> View attachment 184195
> Lost the router because of the cold - so had to stop testing - but did break 5,3GHz
> 
> Giving more than T=200 did not bring any boost performance and E=130, sweet spot some where around these values


----------



## juanyunis (Jan 19, 2021)

Det0x said:


> I see you guys tuning your systems with weaksauce PPT/TDC/EDC settings optimized for CPU-Z only..
> This is fine if your having bad cooling, but it will underperform in everything else (compared to cpu-z), i would suggest finding a more balanced option
> 
> @ jesdals
> ...


Thanks for help. Quick question is it OK for zen 3 cpu to get WHEA operational logs (not error) , everytime I restart the pc I get 10 entries (9 of them are event ID 42 and the other one is event ID 5, this one says 10 errors sources are active, error record format version is 10)


----------



## Det0x (Jan 20, 2021)

juanyunis said:


> Thanks for help. Quick question is it OK for zen 3 cpu to get WHEA operational logs (not error) , everytime I restart the pc I get 10 entries (9 of them are event ID 42 and the other one is event ID 5, this one says 10 errors sources are active, error record format version is 10)


Hard to say, some ppl say they have them at stock settings*, but i only get them when i push my fclock/memory/CO settings too hard.
Then i have to stabilized the settings either with more volt/settings or clock down again.

* =and i'm not sure if i believe that 100% of the time, could be a excuse to run unstable settings for the epeen (?)

These are my current 24/7 settings with zero WHEA error, do note the 1 hour sustained 300watt usage in prime 30.3 build 6 with AVX, SMALL FFT's
Started hwinfo logging 10mins before i started prime -> average numbers




Will do a real cold air run in a few days..

What i meant with my first post in regards to PPT/TDC/EDC settings is that IBT (IntelBurnTestV2) will prefer some very different settings then cpu-z would forexempel..
I would tune the settings for 3dmark or the game/program you are actually playing/using, and not cpu-z as its rather "light"


----------



## juanyunis (Jan 20, 2021)

@Det0x holy... that is just incredible. I just uninstalled a bunch of things, I thing the main reason I have whea errors could be because i made a dirty migration from old X570 MSI Gaming Plus to X570 Aorus Master.


----------



## harm9963 (Jan 20, 2021)

Det0x said:


> Hard to say, some ppl say they have them at stock settings*, but i only get them when i push my fclock/memory/CO settings too hard.
> Then i have to stabilized the settings either with more volt/settings or clock down again.
> 
> * =and i'm not sure if i believe that 100% of the time, could be a excuse to run unstable settings for the epeen (?)
> ...


Great job

Also can you please run the Cinebench 23 / 10 min test








Cant find one !
ASUS ROG Crosshair VIII Dark Hero AM4 AMD X570 SATA 6Gb/s ATX AMD Motherboard
 update might have found one, will know tomorrow.
 At this time, it's also the only board to offer a dynamic OC switching feature that automatically toggles between all core and single core boosting based on the application to squeeze every last bit of performance out of your CPU.


----------



## Mussels (Jan 20, 2021)

SesioN said:


> Yeah I figured that already. Thanks allot for trying to help, really appreciated!
> 
> But I don't think this is the way to go, I will just send this CPU back (The company that I ordered it at has a 30 days return policy with no questions asked) and will get another one.
> 
> I cba to pay so much money (925€) and have a cpu that gets bsod at curve -10...



You paid for a CPU that runs stock clocks, and you're overclocking while undervolting and complaining about it...


----------



## thesmokingman (Jan 20, 2021)

Mussels said:


> You paid for a CPU that runs stock clocks, and you're overclocking while undervolting and complaining about it...


NAIL + HEAD!


----------



## mtcn77 (Jan 20, 2021)

Everybody thinks they are the 'real' Stilt, not that I criticize...


----------



## Det0x (Jan 20, 2021)

harm9963 said:


> Great job
> 
> Also can you please run the Cinebench 23 / 10 min test


10 min r23 multithread run





Ambient temp = ~21-22 degrees.

If you wish to compare in some more heavy benchmarks, can you run 10times IBT @ very high ?


----------



## juanyunis (Jan 20, 2021)

@Det0x veey impressive. What kind of settings are you running? Could you share them all? Also what kind of cooler you have?


----------



## Det0x (Jan 20, 2021)

juanyunis said:


> @Det0x veey impressive. What kind of settings are you running? Could you share them all? Also what kind of cooler you have?





Spoiler: bios settings



[2021/01/20 16:26:21]
Ai Overclock Tuner [Manual]
BCLK Frequency [100.0000]
Memory Frequency [DDR4-3800MHz]
FCLK Frequency [1900MHz]
Core Performance Boost [Enabled]
CPU Core Ratio [Auto]
Core VID [Auto]
CCX0 Ratio [Auto]
CCX0 Ratio [Auto]
TPU [Keep Current Settings]
Performance Bias [Auto]
PBO Fmax Enhancer [Auto]
Precision Boost Overdrive [Manual]
PPT Limit [300]
TDC Limit [235]
EDC Limit [245]
Precision Boost Overdrive Scalar [Manual]
Customized Precision Boost Overdrive Scalar [4X]
Max CPU Boost Clock Override [50]
Platform Thermal Throttle Limit [Auto]
DRAM CAS# Latency [14]
Trcdrd [15]
Trcdwr [8]
DRAM RAS# PRE Time [12]
DRAM RAS# ACT Time [24]
Trc [36]
TrrdS [4]
TrrdL [4]
Tfaw [16]
TwtrS [4]
TwtrL [10]
Twr [12]
Trcpage [Auto]
TrdrdScl [2]
TwrwrScl [2]
Trfc [252]
Trfc2 [187]
Trfc4 [115]
Tcwl [14]
Trtp [6]
Trdwr [9]
Twrrd [2]
TwrwrSc [1]
TwrwrSd [6]
TwrwrDd [6]
TrdrdSc [1]
TrdrdSd [5]
TrdrdDd [5]
Tcke [Auto]
ProcODT [40 ohm]
Cmd2T [1T]
Gear Down Mode [Enabled]
Power Down Enable [Disabled]
RttNom [RZQ/7]
RttWr [RZQ/3]
RttPark [RZQ/1]
MemAddrCmdSetup [Auto]
MemCsOdtSetup [Auto]
MemCkeSetup [Auto]
MemCadBusClkDrvStren [24.0 Ohm]
MemCadBusAddrCmdDrvStren [20.0 Ohm]
MemCadBusCsOdtDrvStren [24.0 Ohm]
MemCadBusCkeDrvStren [24.0 Ohm]
Mem Over Clock Fail Count [Auto]
Voltage Monitor [Die Sense]
CPU Load-line Calibration [Level 3]
CPU Current Capability [140%]
CPU VRM Switching Frequency [Manual]
Fixed CPU VRM Switching Frequency(KHz) [500]
CPU Power Duty Control [T.Probe]
CPU Power Phase Control [Extreme]
CPU Power Thermal Control [120]
VDDSOC Load-line Calibration [Level 3]
VDDSOC Switching Frequency [Auto]
VDDSOC Phase Control [Extreme]
DRAM Current Capability [130%]
DRAM Power Phase Control [Extreme]
DRAM Switching Frequency [Auto]
CPU Core Current Telemetry [Auto]
CPU SOC Current Telemetry [Auto]
Force OC Mode Disable [Disabled]
SB Clock Spread Spectrum [Auto]
VTTDDR Voltage [Auto]
VPP_MEM Voltage [Auto]
DRAM CTRL REF Voltage on CHA [Auto]
DRAM CTRL REF Voltage on CHB [Auto]
VDDP Voltage [Auto]
1.8V Standby Voltage [Auto]
CPU 3.3v AUX [Auto]
1.2V SB Voltage [Auto]
DRAM R1 Tune [Auto]
DRAM R2 Tune [Auto]
DRAM R3 Tune [Auto]
DRAM R4 Tune [Auto]
PCIE Tune R1 [Auto]
PCIE Tune R2 [Auto]
PCIE Tune R3 [Auto]
PLL Tune R1 [Auto]
PLL reference voltage [Auto]
T Offset [Auto]
Sense MI Skew [Auto]
Sense MI Offset [Auto]
Promontory presence [Auto]
Clock Amplitude [Auto]
CPU Core Voltage [Offset mode]
- Offset Mode Sign [+]
- CPU Core Voltage Offset [0.01250]
CPU SOC Voltage [Manual]
- VDDSOC Voltage Override [1.11875]
DRAM Voltage [1.54500]
VDDG CCD Voltage Control [0.890]
VDDG IOD Voltage Control [Auto]
CLDO VDDP voltage [0.880]
1.00V SB Voltage [Auto]
1.8V PLL Voltage [Auto]
TPM Device Selection [Discrete TPM]
Erase fTPM NV for factory reset [Enabled]
PSS Support [Enabled]
PPC Adjustment [PState 0]
NX Mode [Enabled]
SVM Mode [Disabled]
SMT Mode [Auto]
Core Leveling Mode [Automatic mode]
CCD Control [Auto]
SATA Port Enable [Enabled]
SATA Mode [AHCI]
NVMe RAID mode [Disabled]
SMART Self Test [Enabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
HD Audio Controller [Enabled]
PCIEX16_1 Bandwidth Bifurcation configuration [Auto Mode]
PCIEX16_2 Bandwidth Bifurcation configuration [Auto Mode]
When system is in working state [All On]
Q-Code LED Function [POST Code Only]
When system is in sleep, hibernate or soft off states [All On]
Realtek 2.5G LAN Controller [Enabled]
Realtek PXE OPROM [Disabled]
Intel LAN Controller [Enabled]
Intel LAN OPROM [Disabled]
ASM1074 Controller [Enabled]
Wi-Fi 6 (802.11ax) Controller [Disabled]
Bluetooth Controller [Enabled]
USB power delivery in Soft Off state (S5) [Enabled]
PCIEX16_1 Mode [Auto]
PCIEX16_2 Mode [Auto]
PCIEX1 Mode [Auto]
PCIEX16_3 Mode [Auto]
M.2_1 Link Mode [Auto]
M.2_2 Link Mode [Auto]
SB Link Mode [Auto]
ErP Ready [Disabled]
Restore AC Power Loss [Power Off]
Power On By PCI-E [Disabled]
Power On By RTC [Disabled]
Above 4G Decoding [Enabled]
Re-Size BAR Support [Auto]
SR-IOV Support [Disabled]
Legacy USB Support [Enabled]
XHCI Hand-off [Enabled]
Corsair Voyager GTX 0 [Auto]
USB Device Enable [Enabled]
U32G2_2 [Enabled]
U32G2_3 [Enabled]
U32G2_4 [Enabled]
U32G1_10 [Enabled]
U32G1_11 [Enabled]
USB12 [Enabled]
USB13 [Enabled]
U32G2_7 [Enabled]
U32G2_8 [Enabled]
U32G2_C9 [Enabled]
Network Stack [Disabled]
Device [SATA6G_7: Samsung SSD 850 PRO 1TB]
CPU Temperature [Monitor]
CPU Package Temperature [Monitor]
MotherBoard Temperature [Monitor]
VRM Temperature [Monitor]
T_Sensor Temperature [Monitor]
Water In T Sensor Temperature [Monitor]
Water Out T Sensor Temperature [Monitor]
CPU Fan Speed [Monitor]
CPU Optional Fan Speed [Monitor]
Chassis Fan 1 Speed [Monitor]
Chassis Fan 2 Speed [Monitor]
Chassis Fan 3 Speed [Monitor]
High Amp Fan Speed [Monitor]
W_PUMP+ Speed [Monitor]
AIO PUMP Speed [Monitor]
PCH Fan Speed [Monitor]
Flow Rate [Monitor]
CPU Core Voltage [Monitor]
3.3V Voltage [Monitor]
5V Voltage [Monitor]
12V Voltage [Monitor]
CPU Fan Q-Fan Control [Auto]
CPU Fan Step Up [2.1 sec]
CPU Fan Step Down [0 sec]
CPU Fan Speed Low Limit [600 RPM]
CPU Fan Profile [Manual]
CPU Fan Upper Temperature [70]
CPU Fan Max. Duty Cycle (%) [100]
CPU Fan Middle Temperature [50]
CPU Fan Middle Duty Cycle (%) [50]
CPU Fan Lower Temperature [30]
CPU Fan Min Duty Cycle (%) [40]
Chassis Fan 1 Q-Fan Control [Auto]
Chassis Fan 1 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
Chassis Fan 1 Step Up [0 sec]
Chassis Fan 1 Step Down [0 sec]
Chassis Fan 1 Speed Low Limit [600 RPM]
Chassis Fan 1 Profile [Manual]
Chassis Fan 1 Upper Temperature [70]
Chassis Fan 1 Max. Duty Cycle (%) [100]
Chassis Fan 1 Middle Temperature [50]
Chassis Fan 1 Middle Duty Cycle (%) [65]
Chassis Fan 1 Lower Temperature [20]
Chassis Fan 1 Min Duty Cycle (%) [60]
Chassis Fan 2 Q-Fan Control [Auto]
Chassis Fan 2 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
Chassis Fan 2 Step Up [0 sec]
Chassis Fan 2 Step Down [0 sec]
Chassis Fan 2 Speed Low Limit [600 RPM]
Chassis Fan 2 Profile [Manual]
Chassis Fan 2 Upper Temperature [65]
Chassis Fan 2 Max. Duty Cycle (%) [100]
Chassis Fan 2 Middle Temperature [45]
Chassis Fan 2 Middle Duty Cycle (%) [60]
Chassis Fan 2 Lower Temperature [40]
Chassis Fan 2 Min Duty Cycle (%) [60]
Chassis Fan 3 Q-Fan Control [Auto]
Chassis Fan 3 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
Chassis Fan 3 Step Up [0 sec]
Chassis Fan 3 Step Down [0 sec]
Chassis Fan 3 Speed Low Limit [600 RPM]
Chassis Fan 3 Profile [Manual]
Chassis Fan 3 Upper Temperature [70]
Chassis Fan 3 Max. Duty Cycle (%) [100]
Chassis Fan 3 Middle Temperature [45]
Chassis Fan 3 Middle Duty Cycle (%) [100]
Chassis Fan 3 Lower Temperature [40]
Chassis Fan 3 Min Duty Cycle (%) [100]
High Amp Fan Q-Fan Control [Auto]
High Amp Fan Q-Fan Source [CPU]
High Amp Fan Step Up [0 sec]
High Amp Fan Step Down [0 sec]
High Amp Fan Speed Low Limit [600 RPM]
High Amp Fan Profile [Manual]
High Amp Fan Upper Temperature [70]
High Amp Fan Max. Duty Cycle (%) [100]
High Amp Fan Middle Temperature [45]
High Amp Fan Middle Duty Cycle (%) [70]
High Amp Fan Lower Temperature [30]
High Amp Fan Min Duty Cycle (%) [60]
Water Pump+ Q-Fan Control [Auto]
Water Pump+ Q-Fan Source [CPU]
Water Pump+ Upper Temperature [70]
Water Pump+ Max. Duty Cycle (%) [100]
Water Pump+ Middle Temperature [50]
Water Pump+ Middle Duty Cycle (%) [65]
Water Pump+ Lower Temperature [30]
Water Pump+ Min Duty Cycle (%) [60]
AIO Pump Q-Fan Control [Auto]
AIO Pump Q-Fan Source [CPU]
AIO Pump Upper Temperature [70]
AIO Pump Max. Duty Cycle (%) [100]
AIO Pump Middle Temperature [50]
AIO Pump Middle Duty Cycle (%) [65]
AIO Pump Lower Temperature [30]
AIO Pump Min Duty Cycle (%) [60]
Above 4GB MMIO Limit [39bit (512GB)]
Fast Boot [Enabled]
Next Boot after AC Power Loss [Fast Boot]
Boot Logo Display [Disabled]
Bootup NumLock State [On]
POST Report [5 sec]
Wait For 'F1' If Error [Enabled]
Option ROM Messages [Force BIOS]
Interrupt 19 Capture [Disabled]
Setup Mode [Advanced Mode]
Launch CSM [Disabled]
OS Type [Other OS]
AMI Native NVMe Driver Support [Enabled]
Flexkey [Reset]
Setup Animator [Disabled]
Load from Profile [5]
Profile Name [20.01 minus 30]
Save to Profile [5]
DIMM Slot Number [DIMM_A1]
Bus Interface [PCIEX16_1]
Download & Install ARMOURY CRATE app [Enabled]
CPU Frequency [0]
CPU Voltage [0]
CCD Control [Auto]
Core control [Auto]
SMT Control [Auto]
Overclock [Enabled ]
Memory Clock Speed [Auto]
Tcl [Auto]
Trcdrd [Auto]
Trcdwr [Auto]
Trp [Auto]
Tras [Auto]
Trc Ctrl [Auto]
TrrdS [Auto]
TrrdL [Auto]
Tfaw Ctrl [Auto]
TwtrS [Auto]
TwtrL [Auto]
Twr Ctrl [Auto]
Trcpage Ctrl [Auto]
TrdrdScL Ctrl [Auto]
TwrwrScL Ctrl [Auto]
Trfc Ctrl [Auto]
Trfc2 Ctrl [Auto]
Trfc4 Ctrl [Auto]
Tcwl [Auto]
Trtp [Auto]
Tcke [Auto]
Trdwr [Auto]
Twrrd [Auto]
TwrwrSc [Auto]
TwrwrSd [Auto]
TwrwrDd [Auto]
TrdrdSc [Auto]
TrdrdSd [Auto]
TrdrdDd [Auto]
ProcODT [Auto]
Power Down Enable [Auto]
Cmd2T [Auto]
Gear Down Mode [Auto]
CAD Bus Timing User Controls [Auto]
CAD Bus Drive Strength User Controls [Auto]
Data Bus Configuration User Controls [Auto]
Infinity Fabric Frequency and Dividers [Auto]
ECO Mode [Disable]
Precision Boost Overdrive [Advanced]
PBO Limits [Motherboard]
Precision Boost Overdrive Scalar [Auto]
Curve Optimizer [Per Core]
Core 0 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 0 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
Core 1 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 1 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
Core 2 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 2 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
Core 3 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 3 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
Core 4 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 4 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
Core 5 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 5 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
Core 6 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 6 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
Core 7 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 7 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
Core 8 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 8 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
Core 9 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 9 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
Core 10 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 10 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
Core 11 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 11 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
Core 12 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 12 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
Core 13 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 13 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
Core 14 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 14 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
Core 15 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 15 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
Max CPU Boost Clock Override [0MHz]
Platform Thermal Throttle Limit [Auto]
LN2 Mode [Auto]
SoC/Uncore OC Mode [Disabled]
VDDP Voltage Control [Auto]
VDDG Voltage Control [Auto]
NUMA nodes per socket [Auto]
Custom Pstate0 [Auto]
L1 Stream HW Prefetcher [Auto]
L2 Stream HW Prefetcher [Auto]
Core Watchdog Timer Enable [Auto]
SMEE [Auto]
Core Performance Boost [Auto]
Global C-state Control [Disabled]
Power Supply Idle Control [Typical Current Idle]
SEV ASID Count [Auto]
SEV-ES ASID Space Limit Control [Auto]
Streaming Stores Control [Auto]
Local APIC Mode [Auto]
ACPI _CST C1 Declaration [Auto]
MCA error thresh enable [Auto]
PPIN Opt-in [Auto]
Fast Short REP MOVSB [Enabled]
Enhanced REP MOVSB/STOSB [Enabled]
RdRand Speedup Disable [Enabled]
IBS hardware workaround [Auto]
DRAM scrub time [Auto]
Poison scrubber control [Auto]
Redirect scrubber control [Auto]
Redirect scrubber limit [Auto]
NUMA nodes per socket [Auto]
Memory interleaving [Auto]
Memory interleaving size [Auto]
1TB remap [Auto]
DRAM map inversion [Auto]
ACPI SRAT L3 Cache As NUMA Domain [Auto]
ACPI SLIT Distance Control [Auto]
ACPI SLIT remote relative distance [Auto]
GMI encryption control [Auto]
xGMI encryption control [Auto]
CAKE CRC perf bounds Control [Auto]
4-link xGMI max speed [Auto]
3-link xGMI max speed [Auto]
xGMI TXEQ Mode [Auto]
PcsCG control [Auto]
Disable DF to external downstream IP SyncFloodPropagation [Auto]
Disable DF sync flood propagation [Auto]
CC6 memory region encryption [Auto]
Memory Clear [Auto]
Overclock [Enabled]
Memory Clock Speed [Auto]
Tcl [Auto]
Trcdrd [Auto]
Trcdwr [Auto]
Trp [Auto]
Tras [Auto]
Trc Ctrl [Auto]
TrrdS [Auto]
TrrdL [Auto]
Tfaw Ctrl [Auto]
TwtrS [Auto]
TwtrL [Auto]
Twr Ctrl [Auto]
Trcpage Ctrl [Auto]
TrdrdScL Ctrl [Auto]
TwrwrScL Ctrl [Auto]
Trfc Ctrl [Auto]
Trfc2 Ctrl [Auto]
Trfc4 Ctrl [Auto]
Tcwl [Auto]
Trtp [Auto]
Tcke [Auto]
Trdwr [Auto]
Twrrd [Auto]
TwrwrSc [Auto]
TwrwrSd [Auto]
TwrwrDd [Auto]
TrdrdSc [Auto]
TrdrdSd [Auto]
TrdrdDd [Auto]
ProcODT [Auto]
Power Down Enable [Auto]
Disable Burst/Postponed Refresh [Auto]
DRAM Maximum Activate Count [Auto]
Cmd2T [Auto]
Gear Down Mode [Auto]
CAD Bus Timing User Controls [Auto]
CAD Bus Drive Strength User Controls [Auto]
Data Bus Configuration User Controls [Auto]
Data Poisoning [Auto]
DRAM Post Package Repair [Default]
RCD Parity [Auto]
DRAM Address Command Parity Retry [Auto]
Write CRC Enable [Auto]
DRAM Write CRC Enable and Retry Limit [Auto]
Disable Memory Error Injection [True]
DRAM ECC Symbol Size [Auto]
DRAM ECC Enable [Auto]
DRAM UECC Retry [Auto]
TSME [Auto]
Data Scramble [Auto]
DFE Read Training [Auto]
FFE Write Training [Auto]
PMU Pattern Bits Control [Auto]
MR6VrefDQ Control [Auto]
CPU Vref Training Seed Control [Auto]
Chipselect Interleaving [Auto]
BankGroupSwap [Auto]
BankGroupSwapAlt [Auto]
Address Hash Bank [Auto]
Address Hash CS [Auto]
Address Hash Rm [Auto]
SPD Read Optimization [Enabled]
MBIST Enable [Disabled]
Pattern Select [PRBS]
Pattern Length [6]
Aggressor Channel [1 Aggressor Channel]
Aggressor Static Lane Control [Disabled]
Target Static Lane Control [Disabled]
Worst Case Margin Granularity [Per Chip Select]
Read Voltage Sweep Step Size [1]
Read Timing Sweep Step Size [1]
Write Voltage Sweep Step Size [1]
Write Timing Sweep Step Size [1]
IOMMU [Auto]
Precision Boost Overdrive [Auto]
Precision Boost Overdrive Scalar [Auto]
FCLK Frequency [Auto]
SOC OVERCLOCK VID [0]
UCLK DIV1 MODE [Auto]
VDDP Voltage Control [Auto]
VDDG Voltage Control [Auto]
SoC/Uncore OC Mode [Auto]
LN2 Mode [Auto]
ACS Enable [Auto]
PCIe ARI Support [Auto]
PCIe ARI Enumeration [Auto]
PCIe Ten Bit Tag Support [Auto]
cTDP Control [Auto]
EfficiencyModeEn [Auto]
Package Power Limit Control [Auto]
APBDIS [Auto]
DF Cstates [Auto]
CPPC [Auto]
CPPC Preferred Cores [Auto]
NBIO DPM Control [Auto]
Early Link Speed [Auto]
Presence Detect Select mode [Auto]
Preferred IO [Auto]
CV test [Auto]
Loopback Mode [Auto]
Data Link Feature Exchange [Disabled]



My IBT numbers




Cooling is custom EK waterloop with TechN zen3 waterblock


----------



## harm9963 (Jan 20, 2021)

Det0x said:


> 10 min r23 multithread run
> 
> View attachment 184813
> 
> ...


Amazing no throttling, that ASUS Hero of yours rocks !
My ASUS X470 Prime is not going to cut it,  but did order a ASUS Dark Hero, have to wait for it ,  month in a half.

just updated MB ETA , 1/31  YES PLEEASE !


----------



## thesmokingman (Jan 20, 2021)

Det0x said:


> Spoiler: bios settings
> 
> 
> 
> ...


lol nice PPT.


----------



## juanyunis (Jan 20, 2021)

I found out a new test for curve optimization that some people from reddit recommended and mentioned that it is very effective and fast finding stability issues. 

You have to download TestMem5 (TM5) and tweak the extreme@anta777 config file, in the file you have to change cores value to 2, tests to 1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1 and cycles to 2. Save it and open the program and then quickly go to task manager > details and find the 2 instances of TM5, change the affinity of each one to the cores you want to test, for example for core 0, select (CPU 0,1), for core 1 (CPU 2, 3), etc.

Doing that test gave me a more stable curve, so now my curve looks like this:

Core 0: -15
Core 1: -20
Core 2: -20
Core 3: -15
Core 4: +2 (Yeah positive, this is my preferred core in the OS)
Core 5: -15
Core 6: -20
Core 7: -20
Core 8: -20
Core 9: -20
Core 10: -20
Core 11: -20
Core 12: -20
Core 13: -20
Core 14: -15
Core 15: -15

I'm using:
Voltage: Auto
LLC: Auto
PPT: 205
TDC: 135
EDC: 145
Scalar: Auto
Max Boost Override: +50Mhz (this could be the reason I had to use a positive value for my core4 in the curve)
Platform Thermal: 82C


----------



## harm9963 (Jan 20, 2021)

juanyunis said:


> I found out a new test for curve optimization that some people from reddit recommended and mentioned that it is very effective and fast finding stability issues.
> 
> You have to download TestMem5 (TM5) and tweak the extreme@anta777 config file, in the file you have to change cores value to 2, tests to 1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1 and cycles to 2. Save it and open the program and then quickly go to task manager > details and find the 2 instances of TM5, change the affinity of each one to the cores you want to test, for example for core 0, select (CPU 0,1), for core 1 (CPU 2, 3), etc.
> 
> ...


Waiting for some results


----------



## Mussels (Jan 20, 2021)

we so need an automated tool that can lock itself to X core and test these damn curves


----------



## juanyunis (Jan 20, 2021)

Mussels said:


> we so need an automated tool that can lock itself to X core and test these damn curves


1usmus is working on it, CTR 2.1 (future version) not the one that he is gonna release (CTR 2.0) by the end of January .

But yeah, we need a good way to test cores (specially on 5950X , I get really bored going thru all my 16 cores) .


----------



## harm9963 (Jan 21, 2021)

juanyunis said:


> 1usmus is working on it, CTR 2.1 (future version) not the one that he is gonna release (CTR 2.0) by the end of January .
> 
> But yeah, we need a good way to test cores (specially on 5950X , I get really bored going thru all my 16 cores) .


  Yes Sir !


----------



## blu3dragon (Jan 21, 2021)

I've found using p95 single thread, fixed in place fft size of 84, and no avx to be very good at exposing instability when tuning my curve settings.  Killed all background apps except HWinfo so all the other cores would go to minimum frequency (and not boost up voltages), and then assigned the threads to one core at a time in windows task manager...

This method was so good in fact that I needed to raise my "best" core to +10.  This is on a 5800x.  Asus B550-F with 1801 bios, Auto LLC, 300kHz switching frequency (300 seemed slightly better than 200, but this might be placebo), 1800 FLCK with auto SoC voltage settings.




 










Corecurve offset w/pbo +2000 (perf #3/4)-151 (perf #4/5)-152 (perf #5/6)-103 (perf #1/1)104 (perf #7/8)-305 (perf #6/7)-256 (perf #1/2)07 (perf #2/3)-10


Initially I just let it run for 2 min on each core and then lowered curve by 5 each time it passed.  Once it failed, I backed off by 5 and let it run longer.  5 min is generally long enough to find an error, but sometimes it would take up to 1hr to error.  I haven't run it longer than that, but I think that is enough to be pretty stable.

I'll give the testmem5 method a try when I get some time.

I might be able to improve the curve settings a bit if I back off the clock, but even with completely stock settings I still need at least +5 on my "best" core :-(  I posted elsewhere about that... switching to LLC 3 fixes it, but lowers max attainable boost clocks enough that I'm better off on auto with a positive curve setting on that core (actually it's close enough to no different as I guess the cpu needs to end up with the same voltage either way).


----------



## mtcn77 (Jan 21, 2021)

blu3dragon said:


> fixed in place fft size of 84


Why '84'? What does it attribute to?


----------



## blu3dragon (Jan 21, 2021)

mtcn77 said:


> Why '84'? What does it attribute to?



Good question.  I don't have any special knowledge of that size, simply started my testing with it set to "Small FFTs", and it seemed like it kept failing soon after hitting an FFT size of 84.  To speed things up I just set it to that manually.

To really prove things out I should do a final run across a range of FFT sizes.  But I'd probably have to let that run for several hours per core.  8 days to test each core in a 5800x?  Ouch.  Also not even sure I should run this for that long as I'm a little paranoid about the voltage it is hitting on an individual core while running (I'm sure it's fine for short periods, but this seems a somewhat unrealistic scenario that specifically holds a single core at high load, temp and voltage).


----------



## mtcn77 (Jan 21, 2021)

blu3dragon said:


> Good question.  I don't have any special knowledge of that size, simply started my testing with it set to "Small FFTs", and it seemed like it kept failing soon after hitting an FFT size of 84.  To speed things up I just set it to that manually.


You know the heat generated is proportional to the sram taken up by the program.
Isn't this your post just above mine? I wrote this.








						The Ryzen 7 5800X has a way to high powertarget (great results with powerlimit tweaks)
					

i am not a native english speaker.   i started investigating many complaints about the 5800x running very hot.  in the last 14 days i tried over 200 different PBO tweaks to get the most out of my Chip. the 5800X sits on a B550 STRIX-F and is cooled by a Kraken X73.  even with 100% Pump Speed i...




					www.techpowerup.com


----------



## blu3dragon (Jan 21, 2021)

mtcn77 said:


> You know the heat generated is proportional to the sram taken up by the program.
> Isn't this your post just above mine? I wrote this.
> 
> 
> ...



Yes, I know that different FFT sizes hit different amounts of L1, L2, L3 cache and then out to memory and the power consumed will vary depending on the FFT size.
In my case 84 seems to be a good one to test stability.  Why exactly 84?  I'm not sure.  Also, this one might not be the best, it is just one I found to work well.
Keeping a fixed size does help to make things consistent when checking clocks, power, heat and voltages as well.


----------



## juanyunis (Jan 21, 2021)

@blu3dragon holy... You had to use +10 in core. I thought I had bad luck with my core 4 needing +2, everything else is - 15 upto - 25.

Quick question, what are your PBO settings beside the curve? Also cpu voltage.

Woah you had to use curve at stock settings to keep it stable. I guess AMD needs to address voltage table, doesn't make sense that stock is unstable. Maybe you should rma no?


----------



## mtcn77 (Jan 21, 2021)

Be careful, test is only useful if cores don't use more current than normal. Check back with some other test and try to emulate its single thread power consumption than going overboard.


----------



## harm9963 (Jan 21, 2021)

juanyunis said:


> @blu3dragon holy... You had to use +10 in core. I thought I had bad luck with my core 4 needing +2, everything else is - 15 upto - 25.
> 
> Quick question, what are your PBO settings beside the curve? Also cpu voltage.
> 
> Woah you had to use curve at stock settings to keep it stable. I guess AMD needs to address voltage table, doesn't make sense that stock is unstable. Maybe you should rma no?


 Maybe update BIOS .


----------



## blu3dragon (Jan 21, 2021)

juanyunis said:


> @blu3dragon holy... You had to use +10 in core. I thought I had bad luck with my core 4 needing +2, everything else is - 15 upto - 25.
> 
> Quick question, what are your PBO settings beside the curve? Also cpu voltage.
> 
> Woah you had to use curve at stock settings to keep it stable. I guess AMD needs to address voltage table, doesn't make sense that stock is unstable. Maybe you should rma no?



Yeah, I need to double check everything then should ask support what options I have.  Was asking first in another thread (on another forum) if this was normal or not.  I did find one other post where someone experienced the same on a 5600x.  Would be interested in your results if you try prime95...  All the recent bios' are labelled beta so not sure if that explains it.  If I go all stock and manually set LLC to 3 it seems stable, only with auto LLC it is not 100%.

It's not actually a huge issue though, since I have it stable, and there is very little difference in performance between curve at 0 for that core vs at +10.  Only with a single core load there's ~50-100Mhz clock speed diff.  All core loads are limited by a couple of the other cores anyway.  Of course, I would love a better cpu where I have have all my cores at a - setting :-D



mtcn77 said:


> Be careful, test is only useful if cores don't use more current than normal. Check back with some other test and try to emulate its single thread power consumption than going overboard.


Not sure I follow what you're trying to say.  Do you mean testing with p95 is overkill?  I can understand that, but on the other hand I'm shooting for 24/7 stability and am happy to give up the last 1-2% in performance to achieve that.



harm9963 said:


> Maybe update BIOS .


I'm currently on the latest beta bios, 1801, with AGESA V2 PI 1.2.0.0.  I still need +10 on that core with PBO (to be clear, I haven't tried values between 5 and 10, but it error'd at 5 and appears stable at 10).

I tested the stock settings stability on an earlier bios though, so I can go back and check that.


----------



## harm9963 (Jan 21, 2021)

blu3dragon said:


> Yeah, I need to double check everything then should ask support what options I have.  Was asking first in another thread (on another forum) if this was normal or not.  I did find one other post where someone experienced the same on a 5600x.  Would be interested in your results if you try prime95...  All the recent bios' are labelled beta so not sure if that explains it.  If I go all stock and manually set LLC to 3 it seems stable, only with auto LLC it is not 100%.
> 
> It's not actually a huge issue though, since I have it stable, and there is very little difference in performance between curve at 0 for that core vs at +10.  Only with a single core load there's ~50-100Mhz clock speed diff.  All core loads are limited by a couple of the other cores anyway.  Of course, I would love a better cpu where I have have all my cores at a - setting :-D
> 
> ...


Which Chipset do you have current


----------



## blu3dragon (Jan 21, 2021)

harm9963 said:


> Which Chipset do you have current


5800x. Asus B550-F with 1801 bios


----------



## harm9963 (Jan 21, 2021)

blu3dragon said:


> 5800x. Asus B550-F with 1801 bios


Chipset .


----------



## blu3dragon (Jan 21, 2021)

harm9963 said:


> Chipset .


Ah, chipset driver... I didn't quite understand what you meant.  I used the latest I found on Amd's site: https://www.amd.com/en/support/chipsets/amd-socket-am4/b550

Revision Number 2.10.13.408
Release Date 10/19/2020

This seems be a newer version than the one on Asus's site.

Ok, so today I discovered that the individual curve settings still take effect even after you turn off PBO (ie set it back to auto in the bios and no longer have access to those settings).

Clearing cmos to get back to stock, then setting xmp I still have my instability on core 3 :-(

Strangely, PBO off (stock power limits) seemed to give a higher voltage to a single core than when I had it on, but power and frequency were similar so this might just be measurement error, or due to a slight temperature change.

Testmem5 with the settings @juanyunis posted above also works well to find errors with individual cores.


----------



## Zach_01 (Jan 22, 2021)

Det0x said:


> Spoiler: bios settings
> 
> 
> 
> ...


300W PPT lol!
245A EDC + 85°C = it may be a really nice combination to degrade you chip...!!

What was the value of PowerReportingDeviation during that run?
And what was the value(s) of POUT of VRM sensors? (both cores/soc). I believe its on the hidden sensors.


----------



## jesdals (Jan 22, 2021)

New F32 bios and loose settings P200, T125, E110, +500MHz and negative -20 all core - rest as shown above



All core test around 4450MHz on all core


----------



## Det0x (Jan 23, 2021)

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



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

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

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

CPU-Z validator @ https://valid.x86.fr/dl125q

Some Asus realbench + Passmark performancetest numbers @ https://www.passmark.com/baselines/V10/display.php?id=135921464997 (This machine is ranked #36 out of 156355 results globally)



https://www.passmark.com/products/performancetest/index.php
Geekbench 4 @ https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/16005550
Singlethread = 8215 points
Multithread = 74733 points

Geekbench5 @ https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/6050938
Singlethread = 1844 points
Multithread = 20054 points

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

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



Spoiler: Bios dump



[2021/01/20 16:26:21]
Ai Overclock Tuner [Manual]
BCLK Frequency [100.0000]
Memory Frequency [DDR4-3800MHz]
FCLK Frequency [1900MHz]
Core Performance Boost [Enabled]
CPU Core Ratio [Auto]
Core VID [Auto]
CCX0 Ratio [Auto]
CCX0 Ratio [Auto]
TPU [Keep Current Settings]
Performance Bias [Auto]
PBO Fmax Enhancer [Auto]
Precision Boost Overdrive [Manual]
PPT Limit [300]
TDC Limit [235]
EDC Limit [245]
Precision Boost Overdrive Scalar [Manual]
Customized Precision Boost Overdrive Scalar [4X]
Max CPU Boost Clock Override [50]
Platform Thermal Throttle Limit [Auto]
DRAM CAS# Latency [14]
Trcdrd [15]
Trcdwr [8]
DRAM RAS# PRE Time [12]
DRAM RAS# ACT Time [24]
Trc [36]
TrrdS [4]
TrrdL [4]
Tfaw [16]
TwtrS [4]
TwtrL [10]
Twr [12]
Trcpage [Auto]
TrdrdScl [2]
TwrwrScl [2]
Trfc [252]
Trfc2 [187]
Trfc4 [115]
Tcwl [14]
Trtp [6]
Trdwr [9]
Twrrd [2]
TwrwrSc [1]
TwrwrSd [6]
TwrwrDd [6]
TrdrdSc [1]
TrdrdSd [5]
TrdrdDd [5]
Tcke [Auto]
ProcODT [40 ohm]
Cmd2T [1T]
Gear Down Mode [Enabled]
Power Down Enable [Disabled]
RttNom [RZQ/7]
RttWr [RZQ/3]
RttPark [RZQ/1]
MemAddrCmdSetup [Auto]
MemCsOdtSetup [Auto]
MemCkeSetup [Auto]
MemCadBusClkDrvStren [24.0 Ohm]
MemCadBusAddrCmdDrvStren [20.0 Ohm]
MemCadBusCsOdtDrvStren [24.0 Ohm]
MemCadBusCkeDrvStren [24.0 Ohm]
Mem Over Clock Fail Count [Auto]
Voltage Monitor [Die Sense]
CPU Load-line Calibration [Level 3]
CPU Current Capability [140%]
CPU VRM Switching Frequency [Manual]
Fixed CPU VRM Switching Frequency(KHz) [500]
CPU Power Duty Control [T.Probe]
CPU Power Phase Control [Extreme]
CPU Power Thermal Control [120]
VDDSOC Load-line Calibration [Level 3]
VDDSOC Switching Frequency [Auto]
VDDSOC Phase Control [Extreme]
DRAM Current Capability [130%]
DRAM Power Phase Control [Extreme]
DRAM Switching Frequency [Auto]
CPU Core Current Telemetry [Auto]
CPU SOC Current Telemetry [Auto]
Force OC Mode Disable [Disabled]
SB Clock Spread Spectrum [Auto]
VTTDDR Voltage [Auto]
VPP_MEM Voltage [Auto]
DRAM CTRL REF Voltage on CHA [Auto]
DRAM CTRL REF Voltage on CHB [Auto]
VDDP Voltage [Auto]
1.8V Standby Voltage [Auto]
CPU 3.3v AUX [Auto]
1.2V SB Voltage [Auto]
DRAM R1 Tune [Auto]
DRAM R2 Tune [Auto]
DRAM R3 Tune [Auto]
DRAM R4 Tune [Auto]
PCIE Tune R1 [Auto]
PCIE Tune R2 [Auto]
PCIE Tune R3 [Auto]
PLL Tune R1 [Auto]
PLL reference voltage [Auto]
T Offset [Auto]
Sense MI Skew [Auto]
Sense MI Offset [Auto]
Promontory presence [Auto]
Clock Amplitude [Auto]
CPU Core Voltage [Offset mode]
- Offset Mode Sign [+]
- CPU Core Voltage Offset [0.01250]
CPU SOC Voltage [Manual]
- VDDSOC Voltage Override [1.11875]
DRAM Voltage [1.54500]
VDDG CCD Voltage Control [0.890]
VDDG IOD Voltage Control [Auto]
CLDO VDDP voltage [0.880]
1.00V SB Voltage [Auto]
1.8V PLL Voltage [Auto]
TPM Device Selection [Discrete TPM]
Erase fTPM NV for factory reset [Enabled]
PSS Support [Enabled]
PPC Adjustment [PState 0]
NX Mode [Enabled]
SVM Mode [Disabled]
SMT Mode [Auto]
Core Leveling Mode [Automatic mode]
CCD Control [Auto]
SATA Port Enable [Enabled]
SATA Mode [AHCI]
NVMe RAID mode [Disabled]
SMART Self Test [Enabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
HD Audio Controller [Enabled]
PCIEX16_1 Bandwidth Bifurcation configuration [Auto Mode]
PCIEX16_2 Bandwidth Bifurcation configuration [Auto Mode]
When system is in working state [All On]
Q-Code LED Function [POST Code Only]
When system is in sleep, hibernate or soft off states [All On]
Realtek 2.5G LAN Controller [Enabled]
Realtek PXE OPROM [Disabled]
Intel LAN Controller [Enabled]
Intel LAN OPROM [Disabled]
ASM1074 Controller [Enabled]
Wi-Fi 6 (802.11ax) Controller [Disabled]
Bluetooth Controller [Enabled]
USB power delivery in Soft Off state (S5) [Enabled]
PCIEX16_1 Mode [Auto]
PCIEX16_2 Mode [Auto]
PCIEX1 Mode [Auto]
PCIEX16_3 Mode [Auto]
M.2_1 Link Mode [Auto]
M.2_2 Link Mode [Auto]
SB Link Mode [Auto]
ErP Ready [Disabled]
Restore AC Power Loss [Power Off]
Power On By PCI-E [Disabled]
Power On By RTC [Disabled]
Above 4G Decoding [Enabled]
Re-Size BAR Support [Auto]
SR-IOV Support [Disabled]
Legacy USB Support [Enabled]
XHCI Hand-off [Enabled]
Corsair Voyager GTX 0 [Auto]
USB Device Enable [Enabled]
U32G2_2 [Enabled]
U32G2_3 [Enabled]
U32G2_4 [Enabled]
U32G1_10 [Enabled]
U32G1_11 [Enabled]
USB12 [Enabled]
USB13 [Enabled]
U32G2_7 [Enabled]
U32G2_8 [Enabled]
U32G2_C9 [Enabled]
Network Stack [Disabled]
Device [SATA6G_7: Samsung SSD 850 PRO 1TB]
CPU Temperature [Monitor]
CPU Package Temperature [Monitor]
MotherBoard Temperature [Monitor]
VRM Temperature [Monitor]
T_Sensor Temperature [Monitor]
Water In T Sensor Temperature [Monitor]
Water Out T Sensor Temperature [Monitor]
CPU Fan Speed [Monitor]
CPU Optional Fan Speed [Monitor]
Chassis Fan 1 Speed [Monitor]
Chassis Fan 2 Speed [Monitor]
Chassis Fan 3 Speed [Monitor]
High Amp Fan Speed [Monitor]
W_PUMP+ Speed [Monitor]
AIO PUMP Speed [Monitor]
PCH Fan Speed [Monitor]
Flow Rate [Monitor]
CPU Core Voltage [Monitor]
3.3V Voltage [Monitor]
5V Voltage [Monitor]
12V Voltage [Monitor]
CPU Fan Q-Fan Control [Auto]
CPU Fan Step Up [2.1 sec]
CPU Fan Step Down [0 sec]
CPU Fan Speed Low Limit [600 RPM]
CPU Fan Profile [Manual]
CPU Fan Upper Temperature [70]
CPU Fan Max. Duty Cycle (%) [100]
CPU Fan Middle Temperature [50]
CPU Fan Middle Duty Cycle (%) [50]
CPU Fan Lower Temperature [30]
CPU Fan Min Duty Cycle (%) [40]
Chassis Fan 1 Q-Fan Control [Auto]
Chassis Fan 1 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
Chassis Fan 1 Step Up [0 sec]
Chassis Fan 1 Step Down [0 sec]
Chassis Fan 1 Speed Low Limit [600 RPM]
Chassis Fan 1 Profile [Manual]
Chassis Fan 1 Upper Temperature [70]
Chassis Fan 1 Max. Duty Cycle (%) [100]
Chassis Fan 1 Middle Temperature [50]
Chassis Fan 1 Middle Duty Cycle (%) [65]
Chassis Fan 1 Lower Temperature [20]
Chassis Fan 1 Min Duty Cycle (%) [60]
Chassis Fan 2 Q-Fan Control [Auto]
Chassis Fan 2 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
Chassis Fan 2 Step Up [0 sec]
Chassis Fan 2 Step Down [0 sec]
Chassis Fan 2 Speed Low Limit [600 RPM]
Chassis Fan 2 Profile [Manual]
Chassis Fan 2 Upper Temperature [65]
Chassis Fan 2 Max. Duty Cycle (%) [100]
Chassis Fan 2 Middle Temperature [45]
Chassis Fan 2 Middle Duty Cycle (%) [60]
Chassis Fan 2 Lower Temperature [40]
Chassis Fan 2 Min Duty Cycle (%) [60]
Chassis Fan 3 Q-Fan Control [Auto]
Chassis Fan 3 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
Chassis Fan 3 Step Up [0 sec]
Chassis Fan 3 Step Down [0 sec]
Chassis Fan 3 Speed Low Limit [600 RPM]
Chassis Fan 3 Profile [Manual]
Chassis Fan 3 Upper Temperature [70]
Chassis Fan 3 Max. Duty Cycle (%) [100]
Chassis Fan 3 Middle Temperature [45]
Chassis Fan 3 Middle Duty Cycle (%) [100]
Chassis Fan 3 Lower Temperature [40]
Chassis Fan 3 Min Duty Cycle (%) [100]
High Amp Fan Q-Fan Control [Auto]
High Amp Fan Q-Fan Source [CPU]
High Amp Fan Step Up [0 sec]
High Amp Fan Step Down [0 sec]
High Amp Fan Speed Low Limit [600 RPM]
High Amp Fan Profile [Manual]
High Amp Fan Upper Temperature [70]
High Amp Fan Max. Duty Cycle (%) [100]
High Amp Fan Middle Temperature [45]
High Amp Fan Middle Duty Cycle (%) [70]
High Amp Fan Lower Temperature [30]
High Amp Fan Min Duty Cycle (%) [60]
Water Pump+ Q-Fan Control [Auto]
Water Pump+ Q-Fan Source [CPU]
Water Pump+ Upper Temperature [70]
Water Pump+ Max. Duty Cycle (%) [100]
Water Pump+ Middle Temperature [50]
Water Pump+ Middle Duty Cycle (%) [65]
Water Pump+ Lower Temperature [30]
Water Pump+ Min Duty Cycle (%) [60]
AIO Pump Q-Fan Control [Auto]
AIO Pump Q-Fan Source [CPU]
AIO Pump Upper Temperature [70]
AIO Pump Max. Duty Cycle (%) [100]
AIO Pump Middle Temperature [50]
AIO Pump Middle Duty Cycle (%) [65]
AIO Pump Lower Temperature [30]
AIO Pump Min Duty Cycle (%) [60]
Above 4GB MMIO Limit [39bit (512GB)]
Fast Boot [Enabled]
Next Boot after AC Power Loss [Fast Boot]
Boot Logo Display [Disabled]
Bootup NumLock State [On]
POST Report [5 sec]
Wait For 'F1' If Error [Enabled]
Option ROM Messages [Force BIOS]
Interrupt 19 Capture [Disabled]
Setup Mode [Advanced Mode]
Launch CSM [Disabled]
OS Type [Other OS]
AMI Native NVMe Driver Support [Enabled]
Flexkey [Reset]
Setup Animator [Disabled]
Load from Profile [5]
Profile Name [20.01 minus 30]
Save to Profile [5]
DIMM Slot Number [DIMM_A1]
Bus Interface [PCIEX16_1]
Download & Install ARMOURY CRATE app [Enabled]
CPU Frequency [0]
CPU Voltage [0]
CCD Control [Auto]
Core control [Auto]
SMT Control [Auto]
Overclock [Enabled ]
Memory Clock Speed [Auto]
Tcl [Auto]
Trcdrd [Auto]
Trcdwr [Auto]
Trp [Auto]
Tras [Auto]
Trc Ctrl [Auto]
TrrdS [Auto]
TrrdL [Auto]
Tfaw Ctrl [Auto]
TwtrS [Auto]
TwtrL [Auto]
Twr Ctrl [Auto]
Trcpage Ctrl [Auto]
TrdrdScL Ctrl [Auto]
TwrwrScL Ctrl [Auto]
Trfc Ctrl [Auto]
Trfc2 Ctrl [Auto]
Trfc4 Ctrl [Auto]
Tcwl [Auto]
Trtp [Auto]
Tcke [Auto]
Trdwr [Auto]
Twrrd [Auto]
TwrwrSc [Auto]
TwrwrSd [Auto]
TwrwrDd [Auto]
TrdrdSc [Auto]
TrdrdSd [Auto]
TrdrdDd [Auto]
ProcODT [Auto]
Power Down Enable [Auto]
Cmd2T [Auto]
Gear Down Mode [Auto]
CAD Bus Timing User Controls [Auto]
CAD Bus Drive Strength User Controls [Auto]
Data Bus Configuration User Controls [Auto]
Infinity Fabric Frequency and Dividers [Auto]
ECO Mode [Disable]
Precision Boost Overdrive [Advanced]
PBO Limits [Motherboard]
Precision Boost Overdrive Scalar [Auto]
Curve Optimizer [Per Core]
Core 0 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 0 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
Core 1 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 1 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
Core 2 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 2 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
Core 3 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 3 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
Core 4 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 4 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
Core 5 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 5 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
Core 6 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 6 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
Core 7 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 7 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
Core 8 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 8 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
Core 9 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 9 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
Core 10 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 10 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
Core 11 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 11 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
Core 12 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 12 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
Core 13 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 13 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
Core 14 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 14 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
Core 15 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 15 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
Max CPU Boost Clock Override [0MHz]
Platform Thermal Throttle Limit [Auto]
LN2 Mode [Auto]
SoC/Uncore OC Mode [Disabled]
VDDP Voltage Control [Auto]
VDDG Voltage Control [Auto]
NUMA nodes per socket [Auto]
Custom Pstate0 [Auto]
L1 Stream HW Prefetcher [Auto]
L2 Stream HW Prefetcher [Auto]
Core Watchdog Timer Enable [Auto]
SMEE [Auto]
Core Performance Boost [Auto]
Global C-state Control [Disabled]
Power Supply Idle Control [Typical Current Idle]
SEV ASID Count [Auto]
SEV-ES ASID Space Limit Control [Auto]
Streaming Stores Control [Auto]
Local APIC Mode [Auto]
ACPI _CST C1 Declaration [Auto]
MCA error thresh enable [Auto]
PPIN Opt-in [Auto]
Fast Short REP MOVSB [Enabled]
Enhanced REP MOVSB/STOSB [Enabled]
RdRand Speedup Disable [Enabled]
IBS hardware workaround [Auto]
DRAM scrub time [Auto]
Poison scrubber control [Auto]
Redirect scrubber control [Auto]
Redirect scrubber limit [Auto]
NUMA nodes per socket [Auto]
Memory interleaving [Auto]
Memory interleaving size [Auto]
1TB remap [Auto]
DRAM map inversion [Auto]
ACPI SRAT L3 Cache As NUMA Domain [Auto]
ACPI SLIT Distance Control [Auto]
ACPI SLIT remote relative distance [Auto]
GMI encryption control [Auto]
xGMI encryption control [Auto]
CAKE CRC perf bounds Control [Auto]
4-link xGMI max speed [Auto]
3-link xGMI max speed [Auto]
xGMI TXEQ Mode [Auto]
PcsCG control [Auto]
Disable DF to external downstream IP SyncFloodPropagation [Auto]
Disable DF sync flood propagation [Auto]
CC6 memory region encryption [Auto]
Memory Clear [Auto]
Overclock [Enabled]
Memory Clock Speed [Auto]
Tcl [Auto]
Trcdrd [Auto]
Trcdwr [Auto]
Trp [Auto]
Tras [Auto]
Trc Ctrl [Auto]
TrrdS [Auto]
TrrdL [Auto]
Tfaw Ctrl [Auto]
TwtrS [Auto]
TwtrL [Auto]
Twr Ctrl [Auto]
Trcpage Ctrl [Auto]
TrdrdScL Ctrl [Auto]
TwrwrScL Ctrl [Auto]
Trfc Ctrl [Auto]
Trfc2 Ctrl [Auto]
Trfc4 Ctrl [Auto]
Tcwl [Auto]
Trtp [Auto]
Tcke [Auto]
Trdwr [Auto]
Twrrd [Auto]
TwrwrSc [Auto]
TwrwrSd [Auto]
TwrwrDd [Auto]
TrdrdSc [Auto]
TrdrdSd [Auto]
TrdrdDd [Auto]
ProcODT [Auto]
Power Down Enable [Auto]
Disable Burst/Postponed Refresh [Auto]
DRAM Maximum Activate Count [Auto]
Cmd2T [Auto]
Gear Down Mode [Auto]
CAD Bus Timing User Controls [Auto]
CAD Bus Drive Strength User Controls [Auto]
Data Bus Configuration User Controls [Auto]
Data Poisoning [Auto]
DRAM Post Package Repair [Default]
RCD Parity [Auto]
DRAM Address Command Parity Retry [Auto]
Write CRC Enable [Auto]
DRAM Write CRC Enable and Retry Limit [Auto]
Disable Memory Error Injection [True]
DRAM ECC Symbol Size [Auto]
DRAM ECC Enable [Auto]
DRAM UECC Retry [Auto]
TSME [Auto]
Data Scramble [Auto]
DFE Read Training [Auto]
FFE Write Training [Auto]
PMU Pattern Bits Control [Auto]
MR6VrefDQ Control [Auto]
CPU Vref Training Seed Control [Auto]
Chipselect Interleaving [Auto]
BankGroupSwap [Auto]
BankGroupSwapAlt [Auto]
Address Hash Bank [Auto]
Address Hash CS [Auto]
Address Hash Rm [Auto]
SPD Read Optimization [Enabled]
MBIST Enable [Disabled]
Pattern Select [PRBS]
Pattern Length [6]
Aggressor Channel [1 Aggressor Channel]
Aggressor Static Lane Control [Disabled]
Target Static Lane Control [Disabled]
Worst Case Margin Granularity [Per Chip Select]
Read Voltage Sweep Step Size [1]
Read Timing Sweep Step Size [1]
Write Voltage Sweep Step Size [1]
Write Timing Sweep Step Size [1]
IOMMU [Auto]
Precision Boost Overdrive [Auto]
Precision Boost Overdrive Scalar [Auto]
FCLK Frequency [Auto]
SOC OVERCLOCK VID [0]
UCLK DIV1 MODE [Auto]
VDDP Voltage Control [Auto]
VDDG Voltage Control [Auto]
SoC/Uncore OC Mode [Auto]
LN2 Mode [Auto]
ACS Enable [Auto]
PCIe ARI Support [Auto]
PCIe ARI Enumeration [Auto]
PCIe Ten Bit Tag Support [Auto]
cTDP Control [Auto]
EfficiencyModeEn [Auto]
Package Power Limit Control [Auto]
APBDIS [Auto]
DF Cstates [Auto]
CPPC [Auto]
CPPC Preferred Cores [Auto]
NBIO DPM Control [Auto]
Early Link Speed [Auto]
Presence Detect Select mode [Auto]
Preferred IO [Auto]
CV test [Auto]
Loopback Mode [Auto]
Data Link Feature Exchange [Disabled]


----------



## juanyunis (Jan 23, 2021)

Damm... That's very impressive. Do you live in Alaska or the north pole? Can't believe your scaled the processor like that.


----------



## Zach_01 (Jan 24, 2021)

I bet the power consumption is impressive too... Nowhere to be seen along with current


----------



## ViperXTR (Jan 24, 2021)

is it safe using beta bios? my Mag B550M Mortar only has this one as the latest so far:


----------



## harm9963 (Jan 24, 2021)

ViperXTR said:


> is it safe using beta bios? my Mag B550M Mortar only has this one as the latest so far:
> View attachment 185329


Any BIOS has risk , not just beta .


----------



## ViperXTR (Jan 24, 2021)

Ugh, oh well


----------



## Mussels (Jan 24, 2021)

betas wont kill hardware, that's what alphas are for

they may be unstable or have a broken feature, that's what betas are all about


----------



## harm9963 (Jan 24, 2021)

ViperXTR said:


> Ugh, oh well


Hope this helps .


----------



## ViperXTR (Jan 24, 2021)

harm9963 said:


> Any BIOS has risk , not just beta .





Mussels said:


> betas wont kill hardware, that's what alphas are for
> 
> they may be unstable or have a broken feature, that's what betas are all about





harm9963 said:


> Hope this helps .


Well, i just slotted in a 5800X and it won't boot/ unstable with the "official" release bios and its suppsoed to support 5000 series, tried the beta one and it booted no problems lol


----------



## harm9963 (Jan 24, 2021)

ViperXTR said:


> Well, i just slotted in a 5800X and it won't boot/ unstable with the "official" release bios and its suppsoed to support 5000 series, tried the beta one and it booted no problems lol


Yup!


----------



## blu3dragon (Jan 25, 2021)

Just to update on my latest stability testing.  I am now at the following on my 5800x B550-F with 1801 bios:


Corecurve offset w/pbo +0, scaler x2.0 (perf #3/4)-151 (perf #4/5)-152 (perf #5/6)-103 (perf #1/1)104 (perf #7/8)-305 (perf #6/7)-206 (perf #1/2)37 (perf #2/3)-5

The above curve was tested +200, scaler x1, with both p95 and testmem5 running on a single core at a time.

Compared to my earlier settings, I had to add a little more voltage to cores 5 & 6 after testing with Testmem5 at +200.  Also core 7 was not p95 stable at -10.  I don't know if cores 5&6 were 100% stable at these settings on p95 either, but what I found was that Testmem5 runs the clocks higher than the p95 setting I have been using since it uses less power.  It seems like it is worth testing both.

With this curve setting, TM5 is holding ~4900 MHz on most cores.  Given that, I have backed off the +200 and put it back to +0.  This makes no noticeable difference to the benchmarks I have run so far, and I have more confidence everything is going to remain stable now.  I also upped scaler to x2 since that seems to be the default in this BIOS, but I'm still not sure if this setting makes any difference on my configuration.

My conclusion here is that AMD has already tuned these things pretty close to the limit out of the box.  So there is very little to gain from trying to add higher clock.
Adding some curve offset helps with multi-core loads, but the difference is not huge, and it is quite difficult to properly test for stability when you do this.

In short, be careful when setting a curve offset, or even just adding pbo boost override, since it is very difficult to test each core individually for stability at all possible clocks.


----------



## harm9963 (Jan 25, 2021)

Det0x said:


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


Can you test Geek bench 5


----------



## Zach_01 (Jan 26, 2021)

The voltage feed to the CPU cores is 1 value alone. There is no capability of individual voltage regulation per core. What the CPU cores are getting is the “CPU Core Voltage (SVI2 TFN)” as reported by HWiNFO sensors mode.
What you alter by curves is speed per core.


----------



## Det0x (Jan 26, 2021)

harm9963 said:


> Can you test Geek bench 5


Geekbench 5 is already in your quote  

Geekbench 4 @ https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/16005550
Singlethread = 8215 points
Multithread = 74733 points

Geekbench5 @ https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/6050938
Singlethread = 1844 points
Multithread = 20054 points


----------



## SesioN (Jan 30, 2021)

New CPU new luck..

Bios: F33a

PPT/TDC/EDC
210/124/155
scaler: 1x
boost override: +0 Mhz
curve optimizer: -30 on 14 cores, -25 on 1 core, -18 on 1 core

vcore: normal with a minus (-) offset of 0.08750V
LLT: medium
SoC LLT: medium
Infinity Fabric: 1600 Mhz (Memory 3200 CL14)

I was aiming at good enough score with low temperatures and no temperature spikes, here are my results:
(Ambient temperature: 24C, arctic liquid freezer ii 360 with arctic silver 5 applied, setup for "maximum" silence at full load, fans around 1000 rpm on radiator, 450 rpm system fans)






NOTE:
I have copy/pasted into the screenshot parts of a second screenshot within hwinfo (just scrolled down to show power draw etc.. and copy/pasted that part into main screenshot)


----------



## droopyRO (Jan 30, 2021)

F33a BIOS on my X570 Elite, got to negative 20 on all cores 5600X. At -25 i get blue screen errors, did not fiddle with per core offset yet.


----------



## jesdals (Jan 30, 2021)

On my master F33a was to unstable - did manage to boot with 2000 infinity - but got WHEAs at even 1900 so vent back to F32


----------



## droopyRO (Jan 30, 2021)

Until this madness with inflated prices and little availabilty of computer parts, especially GPUs i will not touch any kind of overclocking. Stock settings and undevolt for me  So far F33a is stable for me at stock with undervolt.


----------



## Yanis777 (Jan 31, 2021)

jesdals said:


> On my master F33a was to unstable - did manage to boot with 2000 infinity - but got WHEAs at even 1900 so vent back to F32


@jesdals Hi. I'm impressive with your cpu-z results. Could you provide your finally setting to achieve this result? PBO, voltages, llc and others
Thank you


----------



## jesdals (Jan 31, 2021)

Yanis777 said:


> @jesdals Hi. I'm impressive with your cpu-z results. Could you provide your finally setting to achieve this result? PBO, voltages, llc and others
> Thank you


You can see my settings above, theres pics from bios and thats actually settings - did cold settings with higher settings but without better results


----------



## Zach_01 (Feb 2, 2021)

Just a suggestion if anyone is willing to follow as a test.
If using AGESA V2 1.1.8.0~1.2.0.0 to stop using HWiNFO (not load at all) and see if WHEA/Cache Hierarchy errors or crashes vanish.

Just a discussion over HWiNFO forums brought this up. Maybe users here can confirm... or not.


----------



## harm9963 (Feb 2, 2021)

New  ASUS ROG E X570 , no PBO , -23 all cores plus only ASUS app, holds clocks longer and higher , temps are cool ,  no peaky bench mark, 75 degrees room temp , no throttle at all , this will be my day to day, will run for week , get used everything , then will try to break my  ASUS X470 Prime Pro numbers.
 30 min loop , MB sure makes a difference !


----------



## jesdals (Feb 2, 2021)

Zach_01 said:


> Just a suggestion if anyone is willing to follow as a test.
> If using AGESA V2 1.1.8.0~1.2.0.0 to stop using HWiNFO (not load at all) and see if WHEA/Cache Hierarchy errors or crashes vanish.
> 
> Just a discussion over HWiNFO forums brought this up. Maybe users here can confirm... or not.


I did find the F33a unstable regardless if HWinfo was running or not - so my experience with Agesa 1.2.0.0 Gigabyte version is that its not stable yet - even at 1933MHz 1:1:1 it wasnt stable.


----------



## Det0x (Feb 2, 2021)

Det0x said:


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


So i have finally updated my crosshair viii hero to bios 3204.
No major changes compared to bios 3003, other then i don't need to run with cpu +voltage offset anymore and UBS ports are alittle less buggy with the hp reverb g2 vr headset.

Have seen alot of talk about the OCCT "large data set" stresstest in regards to WHEA errors, and how hard it was to run error-free so i decided to give it a 1 hour run 






Completed without any errors on my 24/7 settings, which are: (fans on auto)

-30 allcore curve optimizer
4x8gigabyte samsung b-die @ 1900/3800mhz 1:1 with the infinity fabric.
This is my bloaty gaming windows, so latency are alittle on the high side.


----------



## AMD718 (Feb 4, 2021)

Det0x said:


> Geekbench 5 is already in your quote
> 
> Geekbench 4 @ https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/16005550
> Singlethread = 8215 points
> ...


How in hell did you reach those scores? I thought I was doing decent with mine but you're in a different league!

Geekbench 4 @ https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/15996970
Singlethread = 7437 points
Multithread = 63857 points

Geekbench5 @ https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/5778339
Singlethread = 1722 points
Multithread = 17097 points

Aorus B550 Master (F11) + 5950x (200/200/150,4x,CO(various -30 to -5),+50Mhz)


----------



## harm9963 (Feb 5, 2021)

NEW ASUS DARK HERO MB,  OC switching is amazing !

Warm day to, room is 78f !


----------



## Det0x (Feb 5, 2021)

tdimarzio said:


> How in hell did you reach those scores? I thought I was doing decent with mine but you're in a different league!
> 
> Geekbench 4 @ https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/15996970
> Singlethread = 7437 points
> ...


Would guess it all comes down to the silicon lottery with me being able to run -30 allcore along with better cooling (?)

The last time i was lucky was with a newcastle cpu running at above 3ghz on air cooling!


----------



## harm9963 (Feb 5, 2021)

No throttle , not surprise with a high end MB.
Dark Hero is fanless , stays at a static 40c  , compare to my old ROG E X570 - 56C .


----------



## HD64G (Feb 5, 2021)

What great fun in oc Zen3 brought back to the CPU community!


----------



## Mussels (Feb 5, 2021)

We just need an automated way to tune in the curve optimiser and we'll allllll be happy.


----------



## jesdals (Feb 6, 2021)

I seem to loose about 25 points in single core CPUz benzmark disabling the AMD cool and quiet function in the CPU bios section on my Auros Master X570, can any one verify that it hurts singlecore performance?


----------



## ViperXTR (Feb 6, 2021)

Mussels said:


> We just need an automated way to tune in the curve optimiser and we'll allllll be happy.


CTR 2.1 will make it easier to detect optimal values right?


----------



## Mussels (Feb 6, 2021)

ViperXTR said:


> CTR 2.1 will make it easier to detect optimal values right?


I think so, but i'll wait til its here to judge


----------



## harm9963 (Feb 6, 2021)

2.2 maybe ?


----------



## HD64G (Feb 6, 2021)

Mussels said:


> We just need an automated way to tune in the curve optimiser and we'll allllll be happy.


The next version of Clock Tuner for AMD Ryzen CTR from @1usmus will have that feature also.​


----------



## jesdals (Feb 6, 2021)

New AMD chipset driver - on x570 it seems stable P200T125E115


----------



## dgianstefani (Feb 6, 2021)

harm9963 said:


> NEW ASUS DARK HERO MB,  OC switching is amazing !
> 
> Warm day to, room is 78f !





jesdals said:


> New AMD chipset driver - on x570 it seems stable P200T125E115
> View attachment 187257
> View attachment 187258


Bios settings?


----------



## jesdals (Feb 6, 2021)

dgianstefani said:


> Bios settings?


Se above except for P200T125E115 the rest is the same


----------



## Space Lynx (Feb 6, 2021)

juanyunis said:


> @harm9963 wow, thank you so much for the settings I think I have a winner, Best CPU-Z score I have ever had, great Cinebench R20 and R23 scores, voltage CPU Core SVI never goes beyond 1.469V) and temperatures are okish, never reaching 90C which is OK for Zen 3 CPU (According to AMD Technicians) and not thermal throttling.
> 
> I think you might have a better cooling solution and your ambient temperature is lower, I'm thinking of getting the Artic Liquid Freezer II 360mm. Could you tell me what you have? Thanks!
> 
> ...




Can you pass prime95 with those settings?


----------



## juanyunis (Feb 6, 2021)

@lynx29 at the time it did. The problem with the CO is when leaving the machine idle. I'm no longer running those settings. I found better tools/procedures to test stability while using CO. I'm running the following:

X570 Aorus MASTER rev 1.2 with BIOS F32
Voltage: Auto
CPU LLC: Auto
PPT: 210
TDC: 150
EDC: 170
Scalar: Auto
CO: -15, -20, -20, -15, +2, -15, -25, -25, -25, -20, -20, -20, -25, -25, -15, -15
Max Boost: +50Mhz
Thermal Platform: 85C

Using F33a beta bios with AGESA 1.2.0.0 I get better curve but I rolled back to F32 official bios.

These settings pass prime95, OCCT, AIDA, etc.


----------



## Space Lynx (Feb 6, 2021)

juanyunis said:


> @lynx29 at the time it did. The problem with the CO is when leaving the machine idle. I'm no longer running those settings. I found better tools/procedures to test stability while using CO. I'm running the following:
> 
> X570 Aorus MASTER rev 1.2 with BIOS F32
> Voltage: Auto
> ...




How did you know the CO negatives for each core? Is it that new tool that just came out?









						ClockTuner 2.0 for Ryzen (CTR) Guide
					

In this article, we will talk you through ClockTuner for Ryzen version 2.0, a helpful tool that allows you to further refine ZEN2, ZEN3 and Ryzen 3000/5000 performance.... Introduction




					www.guru3d.com


----------



## juanyunis (Feb 6, 2021)

@lynx29 basically you put -5 on all cores CO and test each core and if all of them passes, you add another -5. If one of the cores fails then you switch to per core CO and revert -5 to the core that failed you and then keep going.

In my case my core 4 (0 to 15) wasn't able to run stable using negative values or even 0, so I had to put +2. AGESA 1.2.0.0 fixes this for me but because i reverted to F32 I had to put +2 again.


----------



## AMD718 (Feb 6, 2021)

Det0x said:


> Would guess it all comes down to the silicon lottery with me being able to run -30 allcore along with better cooling (?)
> 
> The last time i was lucky was with a newcastle cpu running at above 3ghz on air cooling!
> View attachment 187113


Yes, that would certainly help. I cannot run -30 all-core. It will run great during benchmarks, and improves my scores a good bit, but when the computer is idle it will reset / WHEA error on my highest priority cores. Also, I'm assuming you have better cooling than me. I'm running on regular old air (NH-D15) and using a quiet fan profile.


----------



## Makaveli (Feb 9, 2021)

This is a great thread with alot of good info.

Question if you set PBO to use motherboard limits.

The settings look high compared to what i've seen you guys using.









on CO 

Core 04 is my fastest and Core 01 second fastest.

-17 on Core 04
-15 on Core 01
-10 on the rest of my cores


----------



## jesdals (Feb 9, 2021)

I found even with extreme good cooling there was no benefit for settings above 125 on Edc and Tdc, but it differ from motherboard to motherboard model and cpu lottery


----------



## Makaveli (Feb 9, 2021)

jesdals said:


> I found even with extreme good cooling there was no benefit for settings above 125 on Edc and Tdc, but it differ from motherboard to motherboard model and cpu lottery



Good to know.

With my current settings its stable and performance is good the only thing that i see is high temps on a cinebench test. I will hit 90c on that. if I test with the aida64 stress test with AVX I hit 80c and everything else is well below that.


----------



## blu3dragon (Feb 9, 2021)

Makaveli said:


> Question if you set PBO to use motherboard limits.



If you are OK with your temps, then motherboard limits are fine to use and should give you the best multi-core performance in all cases.
I would do some single core stability testing with the curve offsets you are running though, and potentially reduce max cpu boost clock override.
-17 on your fastest core along with +200 Max cpu boost clock override seems aggressive but this is going to be chip dependent, but if stable that is a pretty sweet result.
Typically people are able to set more negative values on the less favored cores than on their favored (highest performance) cores as those are already more aggressively tuned out of the box.


----------



## Makaveli (Feb 9, 2021)

blu3dragon said:


> If you are OK with your temps, then motherboard limits are fine to use and should give you the best multi-core performance in all cases.
> I would do some single core stability testing with the curve offsets you are running though, and potentially reduce max cpu boost clock override.
> -17 on your fastest core along with +200 Max cpu boost clock override seems aggressive but this is going to be chip dependent, but if stable that is a pretty sweet result.
> Typically people are able to set more negative values on the less favored cores than on their favored (highest performance) cores as those are already more aggressively tuned out of the box.



I need to do more testing on the off sets these are first set of numbers I tried. And pretty much left it at that to check stability so I've been on these for a week now no crashing on idle or Whea errors and its stable.

Choose 200Mhz for the Max cpu boast and can hit 5.05Ghz and that seems stable also. I under the impression that you set the higher negative offset on your faster cores.

As for silicon quality as well we all know it varies.

The CTR app for whats is worth says I have a golden sample if that means anything.


----------



## blu3dragon (Feb 9, 2021)

Makaveli said:


> I need to do more testing on the off sets these are first set of numbers I tried. And pretty much left it at that to check stability so I've been on these for a week now no crashing on idle or Whea errors and its stable.
> 
> Choose 200Mhz for the Max cpu boast and can hit 5.05Ghz and that seems stable also. I under the impression that you set the higher negative offset on your faster cores.
> 
> ...




Nice, mine comes back as silver and with a +200 offset I actually need to set a positive curve offset on 2 cores if I want 100% stability.


----------



## harm9963 (Feb 10, 2021)

Dynamic OC switching/ -20
still working and still learning  with this feature, ASUS DARK HERO.
plus warm day ,75f room !


----------



## harm9963 (Feb 11, 2021)

harm9963 said:


> Dynamic OC switching/ -20
> still working and still learning  with this feature, ASUS DARK HERO.
> plus warm day ,75f room !


----------



## juanyunis (Feb 12, 2021)

I have upgraded to EK AIO 360 and it did improve my scores. However my ambient temp is too high (not using A/C).


----------



## harm9963 (Feb 12, 2021)

Only -20 , DOCS , BIOS auto


----------



## blu3dragon (Feb 21, 2021)

I finally decided to make a script to help test each core individually with prime95.

So far, this, and then TM5 running on a single core, seems to be the best way to root out an unstable curve offset.

It's pretty basic, but I'd be interested to see any results or other feedback: https://www.overclock.net/threads/s...script-for-zen-3-curve-offset-tuning.1777112/


----------



## Mussels (Feb 21, 2021)

blu3dragon said:


> I finally decided to make a script to help test each core individually with prime95.
> 
> So far, this, and then TM5 running on a single core, seems to be the best way to root out an unstable curve offset.
> 
> It's pretty basic, but I'd be interested to see any results or other feedback: https://www.overclock.net/threads/s...script-for-zen-3-curve-offset-tuning.1777112/



the tiny upload link in that thread failed to work - can you upload it somewhere else?


----------



## juanyunis (Feb 21, 2021)

Happy to report that CTR 2.1 beta 6 (for early subscribers only, I'm a patreon supporter of @1usmus) is looking pretty good. I was able to get way more performance than using PBO+CO. Take a look at mi Cinebench R23.

Using CTR 2.1 beta 6
=====================
PPT: 200
TDC: 150
EDC: 250
Temperature: 85C
PX: 5000/4850/4800 at 1480mV (For single boosting)
P2: 4650/4600 at 1356mV
P1: 4575/4525 at 1256mV





I just wanted to add Cinebench R20


----------



## blu3dragon (Feb 22, 2021)

Mussels said:


> the tiny upload link in that thread failed to work - can you upload it somewhere else?



I just updated https://www.overclock.net/threads/s...script-for-zen-3-curve-offset-tuning.1777112/ with a new version.

Attached it here.


----------



## Mussels (Feb 22, 2021)

blu3dragon said:


> I just updated https://www.overclock.net/threads/s...script-for-zen-3-curve-offset-tuning.1777112/ with a new version.
> 
> Attached it here.


that worked - if its unstable does it identify which core/thread it was on?


----------



## blu3dragon (Feb 22, 2021)

Mussels said:


> that worked - if its unstable does it identify which core/thread it was on?


Yes, although I need to do something to record a log of where it is up to in case the whole computer crashes, it does monitor the results.txt file that prime95 writes and then reports any error as well as copying that to a new file named per core and loop iteration.


----------



## Octopuss (Feb 23, 2021)

I have my 5800X up and running, and would like to do a little undervolting, however I am fairly confused.

1) How can I tell how much of an offset to set for each core? From what I read, it's during idle when too much can cause instability, so how the hell do I test that, and how can I even know what core is malfunctioning?

2) I learned there is something like quality of cores and that Hwinfo can show that, but I can't make ANY sense out of this:



What the heck does all this mean? I've already looked at Ryzen Master and cores 1 and 7 are the best, but these numbers I don't understand.

3) When taking the cores quality into consideration, which ones are to be run with higher lor lower curve offset? I keep reading conflicting information about this.

4) Is it enough to just play with the curve optimizer in my use case? My head is already like a baloon staring into the BIOS.



I have no idea what kind of sample do I have, probably utter shit, because all core boost in Prime95 is 4300MHz on average, and highest frequency frequency shown in Hwinfo over some period of time (not constant load) is 4850MHz.


----------



## blu3dragon (Feb 23, 2021)

Octopuss said:


> I have my 5800X up and running, and would like to do a little undervolting, however I am fairly confused.
> 
> 1) How can I tell how much of an offset to set for each core? From what I read, it's during idle when too much can cause instability, so how the hell do I test that, and how can I even know what core is malfunctioning?
> 
> ...



Part of the confusing thing is that no one can tell you what core offset will be stable for each core on your cpu.  Every cpu is different and the only way to figure it out is by testing your cpu to see what is stable and gives good results.
One thing that generally seems to be the case is that you can set a higher offset on the cores that are not rated as highly.  This is why you see recommendations like set your best cores to X and all others to Y.  However, even that might not be true on a single sample and so copying someone else's recommended settings is probably not going to work well.

Take a step back and first understand which are the relevant bios settings.
Then do some testing of your own to figure out what works well, while keeping an eye on temps and effective clocks in HWinfo.
I posted more details and a script here to test with prime95: https://www.overclock.net/threads/s...script-for-zen-3-curve-offset-tuning.1777112/

"I have no idea what kind of sample do I have, probably utter shit, because all core boost in Prime95 is 4300MHz on average, and highest frequency frequency shown in Hwinfo over some period of time (not constant load) is 4850MHz."
That pretty much matches my stock behavior on a 5800x, and to be honest, tuning curve offsets, while keeping things 100% stable, didn't gain very much at all.  4850MHz is the stock max boost.  With a power hungry avx all core load 4300MHz is about what you will get.  Disabling AVX in p95 will give higher frequencies.

Review frequencies seem to be higher.  e.g. https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-ryzen-7-5800x/21.html
I have a feeling review samples were very good chips, but "This test uses a custom-coded application that mimics real-life performance—it is not a stress test like Prime95.", so the test used for that graph is most likely using less power (and therefore generating less heat) than prime95.


----------



## Octopuss (Feb 23, 2021)

I really just want to undervolt the thing a bit for temperatures purposes, I'm not interested in hunting for higher frequencies, because I feel like for any meaningful gains I'd have to spend enormous times understanding tons of settings and testing for even longer, and the little I could get with just some minor adjustments would make absolutely zero difference for regular usage.


----------



## blu3dragon (Feb 23, 2021)

Octopuss said:


> I really just want to undervolt the thing a bit for temperatures purposes, I'm not interested in hunting for higher frequencies, because I feel like for any meaningful gains I'd have to spend enormous times understanding tons of settings and testing for even longer, and the little I could get with just some minor adjustments would make absolutely zero difference for regular usage.


It's not that simple since precision boost will try to run as high a frequency as it can within the power and temp limits.

If you want your cpu to run cooler, you can enable PBO and lower the max temperature limit from the default value of 90C.  Then PB will automatically limit to whatever temp you decide.
Your other option is to enable PBO, but rather than raise the power limits, lower them below stock settings.
Final option is to manually set frequency and voltage.  But then you lose the benefits of increased frequency when not all cores are loaded, and some power saving when cores are idle.


----------



## Octopuss (Feb 23, 2021)

Well, I blindly lowered the curve by -5 and -10 and highest temperatures in Prime95 dropped by ~5°C, so I guess it works.


----------



## blu3dragon (Feb 23, 2021)

Octopuss said:


> Well, I blindly lowered the curve by -5 and -10 and highest temperatures in Prime95 dropped by ~5°C, so I guess it works.


Ok, well I guess check that it is stable now and if it is then be happy 

Or continue down the slippery slope to find the lowest stable curve offset you can get for each core :-D


----------



## Mussels (Feb 24, 2021)

Octopuss said:


> I have my 5800X up and running, and would like to do a little undervolting, however I am fairly confused.
> 
> 1) How can I tell how much of an offset to set for each core? From what I read, it's during idle when too much can cause instability, so how the hell do I test that, and how can I even know what core is malfunctioning?
> 
> ...



Those clocks are about right for stock settings
If you enable PBO and set +200, you'll see 5050 for the low load core boosts, ideally randomly each core will reach that over time.

I cant read the HWinfo stats either lol. Next you need to play with the curve optimiser and deal with the chaos of stability testing when you're undervolting one core at a time like the rest of us


----------



## blu3dragon (Feb 25, 2021)

New version of the p95 testing script: https://www.overclock.net/threads/s...script-for-zen-3-curve-offset-tuning.1777112/

Attached it here as well


----------



## Octopuss (Feb 25, 2021)

Could you add code so the script can be run when prime95.exe is already present in the current folder? To me it makes more sense to download P95 manually and put it there. The script also replies on specific version of the program.

Btw why that specific 84k FFT size?



Mussels said:


> Those clocks are about right for stock settings
> If you enable PBO and set +200, you'll see 5050 for the low load core boosts, ideally randomly each core will reach that over time.
> 
> I cant read the HWinfo stats either lol. Next you need to play with the curve optimiser and deal with the chaos of stability testing when you're undervolting one core at a time like the rest of us


I think I read that if you increase the frequency limit, whatever undervolt you might have will likely not be stable anymore. Is that true?

Also I don't understand how can people suggest to lower the curve by -40 or something like that. I am on very brief unscietific testing of fourth core, and -30 crashed Prime95 on 3 out of 4 of them within minutes. One crashed after 10 hours, one flat out restarted the PC


----------



## blu3dragon (Feb 25, 2021)

Octopuss said:


> Could you add code so the script can be run when prime95.exe is already present in the current folder? To me it makes more sense to download P95 manually and put it there. The script also replies on specific version of the program.


The latest version will check if there is an existing p95 folder and use that instead of extracting p95 again.  So if you want you can manually extract any version of p95 into a p95 subfolder and then run the script.  You can also change the name of the p95 zip file to extract by editing the variable near the top of the script.  Just keep in mind I only tested it with that specific version of p95.


Octopuss said:


> Btw why that specific 84k FFT size?


Good question.  I should add this to the readme or something... when I started testing early on I was using a range of FFT sizes, but noticed that I typically hit an error after reaching 84k FFT size.  So I just set it to that as a shortcut.  It could be that higher values are better though, or that different values expose different instabilities.  Feel free to experiment with different values and if you are shooting for 110% stability, then setting it to a range and running for at least a couple hours on each core is something you could try.


Octopuss said:


> I think I read that if you increase the frequency limit, whatever undervolt you might have will likely not be stable anymore. Is that true?


This is true, since the cpu will reach higher boost clocks and those might not be stable with the undervolt.  Actually people are even finding they need to add voltage to some cores (via a positive core offset) to be stable if they set a boost clock override >0.  This is the case with my cpu where one core needs +10, another +3, but all others can keep a 0 or negative setting.



Octopuss said:


> Also I don't understand how can people suggest to lower the curve by -40 or something like that. I am on very brief unscietific testing of fourth core, and -30 crashed Prime95 on 3 out of 4 of them within minutes. One crashed after 10 hours, one flat out restarted the PC


I feel you... actually part of what motivated me to share this script was to help with all the confusion created by posts that suggest setting core offsets a certain way rather than testing what specifically works with your cpu.  I think part of what makes this hard is that it is possible for an unstable core offset to remain hidden in a lot of tests as it will need a single core load on that specific core to expose it.

Everyone's definition of stable is different as well.   My testing is more geared to having a 24/7 reliable machine that runs at a good speed, rather than trying to reach the highest single benchmark score I can.  Those are different goals as for a high score you just need things stable for long enough to complete that test.


----------



## juanyunis (Feb 25, 2021)

blu3dragon said:


> The latest version will check if there is an existing p95 folder and use that instead of extracting p95 again.  So if you want you can manually extract any version of p95 into a p95 subfolder and then run the script.  You can also change the name of the p95 zip file to extract by editing the variable near the top of the script.  Just keep in mind I only tested it with that specific version of p95.
> 
> Good question.  I should add this to the readme or something... when I started testing early on I was using a range of FFT sizes, but noticed that I typically hit an error after reaching 84k FFT size.  So I just set it to that as a shortcut.  It could be that higher values are better though, or that different values expose different instabilities.  Feel free to experiment with different values and if you are shooting for 110% stability, then setting it to a range and running for at least a couple hours on each core is something you could try.
> 
> ...


Great job man


----------



## Octopuss (Feb 27, 2021)

I think the script (version from 24.2.) is wrong. When I run Hwinfo, only one thread per core is being used. I guess the affinity is misconfigured.


----------



## blu3dragon (Feb 27, 2021)

Octopuss said:


> I think the script (version from 24.2.) is wrong. When I run Hwinfo, only one thread per core is being used. I guess the affinity is misconfigured.



Did you change any of the variables from their defaults?  There is a new setting, $use_smt=$true;  If that is set to false then it will only use one thread on each core.

Check in task manager to make sure the affinity is set correctly for prime95 while it is running.
Let me know if it is not working on your system.
Thanks!


----------



## mirskid (Mar 1, 2021)

jesdals said:


> New AMD chipset driver - on x570 it seems stable P200T125E115
> View attachment 187257
> View attachment 187258


Hi mate
I'm new here and have been reeding about this overclocking options with the Curve Optimizer. I followed and done it on my ROG Crosshair VIII Dark Hero with Ryzen 5950x.
It seams that I am missing somenthing during the process.
I only setup PBO via the advanced options with 
PPT:200
TDC:140
EDC:200
PBO Scalar: 10X
Max CPU Boost Clock Override: 200Mhz

Is stable but when I run Cinebench R23 multicore I get 28706 and the cores do not go over 4300MHz.
Temp is arond 88 Celcius

Have a couple of questions.
1. Is it possible for you to share screens of your Bios for relevant overclocking details to see if I am missing somethig.
2. With the Curve Optimizer is there a need to setup anything else like CPU Core Ratio (per ccx) or other settings in the Bios to get a 4500MHz multicore?

Regards,


----------



## blu3dragon (Mar 1, 2021)

mirskid said:


> Hi mate
> I'm new here and have been reeding about this overclocking options with the Curve Optimizer. I followed and done it on my ROG Crosshair VIII Dark Hero with Ryzen 5950x.
> It seams that I am missing somenthing during the process.
> I only setup PBO via the advanced options with
> ...



You need to find the curve offset settings, hidden somewhere under advanced options, amd overclocking in your bios.  Then lower, and test for stability with both single core and multicore loads.
I would suggest setting Boost Clock Override back to 0.  The 5950x will go up to 5050Mhz at stock.


----------



## Octopuss (Mar 1, 2021)

blu3dragon said:


> Did you change any of the variables from their defaults?  There is a new setting, $use_smt=$true;  If that is set to false then it will only use one thread on each core.
> 
> Check in task manager to make sure the affinity is set correctly for prime95 while it is running.
> Let me know if it is not working on your system.
> Thanks!


This is really weird. the affinity is set correctly, but there is still load only on one of the virtual cores.








When you run p95 directly, it detects everything correctly, but when you do so from the script, apparently it does not.


----------



## jesdals (Mar 1, 2021)

mirskid said:


> Hi mate
> I'm new here and have been reeding about this overclocking options with the Curve Optimizer. I followed and done it on my ROG Crosshair VIII Dark Hero with Ryzen 5950x.
> It seams that I am missing somenthing during the process.


Try using PBO via the advanced options with
PPT:200
TDC:125
EDC:115
PBO Scalar: 2-4X
Max CPU Boost Clock Override: 200Mhz

and a curve of negative -10 and then add more negative curve until not stable and then try to change TDC and then EDC

to begin with - do note my previos bios pics - I personally also set Infinity fabric and memory to 1:1 - in my case its stable at 1900MHz - giving 3800MHz memory


----------



## mirskid (Mar 2, 2021)

jesdals said:


> Try using PBO via the advanced options with
> PPT:200
> TDC:125
> EDC:115
> ...


I have worked out most of the values for the curve with negative -15 for best 4 cores and -30 for the remaining cores. 
Is stable with PPT185 TDC140 EDC140
Now what I have been noticing from the beginning is that the temp in full load when I’m compressing videos is around 90 Celcius which is too hot to keep for hours if I have a batch to run. How do I reduce the temp to something like 80s during full load?
Regards


----------



## blu3dragon (Mar 2, 2021)

mirskid said:


> I have worked out most of the values for the curve with negative -15 for best 4 cores and -30 for the remaining cores.
> Is stable with PPT185 TDC140 EDC140
> Now what I have been noticing from the beginning is that the temp in full load when I’m compressing videos is around 90 Celcius which is too hot to keep for hours if I have a batch to run. How do I reduce the temp to something like 80s during full load?
> Regards



Set PBO temperature limit to 80, or whatever you want your max temp to be.  90c is the default, and should be fine.  I have mine at 85 though.  This is assuming you've already checked there is no issue with your cooling (temps ok at lower loads).



Octopuss said:


> This is really weird. the affinity is set correctly, but there is still load only on one of the virtual cores.
> View attachment 190457
> View attachment 190456
> 
> ...



By default the script only runs a single actual thread of p95 to try and reach as high a boost clock as possible.  It then assigns it to both threads on a single core and let's windows voice between them as it likes.  Is this what you are seeing?


----------



## Octopuss (Mar 2, 2021)

I don't think that's what I'm seeing. Whatever I am seeing it's wrong, because when I run prime95 manually, the load is on both threads, which I assume is the correct behaviour with SMT enabled.


----------



## blu3dragon (Mar 2, 2021)

Octopuss said:


> I don't think that's what I'm seeing. Whatever I am seeing it's wrong, because when I run prime95 manually, the load is on both threads, which I assume is the correct behaviour with SMT enabled.



When you run it manually, are you limiting the number of threads that p95 will create?
By default, the script sets the number of threads to '1'


----------



## Octopuss (Mar 3, 2021)

I set it to two, obviously. Two threads per core.

I set PBO frequency to +200MHz and when running p95, not only is the frequency not higher, it seems to be slightly lower than before (I am still testing the cores individually to have stable max boost). Is that even possible?


----------



## Zach_01 (Mar 3, 2021)

Latest beta versions of HWiNFO offer a tooltip description when you hover the pointer over a sensor.

Anyway the “Core X Clock (perf#x/x)” naming scheme means the following...

perf#x/x

The second x (/x) is the performance order of the cores hard coded into the CPU logic after its fabrication evaluation. Meaning that the cores with numbers 1, 2 can operate at higher frequency on the same voltage from cores with numbers 7, 8 if we are talking about an 8core SKU.
The first x (x/) is the order the Windows scheduler is preferring to load first and keep the loads more in single or reduced threaded apps/games. If the scheduler is “smart” enough, is trying to keep the loads on the same 4/8core CCX (depending if the CPU is 3000 or 5000) to reduce latency by avoiding CCX and CCD cross talks. And also is trying to load the higher perf# cores more. This behavior depends also on the power plan and/or the version of Windows and chipset drivers.

The core loading “amount” can be represented by 3 other things on HWiNFO sensors window.
1. The core effective speed. The higher the core effective speed the higher the load on those cores.
2. The core C-states residency. Where C0 is the active state, C1 is the halt state and C6 is the power off (sleep).
3. The core T usage (%)

Usually the discrete clock and raw multiplier readings can represent the core loading but at some points it could be misleading. Only effective clock and active/nonactive states can show this accurately.

——————————————

Keep in mind that desktop Ryzens (unlike mobile ones) can’t feed cores with individual voltage. Instead the CPU operates cores at different speed on the same voltage. The core feeding voltage is one and only, the “CPU Core Voltage (SVI2 TFN)” as HWiNFO reports.

To feed voltage individually to cores you either do it with multi VR rails but this adds high complexity and cost for the boards...
or you do it with on die core V regulators the dLDOs. At least ZEN3 has them but they are not put to use on desktop SKUs. On mobile they do use them, where power control and efficiency is essential.

EDIT: by mistake I misspell dLDOs with cLDOs...


----------



## Octopuss (Mar 4, 2021)

Could that mean that undervolting with curve optimizer is poinless to set on per-core basis? Because if I can only undervolt the top one or two cores by -5 and the crappy ones by -30, I presume the controller would only go as low as -5, right?

edit:
At the same time, how is this possible then?


----------



## blu3dragon (Mar 4, 2021)

Octopuss said:


> I set it to two, obviously. Two threads per core.


OK, sorry it wasn't clear.  I'm intentionally only running a single thread of p95 to try and get as high a boost clock as possible.  This method worked well for me, but I have not done a lot of testing with 2 threads running to see how that compares.  If you want to experiment with this you can change the p95 config the script uses by editing "local.txt".



Octopuss said:


> I set PBO frequency to +200MHz and when running p95, not only is the frequency not higher, it seems to be slightly lower than before (I am still testing the cores individually to have stable max boost). Is that even possible?


You should run a benchmark or check the effective clock frequencies to compare.  Just a theory, but it's possible you will get a slight degradation in performance if the cpu tries to boost higher, uses more power, and then lowers the effective clocks as a result.  If that happens it is likely only a small effect though.



Zach_01 said:


> or you do it with on die core V regulators the cLDOs. At least ZEN3 has them but they are not put to use on desktop SKUs. On mobile they do use them, where power control and efficiency is essential.


This is something I have been wondering about.  There was another post somewhere saying this was actually enabled in Zen3, but I don't know if that was just speculation or not.  Assuming there is no documentation or other statement from AMD that they have enabled individual core voltages on desktop then I'll continue to assume all cores run off a single voltage.

One thing I realized, if the cpu has voltage regulators on die, then are the seemingly high (1.4-1.5) voltages what is actually seen by the cores?  It would explain a lot to me if the cpu voltage we are seeing is actually the supply to onboard voltage regulators and not the actual voltage that the cores run at.



Octopuss said:


> Could that mean that undervolting with curve optimizer is poinless to set on per-core basis? Because if I can only undervolt the top one or two cores by -5 and the crappy ones by -30, I presume the controller would only go as low as -5, right?
> 
> edit:
> At the same time, how is this possible then?
> View attachment 190906


There's multiple things at play here, but the short answer is that it is not pointless to optimize on a per-core bases.  At least if you want to get the last few % and as far as my understanding goes:

1. -5 on your best core might actually result in the same VID as -30 on your worst core, since each core has a different voltage curve set from the factory (and curve offset is setting an offset to the factory default).
2. Core VID in HWInfo is the voltage requested by that core.  The actual voltage is going to be different to that, and assuming there is only a single voltage set for all cores it will be based on the highest voltage requested among the cores and possibly other parts of the die.
3. For a multi-core load the voltage will be set based on the highest voltage requested among the active cores.  You can focus on those cores when tuning curve offset to save time, but you need to figure out which ones they really are first.


Also note that by default HWInfo will report the same VID for all cores, but will read out sensor/register values sequentially, so in your screenshot you might just be seeing the VID changing between the time it read the value for Core 0 and Core 1.  There is a setting that was added in HWiNFO v6.40 which seems to fix this.  If you enable this I'd expect that you will see a slightly different VID for each core:

Added Snapshot Polling mode for AMD Zen-based CPUs.


----------



## Octopuss (Mar 4, 2021)

At this point I don't really know what I'm doing anymore, there are just too many questions and I'm totally sick of prime95 by now 

Should I test the individual curve offsets with all other curves at default or is it perfectly fine to do so with some offsets already set?

Does the increased frequency limit even matter when (according to someone on a different forum) it adds "up to" 200MHz, meaning it's more like +100MHz with two cores and probably next to nothing with more than that running under load? Just by having programs opened and browsing the internet, I see activity on four cores most of the time.
and
Is the frequency limit of any use when I'm not overclocking in the classical way of increasing power limits, voltages etc.?

Can/does the increased frequency limit affect how much of an offset can I use?


Re: threads. I am not sure. I've always - for years - read that for HT/SMT enabled CPU, you have to run two threads, otherwise the load won't be 100%. I don't want to dig into reading about any of the technical klingon behind that, so I just do what I've been doing for years.


----------



## Zach_01 (Mar 4, 2021)

blu3dragon said:


> *1*. You should run a benchmark or check the effective clock frequencies to compare.  Just a theory, but it's possible you will get a slight degradation in performance if the cpu tries to boost higher, uses more power, and then lowers the effective clocks as a result.  If that happens it is likely only a small effect though.
> 
> 
> *2*. This is something I have been wondering about.  There was another post somewhere saying this was actually enabled in Zen3, but I don't know if that was just speculation or not.  Assuming there is no documentation or other statement from AMD that they have enabled individual core voltages on desktop then I'll continue to assume all cores run off a single voltage.
> ...


1. Yes the effective clock shows the sustainability of the boost/clock. In other words, the true(er) speed of a core.





						Effective clock vs instant (discrete) clock
					

It has become a common practice for several years to report instant (discrete) clock values for CPUs. This method is based on knowledge of the actual bus clock (BCLK) and sampling of core ratios at specific time points. The resulting clock is then a simple result of ratio * BCLK. Such approach...




					www.hwinfo.com
				




2. (post #13)




__





						Normal vs. Snapshot polling mode
					

Hi Martin, and everybody here! Here is screenshot of my PC running Cinebench R23 MT test. I've merged two sensor panel screenshots from different modes.    Can someone explain, why reported core VID's values are -  all the same and close to Vcore SVI2 value (normal mode - left panel) -  all...




					www.hwinfo.com
				




3. The voltages of 1.4~1.5V is what the board VRM are supplying. At least on my R5 3600/AorusPro X570 system I can verify this via the VR sensor readings (VR VOUT).
Anyone with VR VOUT readings and 5000series CPU? ...shed some light please, although I expect it to be the same as 3000series (see 2.)

4. I too don't think it's pointless. The individual offset could just mean different end speed for each core at the same voltage, but that is not something I can verify as I don't own a 5000 CPU. And this is making sense if you think about how the core speeds are acting under stock conditions. Why the curve optimizer would work any different? It is just a voltage/speed curve alteration over stock.

5. As matter of fact, after I enabled it I see identical VIDs (cur/min/max/avg). Prior to this there was a difference in requests. And again, I own a 3000series CPU.

---------------------------

Lets not forget that there is no software that can monitor and report speed/voltage 100% accurately when those values are different every 1~20ms (depending power plan), and a software's polling period is 500, 1000, 2000ms.
By the way, dont use polling period under 1000ms on HWiNFO because it will probably keep the CPU more on active state (and on higher voltage) and out of halt/sleep states.


----------



## blu3dragon (Mar 4, 2021)

Octopuss said:


> At this point I don't really know what I'm doing anymore, there are just too many questions and I'm totally sick of prime95 by now
> 
> Should I test the individual curve offsets with all other curves at default or is it perfectly fine to do so with some offsets already set?
> 
> ...


OK, the first thing I want to say is that this is all for fun.  If you are tired of testing or not having fun anymore, then take a break   In the overall scheme of performance of your PC we are really only chasing small gains here and in the end it's probably not worth doing other than for the fun of it as AMD has already tuned the CPU to work very close to its limits out of the box.  If you want the simple solution, just enable XMP, enable PBO (but keep all PBO settings at default), run a few stability tests and check temps, and then just enjoy using your PC.

With regards to your questions:
1. It's perfectly fine to test with different offsets set on each core.  Actually this is how I think you need to do it since you want to end up with some offset set for each core. Take a look at the "Example Scenario" in this post for some idea of how to go about this: https://www.overclock.net/threads/s...script-for-zen-3-curve-offset-tuning.1777112/
2. The increased frequency limit might not make much or any difference in any real load.  For a 5600x it is probably worth trying for +200.  For a 5800x it might not be worth increasing at all since,
3. Yes, if you increase the frequency limit it can affect how much curve offset you can apply, which will then reduce the maximum boost frequency for that core.



Zach_01 said:


> 1. Yes the effective clock shows the sustainability of the boost/clock. In other words, the true(er) speed of a core.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Not sure if I have VR VOUT on my board?  Here are a couple of screenshots that show different VIDs on a 5800x.

First one is p95, 16 threads, FFT size of 84 in place, avx2.  Average voltages best captures the difference between cores.
Second one is captured while running the script, single thread, FFT size of 84 in place, avx disabled.  Look at max voltages for this one.


----------



## Det0x (Mar 6, 2021)

Today i found out how much latency difference there really is between a 1CCD and 2CCD Zen3 CPU 
(5600x + 5800x VS 5900x + 5950x)

I disabled one CCD on my 5950x to simulate a 5800x
1 CCD = 51.7 ns in aida64
2 CCD = 54.2 ns in aida64


Running 4x8gigs bdie memory and PBO CO @ standard 24/7 everyday settings


----------



## agentnathan009 (Mar 6, 2021)

mtcn77 said:


> It is not how you do things. Also, 1.538v - I hope it is due to a fault in the sensor.
> If you are looking for ST scores you clamp PPT, and otherwise for MT you keep PPT just 10% above EDC.
> Those scores are too high. Better safe than sorry.
> 
> ...


Your comprehension of how electricity works is sorely lacking. 1.5 volts is not an issue for CPU. Do high voltage transmission lines burn up carrying 200,000 volts? No, with an exception, when an object gets close enough that electrons jump from transmission line to grounded object, then electrons making that jump can cause a fireworks display and damage from electrons crossing the charged gap. Volts don't create heat, amps create heat. That is why transmission lines can handle 200,000 volts but are transmitting a few amps. Batteries, on the other hand, operate at low voltages, but with high amperage (current). When a battery is dead shorted the 100+ amps can cause the cable to get hot, start glowing red, and/or otherwise burn up. You CPU operates more like a battery than a high voltage transmission line.

The conclusion to this matter is that volts don't cause the CPU to fail, though I suppose that if they could get high enough and there was some less insulated part within the CPU that allowed the electrons to jump (see transmission line example) then volts could be responsible for killing CPU. Amperage is what makes your CPU hot. Find out what amperage your CPU can handle and work with that. Current CPUs have so many sensors and monitoring capabilities that they protect themselves, for the most part, from being burnt up due to overclocking.


----------



## mtcn77 (Mar 6, 2021)

agentnathan009 said:


> *Your comprehension of how electricity works is sorely lacking.*
> 
> The conclusion to this matter is that volts don't cause the CPU to fail, *though I suppose that if they could get high enough and there was some less insulated part within the CPU that allowed the electrons to jump* (see transmission line example) then volts could be responsible for killing CPU. Amperage is what makes your CPU hot. Find out what amperage your CPU can handle and work with that. Current CPUs have so many sensors and monitoring capabilities that they protect themselves, for the most part, from being burnt up due to overclocking.


You seem awfully insecure for someone without even a trace 'notion' of how electricity travels in the opposite path that electrons travel...
The issue is, I 'know' how electrons are even shaped like and they can lose track into unobserved paths since they are not shaped like a 'single' orbital physical ring, but double orbital rings with a second perpendicular one connected at the electron's moment center that can crossect without any discrimination for physical barriers - its quantum orbit does not interact with physical matter, just cuts across it. So much to say, electrons having an extra invisible quantum orbital ring that they can always switch between just as easily as the one they are physically travelling on - that is the very definition of Murphy's Law in electricity "what will go wrong, does" without you even knowing it.
Your understanding of electrons is just half of the story, you are trying to solve it as a solid matter. That is not how it intuitively behaves.
But as the famous physicist Richard Feynman once said, “It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.” And he was a theoretician.


----------



## Octopuss (Mar 6, 2021)

Less physics and e-peen, more human speech pls


----------



## mtcn77 (Mar 6, 2021)

Octopuss said:


> Less physics and e-peen, more human speech pls


They call it a convex path, I'd call it  orthogonal gyroscopic orbits. A picture is worth _ amount of words.


----------



## agentnathan009 (Mar 7, 2021)

mtcn77 said:


> You seem awfully insecure for someone without even a trace 'notion' of how electricity travels in the opposite path that electrons travel...
> The issue is, I 'know' how electrons are even shaped like and they can lose track into unobserved paths since they are not shaped like a 'single' orbital physical ring, but double orbital rings with a second perpendicular one connected at the electron's moment center that can crossect without any discrimination for physical barriers - its quantum orbit does not interact with physical matter, just cuts across it. So much to say, electrons having an extra invisible quantum orbital ring that they can always switch between just as easily as the one they are physically travelling on - that is the very definition of Murphy's Law in electricity "what will go wrong, does" without you even knowing it.
> Your understanding of electrons is just half of the story, you are trying to solve it as a solid matter. That is not how it intuitively behaves.
> But as the famous physicist Richard Feynman once said, “It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.” And he was a theoretician.


I'm sorry for being rude and insulting to you.

I'm not insecure, only allowing for variances with other aspects that I don't understand as fully.


----------



## ViperXTR (Mar 8, 2021)

OCCT 8.0 now has some test for Curve optimizer users to verify stability

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1368847546278350850


----------



## Octopuss (Mar 10, 2021)

Any idea how long should I keep OCCT tests running on each core? I'm used to prime95 where I won't settle for anything less than 12 hours without errors, but OCCT might do completely different things and this might not apply at all.


----------



## mtcn77 (Mar 10, 2021)

Octopuss said:


> Any idea how long should I keep OCCT tests running on each core? I'm used to prime95 where I won't settle for anything less than 12 hours without errors, but OCCT might do completely different things and this might not apply at all.


Just run it until the test reaches your usual operating cpu temperature. Generally, I find no difficulty in setting the temperature just right, instead I find it hard keeping it down. The core will present an error in case its overclock is not stable. You can adjust the temperature using the FFT length gauge(speaking about P95). I set it 16-16 for a near original power draw that isn't inherently too synthetic.


----------



## Octopuss (Mar 10, 2021)

Um, you know these CPUs reach the max temperature within about two seconds, right?


----------



## mtcn77 (Mar 10, 2021)

Octopuss said:


> Um, you know these CPUs reach the max temperature within about two seconds, right?


Is it so hard to believe?


----------



## Octopuss (Mar 10, 2021)

I have no idea what are you talking about.
I guess for you it is, otherwise you wouldn't suggest what you wrote (which didn't answer my question even partially).


----------



## blu3dragon (Mar 12, 2021)

Octopuss said:


> Any idea how long should I keep OCCT tests running on each core? I'm used to prime95 where I won't settle for anything less than 12 hours without errors, but OCCT might do completely different things and this might not apply at all.



I think it is similar to prime95 in the way it works.  For a final stability test I would do at least one hour per core, but generally I've found prime95 to be better at finding errors than occt.


----------



## Nantes (Apr 25, 2021)

In my BIOS for the B550-E Gaming you can reach "Precision Boost Overdrive" via two different routes: the "AI Tweaker" tab or or the "Advanced" tab. Both have nearly the same options except that the latter allows you to change the Curve Optimizer function while the former does not.

Upon further testing I have noticed that both PBOs behave vastly differently: turning the one under AI Tweaker on, my 5600x's power consumption shoots from 76W (stock draw) to 95W or more (it's also worth noting that turning on "AMD Performance Enhancer" under the same AI Tweaker menu has the same effect, and I've found no practical difference between enabling either that or PBO). Whereas turning on the PBO under the Advanced tab on with the same sub-options (and Curve Optimizer on Auto), power draw stays at 76W, the normal power draw constraint. It is clear that despite being named the same and having very similar sub-options, these two features are completely different.

Can someone knowledgeable please explain this mess?

Example images just to show the two different paths (the values for the options are not what I'm using):


----------



## Zach_01 (Apr 26, 2021)

PBO on auto means disabled.
Only on enabled is really enabled. That’s why you saw this difference.


----------



## Mussels (Apr 26, 2021)

Nantes said:


> In my BIOS for the B550-E Gaming you can reach "Precision Boost Overdrive" via two different routes: the "AI Tweaker" tab or or the "Advanced" tab. Both have nearly the same options except that the latter allows you to change the Curve Optimizer function while the former does not.
> 
> Upon further testing I have noticed that both PBOs behave vastly differently: turning the one under AI Tweaker on, my 5600x's power consumption shoots from 76W (stock draw) to 95W or more (it's also worth noting that turning on "AMD Performance Enhancer" under the same AI Tweaker menu has the same effect, and I've found no practical difference between enabling either that or PBO). Whereas turning on the PBO under the Advanced tab on with the same sub-options (and Curve Optimizer on Auto), power draw stays at 76W, the normal power draw constraint. It is clear that despite being named the same and having very similar sub-options, these two features are completely different.
> 
> ...


my board has this too, its weird to see two sets of the same settings that dont sync


----------



## Nantes (Apr 26, 2021)

Zach_01 said:


> PBO on auto means disabled.
> Only on enabled is really enabled. That’s why you saw this difference.



But see the second screenshot. In order to access all the options you can see, it must be set to "advanced", which must mean it is on, otherwise there would be no point in setting any of the options it reveals. Which of the OTHER options besides "PBO -> Advanced" must be turned on for PBO to work from this menu? PBO limits?


----------



## Zach_01 (Apr 26, 2021)

I apologize in advance as for some of the following I'm not entirely sure or cant remember which is which... Its been over a year since I was messing with OC settings and I'm old now...

1. I'm not entirely sure but if you choose "Advanced" mode you have to at least choose a "Max CPU boost clock Override" other than 0MHz. (fact=)Other settings can be on "Auto" or choose your own. If you just put it to Enable it does everything by it self.
2.(fact=) PBO Scalar when on Disabled/Auto is by default X1. Only on "Manual" and other than X1 is doing something. Be aware of it as past the X2-3 the voltage feed of the CPU could be too high, or even stupid high... (X4/5+)

3. Some/a lot settings are placed into 2 different places.
AMD CBS
AMD Overclocking

4. I think the one overrides the other but cant remember which one. Also settings on "AMD Overclocking" cant be returned to default on auto clear CMOS/default settings after several failed boot attempts that most boards do.


----------



## 529th (Apr 28, 2021)

Are rounding errors with SSE CoreCylcer test important?


----------



## blu3dragon (Apr 28, 2021)

529th said:


> Are rounding errors with SSE CoreCylcer test important?



It means that your current settings are not stable.  So yes, it is important.


----------



## kiddagoat (Apr 28, 2021)

Ryzen 5000 Precision Boost Overdrive 2 Guide - YouTube

This video helped me out tremendously.  He breaks this down and explains just about all of the settings.  I found this one night after I got my 5900x.  

I haven't dialed in my curve yet, but I am currently at -15 on all cores and I boost 4.7ghz all cores and I have seen single cores get up to 5.1-5.2ghz.  

Lots of patience and trial and error.


----------



## blu3dragon (Apr 28, 2021)

Nantes said:


> But see the second screenshot. In order to access all the options you can see, it must be set to "advanced", which must mean it is on, otherwise there would be no point in setting any of the options it reveals. Which of the OTHER options besides "PBO -> Advanced" must be turned on for PBO to work from this menu? PBO limits?



It might help to think of it like this:

PBO stands for precision boost override.  Precision boost is the stock functionality that is used to calculate what clock speed to run the cpu at.  It does this based on a number of factors including power, temp, voltage required for stability at a given frequency, max safe voltage, etc.

PBO allows you to over-ride some of the stock settings for power, temp, etc.  Typically PBO is used to increase the stock power limits.  You can also use it to lower them, as well as lower or raise temp limits.

So, when you "enable" PBO, you also need to make sure that the settings for power, temp, etc are as you want them.  If they are all still at the default setting, then simply enabling PBO as a feature won't change anything.

In the ASUS bios, there is an ASUS provided menu for PBO control.  This is the one under the "AI Tweaker" tab.  When you enable PBO in this tab, the bios automatically increases the stock power limits.  As far as I have seen, any settings for power limits, etc, in this tab take priority over ones in the Advanced menu.  i.e. whatever power limit is set here will be the one that is used, regardless of what is set in the "Advanced" tab.

The "Advanced" tab has the options that AMD exposes as part of the standard AGESA implementation.

So, you basically have the ASUS menu (under AI Tweaker) and the AMD menu (under Advanced).

*My recommendation is to do all of your settings under the ASUS provided "AI Tweaker" menu, since those settings take priority.  *Leave everything under Advanced->AMD Overclocking at default/auto or motherboard to make sure there is no conflict.
*The one exception to this is when you come to tune curve offsets*, since those are not available in the AI Tweaker section.
For those, adjust under Advanced->AMD Overclocking->Precision Boost Override->Curve Optimizer.

Be careful that if you disable PBO, the Curve Optimizer settings still take effect (even though the menu disappears in the bios).  So, if you want to return to stock, you need to either reset the bios completely, or make sure to go in and zero all off the curve offsets before disabling PBO or returning any of the other settings to stock.


----------



## Nantes (May 6, 2021)

I'm testing my curve optimizer undervolts with CoreCycler, and it turns out my new 5600x's Core 1 returns rounding errors even with no offset (negative offset set to 0). Does this mean this core is defective (and if so, is it worth it to activate my warranty just for this)? Or should I attempt to fix this by applying a positive offset?

@blu3dragon thank you for your info!


----------



## motleyguts (May 7, 2021)

Nantes said:


> I'm testing my curve optimizer undervolts with CoreCycler, and it turns out my new 5600x's Core 1 returns rounding errors even with no offset (negative offset set to 0). Does this mean this core is defective (and if so, is it worth it to activate my warranty just for this)? Or should I attempt to fix this by applying a positive offset?
> 
> @blu3dragon thank you for your info!



I'm just learning about this CoreCycler and the ins and outs of PBO, etc, but I have to ask, does this core pass with XMP (DOCP) turned off? Also, how much influence does LLC have? I've run prime95 for hours at various settings and found neg30 to all but my last core at neg27 was stable for hours upon hours (Edit: That includes monitoring HWiNFO64 and verifying clock and effective clock are matching). Now I run this CoreCycler, and they're failing within a minute or so, so now I feel like I don't know up from down, left from right. Back to testing!


----------



## Nantes (May 8, 2021)

motleyguts said:


> I'm just learning about this CoreCycler and the ins and outs of PBO, etc, but I have to ask, does this core pass with XMP (DOCP) turned off? Also, how much influence does LLC have? I've run prime95 for hours at various settings and found neg30 to all but my last core at neg27 was stable for hours upon hours (Edit: That includes monitoring HWiNFO64 and verifying clock and effective clock are matching). Now I run this CoreCycler, and they're failing within a minute or so, so now I feel like I don't know up from down, left from right. Back to testing!



That's interesting, because CoreCycler at default settings uses none other than Prime95. What's probably happening is that you were running Prime95 on all cores, which makes the cores reach a lower clock, whereas CoreCycler runs Prime95 on one core at a time, which reaches a high clock. Compare my 5600x running 4050 MHz all cores vs. 4650 MHz on one core on CoreCycler. The higher clock exposes the instability.

It's also worth noting that it's unlikely all your cores really are stable at -27 or below. Check out the offsets I reached: -9, +3, -25, -14, -19, 7. They are all over the place. You'd have to have bought a processor hand-picked by Jesus himself for all cores to be stable with the offsets you describe (or perhaps by Beelzebub himself, since I've read that the cores that are unstable with a not-very-negative offset is because they're already receiving their optimal voltage/are good cores).

An update to my issue: In the end I just grit my teeth and put +3 offset on Core 1, it seems to be perfectly stable now.


----------



## motleyguts (May 8, 2021)

Nantes said:


> That's interesting, because CoreCycler at default settings uses none other than Prime95. What's probably happening is that you were running Prime95 on all cores, which makes the cores reach a lower clock, whereas CoreCycler runs Prime95 on one core at a time, which reaches a high clock. Compare my 5600x running 4050 MHz all cores vs. 4650 MHz on one core on CoreCycler. The higher clock exposes the instability.
> 
> It's also worth noting that it's unlikely all your cores really are stable at -27 or below. Check out the offsets I reached: -9, +3, -25, -14, -19, 7. They are all over the place. You'd have to have bought a processor hand-picked by Jesus himself for all cores to be stable with the offsets you describe (or perhaps by Beelzebub himself, since I've read that the cores that are unstable with a not-very-negative offset is because they're already receiving their optimal voltage/are good cores).
> 
> An update to my issue: In the end I just grit my teeth and put +3 offset on Core 1, it seems to be perfectly stable now.



It wasn't too terrible dialing in the offsets. I just watched twitch and youtube while corecycler did its thing. I ended up at -28, -20, -28, -29, -16, -18, -27, -14 with +200Mhz boost. I run some single core benches and older games and wanted to keep that boost. 7's the dreamer wanting to kiss 5050Mhz which is probably why it needs -14 to reach it, but it was a recurring theme during reboots, cursing 4, 5, and 7 for dashing my plans.

I'll throw an Arctic Freezer II 280mm aio on it today or tomorrow, and then I'll finally be able to see the RAM again, hiding underneath a Noctua NH-D14 120mm fan. I'll be able to pull 2 sticks and maybe do some better bench runs.


----------



## blu3dragon (May 12, 2021)

motleyguts said:


> It wasn't too terrible dialing in the offsets. I just watched twitch and youtube while corecycler did its thing. I ended up at -28, -20, -28, -29, -16, -18, -27, -14 with +200Mhz boost. I run some single core benches and older games and wanted to keep that boost. 7's the dreamer wanting to kiss 5050Mhz which is probably why it needs -14 to reach it, but it was a recurring theme during reboots, cursing 4, 5, and 7 for dashing my plans.
> 
> I'll throw an Arctic Freezer II 280mm aio on it today or tomorrow, and then I'll finally be able to see the RAM again, hiding underneath a Noctua NH-D14 120mm fan. I'll be able to pull 2 sticks and maybe do some better bench runs.



Those are still some very impressive offsets.

You might want to try leaving corecycler running when you are not using the pc as those background tasks could be lowering your boost clocks.


----------



## craxton (Jun 20, 2021)

Most of you running stable in everything with a CO offset but crash at some point during idle. It's called DF-CSTATES turn it OFF in bios. Also, download zanstates to turn off c6 package all together. I had stable CO on my 5600x values of, -15, -20, -15, +8, -11, -15 and passed core cycler 12 hour runs with all fft sizes, passes prime 95, y-cruncher, etc but upon idle would crash. Someone else mentioned this to me so I take no credit.
I'll also add I'm running a 4x8 3200c14 kit of tforce dark pro bdie @4000mhz 1:1 mode. (Tuned)
if you go to the ZEN overclocking spread sheet, im on there. (notes to consider, ive lowered my IOD, CCD and SOC voltages ALOT since
posting this submission on that spreadsheet. but none the less, my RAM is stable, and now finally my CO values are too.
(you can also use an exe called TOOL hard to find, but it will tell you your silicon quality, (if it works right, some have issues as do i)
stating i have a 80 sil quality. will attach zenstates download and this "tool" as thats what its called, to my gdrive.





						ZenStates_2.0.0_debug_20210120 - Google Drive
					






					drive.google.com
				









						Tool1007 - Google Drive
					






					drive.google.com
				




(using tool go to DB query, then select  amd v/f select number of cores etc, then hit get sil.... (also has a monitor feature but it wont stay open long
due to its poll rate being so high.)
as for zenstates, simply open it and go to power, then turn off package C6 state, (this will need done upon every reboot) unless you allow it to 
run at start up. 
you can also overclock you processor etc with this. (so be careful).


----------



## squallypo (Jul 23, 2021)

Hi everyone I'm new in this topic and i wanna make sure I'm doing something right for my system since my aim is to keep a more cooler cpu in general without damaging any component of my PC but keeping the performance if possible.
Now I found this video and i wanna make sure this is actually accurate and it's safe to do
I must add that I'm using a ryzen 5600x with an aorus elite b550m Mobo















Also I know it might be just marketing but why does it says in the warning section that undervolting may damage or shorten the life or the processor or any other system components ? So there's a risk at doing this ? 
someone in another forum suggested me to put these values in the pictures i added, not sure if they are right for me so i havent applied them yet.

thanks for your time !


----------



## Mussels (Jul 23, 2021)

undervolting wont kill the system, but that -30 is pretty aggressive and might be unstable


----------



## Makaveli (Jul 23, 2021)

Mussels said:


> undervolting wont kill the system, but that -30 is pretty aggressive and might be unstable


yup if you are going use CO at all cores and not per core I would start at maybe -10 on all cores then slowly test and work my way up.


----------



## squallypo (Jul 23, 2021)

So doing undervolt won't damage the cpu or any other part at all ? Long-term speaking.
And I tested what the person did on the video and it's impressive how the temps lowers very significantly while keeping the cores working as normally would, so at least under some kind of load the system seemed stable at -30 on all cores in curve optimizer, didn't got to test on idle yet so as you guys said that might be the trick to test, also say if I jusr wanna do this unfervolting through curve optimizer and keep my clocks as default without adding any more Mhz , is fine no ? Theres not some kind of tradeoff I need to perform in order to get the clocks I aim to get ?

Also why i notice that some fiddle around with the values in ppt, tdc and EDC? Is it for ocing factor ? Is it find to keep it disabled while doing curve optimizer undervolting ? Or even just leave it at default and just doing the co undervolting?


----------



## Makaveli (Jul 23, 2021)

I would download and run corecycler to test for stability.









						CoreCycler - tool for testing Curve Optimizer settings
					

Over the last couple of days resp. weeks I've been working with the Curve Optimizer for Ryzen processors a bit more, but I hadn't found a good way to test the settings for stability. CineBench single threaded almost always worked fine, and getting Prime95 stable with load on all cores was also...




					www.overclock.net


----------



## squallypo (Jul 23, 2021)

Makaveli said:


> I would download and run corecycler to test for stability.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Doing this as we speak and i noticed how it's running iterations but the number of iterations are set to 1000 by default, isn't that gonna take a very long time ? I did change the runtimepercore to 60 seconds


----------



## jesdals (Jul 23, 2021)

squallypo said:


> Hi everyone I'm new in this topic and i wanna make sure I'm doing something right for my system since my aim is to keep a more cooler cpu in general without damaging any component of my PC but keeping the performance if possible.
> Now I found this video and i wanna make sure this is actually accurate and it's safe to do
> I must add that I'm using a ryzen 5600x with an aorus elite b550m Mobo
> 
> ...


You can make pics by pressing F12 in that bios


----------



## Makaveli (Jul 23, 2021)

squallypo said:


> Doing this as we speak and i noticed how it's running iterations but the number of iterations are set to 1000 by default, isn't that gonna take a very long time ? I did change the runtimepercore to 60 seconds


You don't have to wait that long if a core is going to fail it will do it fairly quickly.


----------



## squallypo (Jul 23, 2021)

Makaveli said:


> You don't have to wait that long if a core is going to fail it will do it fairly quickly.


alright im back with results:







cinebench30min test hwinfo64 log
also added the log file of the cinebench test

let me know if everything is working as intended.
what i did on bios was just disable pbo limits (not on manual nor motherboard )
and on curve optimizer set all cores at -30


----------



## Zach_01 (Jul 26, 2021)

Curve Optimizer is a little more complicated than just an undervolt mechanism. While negative offsets are indeed undervolt the CPU will increase speed and its PBO limits (PPT/EDC/TDC) way beyond its stock limits. This increases temp dramatically.
If anyone wants to keep it as safe as possible and wants just undervolt must set the desired limits of PBO or have it completely at stock.

Default limits of 5600X are:
PPT: 76W
TDC: 60A
EDC: 90A

I would consider the following as safe if cooling device can keep it at reasonable levels (80~85C max, 100% load).

PPT: 90~95W
TDC: 70~75A
EDC: 100~110A

Max operating temp for 5000 is 90C.


----------



## squallypo (Jul 26, 2021)

Zach_01 said:


> Curve Optimizer is a little more complicated than just an undervolt mechanism. While negative offsets are indeed undervolt the CPU will increase speed and its PBO limits (PPT/EDC/TDC) way beyond its stock limits. This increases temp dramatically.
> If anyone wants to keep it as safe as possible and wants just undervolt must set the desired limits of PBO or have it completely at stock.
> 
> Default limits of 5600X are:
> ...


Isn't disabling pbo limits like having it at stock ? Cause when I ran cinebench i had open Ryzen master and the PPT , EDC and tdc were at the values that you mentioned as stock


----------



## freeagent (Jul 26, 2021)

Core cycler fails for me with my current settings.. I get no hardware errors, no junk files, no bluscreens, passes every single thing, except that program. I can fold, wcg, game, internet, desktop just fine.. no errors. Not a random number generator at all.. but is a kickass calculator.. all core set to -30 +200 with custom ppt tdc edc and she rips. Falls on its face with core cycler, so I suppose it is a random number generator 

The 5900X’s that are faster at superpi-32m than mine at hwbot are running at 5500MHz+

For now 

It was difficult to tune the 5900X compared to the 5600X. That’s when I realized we aren’t controlling any limits, just manipulating them.. at least on the big CPU’s. Even on the small ones too I suppose, but there is way less going on and you can use pbo to brute force it to top clocks all the time, the big ones you have to cheat a little.


----------



## Zach_01 (Jul 26, 2021)

squallypo said:


> Isn't disabling pbo limits like having it at stock ? Cause when I ran cinebench i had open Ryzen master and the PPT , EDC and tdc were at the values that you mentioned as stock


Indeed it is...


----------



## Mussels (Jul 27, 2021)

Zach_01 said:


> Curve Optimizer is a little more complicated than just an undervolt mechanism. While negative offsets are indeed undervolt the CPU will increase speed and its PBO limits (PPT/EDC/TDC) way beyond its stock limits. This increases temp dramatically.
> If anyone wants to keep it as safe as possible and wants just undervolt must set the desired limits of PBO or have it completely at stock.
> 
> Default limits of 5600X are:
> ...



Throwing that in the PBO link in my sig


----------



## freeagent (Jul 27, 2021)

Zach_01 said:


> I would consider the following as safe if cooling device can keep it at reasonable levels (80~85C max, 100% load).
> 
> PPT: 90~95W
> TDC: 70~75A
> EDC: 100~110A


On my 5600X:

PPT: 200W
TDC: 140
EDC: 180

+200MHz All core set to -30 = Perfectly safe, runs cool, rips  hard.


----------



## squallypo (Jul 27, 2021)

freeagent said:


> On my 5600X:
> 
> PPT: 200W
> TDC: 140
> ...


but im guessing you have AIO cooling system no?


----------



## Taraquin (Jul 29, 2021)

Been running -30 allcore and +50MHz pbo for 3 months now, still stable and a bit faster and cooler than stock  Currently running PPT 45W since I run monerominer with nicehash.


----------



## Mussels (Jul 29, 2021)

I'm gunna guess 5600x get all the cherry picked cores, you lucky undervolting bastards


----------



## freeagent (Jul 30, 2021)

squallypo said:


> but im guessing you have AIO cooling system no?


No sir, just an air cooler.


----------



## squallypo (Jul 30, 2021)

freeagent said:


> No sir, just an air cooler.


im really tempted to try your config.
which cooler you got ?


----------



## freeagent (Jul 30, 2021)

squallypo said:


> im really tempted to try your config.
> which cooler you got ?


I am using Thermalright FC140.. I think the only place to get it is Aliexpress but I could be wrong


----------



## Zach_01 (Jul 30, 2021)

Mussels said:


> I'm gunna guess 5600x get all the cherry picked cores, you lucky undervolting bastards




Usually though, low segmented SKUs are getting the worst silicon. At least that was the case with R5 3600. If you think about it, there is no (reasonable) point for AMD to cherry pick silicon for the “low end” part of the whole series.
If any CPU “needs” the best cores that would be the 5800X.

I’m guessing that since 5000 series the 7nm node has improved much overall. 5600X being the only single CCD 6core(active) CPU on 8core CCD, maybe this is giving it the edge.

Just a thought I’m not going to pretend that I know facts.


----------



## Mussels (Jul 30, 2021)

Zach_01 said:


> Usually though, low segmented SKUs are getting the worst silicon. At least that was the case with R5 3600. If you think about it, there is no (reasonable) point for AMD to cherry pick silicon for the “low end” part of the whole series.
> If any CPU “needs” the best cores that would be the 5800X.
> 
> I’m guessing that since 5000 series the 7nm node has improved much overall. 5600X being the only single CCD 6core(active) CPU on 8core CCD, maybe this is giving it the edge.
> ...


well, with the 5600x and 5800x starting as the same chip, the odds on the 5600x having all better cores is actually higher - only needs one weak core to not make the 5800x cut, leaving 6-7 good ones as a possibility


----------



## freeagent (Jul 30, 2021)

Just throwing this out there, but I have a very hard time getting my 5600X stable at more than 4850.. 4900 is good for some light benching. So looking at how cores alone scale I don’t think it’s that good of a bin..


----------



## Taraquin (Jul 30, 2021)

Mussels said:


> I'm gunna guess 5600x get all the cherry picked cores, you lucky undervolting bastards


It's a bit easier to UV 5600X due to lower SC speed and fewer cores  Freeagents sample is unusual though. Getting a 5800X with 2 extra cores and 200MHz higher stock speed stable at -30 CO is a bit trickier


----------



## freeagent (Jul 30, 2021)

I don’t know.. I didn’t know anything about AM4 when I bought into it.. just noob tunes that’s all.. someone should send me their cpu to play with to see if I can get it to do the same thing 

Don’t worry you would get it back


----------



## Zach_01 (Jul 30, 2021)

Mussels said:


> well, with the 5600x and 5800x starting as the same chip, the odds on the 5600x having all better cores is actually higher - only needs one weak core to not make the 5800x cut, leaving 6-7 good ones as a possibility


Comparing those two I could agree, yes.


Taraquin said:


> It's a bit easier to UV 5600X due to lower SC speed and fewer cores  Freeagents sample is unusual though. Getting a 5800X with 2 extra cores and 200MHz higher stock speed stable at -30 CO is a bit trickier


5600X(s) are also 8core parts (CCDs). Have 2 cores disabled that didn't make it. Defective from beginning or after through evaluation or just disabled because AMD wanted 6core CPUs.

Actually you have to think every 8core CCD as exactly the same on the 7nm node. From 5600X to 5950X.

5950X gets the best CDDs and 5600X the worst(?). AMD has to segment *all core performance* equivalent to core count as much as possible.

Does the 5950X (2x8core) performs twice (+100%) as a 5800X (1x8core)? No...
5950X performs about +55~85% better than a 5800X *but on about the same power consumption (140~142W).* No doubt 5950X has the better cores and already a "high" negative V/F curve compared to 5800X by AMD.

Now, comparing the same way the 5900X (2x8core but 2x6c active) with 5600X (1x8core but 1x6c active) is a little different because of their different power consumption. 5900X has 87% higher power draw from 5600X. Does it perform 87% better? Is it by avg higher or lower than 87%?
Well if you check benchmarks you'll see that a 5900X performs by avg around 90% better than 5600X. So the cores of 5900X are same or even a little better than 5600X.

So far
5950X better than 5800X
5900X slightly better than 5600X

5900X lands in between the 5950X and 5800X in terms of quality (best cores) because all 3 have the same power draw 140~142W.

So far
1. 5950X
2. 5900X
3. 5800X

Where does 5600X goes though? Easy...

5900X has 50% more cores, and around 30~40% more performance, but the same power compared to 5800X. You can say its a big difference in quality.
5950X has 33% more cores, and around 25~30% more performance, but the same power compared to 5900X. You can say its a substantial difference in quality.
So if 5600X has cores with same or slightly worst quality from 5900X then we have it all.

In terms of core quality the order is this:
1. 5950X
2. 5900X
3. 5600X
4. 5800X

Its not hard to understand that 5600X(s) have the best headroom for negative V/F curve from stock settings because of their low stock power draw compared to all other 5000 SKUs.
Its product segmentation.


----------



## blu3dragon (Aug 6, 2021)

Early on the rumor was that 5800x was unavailable and priced relatively close to the 5900x because it needed a completely working die and AMD could equally use those for a 5950x.
5900x max stock boost clock is 4950MHz I think, vs 4850MHz for the 5800x.  5800x needs 8 cores that good, while 5900x only needs 6 per die.  It depends on the yield AMD is getting.  Are there more chips with 6 good cores that can make 4950MHz, or more with all 8 cores working that can't quite make the 4950MHz cut?  My guess would be the former.

Either way, I think it is reasonable to say that a 5800x will have a better die than a 5600x.  In the worst case, you could disable the two worst cores on a 5800x to make higher clock speeds :-D  (Although I don't know a way to pick which actual cores are turned off)

The other factor here (as mentioned already) is that a CO of e.g. -5 on a 5800x is not equivalent to a CO of -5 on a 5600x, since the curve set from the factory is not the same.  As I understand it, the curve is actually set per cpu, so even from one 5800x to another, -5 does not mean the core will be getting the same voltage.  -5 on two cores on the same chip doesn't even mean that.


----------



## Taraquin (Aug 7, 2021)

With OCCT v9, how do you setup for testing CO stability?


----------



## Nordic (Aug 7, 2021)

Mussels said:


> We just need an automated way to tune in the curve optimiser and we'll allllll be happy.


I just started messing with core optimizer and isn't this the truth. It would be really nice if a script could change the core optimizer value and stress test from the bios. It would only require simple if then logic.
1) Set Core X to -5
2) Stress test Core X for Y minutes
3) If the test completed successfully, set Core X an additional -5, and repeat step 2. If the test failed, set Core X +1, and repeat Step 2. Do not test the same value twice.

Blue Dragons testing script is helpful but not the whole package. It seems like it would be trivially easy to run some sort of simple stress test at the bios level and let the motherboard figure this out automatically. Or in the OS if we could access the curve optimizer settings.


I do have a question. Is it worth trying to tune curve optimizer if I am on air cooling and thermally limited?


----------



## tabascosauz (Aug 7, 2021)

Nordic said:


> I just started messing with core optimizer and isn't this the truth. It would be really nice if a script could change the core optimizer value and stress test from the bios. It would only require simple if then logic.
> 1) Set Core X to -5
> 2) Stress test Core X for Y minutes
> 3) If the test completed successfully, set Core X an additional -5, and repeat step 2. If the test failed, set Core X +1, and repeat Step 2. Do not test the same value twice.
> ...



Technically AMD probably has access to CO through Ryzen Master since it's all under the same submenu, but we all know that it's not the most polished/reliable software around, frankly wouldn't trust it even if it did...

People entrusted their Renoir APUs to 1usmus CTR and it ran 1.5V all core through them to verify an "overclock" soooo I would just stick to BIOS and forget about this software convenience BS.

If you want to be reasonably stable then the default corecycler settings script is fine, so 6 minutes per core. Run through it 2-3 times and you're good, all in a day's work.

But I still stick to the 68 minute All FFT config, insane amount of time to test but at least I know it's 110% stable. Been running my 5900X curve and it still holds after switching to the B550 Unify-X. Still haven't proven it wrong.

Then there's also the OCCT test that does basically the same thing but is a bit better structured/polished. I don't use it yet but @freeagent likes it

Might explore some different testing methodologies for my 5600G. Currently at -15 no problems but fine tuning still needed.


----------



## freeagent (Aug 7, 2021)

I use OCCT, Linpack Xtreme, TM5, Superpi 32m, y-cruncher, and a few others..

If I were to run core cycler my system would fail in seconds lol.

So its absolutely stable, but its not..


----------



## Nordic (Aug 8, 2021)

I am running core cycler 1 minutes per core starting from a value of negative 10. If it passes the test, I increase the value by 1. If it fails I decrease it by 1. When I find the highest value a core can use, I have core cycler ignore that core.

Usually the cores that fail, fail immediately. This method is painfully slow. It would be really nice if I could automate it. So far after 5 runs I have only found the final value for Core 9. Oddly enough, the cores I thought were my best are the ones that keep failing.

After I have completed this process, I should have a fairly good idea of what my curve looks like. I intend to let core cycler run for an hour per core and use other stress tests to ensure stability after.

I am unclear on a few things though. I don't know if I am going to have to go through this process again when I install water cooling. I am thermally limited right now. I was also planning on trying out x2 scaling to see if that makes a difference, but that isn't worth trying until I have water cooling anyway.


----------



## tabascosauz (Aug 8, 2021)

Nordic said:


> Oddly enough, the cores I thought were my best are the ones that keep failing.



Welcome to 2CCD haha, sample size still too small but I suspect average 5900X/5950X don't usually have much real undervolt headroom on their 2 preferred cores

Mine looks like this:




For preliminary testing I'd say default 6min is worth it, given that it cycles every few seconds. Anything stable on default config already shouldn't give you major problems in daily usage, just give it a couple loops as stability may not be consistent. Then if you REALLY want to ensure stability do the All FFT hour or long OCCT testing, but I'm just OCD


----------



## Nordic (Aug 8, 2021)

Cores 0,1, and 4 are down to CO -7 and going down. Core 9 is settled at CO -11. The rest of the cores up to -16 and just keep going. It would be really nice if this was automated. Not sure how far this will go.

It seemed stable at all cores -10 too. I was considering leaving it there because it worked fine and a 15% multi threaded improvement is not bad at all. Good thing I am stability testing.


----------



## tabascosauz (Aug 8, 2021)

Nordic said:


> Cores 0,1, and 4 are down to CO -7 and going down. Core 9 is settled at CO -11. The rest of the cores up to -16 and just keep going. It would be really nice if this was automated. Not sure how far this will go.
> 
> It seemed stable at all cores -10 too. I was considering leaving it there because it worked fine and a 15% multi threaded improvement is not bad at all. Good thing I am stability testing.



On the 6min config I was "stable" at -7 and -10 on 0 and 1. No real instability symptoms from any of the cores so clearly usable, honestly, but once I went to the exhaustive 68min config it was quickly apparent that those two cores could go no further than -2 and -7.

But yeah, unless you get really lucky and can push more than -15 on those preferred cores only, little ST benefit since the algorithm cannot be forced to use any other cores. As in the picture Core 2 easily becomes the best core after -30 CO, but I cannot ever use it. MT gets a big boost but might still be hotter at iso-voltage

Optimumtech said that CO benefits ST temps greatly, but he was testing at -15 to -30. Zero difference here at -2 and -7.


----------



## freeagent (Aug 8, 2021)

I should take the time to play with it like that.. its just so tedious lol..


----------



## Nordic (Aug 8, 2021)

freeagent said:


> I should take the time to play with it like that.. its just so tedious lol..


Extremely tedious. I have a timer going so that I know when to come back, see what failed, input new values into the bios, and start all over. In the mean time I have made tremendous progress on a yard project. I am very happy that I have Core Cycler to automate some of the steps.


----------



## freeagent (Aug 8, 2021)

Honestly.. I just used SuperPi 32M to tune my single core boost, every other program I use will just bring all the cores down to one speed and float around by a few MHz, that's why I didn't try to exploit each core because I didn't think windows was smart enough to use the cores like that. 

It was not that easy to do lol.. those guys have some skill for sure 

SuperPi - 32M with BenchMate overclocking records @ HWBOT


----------



## Nordic (Aug 8, 2021)

It took several hours of the smallest amount of stability testing but I finally have rough numbers.

Core 0-7​Core 11​Core 2-30​Core 3-18​Core 4-5​Core 5-30​Core 6-30​Core 7-30​Core 8-30​Core 9-11​Core 10-28​Core 11-24​Core 12-30​Core 13-30​Core 14-18​Core 15-30​


----------



## Taraquin (Aug 8, 2021)

What is the quickest way to test CO stability? Get a rough indication? Considering trying to get +200 pbo stable. Everything at -30 allcore and +50 is rock stable since May, but I get rare reboots if I try +100 or more. +200 was stable for 24H, then suddenly pc restartet at medium load.


----------



## tabascosauz (Aug 8, 2021)

Nordic said:


> It took several hours of the smallest amount of stability testing but I finally have rough numbers.



Default config test? That's some commitment right there  took me the better part of a month to work mine out and I was still cutting corners by sticking to multiples of 5 on ten of the cores

Positive offset is some kind of mystical beast on these chips lol, this is probably the 2nd time I've ever seen it



Taraquin said:


> What is the quickest way to test CO stability? Get a rough indication? Considering trying to get +200 pbo stable. Everything at -30 allcore and +50 is rock stable since May, but I get rare reboots if I try +100 or more. +200 was stable for 24H, then suddenly pc restartet at medium load.



Corecycler script, don't change the config from default, close all possible background apps and disconnect from internet. Run the script, it tests each core for 6 minutes then cycles to the next one.

Let it keep going and observe every once in a while until it's gone through every core 2-3 times. Get thru 3 iterations without errors and I'd say that's good enough for most ppl. Shouldn't take long at all on a 6-core.

I'll probably be doing the same tonight for my 5600G, sitting on lazy -15 all core right now but I need to test.


----------



## Taraquin (Aug 8, 2021)

tabascosauz said:


> Default config test? That's some commitment right there  took me the better part of a month to work mine out and I was still cutting corners by sticking to multiples of 5 on ten of the cores
> 
> Positive offset is some kind of mystical beast on these chips lol, this is probably the 2nd time I've ever seen it
> 
> ...


Went through 2 full cycles now, all at -30, except one core at -28, had error in 1 cycle at one core, but -28 fixed it. Satisfied with performance


----------



## freeagent (Aug 8, 2021)

With the stock clock range I get errors @ -30 CO on my 5900. After that I just didn't care too much. I don't think windows uses the cores the way core cycler does, not even remotely..


----------



## Nordic (Aug 8, 2021)

tabascosauz said:


> Default config test? That's some commitment right there  took me the better part of a month to work mine out and I was still cutting corners by sticking to multiples of 5 on ten of the cores
> 
> Positive offset is some kind of mystical beast on these chips lol, this is probably the 2nd time I've ever seen it


As per my earlier post, I ran core cycler at 1 minute per core until it didn't fail. When it did fail, it almost always failed within seconds. This gave me the very rough numbers I shared above. While I slept last night, I ran Core Cycler 20 minutes per core and it only found an error on Core 0. I intend to Run Core Cycler until I get no errors anymore then try OCCT.

To my knowledge, I am the third invididual in this long thread who had a positive offset. I suspect I needed a positive offset because I have LLC set to 3.


----------



## freeagent (Aug 8, 2021)

You should only need LLC when running manual all core clocks no? Like 1 clock 1 voltage?


----------



## Nordic (Aug 8, 2021)

freeagent said:


> You should only need LLC when running manual all core clocks no? Like 1 clock 1 voltage?


Before I started down this path, I read several 5000's series overclocking guides, watched several overclocking guide videos, and even read this WHOLE thread. Several of the guides recommended LLC + Curve Optimizer both lower voltage. Given that I now have one core in the positive, I think the LLC and PBO might work better for a golden chip. Mine is not that.


----------



## freeagent (Aug 8, 2021)

I should get on that.. I haven't watched any videos, just a little on reddit and some scraps of info that google gave me.


----------



## Nordic (Aug 8, 2021)

freeagent said:


> I should get on that.. I haven't watched any videos, just a little on reddit and some scraps of info that google gave me.


This curve optimizer stuff is not inutitive. I was mainly searching for a way to test each core efficiently. To be honest, I found the best information in scattered throughout this thread. I didn't see anything about Core Cycler elsewhere.


----------



## freeagent (Aug 8, 2021)

Nordic said:


> This curve optimizer stuff is not inutitive.


Well.. its just tedious. Once I started getting closer to the 0 mark in CO I gave up lol. It does what I need it to do.. no errors anywhere, no bad files, no bad logs.. seems ok to me! The heaviest of loads like Linpack run at 4500, a little lighter with OCCT at about 4750, TM5 runs at 4850, SuperPi runs at 5100-5150, Cinebench runs at about 4700, F@H runs at 4550-4650. If my limits aren't where they should be I don't see that 5150 and if I do it crashes. If it can hold that 5150 it should be good everywhere else.. maybe.


----------



## Nordic (Aug 8, 2021)

I almost left curve optimizer alone for much better than stock performance. I really wanted the pleasure of having tuned the chip.

Heavy loads aren't helpful for testing your CO. By everything I have read, you want a light load that minimizes heat encouraging your cpu to hit the highest core clocks. Heavier loads may run hotter, preventing it from reaching higher core clocks where edge cases might be found.

Oddly enough, one of the best stability tests is windows recovery. Core Cycler makes it easy by automating the testing of each core.

If it is too tedious for you, that's fine. Enjoy the performance and go play games rather than tinker and tune.


----------



## freeagent (Aug 8, 2021)

Nordic said:


> Heavy loads aren't helpful for testing your CO. By everything I have read, you want a light load that minimizes heat encouraging your cpu to hit the highest core clocks. Heavier loads may run hotter, preventing it from reaching higher core clocks where edge cases might be found.


Normally that would be true. And you would see that while setting your PPT TDC and EDC. Its about balance with the bigger chips. With my 5600 I set it to my max all core clock and let er rip with Linpack. I took note of what it was pulling, and added those values in bios. I was then able to set -30 and she boosts and holds 4850 for just about everything. Heavy stuff still dips to 4650-4750, but not under.. shit now I have to plug it in again to make sure I am not full of shit. Pretty sure it doesn't go under 4650.. my 5900 was way different, the way I did my 5600 was not working at all for the 5900. I had to take to google for that one


----------



## Nordic (Aug 8, 2021)

freeagent said:


> Normally that would be true. And you would see that while setting your PPT TDC and EDC. Its about balance with the bigger chips. With my 5600 I set it to my max all core clock and let er rip with Linpack. I took note of what it was pulling, and added those values in bios. I was then able to set -30 and she boosts and holds 4850 for just about everything. Heavy stuff still dips to 4650-4750, but not under.. shit now I have to plug it in again to make sure I am not full of shit. Pretty sure it doesn't go under 4650.. my 5900 was way different, the way I did my 5600 was not working at all for the 5900. I had to take to google for that one


With curve optimizer you are telling each core to run at a lower voltage allowing that core to boost higher. At a certain point, you won't have enough voltage to run the peak boost clocks stable.

That is why when messing with CO, you want a light load. You want a work load that can push the cpu to peak boost clocks because you may have instability there.

That is why CO is so tedious. You need to test each core at its peak boost clock which is a moving target.

To make things worse for me, I will probably need to do all this stability testing again when I begin watercooling. Cooler temperatures will allow PBO to push the clocks further and more consistently. Settings that may have been stable on air because I couldn't sustain high enough boost clocks to trigger an error.

EDIT:


freeagent said:


> You should only need LLC when running manual all core clocks no? Like 1 clock 1 voltage?



I tried LLC level 3 on and off. It didn't matter for benchmarks or stability. I still have a positive offset with and without it on. I am going to leave it off going forward.


----------



## Taraquin (Aug 9, 2021)

freeagent said:


> With the stock clock range I get errors @ -30 CO on my 5900. After that I just didn't care too much. I don't think windows uses the cores the way core cycler does, not even remotely..


The second best core according to windows is actually my worst and the only one that can't run -30 at +200. Dunno where win get their info from...


----------



## Nordic (Aug 9, 2021)

One thing I have learned is if one of the cores fails to pass a stability check, go down by at least two. Going up or down by one is a pointless endeavor.

Having gone through this process, I think I might prefer the strategy I read earlier on in the thread to only move in increments of 5. If - 15 fails go down to - 10.

My two best cores according to Ryzen master both have positive offsets. Why can't I ever win the silicone lottery?


----------



## Taraquin (Aug 9, 2021)

Nordic said:


> One thing I have learned is if one of the cores fails to pass a stability check, go down by at least two. Going up or down by one is a pointless endeavor.
> 
> Having gone through this process, I think I might prefer the strategy I read earlier on in the thread to only move in increments of 5. If - 15 fails go down to - 10.
> 
> My two best cores according to Ryzen master both have positive offsets. Why can't I ever win the silicone lottery?


I apparently won the silicon lottery on my 5600X which does +200 at -30 CO (except one core at -28) and IF does 2066, BUT my ram is shit and barely does 4000cl16 at 1.47V at 2T. Guess you can`t win all  My Ryzen 3600 was horrible, best allcore it could do was 4.1@1.25V, I never saw it boosting to 4.2 and all core stock it ran 3.95


----------



## tabascosauz (Aug 9, 2021)

Nordic said:


> One thing I have learned is if one of the cores fails to pass a stability check, go down by at least two. Going up or down by one is a pointless endeavor.
> 
> Having gone through this process, I think I might prefer the strategy I read earlier on in the thread to only move in increments of 5. If - 15 fails go down to - 10.
> 
> My two best cores according to Ryzen master both have positive offsets. Why can't I ever win the silicone lottery?



Hence why 10 of my cores are multiples of 5 

My 3700X was bronze (if bronze = soggy cardboard), my 4650G was bronze, my 5900X is bronze, and I can't be arsed to find out where the all-core for my 5600G is.

Side note, I am a little bit crazy with requiring 4x or 5x iterations of 68 minute All FFTs for every core. However, I'm not _entirely _crazy. When Cezanne is unstable, it starts rattling off Cache Hierarchy event 19. And I DO MEAN rattling off. I never saw this level of error reporting on the 5900X, must be an APU thing.

You don't have to be visibly unstable in Corecycler to start collecting these - I'm still testing the default 6 minute config of Huge FFTs, and this is on like Iteration #6 with no errors in the test. So be very discerning as to the configuration you use in Corecycler, that's why the config.ini is there.







There's probably 200-300 WHEAs in there from the past 2 days alone. Every single one of them is Cache Hierarchy, so it's pretty obvious what's going on.

When I ran overnight, I think Core 1 survived something like 24 iterations before it started erroring out in the test. But we all know that's bullshit, because Event Viewer looks like a money printer. That's why I'm going back to the 68 minute config after the default testing.


----------



## outpt (Aug 9, 2021)

given up on core cycler. the true test is youtube/SoTTR. when playing with CO i use the SWAG principle aka scientific wild ass guess. still get all kinds of errors and so forth. if it doesn't bloo screen i ain't going to check event viewer.


----------



## Nordic (Aug 10, 2021)

My Core 0 and Core 1 are both at +15 now. Core Cycler keeps flagging them as having errors. This is getting absurd. Either I have the worst CPU ever or the testing methodology is flawed.


----------



## tabascosauz (Aug 10, 2021)

Nordic said:


> My Core 0 and Core 1 are both at +15 now. Core Cycler keeps flagging them as having errors. This is getting absurd. Either I have the worst CPU ever or the testing methodology is flawed.



What does OCCT say? If you're running PBO with +200MHz override I suppose you might have less impressive offsets.


----------



## Cheese_On_tsaot (Aug 10, 2021)

Overclocking my 5600x don't work, leave PBO on auto and forget it, same as my RAM, utter shite RAM I have.


----------



## MrDweezil (Aug 10, 2021)

Jumping into this thread since I recently got a 5900x. I went through the (painful) process of going one core at a time, starting at -30 and walking it back by 5 until each one could go through an hour of single core OCCT without errors. Took forever, but found those limits. Despite breezing through stress tests, my system was nearly guaranteed to crash within 90 seconds of sitting idle. The actual WHEA errors aren't much help, they tend to point to the same core regardless of if I set that core to -20, 0, or +5, so it seems to be a misleading manifestation of instability elsewhere. Without a better indication of which core is causing the trouble, I decided I would just blindly add +1 to every core's offset whenever it crashed. I've had to do that 3 times so far but I think I'm just about stable now.

Is there a better way to do this? Stress testing doesn't seem useful because if power consumption is on a curve, my issues seem to be toward the bottom of the curve so there's not enough voltage when the core is doing very little.


----------



## Nordic (Aug 10, 2021)

tabascosauz said:


> What does OCCT say? If you're running PBO with +200MHz override I suppose you might have less impressive offsets.


I haven't tried OCCT. I am not even running an offset. It is only boosting upto about 4900mhz.When I get back home I am going to turn everything to stock and see if I still have errors. Some cores can boost upto 5050mhz at -10 and lower in curve optimizer.


MrDweezil said:


> Is there a better way to do this?


We have Core Cycler, OCCT, and the wait and see approach.


----------



## tabascosauz (Aug 10, 2021)

Cheese_On_tsaot said:


> Overclocking my 5600x don't work, leave PBO on auto and forget it, same as my RAM, utter shite RAM I have.



Twas the story with my 3700X and 4650G, effects of [very] poor silicon quality.



MrDweezil said:


> Jumping into this thread since I recently got a 5900x. I went through the (painful) process of going one core at a time, starting at -30 and walking it back by 5 until each one could go through an hour of single core OCCT without errors. Took forever, but found those limits. Despite breezing through stress tests, my system was nearly guaranteed to crash within 90 seconds of sitting idle. The actual WHEA errors aren't much help, they tend to point to the same core regardless of if I set that core to -20, 0, or +5, so it seems to be a misleading manifestation of instability elsewhere. Without a better indication of which core is causing the trouble, I decided I would just blindly add +1 to every core's offset whenever it crashed. I've had to do that 3 times so far but I think I'm just about stable now.
> 
> Is there a better way to do this? Stress testing doesn't seem useful because if power consumption is on a curve, my issues seem to be toward the bottom of the curve so there's not enough voltage when the core is doing very little.



Welcome to TPU 

What are the actual WHEA errors though? Cache Hierarchy/L1 error should be the ones that result from unstable Curve Optimizer. Bus/Interconnect and Unknown are usually symptoms of Infinity Fabric, so it'd help to know what IF/RAM setup you're running to rule that out first.

But if it is a cores issue, from what you're describing it sounds like an idle voltage issue. Laziest fix is to disable Global C-states and Power Supply Low Current Idle (set to Typical), but really just a band-aid remedy. Have you tried testing stability at no PBO and no offset?



Nordic said:


> I haven't tried OCCT. I am not even running an offset. It is only boosting upto about 4900mhz.When I get back home I am going to turn everything to stock and see if I still have errors. Some cores can boost upto 5050mhz at -10 and lower in curve optimizer.
> 
> We have Core Cycler, OCCT, and the wait and see approach.



Perhaps run a quick diagnosis test in CTR and see what it says on quality? Dunno if all-core quality correlates with ST quality, but it's worth a shot. If it comes back with a Bronze sample and pretty low recommendations for all-core OC, might need to lower expectations a bit.

Actually now that I think about it, CTR should be a decent test. All-core stability is usually dictated and limited by your worst core(s), those are also the ones you will need to pay attention to in CO.

you need to be at stock for CTR, CO will skew your results


----------



## droopyRO (Aug 10, 2021)

For my 5600X it was simple. Set it to all cores -25, fail. -20 fail again, -15 success, it has been running like this since Gigabyte released the AGESA update.


----------



## Taraquin (Aug 10, 2021)

Occt is quick. In less than one hour I had all dialled in, been stable since.


----------



## MrDweezil (Aug 10, 2021)

tabascosauz said:


> What are the actual WHEA errors though? Cache Hierarchy/L1 error should be the ones that result from unstable Curve Optimizer. Bus/Interconnect and Unknown are usually symptoms of Infinity Fabric, so it'd help to know what IF/RAM setup you're running to rule that out first.


Thanks for explaining that because I've never seen this stated anywhere before but it matches my experience in trying to tweak this. The cache hierarchy errors clear up when reducing the undervolt for the stated core but the bus/interconnect ones stick around and the listed core doesn't seem to matter. I'm at 1800/3600 IF/RAM which doesn't seem all that aggressive. Things seem stable at those settings with PBO and CO disabled, or even with PBO set to mobo and CO disabled, so I think its a matter of "wait and see"-ing until I get the right offset values dialed in. Disabling the C states/idle power feels like a bad solution and I think I would just give up on CO before going that route.


----------



## tabascosauz (Aug 11, 2021)

MrDweezil said:


> Thanks for explaining that because I've never seen this stated anywhere before but it matches my experience in trying to tweak this. The cache hierarchy errors clear up when reducing the undervolt for the stated core but the bus/interconnect ones stick around and the listed core doesn't seem to matter. I'm at 1800/3600 IF/RAM which doesn't seem all that aggressive. Things seem stable at those settings with PBO and CO disabled, or even with PBO set to mobo and CO disabled, so I think its a matter of "wait and see"-ing until I get the right offset values dialed in. Disabling the C states/idle power feels like a bad solution and I think I would just give up on CO before going that route.



Disabling Cstates certainly isn't ideal but unless a new BIOS can magically solve the problem or you're willing to RMA there aren't many other options. My former 3700X was an absolute turd that required Cstates disabled on both the cores and IF front. Worked without a hitch as long as that was done.

You should leave Curve Optimizer to the end, work out your RAM and IF first, you need to be assured that any instability you encounter will be cores-related. 3600 isn't that aggressive (I can run 3600 at just 1.0375V VSOC), but I remember Bus/Interconnect being common on 2020 production 5900X/5950X. What's the batch number on yours? 

On the IF part, you can head over to the Ryzen thread and we can see if you post up a Zentimings screenshot


----------



## Nordic (Aug 11, 2021)

tabascosauz said:


> Perhaps run a quick diagnosis test in CTR and see what it says on quality? Dunno if all-core quality correlates with ST quality, but it's worth a shot. If it comes back with a Bronze sample and pretty low recommendations for all-core OC, might need to lower expectations a bit


Before messing with any bios overclocking, I ran CTR. It says silver sample. Hence why I think there is something wrong with my testing methodology.


----------



## tabascosauz (Aug 11, 2021)

Nordic said:


> Before messing with any bios overclocking, I ran CTR. It says silver sample. Hence why I think there is something wrong with my testing methodology.



Probably best to use PBO but manually set default power limits (142/95/140), should have the same effect as PBO off. But leave boost override at +200MHz. You'll still be able to push ST boost clocks to their max with default power limits.

Then if you want higher MT perf you can uncap the power limits later when you know that ST is for sure stable and all you have to test is all-core (which is trivially easy).

Sometimes high PBO power limits can tank ST performance. Still not sure why this is.

Are you still running only 1 minute iterations? It's not really long enough of a window to do much.


----------



## Nordic (Aug 11, 2021)

tabascosauz said:


> Probably best to use PBO but manually set default power limits (142/95/140), should have the same effect as PBO off. But leave boost override at +200MHz. You'll still be able to push ST boost clocks to their max with default power limits.
> 
> Then if you want higher MT perf you can uncap the power limits later when you know that ST is for sure stable and all you have to test is all-core (which is trivially easy).
> 
> ...


I haven't even been increasing the boost override because I have not even been hitting the limit.

I only ran 1 minute tests to get rough numbers. I have been doing 20 minute runs since to really fine tune the numbers.


----------



## tabascosauz (Aug 11, 2021)

Nordic said:


> I haven't even been increasing the boost override because I have not even been hitting the limit.
> 
> I only ran 1 minute tests to get rough numbers. I have been doing 20 minute runs since to really fine tune the numbers.



The config file has estimates for the time to get through a full cycle of different FFT sizes:


----------



## Nordic (Aug 11, 2021)

tabascosauz said:


> The config file has estimates for the time to get through a full cycle of different FFT sizes:
> 
> View attachment 212069


I am running 20 minutes because ((20 minutes * 16 cores) / 60 minutes)) *1.1 = about a 6 hour run time.


----------



## Nordic (Aug 13, 2021)

Nordic said:


> I haven't tried OCCT. I am not even running an offset. It is only boosting upto about 4900mhz.When I get back home I am going to turn everything to stock and see if I still have errors. Some cores can boost upto 5050mhz at -10 and lower in curve optimizer.


I set my bios back to their defaults. Everything is at default. I then set up core cycler to run over night at 20 minutes a core. Core Cycler is still finding errors are Core 0 and Core 1. These are the same cores that needed positive offsets earlier.

It seems I either have some A) Inherent instability somewhere or B) Core Cycler is a faulty testing mechanism.

When I get a chance I am going to try OCCT and see if it finds errors too.


----------



## freeagent (Aug 15, 2021)

Ok.. so.. this whole time that I have been saying I run 200 130 130 was a mistake. I had Asus performance enhancement enabled, and that brought tdc to 140 and edc to 180. Looking at my notes these are the same ppt tdc edc requirements to run the shit out of my 5600x. Soo.. I ran pi 32m a few times at 200 140 180 -30 +200 and it worked just fine, hit top boost better than I had it before, at least for single core stuff.. Not sure about multicore yet but it should be good I think..


----------



## outpt (Aug 15, 2021)

200,140,180 on a 5600x??????????????!


----------



## freeagent (Aug 15, 2021)

outpt said:


> 200,140,180 on a 5600x??????????????!


----------



## jesdals (Aug 21, 2021)

Did an update to my current curve settings at 275/125/115



Negative 30 is apparently lowest value on my Auros Master board. Negative 24 is minimum on core 0 - less than that and there is issues with stability in longer periods of idle desktop - freezes

you can see my settings here https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/threads/aorus-x570-master.257392/page-20


----------



## bubbleawsome (Aug 23, 2021)

jesdals said:


> Did an update to my current curve settings at 275/125/115
> View attachment 213603
> Negative 30 is apparently lowest value on my Auros Master board. Negative 24 is minimum on core 0 - less than that and there is issues with stability in longer periods of idle desktop - freezes
> 
> you can see my settings here https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/threads/aorus-x570-master.257392/page-20


That is some fantastic tuning or an awesome chip. Are those clocks seen during all-core loads, and is clock stretching not an issue on Zen3?


----------



## jesdals (Aug 23, 2021)

bubbleawsome said:


> That is some fantastic tuning or an awesome chip. Are those clocks seen during all-core loads, and is clock stretching not an issue on Zen3?


During all core benchmark like CPU-z you will se all core speeds up to 4600MHz and single up to 5150Mhz


----------



## jesdals (Aug 24, 2021)

New AMD chipset driver may take the top of the boost clocks - went from 5250MHz on best core to 5189MHz and the rest locked at 5015MHz


----------



## jesdals (Sep 2, 2021)

jesdals said:


> New AMD chipset driver may take the top of the boost clocks - went from 5250MHz on best core to 5189MHz and the rest locked at 5015MHz


After a coupple of days I am seeing the same boost behavior - do not know if there is some training in the newest chipset driver?
Have seen up to 5250MHz again on core 0


----------



## jesdals (Sep 15, 2021)

Any one else using both AMD CPU and GPU haveing issues with the latest driver for GPU and CPU. I am getting hard resets - especially in idle situations


----------



## Makaveli (Sep 15, 2021)

There seems to be a new chipset drivers that enables support for windows 11 have you tried it?


----------



## droopyRO (Sep 15, 2021)

jesdals said:


> Any one else using both AMD CPU and GPU haveing issues with the latest driver for GPU and CPU. I am getting hard resets - especially in idle situations


I do. I even RMA'ed my 5600X yesterday. I was on my old 2700X for two days, i decided that the CPU was broken somehow. But then last night i walked away for about 10 minutes from my PC. It was at idle, with Firefox opened with a few tabs. I returned to see it just restarted, WHEA error in EventViewer just like my 5600X did. Bios is at stock, no settings were made, especialy no curve optimization since there is none for 2700X. I now suspect the AMD drivers or the motherboard. Only two things that are making sense.

@Makaveli i update two days ago. The WHEA error i got was with them installed.


----------



## jesdals (Sep 15, 2021)

droopyRO said:


> I do. I even RMA'ed my 5600X yesterday. I was on my old 2700X for two days, i decided that the CPU was broken somehow. But then last night i walked away for about 10 minutes from my PC. It was at idle, with Firefox opened with a few tabs. I returned to see it just restarted, WHEA error in EventViewer just like my 5600X did. Bios is at stock, no settings were made, especialy no curve optimization since there is none for 2700X. I now suspect the AMD drivers or the motherboard. Only two things that are making sense.
> 
> @Makaveli i update two days ago. The WHEA error i got was with them installed.


Well we may have to reinstall windows - hope for a better fix to the bug



Makaveli said:


> There seems to be a new chipset drivers that enables support for windows 11 have you tried it?


Still on windows 10


----------



## Makaveli (Sep 15, 2021)

jesdals said:


> Well we may have to reinstall windows - hope for a better fix to the bug
> 
> 
> Still on windows 10


Its a windows 10 driver just has support for Win 11.

i'm still on the previous version





New version is


----------



## jesdals (Sep 15, 2021)

Makaveli said:


> Its a windows 10 driver just has support for Win 11.


Yes I just looked it up again and i does seem to support both - I do have a suspicion that it is a combination of gpu and chipset driver


----------



## DemonicRyzen666 (Sep 15, 2021)

I'm currently using a bus speed bump to get a little more out this 5600x
however most programs says 100.5-100.9 when I sent 101 in bios :/ 
I usually have spread spectrum enable just because I have a digital Tv tuner in this and with out it on a lose channels.


----------



## Makaveli (Sep 15, 2021)

I would be careful with pushing that bus speed 

And are you using PBO and CO?


----------



## jesdals (Sep 17, 2021)

DemonicRyzen666 said:


> I'm currently using a bus speed bump to get a little more out this 5600x
> however most programs says 100.5-100.9 when I sent 101 in bios :/
> I usually have spread spectrum enable just because I have a digital Tv tuner in this and with out it on a lose channels.


I have had some performance in 100.01 to 100.1 settings but different bios versions is more or less tolerant - stability issues do often relate to these settings


----------



## Deleted member 212040 (Sep 17, 2021)

All I do is set a -15 all core and bump up my PBO limits a little to 165 PPT, 115 TDC and 150 EDC. 5900X does not scale past 170W. Went from 4.1 all core to ~4.5-4.6 GHz. Single core now sitting nicely at 5.05-5.1 GHz.


----------



## Octopuss (Sep 17, 2021)

So you completely disregard the differences between cores and just blindly punch in some numbers. That's not how overclocking is done.


----------



## Makaveli (Sep 17, 2021)

Octopuss said:


> So you completely disregard the differences between cores and just blindly punch in some numbers. That's not how overclocking is done.



I would say doing all core -15 is a good starting point. However you will get the most benefit with per core tuning. This is just abit more time consuming but worth it.


----------



## outpt (Sep 17, 2021)

Octopuss said:


> So you completely disregard the differences between cores and just blindly punch in some numbers. That's not how overclocking is done.


Not bad for being blind. What happens with one or two eyes open?


----------



## Mussels (Sep 18, 2021)

Octopuss said:


> So you completely disregard the differences between cores and just blindly punch in some numbers. That's not how overclocking is done.


It's how i do it, i dont have the time for per core testing, sadly.


----------



## outpt (Sep 18, 2021)

Guy on YouTube called BOSMANG has a great guide to pbo tuning. Check it out  
Have pen and paper


----------



## Octopuss (Sep 18, 2021)

My 5800X has very different cores, and the offsets I can use without the usual stress testing programs throwing out errors vary wildly between just -5 and -25, just saying (and I still have no idea whether I tested this enough, mostly sticking to Prime95).
Sometimes you get lucky and get no bad side effects, and sometimes you get random weird crashes or program errors that aren't clearly traceable to anything. Just saying.


----------



## Makaveli (Sep 18, 2021)

Octopuss said:


> My 5800X has very different cores, and the offsets I can use without the usual stress testing programs throwing out errors vary wildly between just -5 and -25, just saying (and I still have no idea whether I tested this enough, mostly sticking to Prime95).
> Sometimes you get lucky and get no bad side effects, and sometimes you get random weird crashes or program errors that aren't clearly traceable to anything. Just saying.


I recommend using corecycler for per core testing with CO.









						CoreCycler - tool for testing Curve Optimizer settings
					

Over the last couple of days resp. weeks I've been working with the Curve Optimizer for Ryzen processors a bit more, but I hadn't found a good way to test the settings for stability. CineBench single threaded almost always worked fine, and getting Prime95 stable with load on all cores was also...




					www.overclock.net


----------



## Mussels (Sep 19, 2021)

Just for relevance here:

All my core testing was thrown out the window because my stability was erratic due to

1. Melting PCI-E cables
2. My android TV spamming the network during sleep, giving windows seizures

Both of those gave false positives for instability, and all that testing time was wasted...
So now i just lower my all core by 1 every week, and see if anything crashes


----------



## DemonicRyzen666 (Sep 19, 2021)

Makaveli said:


> I would say doing all core -15 is a good starting point. However you will get the most benefit with per core tuning. This is just abit more time consuming but worth it.


that's basically where I started so far too.


Makaveli said:


> I would be careful with pushing that bus speed
> 
> And are you using PBO and CO?


Yes for now only, because I have 5600X and not a 5800X. Max Pbo is limited on 5600X


outpt said:


> Not bad for being blind. What happens with one or two eyes open?


be one with ry-zen


Mussels said:


> It's how i do it, i dont have the time for per core testing, sadly.


^ I haven't had time my self either I work nights


outpt said:


> Guy on YouTube called BOSMANG has a great guide to pbo tuning. Check it out
> Have pen and paper


can you post the video please ?

Mussel what is android TV ?, if it's what I think it is it's, probably not as good as hardware tuner like I have.

I'm using old pcix 1x hauppauge TV tuner


----------



## Mussels (Sep 19, 2021)

DemonicRyzen666 said:


> Mussel what is android TV ?, if it's what I think it is it's, probably not as good as hardware tuner like I have.


It's my sony 55" UHD TV. the full story is in my sig.


----------



## droopyRO (Sep 19, 2021)

jesdals said:


> Well we may have to reinstall windows - hope for a better fix to the bug
> 
> 
> Still on windows 10


Did you reinstall, are you still having the issue ? 

I did a fresh install on a formated SSD. Same issue i have. Only now a new error appeared, it gives two errors at the same time. All BIOS settings are stock, except to enable XMP. I tried to disable CPB and PBO, also i tried to set the LLC to medium. I will now try another motherboard. And if that fails too then i am out of ideas and i will switch back to my old i5 8600K :/


> Reported by component: Processor Core
> Error Source: Machine Check Exception
> Error Type: Cache Hierarchy Error
> Processor APIC ID: 3





> Reported by component: Processor Core
> Error Source: Machine Check Exception
> Error Type: Bus/Interconnect Error
> Processor APIC ID: 0


----------



## Makaveli (Sep 19, 2021)

droopyRO said:


> Did you reinstall, are you still having the issue ?
> 
> I did a fresh install on a formated SSD. Same issue i have. Only now a new error appeared, it gives two errors at the same time. All BIOS settings are stock, except to enable XMP. I tried to disable CPB and PBO, also i tried to set the LLC to medium. I will now try another motherboard. And if that fails too then i am out of ideas and i will switch back to my old i5 8600K :/


Looks like its Core 3 and 0.

If you are getting these error at stock and your bios is current., I would still run corecycler.

You may have to rma.


----------



## droopyRO (Sep 19, 2021)

This happens with my 2700X. I RMA'ed my 5600X a few days ago. Could it be the motherboard ? it only happens at idle while i am away from the PC and no programs/tasks are running except opened FIrefox tabs. It all started about a month ago.


----------



## Makaveli (Sep 19, 2021)

droopyRO said:


> This happens with my 2700X. I RMA'ed my 5600X a few days ago. Could it be the motherboard ? it only happens at idle while i am away from the PC and no programs/tasks are running except opened FIrefox tabs. It all started about a month ago.



What bios version are you running on this board?


----------



## Ferrum Master (Sep 19, 2021)

droopyRO said:


> This happens with my 2700X. I RMA'ed my 5600X a few days ago. Could it be the motherboard ? it only happens at idle while i am away from the PC and no programs/tasks are running except opened FIrefox tabs. It all started about a month ago.



Post your real RAM timings and modes. What IC modules?

Then simply start rising up voltages. Start with CPU voltage. It could be the LLC is acting weird. Use the offset. If it doesn't work you should up the uncore parts.

Last time is used GB was on X99 and it also was not capable of working stable at stock settings... so think about it... only maker with whom I had these kind of issues was DFI Lanparties, but those were not ever designed to run at stock.


----------



## droopyRO (Sep 19, 2021)

Makaveli said:


> What bios version are you running on this board?


F34, F35, and now F36c. All have the same issue with both the 5600x and the 2700x. See the video i made for detail. All of those errors were n the 5600X chip that is now RMA.

@Ferrum Master all stock, no BIOS settings as i said before. And it started on the 19th of August according to my WHEA error logs. I have this mobo and CPU combo since November 2020. And if i have to manually set something in the BIOS then it is clearly something wrong with it. IMHO no user or poweruser should have to do it.


----------



## Makaveli (Sep 19, 2021)

This is really random to all of a sudden be happening from August 19th.

Did you install any KB windows updates on this date?


----------



## Ferrum Master (Sep 19, 2021)

droopyRO said:


> F34, F35, and now F36c. All have the same issue with both the 5600x and the 2700x. See the video i made for detail. All of those errors were n the 5600X chip that is now RMA.
> 
> @Ferrum Master all stock, no BIOS settings as i said before. And it started on the 19th of August according to my WHEA error logs. I have this mobo and CPU combo since November 2020. And if i have to manually set something in the BIOS then it is clearly something wrong with it. IMHO no user or poweruser should have to do it.



My RAM stock timings are absolutely unusable on AMD as they were made for an Intel platform years ago for example. They boot, but they are totally not PRIME stable.


----------



## droopyRO (Sep 19, 2021)

Makaveli said:


> This is really random to all of a sudden be happening from August 19th.
> 
> Did you install any KB windows updates on this date?



I don't remember. But that install is gone. Formated the SSD and installed the latest Windows 10 version and updated it.


Ferrum Master said:


> My RAM stock timings are absolutely unusable on AMD


They worked fine on this mobo since August 2020 with the 2700X and since November with the 5600X. Also tried with a different RAM kit, same issue.

Also, i just finished a CoreCycler run, it looks ok to me, i bumped the RAM speed a bit as the Gigabyte mobo already overvolts the RAM to 1.38V even if i set it to 1.35 manualy in the BIOS. I will let it get in to idle and standby and see if it is stable.

EDIT: i swaped the X570 AORUS ELITE with my Tomahawk MAX B450. Same everyting, let's see if i still have the issue or i have found the culprit. The other and only thing i could think of are the AMD drivers or the PSU, but the latter is bought in November 2020 and is a Seasonic Core 650W.


----------



## Mussels (Sep 20, 2021)

Yeah you've got unstable RAM
just cause it worked once doesnt mean its not dead now... hardware can just die

WHEA errors are usually CPU voltage related, or unstable RAM... hell i had a faulty corsair RAM stick that i kept around for like 3 years, as i didnt realise it was the cause of the problems (it only crashed at idle/low load, and only after it had warmed up - eventually i ran memtest overnight and caught which stick it was and smashed it to bits)


----------



## droopyRO (Sep 20, 2021)

Two RAM kits that worked fine decided to die at the same time. One in my system and the other that was in a box in a drawer. Two RAM kits from two vendors and that they started to throw WHEA errors on the 19th of August and were running fine until then ? There are more chances to be hit by outerspace particles  than two RAM kits dying on the same mobo in the span of a couple of days without overclock.









Yesterday i replaced the X570 Elite with a Tomahawk MAX. So far so good, i will run this MSI board for a few days and if it is stable i will RMA the Gigabyte one. If not, i will fiddle with the RAM. The other kit i will test on a Intel machine when i have the time.

PS: while diggin on the net i found other people with the same issue as mine on AMD hardware https://community.amd.com/t5/proces...get-a-quot-silent-fix-quot/td-p/471392/page/5 https://community.amd.com/t5/proces...restarting-whea-logger-id/td-p/423321/page/94


----------



## Taraquin (Sep 20, 2021)

droopyRO said:


> Two RAM kits that worked fine decided to die at the same time. One in my system and the other that was in a box in a drawer. Two RAM kits from two vendors and that they started to throw WHEA errors on the 19th of August and were running fine until then ? There are more chances to be hit by outerspace particles  than two RAM kits dying on the same mobo in the span of a couple of days without overclock.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Updated bios or chipsetdrivers? Wheas is usually not a symptom of bad ram, but rather too high infibity fabric, wrong cpu voltage etc. Bad ram is more of a bsod thing in my experience.


----------



## droopyRO (Sep 23, 2021)

droopyRO said:


> Yesterday i replaced the X570 Elite with a Tomahawk MAX. So far so good,


So, 4 days later and it is stable. No more WHEA or errors, or lockups at idle or sleep. I suspect it is a combination of motherboard and/or the RX 6600 XT. As others have found out. You would think that AMD tests their products on their own hardware:
Reddit


----------



## outpt (Sep 23, 2021)

Does core optimizer work with a all core oc?


----------



## freeagent (Sep 23, 2021)

outpt said:


> Does core optimizer work with a all core oc?


No. Because you set the multi and the voltage so nothing changes.


----------



## Taraquin (Sep 26, 2021)

Soooo, this is annoying. I have run +200 pbo and - 30 on all core except one that does - 29. Corecycler prime and ycruncher is long term stable, but I get rare reboots 2-3 times a month. - 30 CO allcore was stable for 3 months with +50 so I know the problem isn't low idle voltage, but atleast one core must be slightly unstable during low loads that spike voltage. Any idea how to identify which core? Other tests I can run?


----------



## outpt (Sep 26, 2021)

i just gave up on curve optimizer and started running all core at 4.7ghz using mb voltage settings. which are around 1.3v using gooseberry benchmark to check temps and voltages. at idle about 1.1v or lower gets about 80-81C fill tilt. Or run it pbo enabled and it run 4.85ghz. have not had blue screen error in a week.
there is one thing i have noticed is that i can set it to -30 all cores and it runs fine until i put it to sleep. next morning coming out of sleep it's blue screens to the max. somebody explain that.


----------



## Makaveli (Sep 27, 2021)

Taraquin said:


> Soooo, this is annoying. I have run +200 pbo and - 30 on all core except one that does - 29. Corecycler prime and ycruncher is long term stable, but I get rare reboots 2-3 times a month. - 30 CO allcore was stable for 3 months with +50 so I know the problem isn't low idle voltage, but atleast one core must be slightly unstable during low loads that spike voltage. Any idea how to identify which core? Other tests I can run?



Try minus -15 on all cores and -30 on your best core then -29 on the other one then check your long term stability.


----------



## outpt (Sep 27, 2021)

Software to find out how well my Ryzen cores are for PBO2 CO (Negative)?
					

Is there a software that can find out how well all my Ryzen cores are for PBO2 CO (Negative)? Because Ryzen master only shows the best 2 cores not how good the other ones are. Should I use Clocktuner for Ryzen (4.18 in) :  to see how good all my Ryzen cores are?  (5800x)  Thanks




					www.techpowerup.com
				



2nd video.


----------



## jesdals (Sep 27, 2021)

outpt said:


> i just gave up on curve optimizer and started running all core at 4.7ghz using mb voltage settings. which are around 1.3v using gooseberry benchmark to check temps and voltages. at idle about 1.1v or lower gets about 80-81C fill tilt. Or run it pbo enabled and it run 4.85ghz. have not had blue screen error in a week.
> there is one thing i have noticed is that i can set it to -30 all cores and it runs fine until i put it to sleep. next morning coming out of sleep it's blue screens to the max. somebody explain that.


I am haveing some issues with cold boots after disconnection the power to my system - do switch of the power as well or only sleep mode?


----------



## Taraquin (Sep 27, 2021)

Makaveli said:


> Try minus -15 on all cores and -30 on your best core then -29 on the other one then check your long term stability.


Problem is that the second best core is the - 29 core, the ranking doesnt add up.


----------



## tabascosauz (Sep 27, 2021)

Taraquin said:


> Problem is that the second best core is the - 29 core, the ranking doesnt add up.



Obviously the core quality ranking doesn't mean anything once you've already changed the V-F curves by applying CO offsets.

Makes no sense comparing between cores, because every core comes binned very differently and per-core CO changes each core only relative to its own stock V-F. On mine Core 1 only does -5, it takes Core 2 @ -30 just to reach similar 4.925-4.95GHz clocks to Core 1 @ -5. But if you were comparing the two you'd think that Core 2 was significantly "better" for having a much bigger undervolt right?

If anything, it should be the other way around. I'd assume the top rated cores are already performing close to their full potential (since they are always preferred by CPPC) - so minimal room for undervolting. Whereas the other cores (esp. on CCD2) can be relaxed and won't matter whether AMD pushes them hard or not out of the box, since they'll never see more than all-core speeds. I've been 3 out of 3 on this so far, 5600G, 5700G and 5900X all have lower achievable offsets on the 2 best cores.

Which is why while a broad, say, -15 undervolt across the board is understandable if you don't have time to test, it also logically makes no sense because -15 on Core 0 is not going to mean the same thing as -15 on Core 5 for example. It's a good place to start before you fine-tune, though, because it gives you a good sense of where every core stands currently.


----------



## Taraquin (Sep 27, 2021)

tabascosauz said:


> Obviously the core quality ranking doesn't mean anything once you've already changed the V-F curves by applying CO offsets.
> 
> Makes no sense comparing between cores, because every core comes binned very differently and per-core CO changes each core only relative to its own stock V-F. On mine Core 1 only does -5, it takes Core 2 @ -30 just to reach similar 4.925-4.95GHz clocks to Core 1 @ -5. But if you were comparing the two you'd think that Core 2 was significantly "better" for having a much bigger undervolt right?
> 
> ...


I have the time to test and - 15 all core would reduce performance vs - 30 and +50 which I know us stable  i get about 200MHz more allcore vs stock using - 30 on all. Stock AC lies at 4.4, - 30 gives me 4.6 avg. I can try reducing a bit on my best core and see if this resolves the issue  If anyone has a tip for a low liad pr core test which invokes maximum voltage/core clock I bet that could find out which core is the slightly unstable one.


----------



## HD64G (Sep 27, 2021)

Different type of workloads allows more voltage and frequency for Ryzen CPUs. Needs some experimenting (time and patience) to find the best balance. Don't try for the ultimate. Go for the stable first and work from there a bit more. Settle after a few tests and have fun with your PC. Don't waste many hours for practically nothing. Friendly advice.


----------



## Taraquin (Sep 27, 2021)

HD64G said:


> Different type of workloads allows more voltage and frequency for Ryzen CPUs. Needs some experimenting (time and patience) to find the best balance. Don't try for the ultimate. Go for the stable first and work from there a bit more. Settle after a few tests and have fun with your PC. Don't waste many hours for practically nothing. Friendly advice.


I tweak for fun, and have a lot of patience, only things misding is the tools to identify which core is the problem  I have a safe profile to fall back on 

Got a tip on another forum, eventviewer from reboots. That worked! Found out both core 0 and 1 had caused a couple of reboots, but I only adjusted core 0. Also adjusted core 1 now, hopefully that fixes it.


----------



## outpt (Sep 27, 2021)

jesdals said:


> I am haveing some issues with cold boots after disconnection the power to my system - do switch of the power as well or only sleep mode?


coming out of sleep mode or complete shut down. it's runs for hrs. or days till i do any kind of restart/shut down. at this point i have thrown in the towel. besides i only have a xfx 5600xt so its not really being pushed that hard. at this point pbo or ac overclock works just fine. to be honest i haven't seen it do anything at all. O'Well


----------



## purecain (Sep 27, 2021)

What a thread, amazing work overclocking guys. I want the higher single core performance now , and that isnt possible on air.imo

Lucky for me I have decent silicon. Since AMD released a (beta)bios that literally turned the pump off, on two of my water-cooling kits before I realised the culprit ive been on air. 

But after reading only half of this thread I've decided I need that single core performance. 

I'll check out the rest of the thread and see which cooling has been the most successful. Arctic cooler 2 AIO stuck in my head, and I'll probably give that company a try.


----------



## Ibizadr (Sep 27, 2021)

Hey guys I have a r7 5800x and play with some bios settings to try to achieve the best of this cpu. In my CO I'm with
Max boost: +200mhz
PPT:200
TDC:145
EDC:145
CO: - 15 all core except 2 best one with - 10
Try these settings today on cinebench and got this any way to improve since and don't get full pbo in all cores? I have an artic aio 240mm and got in multi thread almost 80ºc.
 Its possible to achieve 5.0ghz in a single thread with 5800x? 
Some advice to improve?


----------



## Mussels (Sep 28, 2021)

Ibizadr said:


> Hey guys I have a r7 5800x and play with some bios settings to try to achieve the best of this cpu. In my CO I'm with
> Max boost: +200mhz
> PPT:200
> TDC:145
> ...


I can get 5050Mhz on mine, remember that the curve undervolt going too far can actually lower the clocks, as the chip doesnt get enough voltage to ramp up

your numbers may simply be too high, for your cooling and VRMs. lower them.


----------



## tabascosauz (Sep 28, 2021)

Ibizadr said:


> Hey guys I have a r7 5800x and play with some bios settings to try to achieve the best of this cpu. In my CO I'm with
> Max boost: +200mhz
> PPT:200
> TDC:145
> ...



Your EDC is like, stock, but what's up with 200W? ~180W is a metric ton of power to be putting through the cores on even a 5950X, let alone a single chiplet, don't matter if you have an AIO.....

I'm betting a 5800X can achieve peak performance with a smart combination of PBO settings at just ~120W. Stock 142W is honestly already too much per-core power for a 5800X, that's why you can usually lop off a whole bunch of PPT and be no slower (or even faster).

Having a high PPT does nothing for your single threaded performance. Higher PPT enables higher multi thread perf if you have the cooling for it, but scalar, curve optimizer on the relevant 1 or 2 cores, and EDC makes a bigger difference to ST perf. PPT you only need to make sure is "high enough" not to hold back your ST (which is like 75W for single chiplet, easy peasy)

PBO +200 should cap out at 5050 for 5800X, so if your chip can handle it then there's no reason why it can't be done.

get @mtcn77 in here, not sure what the rule is, is it like EDC = PPT x 0.9?


----------



## Mussels (Sep 28, 2021)

the post in my sig has some info from GerKNG, he suggested using:

PPT: 105W
TDC:70A
EDC: 95A

stock performance, but doesnt let the chiplet blow out into the thermal throttling ranges which can actually let it boost higher
clearly you can go higher, those are very efficient settings not the max performance ones (add 20 to each, for that)


----------



## RandomJerk (Sep 28, 2021)

Anyone here has any experience with overclocking a 5950x and testing stability on Linux? I tried PBO+CO settings and tested stability on a Windows install, and everything seemed fine, till I went to Linux and started seeing crashes immediately. So, all my CO values ended up being thrown out of the window on Linux. FYI, I have a Gigabyte X570 AORUS PRO WIFI.


----------



## Taraquin (Sep 28, 2021)

Ibizadr said:


> Hey guys I have a r7 5800x and play with some bios settings to try to achieve the best of this cpu. In my CO I'm with
> Max boost: +200mhz
> PPT:200
> TDC:145
> ...


Try the limits on auto (142W should be more than enough) and rather see if you can improve the UV. Try core cycler and find lowest values, if you get intermittent crashes during low loads even with 3 passes in corecycler, check the event viewer for whea 18 and find out which lower, lower the UV by 1.


----------



## purecain (Sep 28, 2021)

This is my starting point. I dont how good these scores are as i havnt compared them yet but this is on air as 

I have it set up now. 





I'm looking forwards to seeing how close I can get to higher single core performance on a Noctua NH-U12a.

Water-cooling should give me 200-400mhz hopefully at across all cores. My single core run had the cpu running at 4.69 to 4.72ghz through out on air.


----------



## outpt (Sep 28, 2021)

Ibizadr said:


> Hey guys I have a r7 5800x and play with some bios settings to try to achieve the best of this cpu. In my CO I'm with
> Max boost: +200mhz
> PPT:200
> TDC:145
> ...


pushing those kind of numbers means(probably) nothing. you need to scroll down further until you find ppt,edc,tdc and see what is actually being used. bring those numbers down. 
PPT-125W TDC-90A EDC-115A are good starting points. EDC should be about 90% of PPT.


----------



## Ibizadr (Sep 28, 2021)

So after some advice of you guys i change some settings. Now I'm at:
Max boost : 200mhz
PPT: 180
TDC: 95
EDC: 140

Only have time to do a test with cinebench in single core. I'm happy with the temp it reaches in single core I think 60 was not too hot and in game RTSS never show temps high.
For now I want to improve Single core since this pc its most for gaming.
I post a ss of hwinfo that I run with cinebench.

Do you guys have some advices for my single core UV+Pbo?

I see now some more advices and later I will go to turn down my settings to see if I got improvments


----------



## jesdals (Sep 28, 2021)

Ibizadr said:


> Hey guys I have a r7 5800x and play with some bios settings to try to achieve the best of this cpu. In my CO I'm with
> Max boost: +200mhz
> PPT:200
> TDC:145
> ...


Remember Alt+Printscreen thats easier than the phone. And please fill in your system specs - perhaps some one have the same motherboard etc.

I used to ad to one core at the time ( a pain on the 5950x) and wrote down how the changes affected in intervals of 5 to begin with and then 2.


----------



## Ibizadr (Sep 28, 2021)

jesdals said:


> Remember Alt+Printscreen thats easier than the phone. And please fill in your system specs - perhaps some one have the same motherboard etc.
> 
> I used to ad to one core at the time ( a pain on the 5950x) and wrote down how the changes affected in intervals of 5 to begin with and then 2.


If you see my last post before your reply you see a screenshot. After that I change my settings after a couple of people telling me 180w was too much for my 5800x. I change the settings for the screenshot in this post but not tested yet with these settings


----------



## outpt (Sep 28, 2021)

have a msi mag b550 tomahawk and my bios is very similar.


----------



## jesdals (Sep 28, 2021)

@Ibizadr
I would suggest that you try to look at your Infinity settings - if your memory allow for 3600MHz settings it would be a large boost - with the right memory 1900/3800MHz Infinity settings should be possible on that board.


----------



## Ibizadr (Sep 28, 2021)

jesdals said:


> @Ibizadr
> I would suggest that you try to look at your Infinity settings - if your memory allow for 3600MHz settings it would be a large boost - with the right memory 1900/3800MHz Infinity settings should be possible on that board.


Yeah I think it's possible since it's a Samsung b die. Ryzen dram calculator only have zen 2, the settings for zen 3 works? I will try to overclock my ram since my system it's stable at practically stock settings. 
Best way to overclock ram its disabling xmp or use xmp and only change my Infinity fabric dram speed with dram calculator?


----------



## outpt (Sep 28, 2021)

I think I may have stumbled on to may bsod  problems. I think my gpu is on the way out. Today I started getting the GSOD it is my understanding that this may be gpu and or gpu memory related. I have turned down the power limits to 80% and memory timings down also. I have 3 cores running between -20 to -28. All other cores are at 0. I haven’t had any death screens in 5 hrs knock on wood. This at the moment means nothing but I have this gpu go belly up once before and took it apart and cleaned it up the thermal paste was as hard as a brick  and it worked. After trying everything with the cpu and no whea errors no memory errors and so forth. If this gpu fails I am going to walk out into 5pm Dallas traffic

sumbitch my gpu is failing. all i have is a gtx660 backup


----------



## Mussels (Sep 29, 2021)

Windows key + shift + s uses the new snipping tool in W10 and W11, you can then paste that immediately into TPU with no effort (it's awesome)

answering all the mess of posts above: a 5800x just cant use some of those numbers that high, so letting it max out for no gain isn't helping (0.01% faster for 10C, when the power and heat savings could give a bigger gain) - and black/grey screen crashes.... yeah core undervolting can be like that.


----------



## Taraquin (Sep 29, 2021)

I did a bit of testing yesterday with stock 76W limit. In cinebench 23 I get 11043p stock and 11647p (5.5%) with +200 pbo and -29x2/-30x4 cores. Clockspeed stock is 4300 avg stock (1162mv avg) and 4550 using CO (1131mv avg). 

In SOTTR I get 236fps avg cpu in 1080p low with the above CO-setting and 225fps stock so about 5% performance. 

Idlevoltage sits around 950mv stock abd 850mv CO. 

Overall a fair 'free' improvement that produces similar heat. 

My allcore 4.8GHz got 2% more fps in SOTTR, but got thermal throttling in CB23 (using 115W+) and requires 1.32V so I would say CO is superior. If I up PPT-limit a bit (90-100W) I bet I could see close to 4.7GHz allcore at around 1.2-1.25V.


----------



## droopyRO (Sep 29, 2021)

droopyRO said:


> So, 4 days later and it is stable. No more WHEA or errors, or lockups at idle or sleep. I suspect it is a combination of motherboard and/or the RX 6600 XT. As others have found out. You would think that AMD tests their products on their own hardware:
> Reddit


The "drama" has ended. They said that they can't be fixed. And i had to choose between a new 5600X or my money back. I took the money. I am now on my 8600K and pondering what to do next. Stay on Ryzen 5000 series, go on Intel 11 or wait untill 2022. Thanks again to all who offered help.


tabascosauz said:


> iirc you had an early production Ryzen 5000 right? I figure with the way 5000 prices are coming down now, you could just go for a newer production 5600X. I'm not even joking, 99% of the problem threads I've ever seen regarding Vermeer CPUs concerned chips made before January 2021. Or if you want to wait for the new generation of V-cache you could do that too, 8600K is still solid.
> 
> If you're going to the store to pick one up, look at the CPU through the box's side window to make sure the batch code starts with 21. I don't see how it could possibly be anything else, but to be sure for August or September production the number should be 2131 or greater.
> 
> Alder Lake is coming, could wait for further price adjustments since you have a temporary solution. As for Intel, I would just take either a 10900K or wait for Alder Lake if you're air cooling.


Yeah it was bought at launch in November. I delided my 8600K last year, but did not play with it since i bought the 5600X. I am now at 5.1Ghz with it and it is R23 stable for 20 minutes. It gets to 75ºC, crazy how much that liquid metal lowers the temps. I think i will wait to see what Alder Lake delivers and the decide. Thanks.


----------



## tabascosauz (Sep 29, 2021)

droopyRO said:


> The "drama" has ended. They said that they can't be fixed. And i had to choose between a new 5600X or my money back. I took the money. I am now on my 8600K and pondering what to do next. Stay on Ryzen 5000 series, go on Intel 11 or wait untill 2022. Thanks again to all who offered help.



iirc you had an early production Ryzen 5000 right? I figure with the way 5000 prices are coming down now, you could just go for a newer production 5600X. I'm not even joking, 99% of the problem threads I've ever seen regarding Vermeer CPUs concerned chips made before January 2021. Or if you want to wait for the new generation of V-cache you could do that too, 8600K is still solid.

If you're going to the store to pick one up, look at the CPU through the box's side window to make sure the batch code starts with 21. I don't see how it could possibly be anything else, but to be sure for August or September production the number should be 2131 or greater.

Alder Lake is coming, could wait for further price adjustments since you have a temporary solution. As for Intel, I would just take either a 10900K or wait for Alder Lake if you're air cooling.


----------



## Mussels (Sep 30, 2021)

I'll also add in that i've never even heard of these dud CPU's outside of tech forums, and maybe seen 5 different users with the issue

the odds of getting another faulty chip are basically nil (there was a lot of people blaming chips with incompatible RAM, mostly odd numbered CAS latency, dual rank corsair LPX)


----------



## Ibizadr (Oct 5, 2021)

I was dealing with CO with the last days everything went fine till the moment I have random reboots. This reboots its related to a higher value in my prefered core? Today it happens when I open bf4 but happens this morning after 8h of pc turned on with mining program open.


----------



## Taraquin (Oct 5, 2021)

Ibizadr said:


> I was dealing with CO with the last days everything went fine till the moment I have random reboots. This reboots its related to a higher value in my prefered core? Today it happens when I open bf4 but happens this morning after 8h of pc turned on with mining program open.


Have you run corecycler? Check windows event viewer, see if you have whea 18 when reboot occured, lower negative value by 1 or 2 on affected core.


----------



## freeagent (Oct 5, 2021)

I will tinker with core cycler today.. I had a couple of reboots last night doing 11 stuff.. ahh well.


----------



## tabascosauz (Oct 5, 2021)

freeagent said:


> I will tinker with core cycler today.. I had a couple of reboots last night doing 11 stuff.. ahh well.



Aren't you running the max +200 5150MHz global limit? I had to scale back my curves a bit on some cores going past 4950MHz. Otherwise they worked just fine at the stock global limit.


----------



## outpt (Oct 5, 2021)

Ibizadr said:


> I was dealing with CO with the last days everything went fine till the moment I have random reboots. This reboots its related to a higher value in my prefered core? Today it happens when I open bf4 but happens this morning after 8h of pc turned on with mining program open.


Also look for event id 41. These can point to ram/power supply problems as a general rule


----------



## purecain (Oct 5, 2021)

I have one of the original 5000chips made. I'm definitely considering getting a 2021 model after reading this thread. 

That or wait for the next production update or new cpu's. Cool thread!


----------



## Ibizadr (Oct 5, 2021)

Taraquin said:


> Have you run corecycler? Check windows event viewer, see if you have whea 18 when reboot occured, lower negative value by 1 or 2 on affected core.


Yes in last 24h I have whea 18 - 8 erros. I lower the value in SC this should be enough?



outpt said:


> Also look for event id 41. These can point to ram/power supply problems as a general rule


I have on id 41 in last 24h 8, but my supply it's enough for my system and ram runs at original speeds no overclock till now


----------



## freeagent (Oct 5, 2021)

tabascosauz said:


> Aren't you running the max +200 5150MHz global limit? I had to scale back my curves a bit on some cores going past 4950MHz. Otherwise they worked just fine at the stock global limit.


Yes I was running at the tippy top and all was well until 11 crossed my path lol.. I knocked 50MHz off and it seems ok, I know it won’t pass core cycler as is.. or maybe it will  I will have to play with it.. hopefully the cpu and I can come to some sort of understanding


----------



## Ibizadr (Oct 5, 2021)

I don't use core cycle what I use it's some games and daily use and cinebench r23 and cpu z combined with hwinfo


----------



## tabascosauz (Oct 5, 2021)

Ibizadr said:


> I don't use core cycle what I use it's some games and daily use and cinebench r23 and cpu z combined with hwinfo



Corecycler is not an application. It's a testing script specifically geared towards testing single-core PBO and Curve Optimizer stability.

Without corecycler or OCCT or a similarly appropriate test, you're left without any way of properly verifying CO stability. Cinebench R23 and CPU-Z are next to useless for the fact that they will only ever stress your CPPC preferred boost cores, and mildly at that.


----------



## Ibizadr (Oct 5, 2021)

tabascosauz said:


> Corecycler is not an application. It's a testing script specifically geared towards testing single-core PBO and Curve Optimizer stability.
> 
> Without corecycler or OCCT or a similarly appropriate test, you're left without any way of properly verifying CO stability. Cinebench R23 and CPU-Z are next to useless for the fact that they will only ever stress your CPPC preferred boost cores, and mildly at that.


I downloaded corecycler and opened that. It's running now, what I need to take a look at event viewer or the log corecycler makes?


----------



## tabascosauz (Oct 5, 2021)

Ibizadr said:


> I downloaded corecycler and opened that. It's running now, what I need to take a look at event viewer or the log corecycler makes?



The script is governed by the config script in the folder. By default it runs 6 minute cycles per core, running Prime95 Large FFT, going through all the cores. This is fine for general testing and seeing if anything is blatantly unstable.

It's good to run with the default config for at least 3 iterations (each iteration means it has gone through all the cores once). The script output will tell you.

Later on you can fine tune your testing by editing config:

Number of iterations to run
Which cores to run (helpful for narrowing down cores that matter)
Which order to run the cores
How long to run each core
What to run (FFT size for Prime95, AVX or SSE, other tests)
What to do upon error (stop or continue)
Take breaks between cores
I run the default config first. Later I move on to my final config which is 1h8m per core, All FFT, SSE.


----------



## Ibizadr (Oct 5, 2021)

tabascosauz said:


> The script is governed by the config script in the folder. By default it runs 6 minute cycles per core, running Prime95 Large FFT, going through all the cores. This is fine for general testing and seeing if anything is blatantly unstable.
> 
> It's good to run with the default config for at least 3 iterations (each iteration means it has gone through all the cores once). The script output will tell you.
> 
> ...


Yeah I'm on default config for now I watch a video on YouTube and see when errors happen it will appear on corecycler cmd window so for now 4 cores tested and no errors. If my cpu runs without errors that means I can push more in CO like 15 to 16?


----------



## tabascosauz (Oct 5, 2021)

Ibizadr said:


> Yeah I'm on default config for now I watch a video on YouTube and see when errors happen it will appear on corecycler cmd window so for now 4 cores tested and no errors. If my cpu runs without errors that means I can push more in CO like 15 to 16?



Stop everything you're doing while the test is running. In order for it to work properly it needs to be able to achieve the highest clocks possible, meaning minimal load on the system. Close all background apps you don't need and let it do its thing, go do something else for a while.


----------



## Ibizadr (Oct 5, 2021)

tabascosauz said:


> Stop everything you're doing while the test is running. In order for it to work properly it needs to be able to achieve the highest clocks possible, meaning minimal load on the system. Close all background apps you don't need and let it do its thing, go do something else for a while.


For now only have hwinfo running in background but I have it opened when I start corecycler so for this run I will let it open and in next adjustments I will close everything and try



freeagent said:


> Yes I was running at the tippy top and all was well until 11 crossed my path lol.. I knocked 50MHz off and it seems ok, I know it won’t pass core cycler as is.. or maybe it will  I will have to play with it.. hopefully the cpu and I can come to some sort of understanding


What you do it's what I do, I try to do it without corecycler but after that I think corecycler it's a better way to see if core have errors. I only do one turn at 6min per core and all went fine  tomorrow will do it some more tests


----------



## freeagent (Oct 6, 2021)

I went to run it but it wont run because RM is not installed.. 

Maybe I will quit being soft, I am pretty sure 5125 is good.. but then again I thought 5150 was good. i will just leave it +150 for now.

I quit using Asus Performance enhancement, maybe that's why I have an issue.. that setting is full on cheater mode 

Edit:

She is boosty


----------



## Taraquin (Oct 6, 2021)

Ibizadr said:


> Yes in last 24h I have whea 18 - 8 erros. I lower the value in SC this should be enough?
> 
> 
> I have on id 41 in last 24h 8, but my supply it's enough for my system and ram runs at original speeds no overclock till now


Yeah, lower value on affected core. Check core number in the whea. You should run core cycler first though, much faster to eliminate errors, use event viewer to adjust the cores core cycler eliminate.


----------



## Deleted member 212040 (Oct 6, 2021)

Octopuss said:


> So you completely disregard the differences between cores and just blindly punch in some numbers. That's not how overclocking is done.


My guy. I spent time doing per core and the resulting performance gain compared to -15 all core was fuck all anything, 25 MHz more on the best core at best. -15 all core is good enough for me, because it makes my 5900X reach 5.2 GHz single thread (on almost every core - not just the best ones) and 4.65 GHz all core, on Linux at least, using Htop which shows effective clocks - compared to the stock 5 GHz single thread & 4.15 GHz all core. Don't know about Winblows. If all core Curve Optimizer wasn't a passable choice then why would they even implement it as an option?

I can hardly get people to set a quick negative all core Curve Optimizer offset and increase PBO limits a bit on their Zen 3 CPUs so they don't leave performance on the table, let alone convince them to go through all that rigorous testing for no real discernible benefit in the end.

Though I stopped caring about OC in general, it's about time I start using this machine instead of tuning and upgrading it ever since I built it. The ""performance"" ""differences"" were not worth the time. If that's your thing, go ahead. But don't act like doing a quick overclock by setting an all core number isn't a passable thing to do either, some people just don't have the time or care enough to go through all that crap with no real benefit. It's why I stopped caring about RAM OC as well and just halved my tRFC, fixed tRC and called it a day. Literally the same latency improvements as manually optimizing each timing with the added bonus of being stable and not requiring 24h worth of testing after setting each timing. Same goes for the all core option in the Curve Optimizer.


----------



## Taraquin (Oct 6, 2021)

Emily said:


> My guy. I spent time doing per core and the resulting performance gain compared to -15 all core was fuck all anything, 25 MHz more on the best core at best. -15 all core is good enough for me, because it makes my 5900X reach 5.2 GHz single thread (on almost every core - not just the best ones) and 4.65 GHz all core, on Linux at least, using Htop which shows effective clocks - compared to the stock 5 GHz single thread & 4.15 GHz all core. Don't know about Winblows. If all core Curve Optimizer wasn't a passable choice then why would they even implement it as an option?
> 
> I can hardly get people to set a quick negative all core Curve Optimizer offset and increase PBO limits a bit on their Zen 3 CPUs so they don't leave performance on the table, let alone convince them to go through all that rigorous testing for no real discernible benefit in the end.
> 
> Though I stopped caring about OC in general, it's about time I start using this machine instead of tuning and upgrading it ever since I built it. The ""performance"" ""differences"" were not worth the time. If that's your thing, go ahead. But don't act like doing a quick overclock by setting an all core number isn't a passable thing to do either, some people just don't have the time or care enough to go through all that crap with no real benefit. It's why I stopped caring about RAM OC as well and just halved my tRFC, fixed tRC and called it a day. Literally the same latency improvements as manually optimizing each timing with the added bonus of being stable and not requiring 24h worth of testing after setting each timing. Same goes for the all core option in the Curve Optimizer.


Although I understand your reasoning, I think the most gain can be had by doing little. Curve optimizer is generally tuned in after an hour of core cycler. If you are lucky you can run single core 200MHz higher and all core 200-300MHz higher, if unlucky you still get 200 single core and 100-200 allcore.

As for ram timings, just find your highest working frequency and do som basic tuning. It doesn`t take that long. If you are on B-die just set 1.45V, flat first 3, tras first + second and tRC tras + tRP. tRFC = tRC x 6 on B-die, tRC x 8 on Hynix and tRC x 10 on Micron. The other ones that matter is tFAW which always work at 24, trrds at 6, trrdl at 8, tWR at same as CL, tRTP at half tWR, WTRS 4, WTRL 12. Rest can stay on auto. You gain 80% of the performance potential by doing that and it doesn`t take long. If you use Micron or Hynix things are a bit more complex, but setting tRCD and tRP +4 above tCL and using the rest of the rules tends to work fine there aswell 

If you are okay with 5-10% better peformance your approch is good, if you want 15-20% try mine, if you want 25% you need to spend a lot of time


----------



## bubbleawsome (Oct 6, 2021)

Started getting random BSODs way more often than before. Starting to wonder if my RAM OC is not as stable as previously thought and it's messing with my tuner results.


----------



## freeagent (Oct 6, 2021)

I thought it was my ram too, but its @ stock 

I haven't installed Ryzen Master, and probably wont.. but I did back it off that 50MHz and I haven't had a problem so far, my usual arsenal seems to be good.. but is it? 

maybe.. probably.. possibly.. better be..


----------



## Ibizadr (Oct 7, 2021)

In corecycler I'm with original config only change time in each core but I see in some posts related to corecycler the creator attend to test it first with small fft to give more boost in light thread to the cores and it gives errors more frequently. In original config it uses huge fft, what the best way to to some tests with small or huge ffts?


----------



## tabascosauz (Oct 7, 2021)

Ibizadr said:


> In corecycler I'm with original config only change time in each core but I see in some posts related to corecycler the creator attend to test it first with small fft to give more boost in light thread to the cores and it gives errors more frequently. In original config it uses huge fft, what the best way to to some tests with small or huge ffts?



Small FFT should reduce clocks - in P95 the bigger the FFT size the more it goes into memory/memory controller and you'll often see lower temps and higher clocks. But in reality, testing between Small FFT, Large FFT and Huge FFT, there's not much of a difference in clocks...................as long as you don't enable AVX. So stay on SSE like default.

If you have the time (it's easier for you because you only have 8 cores), you could just test All FFTs like I do. But that takes much longer and you have to extend the time period significantly to cover all FFT sizes in that range - I run just over an hour.

More importantly is that you let it run for at least 3 iterations on every core (I let it cycle overnight through at least 5 iterations). Once you're on the edge, often an unstable core will pass one or two iterations, seemingly stable, only to fail on the next one - so if you only let it run for one or two cycles, you might assume that it was "stable" when it actually wasn't.


----------



## Taraquin (Oct 7, 2021)

Ibizadr said:


> In corecycler I'm with original config only change time in each core but I see in some posts related to corecycler the creator attend to test it first with small fft to give more boost in light thread to the cores and it gives errors more frequently. In original config it uses huge fft, what the best way to to some tests with small or huge ffts?


I run it at default setting and used event viewer to find the last slghtly unstable core. I would start with - 30 on all and +200 pbo, if negative is way of you get error quick, if it's slightly iff it fails after a few minutes or in test 2.


----------



## Ibizadr (Oct 8, 2021)

When pc reboots when doing corecycle I need to lower the value on the core that reboot my pc? Like to 21 to 19?


----------



## Taraquin (Oct 8, 2021)

Ibizadr said:


> When pc reboots when doing corecycle I need to lower the value on the core that reboot my pc? Like to 21 to 19?


Yes, try that. Do you see ehich core it worked on when reboot occured? Only lower that one.


----------



## Ibizadr (Oct 8, 2021)

Taraquin said:


> Yes, try that. Do you see ehich core it worked on when reboot occured? Only lower that one.


I check in event viewer and on log created in corecycle, it's the same core on event viewer and corecycler last core tested so I assumed that core need more voltage

I have my cpu llc on auto in my msi b450 tomahawk max II, it's better to put it in mode 4 like 1usmus advice in CTR 2.1or leave it on auto?


----------



## tabascosauz (Oct 8, 2021)

Ibizadr said:


> I check in event viewer and on log created in corecycle, it's the same core on event viewer and corecycler last core tested so I assumed that core need more voltage
> 
> I have my cpu llc on auto in my msi b450 tomahawk max II, it's better to put it in mode 4 like 1usmus advice in CTR 2.1or leave it on auto?



The recommendation in CTR is because CTR either wants you to use a static all-core OC according to its recommendation, or use its own hybrid OC mechanism (half of which is still basically static all-core).

Messing around in CO is still under PBO, which is still just stock boost. When on PB stock boost, leave it on auto, because iirc droopy and loose LLC is actually what the boost algorithm wants. Aggressive LLC can make static OC easier, but for stock boost aggressive LLC doesn't help/doesn't change anything/hurts boost.


----------



## Ferrum Master (Oct 8, 2021)

tabascosauz said:


> The recommendation in CTR is because CTR either wants you to use a static all-core OC according to its recommendation, or use its own hybrid OC mechanism (half of which is still basically static all-core).
> 
> Messing around in CO is still under PBO, which is still just stock boost. When on PB stock boost, leave it on auto, because iirc droopy and loose LLC is actually what the boost algorithm wants. Aggressive LLC can make static OC easier, but for stock boost aggressive LLC doesn't help/doesn't change anything/hurts boost.



I was supporting CRT on the Patreon. Well it turned out ugly. CTR is an ugly mess, I will not ever recommend it to anyone, not mentioning the fact the coder is a whining bitch, his emails for supporters were like from a demanding ex and he didn't realize that his bug driven tool is really so much full of shit it is barely usable to ask money for it and blaming anyone having problems with it, it ain't the tool, but you. Very unprofessional.

Well it all depends on your sample and motherboard... it very wild setting wise as far I experienced. The LLC does react different in between vendors, it is normal as VRMS differ a lot and their speed and performance.

In the end it is just experiment. Example for my 5950X.

1. Make your RAM solid stable.
2. Do not touch anything CPU voltage wise, adjust the RAM domain and VSOC, CCD, IOD voltages depending on your RAM amount(like how many sticks) gen and speed. It is very crucial not to overdo there, but leaving it stock is not an also an option often. Depends on the board. AUTO often gives worst results.
3. PBO. I do it the old fashioned way, in a notebook(I mean the one having paper). I wrote down my core statistics. I have two CCD's, each two best core pairs, then second then third. So I gradate them. Best for may CCX0 have -2m then second best pair has -6. Then other -16. For Second CCX I have the same except the best have -4 then next pair -10 and then -16 for other.
4. Then do Power limit play depending if you wish more multicore or single core performance. Yes, that's decided there.

Any suggestions for my maybe flawed reasoning?


----------



## outpt (Oct 8, 2021)

when looking for the correct core to adjust go to  event viewer log for the processor APIC ID:#. this tells you what core crashed. Go back into CPUZ and look at tool and  save report as text. you can save this to desktop if you want to.
some times core numbering can start as core-0 or core-1. CPU-Z helps making sure you are adjusting the correct core.


----------



## Ibizadr (Oct 8, 2021)

Ferrum Master said:


> I was supporting CRT on the Patreon. Well it turned out ugly. CTR is an ugly mess, I will not ever recommend it to anyone, not mentioning the fact the coder is a whining bitch, his emails for supporters were like from a demanding ex and he didn't realize that his bug driven tool is really so much full of shit it is barely usable to ask money for it and blaming anyone having problems with it, it ain't the tool, but you. Very unprofessional.
> 
> Well it all depends on your sample and motherboard... it very wild setting wise as far I experienced. The LLC does react different in between vendors, it is normal as VRMS differ a lot and their speed and performance.
> 
> ...


I don't touch in my ram for now only load xmp. My advise is too run corecycler it's a really useful tool to do the work for CO. I never experienced an error in corecycler only reboots but I think my  best cores was a bit high negative (-18,-14) if you don't got errors or reboots try again  but edit config file and add more time per core and try to do it at least 3 iteration. For example I pass 3 iterations of 6min per core yesterday and today try 15min per core and it reboots. So always give a second try to corecycler with more time per core.



outpt said:


> when looking for the correct core to adjust go to  event viewer log for the processor APIC ID:#. this tells you what core crashed. Go back into CPUZ and look at tool and  save report as text. you can save this to desktop if you want to.
> some times core numbering can start as core-0 or core-1. CPU-Z helps making sure you are adjusting the correct core.


Yes in event viewer appears APIC ID and i think after its the thread number dont know this way to know the numbering via cpu z. Thanks for that tip I use corecycler log to see what core corresponding to APIC ID error


----------



## Ferrum Master (Oct 8, 2021)

Ibizadr said:


> I don't touch in my ram for now only load xmp. My advise is too run corecycler it's a really useful tool to do the work for CO. I never experienced an error in corecycler only reboots but I think my  best cores was a bit high negative (-18,-14) if you don't got errors or reboots try again  but edit config file and add more time per core and try to do it at least 3 iteration. For example I pass 3 iterations of 6min per core yesterday and today try 15min per core and it reboots. So always give a second try to corecycler with more time per core.
> 
> 
> Yes in event viewer appears APIC ID and i think after its the thread number dont know this way to know the numbering via cpu z. Thanks for that tip I use corecycler log to see what core corresponding to APIC ID error



XMP is not a thing you can trust on. It is often made for intel platforms, it does not work on AMD the same. 

Corecyler is for those random reboots on standby. The real prime test or any relatives is for all core stability. For gaming test I use some Final Fantasy benches, I have them found good triggering random BSODS on CPU instability as those are not very GPU dependent.

3 iterations is not enough... I leave usually each test of my config overnight.


----------



## AVATARAT (Oct 8, 2021)

I don't like anymore corecycler because it's overvolting cores.
Now I prefer OCCT with the following settings:




 



Just run this core by core and lower or upper the Curve optimizer on the core that gets an error.
But be careful because sometimes too much or too lower voltage on one core can affect the other core next to it.
Normally you can get an error in 20-30 seconds.


----------



## Ibizadr (Oct 9, 2021)

AVATARAT said:


> I don't like anymore corecycler because it's overvolting cores.
> Now I prefer OCCT with the following settings:
> 
> View attachment 220056 View attachment 220057
> ...


From my experience in the last days I think you are right when you say sometimes voltage on one core affect other core next to it. I will give a try with occt and your settings too since it gives errors more faster than corecycler in your words.


----------



## mrthanhnguyen (Oct 9, 2021)

Anyone know why I can do linpack extreme but fail to run geekbench 5. What is the cause?


----------



## Mussels (Oct 10, 2021)

mrthanhnguyen said:


> Anyone know why I can do linpack extreme but fail to run geekbench 5. What is the cause?


They load the hardware different.

Just means linpack isn't exposing your instability.


----------



## AVATARAT (Oct 10, 2021)

mrthanhnguyen said:


> Anyone know why I can do linpack extreme but fail to run geekbench 5. What is the cause?


Because your CPU goes to a higher clock where the voltage is not enough for one or a few cores, probably the fastest cores.


----------



## jesdals (Oct 21, 2021)

New AMD chipset driver out


----------



## freeagent (Oct 21, 2021)

Do people install those? What do they actually do that the windows drivers don’t?


----------



## jesdals (Oct 21, 2021)

freeagent said:


> Do people install those? What do they actually do that the windows drivers don’t?


Mess up your curve settings


----------



## Deleted member 202104 (Oct 21, 2021)

freeagent said:


> Do people install those? What do they actually do that the windows drivers don’t?



The latest one does this:





Strangely, it's only listed when you choose the X570 chipset on the driver page, but the release notes say it's for B550 as well.


----------



## outpt (Oct 21, 2021)

dl for my b550 and installed . No problems. Will test


----------



## Mussels (Oct 21, 2021)

L3 Cache results went from ~625 to ~655
Driver good.


----------



## Nordic (Oct 22, 2021)

freeagent said:


> Do people install those? What do they actually do that the windows drivers don’t?


They actually have a very strong impact on performance. It made a huge difference back when ryzen 3000 first came out. This driver will probably be really important for windows 11.


----------



## Mussels (Oct 22, 2021)

freeagent said:


> Do people install those? What do they actually do that the windows drivers don’t?


For zen 1/2, they add a ryzen power plan that helps performance out.

For Zen 3, they add these sort of performance fixes. They also include chipset, USB drivers, sata, etc etc - minor fixes and such that you dont really notice.


----------



## RJARRRPCGP (Nov 4, 2021)

Mussels said:


> linpack isn't exposing your instability.


That is common, if there's bus instability. (Usually CPU-to-bus communication issues, most likely CPU-bus termination issues)

I had that with a poopy Core 2 Quad Q6600 G0 at only 367 Mhz FSB, I had to crank the FSB termination voltage for Prime95 in blend mode to not fail with "STOP: 0x00000124" BSOD with "Bus/Interconnect Error" being the reason. That error reason is possibly the most common on 65nm Core 2 Quads.


----------



## DanglingPointer (Nov 11, 2021)

RandomJerk said:


> Anyone here has any experience with overclocking a 5950x and testing stability on Linux? I tried PBO+CO settings and tested stability on a Windows install, and everything seemed fine, till I went to Linux and started seeing crashes immediately. So, all my CO values ended up being thrown out of the window on Linux. FYI, I have a Gigabyte X570 AORUS PRO WIFI.



Hi @RandomJerk, I've only ever had linux for the last decade in all my PCs, Workstations, servers, and IoT SoCs.

I haven't got a 5950x but I do have a 5800x watercooled all core overclock in my main workstation server; it is coupled with a Powercolor Liquid Devil Ultimate 6900xt.

For CPU stability testing I use prime95 called "mprime" in linux: https://www.mersenne.org/download/
I typically run it for about 2 hours on all threads on the torture setting option 2 small FFTs maximum power test.
Then I run the blend test for 12 hours.
I'm stable on all core OC at 4.65 under load.  I do all core OC as my workstation does 24/7 multithreaded compute so my results are better compared to PBO2.

For GPU stability testing I use Furmark or the Piano Test from Geeks3D.  https://www.geeks3d.com/20140304/gp...w-fp64-opengl-4-test-and-online-gpu-database/
It is an older version but does the job natively.  If you want the newer version of Furmark then you can run it in Wine I suppose, but I don't bother and the 0.7.0 version does the job.
I modify the various .sh scripts to fit my screen resolution.  Just open it up in Geany or the Gnome Text Editor and change the config.  For stability testing it is the Windowed scripts that you want to modify since it will run indefinitely until you terminate it.


----------



## Mussels (Nov 12, 2021)

Just because i've got the info scattered in half a dozen threads now, but its relevant to this topic:

Temps are key to the clocks when using PBO.

I'm at a mere 98W PPT on my 5800x, but because its under/at 60C i'm seeing 4.85GHz all core while gaming.
Performance is absurd.


----------



## ViperXTR (Nov 12, 2021)

Mussels said:


> Just because i've got the info scattered in half a dozen threads now, but its relevant to this topic:
> 
> Temps are key to the clocks when using PBO.
> 
> ...


98PPT damn, hope my new cooler improves it as well, but not as absurd as yours though, now im curious how your system handles the likes of heavy avx2 RPCS3 (and avx512 instructions, without needing avx512 itself)


----------



## Mussels (Nov 12, 2021)

ViperXTR said:


> 98PPT damn, hope my new cooler improves it as well, but not as absurd as yours though, now im curious how your system handles the likes of heavy avx2 RPCS3 (and avx512 instructions, without needing avx512 itself)


I actually am not sure if i'm on 108 or 98 right now, as i was testing a few different options tbh

AVX stuff runs lower clocks than gaming, cause its more power hungry i assume

Used OCCT and its AVX2 setting - 4.65Ghz 108W, 62C


----------



## ViperXTR (Nov 12, 2021)

Mussels said:


> I actually am not sure if i'm on 108 or 98 right now, as i was testing a few different options tbh
> 
> AVX stuff runs lower clocks than gaming, cause its more power hungry i assume
> 
> ...


Yeah, AVX Workloads tends to downclock the frequency, even more so for AVX2 running AVX512 instructions in which RCPS3 is doing
one of the areas where the 11th gen intel can overtake zen3 because of AVX512


----------



## DanglingPointer (Nov 13, 2021)

ViperXTR said:


> Yeah, AVX Workloads tends to downclock the frequency, even more so for AVX2 running AVX512 instructions in which RCPS3 is doing
> one of the areas where the 11th gen intel can overtake zen3 because of AVX512
> View attachment 224892
> View attachment 224893


You can enable AVX-512 on Alder lake in Linux.  But the catch is you will need to disable the E-cores...
Here are the benchmarks and how to do it... https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=alder-lake-avx512&num=1

There is a story within a story here... Intel always had AVX-512 earmarked for Alder-lake but the 10nm design and the sheer density of stuff all working within the 10nm design lead to too much power usage and not enough heat dissipation.  It is still a problem and it will be interesting in future architecture on how they will get around that problem and solve it. 

The easy path is to do less in the volumetric area they are playing with to have less heat, which means less featured CPUs; however with AMD, Nvidia and Apple going even smaller on TSMC's and Samsungs node-tech; the only way Intel can compete is to do more in the volumetric area they are playing with, which for now is 10nm.  They are basically trailing the other two so have to compensate by stuffing more in, in the volumetric area that they have.  (Volumetric as architectures are now 3D and no longer planar 2D).


----------



## iiNNeX (Nov 29, 2021)

Hey all, just found this thread as I was looking for help with my 5950x PBO OC settings. Here is where I'm at...

I have tried to follow guidance on this thread and have researched what each setting does separately to try better understand what I am doing. Unfortunately I am a little stuck because certain settings seem stable until they are not, for no apparent reason. Let me explain, first off here is the hardware:

5950x
MEG X570S ACE (latest bios)
3600 CL16 (Samsung Bdie) running XMP
beQuiet Titanium 1000W PSU (connected to an Eaton UPS so power delivery is as clean and stable as it can be)
Cooled by Arctic 360 AIO with Corsair ML Pro fans in a Meshify 2 with ML Pro Fans all around.
Win 11 Pro

Right then, so the bios settings I have are all stock apart from:

XMP on
PBO Advanced
*PTT* 220 *TDC* 135 *EDC* 180 (tried lower EDC but performance was worse)
Scalar Auto
+50mhz boost clock
temp target 90

Curve started out at -10 all core, which then passed CPU Z bench, 10 minutes of Cinebench R23 and 30 mins of Linpack OCCT + OCCT bench
Temps were solid, I was happy with the performance so I moved on to -12 CO, all good, -15 CO all good, -18 CO still fine, this time I even let it stress for longer and again no WHEA errors and temps were solid (max 73C in an ambient 24.5C). 

*Best scores at this point were:*
C23 - 29000
CPUZ - 688 single 13320 multi

Then I decided to try out -20 CO and the machine did boot into windows and ran CPU Z bench, it also ran OCCT linpack however it failed on OCCT bench (pc just shut down). I thought, ok I will just back down to 18. Yeah well I did that and Windows wont boot (BSOD straight after bios loading screen). Went back, tried -15 and this time it boot but once on desktop it crashed again with WHEA error. Now I am at -10 again and it seems to work.

I need help before I go mad trying to figure out how something is stable for so long and then once it crashes, I have to go back several steps just to get a working system?

Also how do I figure out my best cores so I can start to optimise CO on a per core basis?

Thanks in advance, this is a nightmare but I hope to see myself through it.


----------



## Deleted member 215115 (Nov 29, 2021)

Ryzen Master shows your best cores in each CCD. No idea how accurate it is though.


----------



## jesdals (Nov 29, 2021)

iiNNeX said:


> Hey all, just found this thread as I was looking for help with my 5950x PBO OC settings. Here is where I'm at...
> 
> I have tried to follow guidance on this thread and have researched what each setting does separately to try better understand what I am doing. Unfortunately I am a little stuck because certain settings seem stable until they are not, for no apparent reason. Let me explain, first off here is the hardware:
> 
> ...


Welcome - when you got a all core setting stable, then you can progress by changeing one core at the time.


----------



## iiNNeX (Nov 29, 2021)

rares495 said:


> Ryzen Master shows your best cores in each CCD. No idea how accurate it is though.


Ok I ll give those a go.




jesdals said:


> Welcome - when you got a all core setting stable, then you can progress by changeing one core at the time.



Thank you for all your useful posts earlier in the thread, they definitely helped determine a starting point for me!

And yes that is the aim, however as per my opening post I had (or at least assumed) an all core stable CO which turned out to not be so stable.

On another note I just discovered CoreCycler so have been running that for an hour which has really helped determine which of my cores couldn't deal with the offset, that explains the odd behaviour before. I will see how far I can get with CO, but other than that is there any other settings I should tweak within BIOS to help with a more stable OC? Voltage, LLC, SOC ect ?

Thanks!


----------



## Mussels (Nov 29, 2021)

Definitely use the single threaded tester (i forgot its name, ugh) - it caught something i'd missed where my top performing core needed a tad higher setting than the rest

Go for all core that boots and is roughly stable, then run that tester through allowing it to stop on cores that error. Then you can raise those back up, and go from there.
Early guess: higher perormance cores will want more, slowest cores want less.


----------



## iiNNeX (Nov 30, 2021)

So after 6 hours of testing on CoreCycler I thought I actually had a stable system! Sadly, I was wrong once again... 2 hours of Battlefield 2042 and blue screen with WHEA errors... ffs

So now I have dialed things down even more and at this point, unless I am clearly missing a setting here (for stability), I give up and will just get a 12900k later in the year when DDR5 is readily available. 

Pretty sure I have a dud for a CPU when it comes to CO:

Core 5, 6 and 7 seem to only do -5, the rest can do -15 (although were previously stable at -20 but now it wont even boot with that).

Shame.


----------



## outpt (Nov 30, 2021)

this is only a 5800x it might be of some use for you.
ppt:120w,tdc:85A,edc:108A max boost +50mhz
Cores set to C0-6,
C1-6, C2-16 ,C3-16, C4-16, C5-16 ,C6-5 ,C7-5. GSS-Disabled
not a engineer but it seems that core 2,3,4,5 are "grouped" together and i was abled to more negative offset. still working on this idea. Cores 0 and 1 are by there selves as are core 6and 7.
A-XMP is enabled for 3600mhz memory
in testing i do not get whea errors but event id:41which cause bsod or it simple restarts if this happens 2 times in a row windows will go into a repair state and ask if i want boot back into windows or use a usb device to repair. boot back into windows and use Tweaking.com-windows repair and follow the steps for the program this works like a charm and i am able to put the last working curve offsets as stated above. core 6and 7 will not tolerate no more than -5 this known. the other cores i am still working on as i am in no hurry. my 5900x dose not have these problems so far still working on this R9 cpu. i think that most of my problems revolve setting up CO absolutely correct. now i can get both CO and pbo to work together.
i have looked thought the forums here and have not the core clusters like i have.
power plan set to best performance and idle voltage does not drop.


----------



## iiNNeX (Nov 30, 2021)

So I raised EDC to 200 and TDC to 145, I then re-did the CO with the strongest 3 cores getting -6 and everything else -16. This is the best scores I can get after an hour or so of messing around with stress tests, at XMP profile ram (3600 CL16)






Going to run a few more hours of various stress tests to make sure its 100% rock solid, before I start tuning the memory, I am going to go for a 3800 CL16 Fast preset using DRAM calculator and see how I get on. Should help push me over the 30k in cinebench and if it's stable, that is all the performance I need for now. I'd like a bit better single-core but it is what it is.


----------



## outpt (Nov 30, 2021)

for me gaming is the acid test. CC dose not equal stability or any other stress test


----------



## iiNNeX (Nov 30, 2021)

outpt said:


> for me gaming is the acid test. CC dose not equal stability or any other stress test



Yeah I agree, once stable in benches and stress programs, I will run various games for a few hours as I would normally and confirm stability.


----------



## freeagent (Nov 30, 2021)

For me it’s test mem 5 lol..

it runs those cores so fast, I usually get a thread exception error. I am just running an all core clock right now at 4500. It’s pretty boring.


----------



## Haytham (Feb 4, 2022)

I registered here specifically in order to present my problem with my processor and I'm not good with OC I just try for the first time to OC my CPU

First of all I just need the best temps and best low voltage to my CPU keeping the performance at the best as possible I don't need crazy numbers.

The first Issue when I set PBO to manual and add PPT and TDC and EDC and enable Curve and making It -16 and enable XMP My PC It work but Restart randomly.

The Second Issue i found the bench in CPU Z give me the same result with XMP or without XMP so by default my ram run at 2666 and with XMP 3600 no change In CPU Z score but I can see the bench give me little high score with 2666 !!!

Also my PC Restart randomly more with XMP Enabled. It restarts in both but more with XMP.

I have latest Bios Update already Installed.

Any advise ?


----------



## Ibizadr (Feb 4, 2022)

Haytham said:


> I registered here specifically in order to present my problem with my processor and I'm not good with OC I just try for the first time to OC my CPU
> 
> First of all I just need the best temps and best low voltage to my CPU keeping the performance at the best as possible I don't need crazy numbers.
> 
> ...



Maybe -16 was to much in some cores of your processor. You need to see in event viewer if you got whea error, after that open the whea error and see what apic ID it was, like APIC ID 0 OR 7 OR 3. See it and told us if you have any whea error. It's not normal with xmp restarts so I assume it was to aggressive co in some core


----------



## Haytham (Feb 4, 2022)

Ibizadr said:


> Maybe -16 was to much in some cores of your processor. You need to see in event viewer if you got whea error, after that open the whea error and see what apic ID it was, like APIC ID 0 OR 7 OR 3. See it and told us if you have any whea error. It's not normal with xmp restarts so I assume it was to aggressive co in some core



Thank you for your reply

I attached the pic from Event Viewer

I will try to lower the Curve and will try to make It per core


----------



## Ibizadr (Feb 4, 2022)

Haytham said:


> Thank you for your reply
> 
> I attached the pic from Event Viewer
> 
> I will try to lower the Curve and will try to make It per core


Its not that you need to find. You need to find something like my attach pic to see what core fail.
Pic it's not mine its from Google but it's what you need to find in event viewer.
Try per core its the best way but it consumes time. You can run now with your settings corecycler and see what core cause problems.


----------



## Haytham (Feb 4, 2022)

Ibizadr said:


> Its not that you need to find. You need to find something like my attach pic to see what core fail.
> Pic it's not mine its from Google but it's what you need to find in event viewer.
> Try per core its the best way but it consumes time. You can run now with your settings corecycler and see what core cause problems.



I attached the pic from my PC like what you said, I hope this can make us fix the issue


----------



## Ibizadr (Feb 4, 2022)

Haytham said:


> I attached the pic from my PC like what you said, I hope this can make us fix the issue


But this is whea 46 you need to find some whea 19 error, related to apic ID. Or your problem that's not a curve optimizer but other thing


----------



## kapone32 (Feb 4, 2022)

I only use Radeon software to OC my CPU.


----------



## Haytham (Feb 4, 2022)

Ibizadr said:


> But this is whea 46 you need to find some whea 19 error, related to apic ID. Or your problem that's not a curve optimizer but other thing



You are right the Issue from the fast cores and slow one each one need to be optimized alone.

I found the faster two cores from Ryzen master now The problem has been solved.

Thank you


----------



## jesdals (Feb 5, 2022)

Haytham said:


> I registered here specifically in order to present my problem with my processor and I'm not good with OC I just try for the first time to OC my CPU
> 
> First of all I just need the best temps and best low voltage to my CPU keeping the performance at the best as possible I don't need crazy numbers.
> 
> ...


Its proberly "safer" or more correct to start with tuning the memory settings before you start with the curve settings - theres guides arround 1usmus in here https://www.techpowerup.com/download/ryzen-dram-calculator/

B450 chipset will be less flexible with 2x16 gb modules than others using 8gb e.g. with Samsung B-die so expect results to be lesser than those with these

You can read about AMD memory settings here as well https://www.techpowerup.com/review/neo-forza-faye-ddr4-5000-2x-8gb/

When memory and Infinity fabric is stable - then its time for PBO and Curve optimization - would actually play around with the PBO first and then ad the Curve settings last


----------



## Haytham (Feb 5, 2022)

jesdals said:


> Its proberly "safer" or more correct to start with tuning the memory settings before you start with the curve settings - theres guides arround 1usmus in here https://www.techpowerup.com/download/ryzen-dram-calculator/
> 
> B450 chipset will be less flexible with 2x16 gb modules than others using 8gb e.g. with Samsung B-die so expect results to be lesser than those with these
> 
> ...



Thank you so much for this information and I will definitely read all of this.


----------



## jesdals (Feb 12, 2022)

Found this Der 8auer OC guide - found his PBO settings interesting


----------



## jesdals (Feb 13, 2022)

Did some testing and found that raising EDC above TDC gave lesser single and multicore performance




running with EDC at 115 gave 10 points more in single thread performance and about 100 points in multiperformance - so with my setup it did not bring better performance


----------



## jesdals (Mar 16, 2022)

New AMD Chipset driver - seems to down step all core boost clocks - done testing for 2 days and it seems that PBO boost is down with 100-150MHz compared with earlier versions

Article Number
RN-RYZEN-CHIPSET-4-03-03-431
Release Highlights​
 Fixed PSP driver downgrade issues
Fixed some text on Russian OS language pack
Known Issues​
Sometimes custom install fails to upgrade to latest drivers.
Text alignment issues may be seen on Russian language.
Manual system restart required on Non-English OS after the installation is complete.
Windows® Installer pop-up message may appear during the installation.
Uninstall summary log may incorrectly show uninstall status as fail on non-English OS.
May observe a pop-up message "AMD Chipset Software is not responding" when the installer is launched and UI screen is clicked.


----------



## Ferrum Master (Mar 16, 2022)

Don't put EDC past 140A

It will disable boost ie voltages past 1.4V. It is a known issue.


----------



## jesdals (Mar 16, 2022)

Ferrum Master said:


> Don't put EDC past 140A
> 
> It will disable boost ie voltages past 1.4V. It is a known issue.


Hmm have been testing and running with these settings for a while - but setting 245/125/140 did give better results single and multi core!

Will test for stability and results with current bios and settings - thanks Ferrum Master!


----------



## Ibizadr (Mar 16, 2022)

jesdals said:


> Hmm have been testing and running with these settings for a while - but setting 245/125/140 did give better results single and multi core!
> 
> Will test for stability and results with current bios and settings - thanks Ferrum Master!


I don't believe in that since the problem with Edc 140 was related to a bios update and not to a chipset driver update. You got better results because maybe you keep your cpu not to hot compared to other settings you use in past.


----------



## jesdals (Mar 16, 2022)

Well results seems better


----------



## Makaveli (Mar 16, 2022)

Ibizadr said:


> I don't believe in that since the problem with Edc 140 was related to a bios update and not to a chipset driver update. You got better results because maybe you keep your cpu not to hot compared to other settings you use in past.


This EDC 140 issue is due to the new bios not chipset drivers. I have downloaded the chipset drivers and will be installing over the weekend to see what it does.


----------



## MrDweezil (Mar 16, 2022)

Ferrum Master said:


> Don't put EDC past 140A
> 
> It will disable boost ie voltages past 1.4V. It is a known issue.


How long has this been the case? And how did you find out about it?


----------



## Ferrum Master (Mar 16, 2022)

MrDweezil said:


> How long has this been the case? And how did you find out about it?



Saw it somewhere on Reddit and overclockers forum also.

It applies only to the latest AGESA V2 PI 1.2.0.6b, I was using betas, so I saw something weird for few weeks already.


----------



## Ibizadr (Mar 16, 2022)

Ferrum Master said:


> Saw it somewhere on Reddit and overclockers forum also.
> 
> It applies only to the latest AGESA V2 PI 1.2.0.6b, I was using betas, so I saw something weird for few weeks already.


After 1.2.0.3c Edc past 140 don't boost your cpu higher than before.

After I give a try to the last chipset update I'm rolling it back since I experience yesterday a weird shutdown and on boot ask me to go to bios like I change something and today I got an hard crash (first one this build with 10months) need to shutdown on power and after that no boot. Need to change ram slots (ram led bug on motherboard) and clear cmos. Tomorrow I will rolling it back. AMD messing a lot with latests bios and chipset updates.


----------



## Dia01 (Apr 18, 2022)

I can't seem to get too much more past 670 single core score CPUZ.  Raising the PBO limits have no effect, thinking just a combination of my chip and the X570M shitty VRM's...

PBO Settings:
PPT - 142W
TDC - 95A
EDC - 100A
1st four best cores: -10
Next best 4 cores: -15
All remaining cores: -20


----------



## jesdals (Apr 18, 2022)

@Dia01 Well considering that your Infinity fabric is 1800 and compared with the rest I think your scores is pretty fine. One thing your curve setting at -10 and -15. I found that the best cores could take the lowest value, so in your case I would try setting the "bad cores" at -15 and the god cores at -20 and the best at -25.


----------



## Dia01 (Apr 18, 2022)

"bad cores" at -15 and the god cores at -20 and the best at -25 not stable for me.

Tried "bad cores" at -10 and the god cores at -15 and the best at -20, slightly worse score than before.  I think I'm where it is likely to be in all honesty.


----------



## tjtremor999 (Apr 20, 2022)

do we have any programs available outside corecycler for testing max boost freq for curve optimizer ?

corecycler is good up to around ~4925, outside of that there's still up to 5100 boost for background apps or games

yesterday had CO-24 pass corecycler 8h but of course just 2mins of Destiny2 5.1 boost for few seconds and got a nice bsod.








**never mind,  heaven benchmark pushes those high freq randomly I'll loop that overnight*


----------



## Final_Fighter (Apr 20, 2022)

Dia01 said:


> "bad cores" at -15 and the god cores at -20 and the best at -25 not stable for me.
> 
> Tried "bad cores" at -10 and the god cores at -15 and the best at -20, slightly worse score than before.  I think I'm where it is likely to be in all honesty.
> 
> View attachment 243982


i found that setting the power limit to "motherboard" in the bios works best for max cpu performance.


----------



## Dia01 (Apr 21, 2022)

Final_Fighter said:


> i found that setting the power limit to "motherboard" in the bios works best for max cpu performance.


My motherboard pre-configured limits are:
PPT - 142W
TDC - 95A
EDC - 140A

I've set the limits to 'Motherboard' and also set manually, I've found no difference raising EDC.  Lowering EDC to 100A seems to be the best balance for some reason.


----------



## freeagent (Apr 21, 2022)

Honestly, I used Linpck Xtreme to find the max the CPU will put out, so for me running that program with PBO and APE enabled, I noticed the CPU will do 225w PPT. It will do 153 TDC and 180 EDC, so thats what I set my limits to, and played with CO to get a decent tune going... its worked for me except in Core Cycler. But in absolutely every benchmark in Benchmate, every stress test, daily use, games, time.. It has been cock solid. But core cycler fails pretty hard.. To pass CC I have to dial things back quite a bit.. the only program. Grrr.. gets me fired up every time


----------



## tabascosauz (Apr 21, 2022)

freeagent said:


> It has been cock solid.





I dunno if I would daily something that fails default corecycler, but passing default config is good enough 99% of the time. Won't be crashing on you. Thoroughly testing is just for the extra peace of mind since boost is inherently unpredictable.

For default config my preferred cores are -5/-8 and most of the 10 others up to -25 or -30. For truly stable, it's -2/-5 and most at -20 or so.

For non-occasional crashing you'd need like -30 on cores that have no business being over -10


----------



## DoLlyBirD (Apr 22, 2022)

How do my settings look, I'm completely new to PBO/CO overclocking though after messing around in the bios tonight, these settings look to be the best I have gotten in CPU-Z bench so far, temps all seem to be in check, RAM at 4000mhz and 1:1 IF clock, Ryzen 5500 CPU and some TeamGroup RAMK which I believe is Samsung B-die, though inconclusive


----------



## Dia01 (Apr 22, 2022)

DoLlyBirD said:


> How do my settings look, I'm completely new to PBO/CO overclocking though after messing around in the bios tonight, these settings look to be the best I have gotten in CPU-Z bench so far, temps all seem to be in check, RAM at 4000mhz and 1:1 IF clock, Ryzen 5500 CPU and some TeamGroup RAMK which I believe is Samsung B-die, though inconclusive


Have you played around with the Boost Clock Override?


----------



## freeagent (Apr 22, 2022)

tabascosauz said:


> I dunno if I would daily something that fails default corecycler


My 5600X was easy 

I got 4800 CC stable, default anyways.. 5900X is gonna take a bit.. I did start, have a few hours in.. didn't really like what I saw lol.. might as well just run it at stock


----------



## DoLlyBirD (Apr 22, 2022)

Dia01 said:


> Have you played around with the Boost Clock Override?


if it's the setting I think you're on about, my motherboard/CPU only lets me set 200mhz, so default boost clock of 4250 goes up to 4450mhz


----------



## tabascosauz (Apr 22, 2022)

DoLlyBirD said:


> How do my settings look, I'm completely new to PBO/CO overclocking though after messing around in the bios tonight, these settings look to be the best I have gotten in CPU-Z bench so far, temps all seem to be in check, RAM at 4000mhz and 1:1 IF clock, Ryzen 5500 CPU and some TeamGroup RAMK which I believe is Samsung B-die, though inconclusive



Go to BIOS > AMD CBS and disable TSME. You are penalizing yourself by 7-10ns

Boost Clock Override tops out at 200 and has been for a long time

TSME aside, latency is high for 4000CL16 but Im assuming that's because you haven't touched tRFC yet

Use zentimings if you want to get into mem stuff


----------



## DoLlyBirD (Apr 22, 2022)

Would bios settings for AMD overclock/CBS etc


tabascosauz said:


> Go to BIOS > AMD CBS and disable TSME. You are penalizing yourself by 7-10ns
> 
> Boost Clock Override tops out at 200 and has been for a long time
> 
> TSME aside, latency is high for 4000CL16 but Im assuming that's because you haven't touched tRFC yet


I can't find any TSME setting in my bios at all, I knocked the TRFC down a tad as it was about 560 using default settings, though wanted to be careful as have had issues lowering it too far too soon in the past with these sticks, though that was on a Ryzen 1600AF when I could only run max 3400mhz stable


----------



## tabascosauz (Apr 22, 2022)

DoLlyBirD said:


> Would bios settings for AMD overclock/CBS etc
> 
> I can't find any TSME setting in my bios at all, I knocked the TRFC down a tad as it was about 560 using default settings, though wanted to be careful as have had issues lowering it too far too soon in the past with these sticks, though that was on a Ryzen 1600AF when I could only run max 3400mhz stable



tRFC gets kinda easier to run "tighter" ns-wise the higher speed you go. Because you need more VDIMM to push lower tRFC, but each kit has a hard lower limit to tRFC (in number not ns) where it won't boot anymore.

If it doesn't do sub 200ns tRFC, it's not B-die. No matter how horrible the bin. Even legacy E-die does 160ns. 140ns can be a little tough for bad B-die but 160ns should be no prob

Some vendors now put TSME on the main page under CBS. For others it should still be under UMC settings or something under CBS. And then under Security I think. MSI should be fine, don't recall it being that hard to find on my Unify-X.


----------



## DoLlyBirD (Apr 22, 2022)

I have MSI B450m Pro-A Max, it's a turd of a board.. still can't see any resemblance of that setting.. 

Interesting thing though with the TRFC, tried to run low 300's on my 1600AF and it didn't like it at all though that was likely due to the 1600AF IMC and not the RAM, I'm at 400 now, I shall go deeper down the rabbit hole lol


----------



## tjtremor999 (Apr 22, 2022)

tabascosauz said:


> tRFC gets kinda easier to run "tighter" ns-wise the higher speed you go. Because you need more VDIMM to push lower tRFC, but each kit has a hard lower limit to tRFC (in number not ns) where it won't boot anymore.
> 
> If it doesn't do sub 200ns tRFC, it's not B-die. No matter how horrible the bin. Even legacy E-die does 160ns. 140ns can be a little tough for bad B-die but 160ns should be no prob
> 
> ...


b-die is the way to go for lowest tRFC,
low tRFC works very well on amd, every -10trfc nets you a good .1ns better latency

here's my patriot 4400cl19 kits


----------



## tabascosauz (Apr 22, 2022)

tjtremor999 said:


> b-die is the way to go for lowest tRFC,
> low tRFC works very well on amd, every -10trfc nets you a good .1ns better latency
> 
> here's my patriot 4400cl19 kits



Yes, but at the same time AIDA is also disproportionately a sucker for tRFC, doesn't quite translate to real performance. Big jumps on tRFC make big gains, but smaller differences below 140ns is not quite as noticeable. Other timings have real impact as well but AIDA ignores them.

Tradeoff between VDIMM and tRFC. 1.56V set on Gigabyte boards is closer to 1.6V real, since all Gigabyte boards overvolt VDIMM between 0.03-0.06V.





DoLlyBirD said:


> I have MSI B450m Pro-A Max, it's a turd of a board.. still can't see any resemblance of that setting..
> 
> Interesting thing though with the TRFC, tried to run low 300's on my 1600AF and it didn't like it at all though that was likely due to the 1600AF IMC and not the RAM, I'm at 400 now, I shall go deeper down the rabbit hole lol
> 
> View attachment 244474



I'll take a look at my Unify-X BIOS later tonight and send some screenies of CBS menu.

Can't help you much if you don't provide your zentimings. I'm confident you can do 145ns or better, but you should expect to bump VDIMM for it. tRFC isn't free.









						ZenTimings
					

ZenTimings is a simple and lightweight app for monitoring memory timings on Ryzen platform.




					zentimings.protonrom.com


----------



## Dia01 (Apr 22, 2022)

I honestly can't locate the TSME setting in my bios either???


----------



## Deleted member 202104 (Apr 22, 2022)

DoLlyBirD said:


> Would bios settings for AMD overclock/CBS etc
> 
> I can't find any TSME setting in my bios at all, I knocked the TRFC down a tad as it was about 560 using default settings, though wanted to be careful as have had issues lowering it too far too soon in the past with these sticks, though that was on a Ryzen 1600AF when I could only run max 3400mhz stable





tabascosauz said:


> I'll take a look at my Unify-X BIOS later tonight and send some screenies of CBS menu.
> 
> Can't help you much if you don't provide your zentimings. I'm confident you can do 145ns or better, but you should expect to bump VDIMM for it. tRFC isn't free.
> 
> ...



On my Unify it's under Overclocking/Advanced DRAM Configuration


----------



## tabascosauz (Apr 22, 2022)

weekendgeek said:


> On my Unify it's under Overclocking/Advanced DRAM Configuration
> 
> View attachment 244479



Should also mention, Asus and MSI BIOS have search function in the top right (except 16MB MSI slim BIOS). Makes it much easier to look for stuff.


----------



## Dia01 (Apr 22, 2022)

Can't locate TSME on the main page or in Advance under AMD CBS which the only sub item is DRAM Memory Mapping


----------



## jesdals (Apr 22, 2022)

I had to dig deep under my bios AMD CBS settings to find the TSME setting


tjtremor999 said:


> b-die is the way to go for lowest tRFC,
> low tRFC works very well on amd, every -10trfc nets you a good .1ns better latency
> 
> here's my patriot 4400cl19 kits
> View attachment 244475


Heres mine same type of Patriot - like your settings though


----------



## Octopuss (Apr 26, 2022)

What's TSME?


----------



## tabascosauz (Apr 26, 2022)

Octopuss said:


> What's TSME?



A memory encryption method part that used to be part of AMD's "PRO" suite. Renoir and Cezanne APUs have it but AFAIK zero difference on regular desktop chiplet Ryzen bc they don't support it. The 5600G/5700G aren't PRO but I guess AMD just considers all APUs now to have the security features. Non-X Matisse used to be PRO (3700/3900) but Vermeer doesn't seem to be.

Memory encryption: AMD SME, TSME and SEV (mricher.fr)

Theoretically good for security, but instant 7ns ish latency penalty, so if pushing the APU UMC, it should be off


----------



## Octopuss (Apr 28, 2022)

I am confused. Is it relevant to 5000 series or not?


----------



## tabascosauz (Apr 28, 2022)

Octopuss said:


> I am confused. Is it relevant to 5000 series or not?



Not for what you have


----------



## Mussels (Apr 28, 2022)

Octopuss said:


> I am confused. Is it relevant to 5000 series or not?


To the PRO and G models, yes. To regular 5000 series, no. I had to look it up as well.


----------



## t0aster (Apr 29, 2022)

juanyunis said:


> If you do have the option, then yeah. In my case once out of the box is hard to return it unless there are real problems with it (remember PBO is actually overclocking).
> 
> My 5950X was unstable on core 4, (I'm running that one in -15, core 2 and 3 are running -20 and everything else at -25).
> 
> What power supply do you have? Could it be the PSU not delivering appropriate power.


I just saw this and I gotta give my advice, because old threads do get views.
AMD are easy to get an RMA from.  I have to send back a couple 5000 series CPU's because of low performance. If I buy an $800 CPU I want an $800 chip.  I love AMD but there is a wide performance margin between a dud 5950X and a good one.  They only guarantee 4900mhz, if I don't get 5000+ then I'm not gonna be happy plain and simple.  Maybe someone else will be content with that, but I spend wayy too much money building systems.  If they didn't take em back, I would end up paying to replace them.
My point tho is AMD are pretty easy to return to as long as you have the invoice.
They never asked me if I overclocked the CPU, and I doubt they care.  They use language like that to deter people.  And it works to some degree I'm sure.  But it's impossible for them to refuse a return for that reason.  Any AIB board would nullify the warranty because they all have pbo+ enabled by default.  

Here's what they ask for.  First, you request an rma and you give them the serial number and describe the problem.  They may try to talk you through some troubleshooting steps.
I let em know that I have done all the troubleshooting to avoid that.
Then they send you an email asking what motherboard and bios you were using. They have you send a picture of the cpu installed in the socket with a piece of paper with the reference number in the shot.  And again ask you what troubleshooting steps were taken.

An issue I did have was with a GPU I bought off Craigslist last year.  I needed the kid I bought it from to do the RMA and they would only mail it to the address where he ordered it from.  It was a 6800xt with a pad thermal pad so it died right away and I still had the guys number.  He was a good kid luckily and It wasn't an issue.   But that policy sucks when so many people are having to buy off scalpers 

So of course you can't say the chip isn't fast enough, you need to say it's defective in some way, IE it reboots when you load a game.  
And I don't advise sending back a chip that is fairly decent to try and hit the lottery.  Honestly tho, if you get a 5950X that doesn't wanna boost to 5000mhz you hit the silicon lottery backwards and if it's gonna bother you then send it back.


----------



## Octopuss (May 1, 2022)

Anyone using CoreCycler here?
I keep getting this when I try to run it:



I just  replaced the included outdated Prime95 version with 30.7.

What's going on?


----------



## Ibizadr (May 2, 2022)

Octopuss said:


> Anyone using CoreCycler here?
> I keep getting this when I try to run it:
> View attachment 245778
> I just  replaced the included outdated Prime95 version with 30.7.
> ...


Happens to me when replaced prime95. Try to use the original version you replace


----------



## Mussels (May 2, 2022)

Octopuss said:


> Anyone using CoreCycler here?
> I keep getting this when I try to run it:
> View attachment 245778
> I just  replaced the included outdated Prime95 version with 30.7.
> ...


I mean you kinda answered it yourself, you broke it with the new P95


----------



## Octopuss (May 2, 2022)

Yea well. The author encourages people to do so, so I was perplexed for a while until I found an an acknowledged issue on GitHub from november about it. Guess it will take some time.

Oh and I've just noticed the script defaults FFT size to huge, which is a nonsense for this purpose, isn't it? Shouldn't smallest or small be used instead?


----------



## tabascosauz (May 2, 2022)

Octopuss said:


> Yea well. The author encourages people to do so, so I was perplexed for a while until I found an an acknowledged issue on GitHub from november about it. Guess it will take some time.
> 
> Oh and I've just noticed the script defaults FFT size to huge, which is a nonsense for this purpose, isn't it? Shouldn't smallest or small be used instead?



No. Maybe if you had a static OC on 12900K. We have boost algorithm here. The point is not to hammer the core. The lighter the load the higher boost clock the PB algorithm allows - the point is to run a workload that is reasonably heavy but allows boost clocks to push as high as they possibly can, to gauge whether the current undervolt settings are stable at those theoretical max clocks.

In any case even on Huge FFT, it's heavy enough. I don't think I've seen any game run per-core power up past 20W.

That said, in my testing with 1h15m per core, FFT size selection generally doesn't make a huge difference to clocks in corecycler. I leave it on Huge for a good spread. Possibly because default config and the most effective configs all run SSE instructions so maybe without AVX the algorithm treats FFT sizes pretty equally. AVX testing is not very useful in CC, at least for initial tests - you can test AVX after you've worked out some settings with SSE.


----------



## Octopuss (May 2, 2022)

But the config file also says
# Moderate:  1344K to 4096K - special preset, recommended in the "Curve Optimizer Guide Ryzen 5000"
# Heavy:        4K to 1344K - special preset, recommended in the "Curve Optimizer Guide Ryzen 5000"
# HeavyShort:   4K to  160K - special preset, recommended in the "Curve Optimizer Guide Ryzen 5000"

So I am really confused here.


----------



## tabascosauz (May 2, 2022)

Octopuss said:


> But the config file also says
> # Moderate:  1344K to 4096K - special preset, recommended in the "Curve Optimizer Guide Ryzen 5000"
> # Heavy:        4K to 1344K - special preset, recommended in the "Curve Optimizer Guide Ryzen 5000"
> # HeavyShort:   4K to  160K - special preset, recommended in the "Curve Optimizer Guide Ryzen 5000"
> ...



Apologies, I said Huge FFT - my config is 1h15m All FFT.

What's there to be confused about? Moderate, Heavy and HeavyShort are just 3 extra profiles to choose from with different FFT ranges. I have no idea about this "Ryzen 5000 guide" but they look just fine, just remember to set the appropriate runtime.

Don't get bogged down in names - look at the FFT size you want to test, then look at the recommended test lengths for said FFT profile up the page. Set something that'll test the entirety of the range you want to test, and set it to run at least 3 iterations per core. Boost is unpredictable so 1 or 2 cycles is not enough to prove stability.

Default 6min Huge FFT is generally enough to eliminating crashing/BSOD in day-to-day. After running 3-5 iterations per core with 0 errors, I'd be pretty confident about running it daily. But if you are a stickler for stability, don't be afraid of longer custom testing, just do two cores at a time overnight.


----------



## Octopuss (May 2, 2022)

Yea, extra profiles, different sizes, not sure what to choose and why  Up until now I always chose the smallest size when running p95 manually, but now I'm not sure after what you told me in relationship with the Huge preser.

I left everything on default and set it to only cycle through one core. If it passes 12 hours, I'd move onto the next. I guess that does enough iterations.


----------



## tabascosauz (May 2, 2022)

Octopuss said:


> Yea, extra profiles, different sizes, not sure what to choose and why  Up until now I always chose the smallest size when running p95 manually, but now I'm not sure after what you told me in relationship with the Huge preser.
> 
> I left everything on default and set it to only cycle through one core. If it passes 12 hours, I'd move onto the next. I guess that does enough iterations.



Still use P95 Small as a torture test for Intel OCs. It's just not the right tool for the job here. Like if you were stressing memory controllers, you would run P95 Large FFT.

If you're still doing 6 minute config and doing 1 core at a time, just run it a couple times and go to the next. Save the long tests for a comprehensive config. Huge FFT takes what, 30-45 min to actually test the entire range? 6 minutes only gets around to testing a small snippet, it's a quick and dirty test.

I would still test at least 2 cores at a time. That way they alternate and can take a break from the heat. Preferably cores on different CCDs as well, unfortunately not possible for 5800X


----------



## Octopuss (May 2, 2022)

What exactly does an iteration mean in the context of this script btw? Like one pass of a specific FFS size?

It looks like the defaults might be a little misconfigured though, if default size is Huge and time 6 mins...


----------



## tabascosauz (May 2, 2022)

Octopuss said:


> What exactly does an iteration mean in the context of this script btw? Like one pass of a specific FFS size?
> 
> It looks like the defaults might be a little misconfigured though, if default size is Huge and time 6 mins...



1 iteration is just running through the length of the test once on 1 core. You can set the # of rounds in config. It'll run in the core order specified in config, then repeat.

It isn't 100%, but 6 min Huge is a good balance of speed and effectiveness. Strictly speaking it's probably not "stable", as you'll quickly find if you run eg. 1 hour All afterwards, but if you can pass 6 min Huge you *shouldn't* really have any big issues day-to-day with gaming and regular use. It's a bit different than mem stability where no number of errors is acceptable, because chances are you won't be able to match corecycler clocks in daily use (unless your CPU is so good it easily tops out at +200MHz)

Properly testing is best, but it takes a long time. Better for 6-8 core parts, but it took me like 2.5 weeks to run the entire CPU through 1h15m All.


----------



## Octopuss (May 2, 2022)

I am still pretty confused by all this. It looked dead simple at first...
How did it take 2,5 weeks though? If I take a look at the config and add up the numbers there, even if I double them, that's a few hours at most.

I only had one coffee today though!
Maybe I am missing something essential.
The script is pretty complicated.


----------



## tabascosauz (May 2, 2022)

Octopuss said:


> I am still pretty confused by all this. It looked dead simple at first...
> How did it take 2,5 weeks though? If I take a look at the config and add up the numbers there, even if I double them, that's a few hours at most.
> 
> I only had one coffee today though!
> ...



4-5 iterations per core, 1h15m per iteration, 2 cores testing per night. Some cores required re-adjusting so more nights retesting new settings. And even then 10 of the cores are set in multiples of 5 (-10, -15, -20 etc) because I just couldn't be bothered at that point.

With default config, you can easily be done in just 1 day. Just do that, and if you find that it's not stable enough, then go for the long tests.

I never really had any real issues with settings that pass default config, on either 5900X, 5600G or 5700G. Just wanted to be doubly sure for my 5900X daily.


----------



## Octopuss (May 2, 2022)

So anyway, if I want to test it really thoroughly, several hours on each core with Huge size (or maybe All) should be pretty safe?


----------



## DoLlyBirD (May 2, 2022)

timings and aida bench attached, any advice on my timings?


----------



## tabascosauz (May 2, 2022)

Octopuss said:


> So anyway, if I want to test it really thoroughly, several hours on each core with Huge size (or maybe All) should be pretty safe?



Should be fine yeah if you have the time for it.



DoLlyBirD said:


> timings and aida bench attached, any advice on my timings?



This is the Curve Optimizer thread, nothing to do with timings or AIDA performance. There is an AIDA thread, Ryzen owners club and some others I think.

Share your AIDA 64 cache and memory benchmark here | TechPowerUp Forums


----------



## DoLlyBirD (May 2, 2022)

tabascosauz said:


> Should be fine yeah if you have the time for it.
> 
> 
> 
> This is the Curve Optimizer thread, nothing to do with timings or AIDA performance.


So my posts on the previous page regarding TSME you replied to shouldn't be here either?


----------



## tabascosauz (May 2, 2022)

DoLlyBirD said:


> So my posts on the previous page regarding TSME you replied to shouldn't be here either?



I won't delete those, that started off with CPU performance and CPU-Z results and eventually meandered into the other stuff. Ryzen discussion tends to become a bit of a melting pot anyway. But let's try to keep purely mem-related stuff in the other threads.


----------



## DoLlyBirD (May 2, 2022)

tabascosauz said:


> I won't delete those, that started off with CPU performance and CPU-Z results and eventually meandered into the other stuff. Ryzen discussion tends to become a bit of a melting pot anyway. But let's try to keep purely mem-related stuff in the other threads.


My point was, I started off asking about curve optimiser and PBO settings and then it got on to memory timings and YOU started the TSME talk that lasted for nearly a page... so now I should just start a new thread and disregard the previous posts even though there are literallly tons of the same?



tabascosauz said:


> Go to BIOS > AMD CBS and disable TSME. You are penalizing yourself by 7-10ns
> 
> Boost Clock Override tops out at 200 and has been for a long time
> 
> ...





DoLlyBirD said:


> Would bios settings for AMD overclock/CBS etc
> 
> I can't find any TSME setting in my bios at all, I knocked the TRFC down a tad as it was about 560 using default settings, though wanted to be careful as have had issues lowering it too far too soon in the past with these sticks, though that was on a Ryzen 1600AF when I could only run max 3400mhz stable





tabascosauz said:


> tRFC gets kinda easier to run "tighter" ns-wise the higher speed you go. Because you need more VDIMM to push lower tRFC, but each kit has a hard lower limit to tRFC (in number not ns) where it won't boot anymore.
> 
> If it doesn't do sub 200ns tRFC, it's not B-die. No matter how horrible the bin. Even legacy E-die does 160ns. 140ns can be a little tough for bad B-die but 160ns should be no prob
> 
> ...





DoLlyBirD said:


> I have MSI B450m Pro-A Max, it's a turd of a board.. still can't see any resemblance of that setting..
> 
> Interesting thing though with the TRFC, tried to run low 300's on my 1600AF and it didn't like it at all though that was likely due to the 1600AF IMC and not the RAM, I'm at 400 now, I shall go deeper down the rabbit hole lol
> 
> View attachment 244474





tjtremor999 said:


> b-die is the way to go for lowest tRFC,
> low tRFC works very well on amd, every -10trfc nets you a good .1ns better latency
> 
> here's my patriot 4400cl19 kits
> View attachment 244475





tabascosauz said:


> Yes, but at the same time AIDA is also disproportionately a sucker for tRFC, doesn't quite translate to real performance. Big jumps on tRFC make big gains, but smaller differences below 140ns is not quite as noticeable. Other timings have real impact as well but AIDA ignores them.
> 
> Tradeoff between VDIMM and tRFC. 1.56V set on Gigabyte boards is closer to 1.6V real, since all Gigabyte boards overvolt VDIMM between 0.03-0.06V.
> 
> ...




Ya, cba with that, I'll figure it out myself, thanks.


----------



## GoldenX (May 2, 2022)

Tested both the new Ryzen Master and HYDRA-PRO, both are unstable. Good think I did it manually.


----------



## tabascosauz (May 2, 2022)

DoLlyBirD said:


> My point was, I started off asking about curve optimiser and PBO settings and then it got on to memory timings and YOU started the TSME talk that lasted for nearly a page... so now I should just start a new thread and disregard the previous posts even though there are literallly tons of the same?
> 
> Ya, cba with that, I'll figure it out myself, thanks.



I didn't reprimand you, just saying that we have a number of threads that will generate more discussion for pure mem stuff. You are welcome to create a new thread if you don't feel any existing ones are appropriate. We haven't done a great job of keeping things strictly on the original topic here, and I did have a hand in that. But that was also two weeks ago, and you expressed an initial interest in tweaking CO. On topic has to start somewhere.


----------



## Ibizadr (May 3, 2022)

DoLlyBirD said:


> timings and aida bench attached, any advice on my timings?


First advice, focus only one thing and the other after first concluded with success. Put default bios on it and focus on ram first. Try 1t GDM off, 3800/1900 mclk==fclk. You need to test ram a lot. And after that come to this thread to improve your cpu, but next time discuss on Aida thread.


----------



## DoLlyBirD (May 3, 2022)

Ibizadr said:


> First advice, focus only one thing and the other after first concluded with success. Put default bios on it and focus on ram first. Try 1t GDM off, 3800/1900 mclk==fclk. You need to test ram a lot. And after that come to this thread to improve your cpu, but next time discuss on Aida thread.


I've used default XMP 3000 settings, bear in mind I'm running at 3800 now with the same basic settings, have tweaked trfc and tfaw used curve optimiser to boost to 4450mhz with 3800mhz RAM for 1:1


----------



## Ibizadr (May 3, 2022)

DoLlyBirD said:


> I've used default XMP 3000 settings, bear in mind I'm running at 3800 now with the same basic settings, have tweaked trfc and tfaw used curve optimiser to boost to 4450mhz with 3800mhz RAM for 1:1


 Your timings needs improvements take a look in Aida topic


----------



## Octopuss (May 3, 2022)

Is it possible to be able to use higher negative offsets a year after thoroughly testing a CPU? I don't think BIOS updates make much of a difference.
On the other hand, I was running Prime95 manually with the smallest or small FFTs back then. Also ran two threads of it on the core I waz testing, and I'm not sure what the CoreCycler script actually does, because I don't quite understand that from the config file. Logic says you should run two threads with SMT/HT on, but...


----------



## AVATARAT (May 3, 2022)

Octopuss said:


> Is it possible to be able to use higher negative offsets a year after thoroughly testing a CPU? I don't think BIOS updates make much of a difference.
> On the other hand, I was running Prime95 manually with the smallest or small FFTs back then. Also ran two threads of it on the core I waz testing, and I'm not sure what the CoreCycler script actually does, because I don't quite understand that from the config file. Logic says you should run two threads with SMT/HT on, but...


I wrote here how I test it.


----------



## Octopuss (May 3, 2022)

Also wtf, I increased the negative offset on two cores and now my all core (I think, it's what Afterburner shows) boosts are lower? That makes no sense. Previously I usually saw 4800MHz and now it fluctuates between 4650 and 4725.



AVATARAT said:


> I wrote here how I test it.


How would the script ovevolt cores? That's nonsense.


----------



## tabascosauz (May 3, 2022)

AVATARAT said:


> I wrote here how I test it.



Overvolting cores? PBO On causing Vcore to spike over 1.5V is common but CO causing it is a new idea.



Octopuss said:


> Also wtf, I increased the negative offset on two cores and now my all core (I think, it's what Afterburner shows) boosts are lower? That makes no sense. Previously I usually saw 4800MHz and now it fluctuates between 4650 and 4725.
> 
> 
> How would the script ovevolt cores? That's nonsense.



If you want to properly gauge your clocks in any sort of sustained load, use HWInfo. Either look only at the Effective Clock metric, or enable Snapshot Polling in settings (right click tray icon) and look at Core Clock/Effective Clock. Nothing else (except maybe Ryzen Master) properly shows a realistic clock. Hitting 5150/5250MHz "core clock" (just an example) without having similar Effective numbers to back it up means it will never sustain long enough to actually make a difference in benchmarks or effective clock.

Real 4.8GHz all-core is very, very hot on Ryzen. Afterburner OSD is a classic culprit of bamboozling you into thinking the CPU is working a lot harder than it actually is.


----------



## AVATARAT (May 3, 2022)

Octopuss said:


> Also wtf, I increased the negative offset on two cores and now my all core (I think, it's what Afterburner shows) boosts are lower? That makes no sense. Previously I usually saw 4800MHz and now it fluctuates between 4650 and 4725.
> 
> 
> How would the script ovevolt cores? That's nonsense.


The problem is not in the script, but if you use it, it will throw errors until you put enough or more voltage in the Curve on the core that fails. So you just need to test it.
With SSE the cores work on a higher frequency and need not so high voltage to not fail, and that is what I use with OCCT.


----------



## Octopuss (May 4, 2022)

I have just realized I never touched the PBO limit.
Does increasing it by the usual +200MHz have any negative implications?
What exactly does it do anyway?
And what is the default frequency cap of 5800X?


----------



## oobymach (May 4, 2022)

Octopuss said:


> I have just realized I never touched the PBO limit.
> Does increasing it by the usual +200MHz have any negative implications?
> What exactly does it do anyway?
> And what is the default frequency cap of 5800X?


Stability in CoreCycler is not guaranteed with +200 but regular p95 will be stable. It pushes every core to perform an additional 200mhz faster so if you were getting 4.65ghz you'll get 4.85ghz. Also you may have different results in curve with the extra speed you may need more voltage.


----------



## tabascosauz (May 4, 2022)

Octopuss said:


> I have just realized I never touched the PBO limit.
> Does increasing it by the usual +200MHz have any negative implications?
> What exactly does it do anyway?
> And what is the default frequency cap of 5800X?



+200 raises the global frequency limit. Stock for 5800X is 4850MHz, so it goes up to 5050.

Global limit is only a theoretical ceiling. The problem is it's really silicon dependent. You will notice in HWinfo the global limit goes up to 5050MHz, but only works if the cores usually picked for ST tasks (usually top 2 ranked cores) are actually capable of sustaining more than 4850MHz effective. eg. on a mediocre CPU you can change Boost Override all you want, but it won't make a difference.

Also, stable undervolt at 4850MHz may no longer be stable with higher boost override. You'll just have to test and see. If you are already maxing out at 4850MHz effective, good chance you can go further.


----------



## AVATARAT (May 4, 2022)

Octopuss said:


> I have just realized I never touched the PBO limit.
> Does increasing it by the usual +200MHz have any negative implications?
> What exactly does it do anyway?
> And what is the default frequency cap of 5800X?


You will increase performance with this 200MHz but you need to play again with CO to stabilize it (add more voltage to be stable).


----------



## Octopuss (May 4, 2022)

But if raising the limit by 200MHz requires lower CO offets, doesn't that mean the cores would only hit lower frequencies than before?


----------



## AVATARAT (May 4, 2022)

Octopuss said:


> But if raising the limit by 200MHz requires lower CO offets, doesn't that mean the cores would only hit lower frequencies than before?


Your CPU will manage lighter load at high frequency, your high load will be the same.


----------



## Octopuss (May 4, 2022)

It's just confusing from defaults point of view.
If lowering the core voltages by negative offsets lets the cores clock higher, increasing the voltages doesn't seem logical to be beneficial for frequencies even if the "cap" is removed. I just can't wrap my head around this.

Btw I couldn't google the max boost frequency anywhere. AMD's website only says 4,7GHz without any details.

So I ran two rounds of iterations of 6m Huge FFT size and these are the maximum frequencies:





Do you think I should increase the limits or the CPU is not good enough?
The current offsets are 30, 15, 20, 15, 30, 25, 15, 25.


----------



## AVATARAT (May 4, 2022)

PBO, +200MHz, you probably need to lower current offsets.

Or something like this, because your mobo is like main (with bios 1602):


----------



## Det0x (May 4, 2022)

Maybe this is the wrong thread for this, but could not fine one dedicated to the 5800x3d (?) Let me know and i will delete the post if there is a problem

Have finally completed my first game comparison between my maxed 5950x, my 5800x3d and golden samples Alderlake cpus @ ~5.6 7200MT/s



http://imgur.com/a/TZdNAzm

  vs   



http://imgur.com/a/ahnY3nl


*Shadow of the Tomb Raider: 1080p lowest:*

5950x @ ~5100/5000mhz = 353fps average cpu game
12900k @ 5750mhz 4300MT/s CL14 = 373fps average cpu game
5800x3d @ 4450mhz = 402fps average cpu game

*Horizon Zero Dawn: 1080p performance preset, lowest res scale:*

5950x @ ~5100mhz = 301fps average cpu game
12900k @ 5580mhz 7160MT/s CL30 = 321fps average cpu game
5800x3d @ 4450mhz = 313fps average cpu game

*F1 2020 1080p low dx11: Australia benchmark location and dry weather:*

5950x @ ~5100mhz = 490 average fps
5800x3d @ 4450mhz = 555 average fps

*Farcry6 1080p ultra, HD-texture enabled, FSR QTY:*

5950x @ ~5100mhz = 163 average fps
12900k @ 5580mhz 7160MT/s CL30 = 203 average fps
5800x3d @ 4450mhz = 176 average fps

*Cyberpunk 2077: 1080p low *

5950x @ ~5100mhz = 252 average fps
12900k @ 5580mhz 7160MT/s CL30  = 304 average fps
5800x3d @ 4450mhz = 268 average fps

Final Fantasy XV 1080p low: (game engine limited, results with grain of salt)

5950x @ ~5100mhz = 23426 score
12900k @ ~5700mhz(?) = 23585 score
5800x3d @ 4450mhz = 23489 score

Final Fantasy XIV: Endwalker 1440p maximum: (game engine limited, results with grain of salt)

5950x @ ~5100mhz = 30553 score
12900k @ ~5700mhz(?) = 33891 score
5800x3d @ 4450mhz = 33764 score

HardwareLux Counter-Strike: Global Offensive benchmark settings: (only scale with clockspeed it seems)

12900k @ 5500mhz 4133MT/s CL16 = 954 fps
5800x3d @ 4450mhz = 716 fps
Max tuned Alderlake beats out Zen3 in games, but i have to say i'm pretty impressed by the5800x3 
...Considering zero binning/golden samples are required for 5800x3d and they dont scale with memory, so you can use a cheapo x470 together with 3200/3600MT/s memory for nice "low-end gaming machine".

_edit_
Added some of the Alder lake screens:


*edit2*
My old Spectre install was bloated at this point, so i made a new win10 install for the 5800x3d runs..
(earlier when i did the 5950x runs the spectre install were pretty slim)

And i have no control over the Alder Lake windows installs, but those runs are cherry picked super golden samples with the highest scores i could find.. (binned cores+binned IMC+super cooling+best of the best memory) Anyone feel free to improve the AL numbers if you can 

For this to be a even more fair comparison of "maxed out gaming systems" i would need a new motherboard with an external clockgen so i could run the 5800x3d at ~4900mhz instead of 4450mhz, but i dont think that would change the outcome much in the end either.. Alder Lake should still come out on top.


----------



## Mussels (May 7, 2022)

Octopuss said:


> I have just realized I never touched the PBO limit.
> Does increasing it by the usual +200MHz have any negative implications?
> What exactly does it do anyway?
> And what is the default frequency cap of 5800X?


Adds 200Mhz to the low core count boost, from 4850Mhz to 5050Mhz on the 5800x - If there is thermal and power room to spare

If you're undervolting with CO, you may need to reduce it for stability


----------



## Ibizadr (May 7, 2022)

Mussels said:


> Adds 200Mhz to the low core count boost, from 4850Mhz to 5050Mhz on the 5800x - If there is thermal and power room to spare
> 
> If you're undervolting with CO, you may need to reduce it for stability


I'm at +200 with CO. And 4 of my 5800x cores goes to -30


----------



## tabascosauz (May 7, 2022)

Octopuss said:


> But if raising the limit by 200MHz requires lower CO offets, doesn't that mean the cores would only hit lower frequencies than before?





Octopuss said:


> It's just confusing from defaults point of view.
> If lowering the core voltages by negative offsets lets the cores clock higher, increasing the voltages doesn't seem logical to be beneficial for frequencies even if the "cap" is removed. I just can't wrap my head around this.
> 
> Btw I couldn't google the max boost frequency anywhere. AMD's website only says 4,7GHz without any details.
> ...



Like I said, you'll just keep fruitlessly going in circles unless you either enable Snapshot Polling or look at Effective metrics. These default "Core Clock" numbers with 25MHz granularity are pointless data. I can see 5050 on "core clock" when I know my 5900X barely manages 4930MHz effective on a good day.

Once you do that, test with +0 and see after corecycler whether you are capping out at exactly 4850MHz. If so, then you have additional headroom on those cores by expanding boost override.

Stock 5800X boost ceiling is 4850, 5900X is 4950 and 5950X is 5050. It's not advertised explicitly, but all Vermeer and Cezanne CPUs have their Global limit set 50-150MHz above their official rated boost.

Setting +200 doesn't hurt anything. If your cores are 4800MHz duds, then nothing happens. If your cores are excellent, then worst case you may need to dial back your undervolt a little bit, but you won't know until you test



Det0x said:


> Maybe this is the wrong thread for this, but could not fine one dedicated to the 5800x3d (?) Let me know and i will delete the post if there is a problem



Interesting results particularly for 12900K. Might gain more traction to start a new thread for this in General Hardware - I'm sure many people are very interested in seeing more of these comparisons between these 3, it's a hot topic and certainly deserves to have its own thread


----------



## Makaveli (May 7, 2022)

I have a golden sample 5800X and using 200+ with these CO settings


----------



## Det0x (May 7, 2022)

tabascosauz said:


> Interesting results particularly for 12900K. Might gain more traction to start a new thread for this in General Hardware - I'm sure many people are very interested in seeing more of these comparisons between these 3, it's a hot topic and certainly deserves to have its own thread


Some more numbers, i found the framtimes very interesting.. 

Metro Exodus Benchmark: 1080p low:

5950x @ ~5100mhz = 322 average fps
12900k @ 5580mhz 7160MT/s CL30 = 408 average fps
5800x3d @ 4450mhz = 338 average fps
5800x3d @ 4450mhz, dx11 = 524 average fps


Metro Exodus Enhanced Benchmark: 1080p low:

12900k @ 5580mhz 7160MT/s CL30 = 250 average fps
5800x3d @ 4450mhz = 237 average fps


*The frametimes for the 5800x3d look much better, no ?


*


----------



## Octopuss (May 9, 2022)

tabascosauz said:


> Snapshot Polling or look at Effective metrics


Where do I find that?
I use HWiNFO for information.


----------



## tjtremor999 (May 10, 2022)

Octopuss said:


> Where do I find that?
> I use HWiNFO for information.


You can use boosttester to see max clocks. It's low load array shuffle.

I wouldn't tweak CO with high offset like +200. Not worth much since it only hits 1 or 2 cores at most and will get very unstable.

On my 5900x, +150 will get 5.1 boost in games on two best cores and it's not stable past CO-6.
With +100 offset, I get 5050 for best two cores and can go CO -19

After the best core, the others will always boost -25mhz,-50mhz,-75mhz etc even with +200 offset; so there's nothing there to gain on dual ccds. 

Not sure about 5800x but boosttester will show you the max possible freq for all cores.


----------



## tabascosauz (May 10, 2022)

Octopuss said:


> Where do I find that?



f


----------



## tjtremor999 (May 10, 2022)

all core Y-cruncher (options 7) seem to catch errors very fast vs Prime95 or corecycler that can pass for days with unstable CO.





I'm currently at -19 -19 -19 -6 -19 -18 -14 -14 -15 [] []-19 for y-cruncher. Two more cores to test & I can run Prime95 blend & corecycler.
210w  and +100 offset

I think it's mostly a waste of time on my 5900x b2. It already scores high with low temps.

Here's 4 cores -6 & 8 cores -12.


----------



## HD64G (May 10, 2022)

I used the Ryzen Master that tested my new 5600 and concluded that the optimal values are -27-28 for all cores apart from the 3rd one that managed -22. I put manually -25 for the strong ones and -20 for the weak one and added +150MHz for the PBO increased limit at the default 76W value and all good for now.


----------



## Mussels (May 11, 2022)

HD64G said:


> I used the Ryzen Master that tested my new 5600 and concluded that the optimal values are -27-28 for all cores apart from the 3rd one that managed -22. I put manually -25 for the strong ones and -20 for the weak one and added +150MHz for the PBO increased limit at the default 76W value and all good for now.


Oh yeah i forgot they added that, now i'm on the new AGESA i'll let it test that overnight


----------



## Octopuss (May 12, 2022)

So what am I doing wrong if no cores are boosting over 4850MHz despite adding +200 limit?

edit: WTF, I have just gone in the BIOS and found the power limits changed to manual and the frequency override disabled. I didn't change anything.
Looks like a week of testing wasted, because the thing decided to change itself.


----------



## Mussels (May 12, 2022)

Octopuss said:


> So what am I doing wrong if no cores are boosting over 4850MHz despite adding +200 limit?
> 
> edit: WTF, I have just gone in the BIOS and found the power limits changed to manual and the frequency override disabled. I didn't change anything.
> Looks like a week of testing wasted, because the thing decided to change itself.


ryzen master can change those settings if you used its test settings

RM has mine set to -30 but the voltages didnt actually change, CO is broken on my current beta BIOS


----------



## AVATARAT (May 12, 2022)

Octopuss said:


> So what am I doing wrong if no cores are boosting over 4850MHz despite adding +200 limit?
> 
> edit: WTF, I have just gone in the BIOS and found the power limits changed to manual and the frequency override disabled. I didn't change anything.
> Looks like a week of testing wasted, because the thing decided to change itself.


Adrenaline video driver can change it. Be careful, it's known problem.


----------



## Octopuss (May 12, 2022)

I don't use Ryzen Master (tried, looked like bloatware), and I don't have that option in Adrenaline.
No idea what happened there.

And the stupid ass CPU just doesn't boost past 4800MHz anymore no matter what I do. Doesn't matter if I add 200MHz to the limit or not.
I even have slightly lower (actually, higher since negative) offsets on a few cores, and it's actually worse.

I updated the BIOS to the latest version before I started messing with all this again too, hoping I'd get better overclock, but no.


----------



## HD64G (May 12, 2022)

Mussels said:


> ryzen master can change those settings if you used its test settings
> 
> RM has mine set to -30 but the voltages didnt actually change, CO is broken on my current beta BIOS


I think if one want to test with Ryzen Master the same settings altered there need to be at auto in UEFI. My PC stopped booting because I already had applied the CO in Ryzen Master and thought that without deactivation there I could do the same in UEFI. It seemed that the settings added to the previous ones and V was so low for the CPU that didn't booted at all.


----------



## Mussels (May 13, 2022)

Octopuss said:


> I don't use Ryzen Master (tried, looked like bloatware), and I don't have that option in Adrenaline.
> No idea what happened there.
> 
> And the stupid ass CPU just doesn't boost past 4800MHz anymore no matter what I do. Doesn't matter if I add 200MHz to the limit or not.
> ...


 Theres only been two AGESA's since the 5800x3d came out, and it seems like the regular X gets treated like the 3D with some limits

That said... i like the lower temps, and i see no performance loss.


----------



## Octopuss (May 13, 2022)

I think I was on a BIOS from late 2021.


----------



## oobymach (May 13, 2022)

Octopuss said:


> I don't use Ryzen Master (tried, looked like bloatware), and I don't have that option in Adrenaline.
> No idea what happened there.
> 
> And the stupid ass CPU just doesn't boost past 4800MHz anymore no matter what I do. Doesn't matter if I add 200MHz to the limit or not.
> ...


Some bios versions are better than others, see if you can find 1.2.0.3c for your board, that's the best one for 5000 series (except the 5800X3D)

Also the boost is affected by PPT, TDC, and EDC so you may need to adjust PPT, TDC, and EDC to achieve higher clocks, and don't bee too aggressive with values, higher isn't always better especially TDC and EDC.


----------



## Octopuss (May 14, 2022)

I don't want to mess with that, I just set limits to motherboard and that's it.
Also not interested in using old BIOSes with bugs. I'm just curious why is significantly newer BIOS with numerous improvements over the course of months affecting performance in negative way.


----------



## tabascosauz (May 14, 2022)

Octopuss said:


> I don't want to mess with that, I just set limits to motherboard and that's it.
> Also not interested in using old BIOSes with bugs. I'm just curious why is significantly newer BIOS with numerous improvements over the course of months affecting performance in negative way.



newer ≠ better, is the first lesson of AGESA - BIOS 2403 and 2423 should be pretty solid for B550 and X570 Asus boards, if you use Win 10

The only guarantee from AMD is that at least one core will be able to hit 4.7GHz. Someone's 5800X doing 5050MHz effective doesn't mean yours will, luck of the draw


----------



## Mussels (May 15, 2022)

Octopuss said:


> I don't want to mess with that, I just set limits to motherboard and that's it.
> Also not interested in using old BIOSes with bugs. I'm just curious why is significantly newer BIOS with numerous improvements over the course of months affecting performance in negative way.


because the 5800x and 5800x3d seem to be using the same settings, and the x3d needs them lowered slightly


----------

