# Trying to understand Ryzen 3000 series boost speed variations



## lorry (Dec 8, 2019)

I have a 3900x and have enabled PBO, XMP in the bios and use Ryzen high performance power setting within Windows, but not much more than that.
On some boots it will boost to 4.600 on its two best cores, at other times to 4.575 (like today) and at other times 'only' 4.550. All the other cores do not seem to be affected like this, reaching their 'usual' peak boost. This info I am taking from HWINFO64 (one time it reported that the best cores boost was 4.650). Simple benchmarking scores are affected by this of course. When the cores boost to 4.600 the TDC reaches 93% of its limit, EDC 100% during benchmarking, but when the peak boost is the slightly lower figure, the TDC will only reach 89%.

I am not so much interested in what scores and peak speeds that I can reach (although they are enjoyable), but in what affects and limits those cores from reaching their slightly better speeds and what might be done to reduce them. It doesn't look to be temperature, as with the lower speeds that reaches 71c and with the highest speed, 72c (I presume that is due to the reduced max TDC?).
I ask because I can boot once and get a high of say 4.575, reboot and 'only' reach 4.550, try again and obtain that 4.600. Is that down to pure chance or is there something that can be done to improve things?

I was wondering if it might be Windows background processes or programs that I have installed lowering the max speed on that boot? If that is so though why then does that alter on the next boot when they are all still running yet not seemingly affecting top performance? As I said, I am not asking 'just' to chase my best speed, but more so that I can understand what is happening and what may or may not be able to be done to ensure best performance.


----------



## ShrimpBrime (Dec 8, 2019)

A lot of the frequency drop isn;t the multiplier. It's the reference clock. You'll see it dip down a little from 100mhz as that's never steady. That's where most of that lower dips in clock speed is coming from. No worries, it's very normal.

There are a lot of settings for power control on AMD Ryzen chips. 3 different AUTO OC approaches, and they all do something different. 

You can also alter system power management. This also will have an impact on performance. 
For example, parking cores, then running a benchmark, the cores need to unpark. This takes time and energy. 

TDP is Thermal design point. This is the removal of wattage through BTU. The average spec varies depending on overclocking, and it's a wide range.

At the cpu processor highest P-State, you will find power Wattage at load to be very near the rated TDP for the CPU. So between c-states, p-states and idle system to Boosted OC full load on an average, you'd have TDP rated spec. 

For example, running my Zen+ 2700X at 3.7ghz, the usage wattage is just about exactly what the CPU is rated for. 
Remember Boosting is an overclock. Even if it comes factory stock, it's an overclock. 
So don't mind trying to compare rated TDP to actual electrical wattage usage. It's going to be way off.

So PBO, CPB and XFR are 3 separate features.
XFR is single core boost only and works when CPB and PBO are set to auto. When you alter either, XFR is disabled. 
Manual (static o.c.) will disable all three (setting multiplier manually)
PBO, CPB and XFR are super efficient at power management. There's actually no real need to alter unless going full manual OC, or overclocking the PBO or CPB settings.


----------



## lorry (Dec 8, 2019)

ShrimpBrime said:


> A lot of the frequency drop isn;t the multiplier. It's the reference clock. You'll see it dip down a little from 100mhz as that's never steady. That's where most of that lower dips in clock speed is coming from. No worries, it's very normal.
> 
> There are a lot of settings for power control on AMD Ryzen chips. 3 different AUTO OC approaches, and they all do something different.
> 
> ...



Thank you, you've given me a lot to look into and more 
Seriously though, you have given me pointers, which is brilliant. I'm very new to all of this, so have Lots to learn.
When you say reference clock is that the bus clock as used in HWINFO64? 

Any good pointers as to where to start reading at all please?


----------



## ShrimpBrime (Dec 8, 2019)

There are quite a few guides out there. Here's one that I really like alot. 








						FRONTPAGE - AMD RYZEN Overclocking Guide
					

The time is finally here, AMD has launched a game changing CPU with incredible leaps in performance compared to their previous FX CPU line. My intention here is to aid you in leveraging just a bit more out of the AMD Ryzen CPU. One great thing that AMD carried forward is that all Ryzen CPUs have...




					www.overclockers.com
				




Well yea I have pointers for sure. 
Performance gains with memory would be any overclockers concern. 
Your manual OC probably won't beat the factory OC any ways......
So you'll read there and see what kind of options you have for tweaks.
Come back with questions and off we go!!!


----------



## lorry (Dec 8, 2019)

ShrimpBrime said:


> There are quite a few guides out there. Here's one that I really like alot.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



oh memory I know is going to be 'fun' as what I have I've discovered is decent but not brilliant, Corsair dominator platinum cl16 4 x 8GB


----------



## ShrimpBrime (Dec 8, 2019)

Work with what you've got. Then it's good you don't have super high expectations. 

Ram speed highest obtainable is your main direction. Then tweak timings for better performance. 
A little over-volting never hurts. I don't run less than 1.410v mem when overclocking.

I have my SK Hynix in the 2700X right now. It's a pain in the butt to tweak, but not bad. I'm running XMP right now, can tighten these up with some sacrifice depending how hard I push. 

So right now, true XMP stability at 1562mhz reading 16-17-17 timings, super loose. But very stable for me. 3200mhz is my best supprted speed on this motherboard, so tweaking at this frequency always seems the easiest.


----------



## lorry (Dec 8, 2019)

ShrimpBrime said:


> Work with what you've got. Then it's good you don't have super high expectations.
> 
> Ram speed highest obtainable is your main direction. Then tweak timings for better performance.
> A little over-volting never hurts. I don't run less than 1.410v mem when overclocking.
> ...



And don't try running until I can walk I'm sure. Thank you, I have lots to get my head around I'm sure. It's good to know that i can ask and learn


----------



## ShrimpBrime (Dec 8, 2019)

Todays processors are much different than what I started on, but all the same principles apply.

No 2 rigs are the same, we dont really have golden 1 shot answers for that reason.
Tweak and test tweak and test.
Thats what it takes to dial in a gaming PC.


----------



## tabascosauz (Dec 8, 2019)

lorry said:


> I ask because I can boot once and get a high of say 4.575, reboot and 'only' reach 4.550, try again and obtain that 4.600. Is that down to pure chance or is there something that can be done to improve things?



As of recent revisions, HWInfo shows Effective Clock parameters. Your "effective clock" readings are going to be much more accurate of performance than peak clock, because your 3900X isn't holding a 46x multiplier, even on a single core, for any meaningful period of time. It will "spike" to 46x for a split second, then spend most of its time at no more than 45x. Effective Clock essentially takes an average of the frequency over a short period of time, as HWInfo's polling rate will never reflect the 1-2ns reaction time of Ryzen 3000.

The peak clock reading is useful for judging differences in boosting behaviour between AGESA versions, and pretty much nothing else. FWIW, there are days when my rig sees a lot of multi-core load from startup to shutdown, and at the end of the day cores 5 and 7 will still be hitting 43.5x max. On other days when it's idling for 5 hours at a time, HWInfo will record 44x on those two cores. Which is a good example of how useless peak clock actually is, _on stock boost behaviour._

Cores 5 and 7 are my best on my 3700X. Most of the time, if I have my PC running for the whole day, the multipliers will get up to 44x on those two. But like I said, it's pointless and has no bearing on performance. I'm afraid this is what AMD's ambitious marketing and consumers' expectations from 22nm and 14/12nm have resulted in - paranoia over something that actually has zero relevance. I would much rather see Effective Clock hovering between 4200MHz and 4300MHz when under load, than the magical 44x that means nothing in benchmarks or everyday usage.

On Ryzen 3000, the load is juggled every couple of seconds so that a single core will never bear the brunt of the load indefinitely. Even though the 1usmus plan minimizes the switching, it's inevitable and just how it works.



ShrimpBrime said:


> A lot of the frequency drop isn;t the multiplier. It's the reference clock. You'll see it dip down a little from 100mhz as that's never steady. That's where most of that lower dips in clock speed is coming from. No worries, it's very normal.



It might vary from board to board, but mine is always a static 99.8MHz in usage. That accounts for about a 8MHz discrepancy at 44x - 4392MHz. Any more than that, and it's the multiplier that's responsible. For example, 25MHz is probably going to be a multiplier difference of 0.25x.


----------



## lorry (Dec 8, 2019)

ShrimpBrime said:


> Todays processors are much different than what I started on, but all the same principles apply.
> 
> No 2 rigs are the same, we dont really have golden 1 shot answers for that reason.
> Tweak and test tweak and test.
> Thats what it takes to dial in a gaming PC.



Tweak, test and learn perhaps?


----------



## ShrimpBrime (Dec 8, 2019)

lorry said:


> Tweak, test and learn perhaps?


You'll be doing lots of that. The suggestions ideas and opinions at this forum from everyone will put you in a good direction learning and actually doing.


----------



## lorry (Dec 8, 2019)

tabascosauz said:


> As of recent revisions, HWInfo shows Effective Clock parameters. Your "effective clock" readings are going to be much more accurate of performance than peak clock, because your 3900X isn't holding a 46x multiplier, even on a single core, for any meaningful period of time. It will "spike" to 46x for a split second, then spend most of its time at no more than 45x. Effective Clock essentially takes an average of the frequency over a short period of time, as HWInfo's polling rate will never reflect the 1-2ns reaction time of Ryzen 3000.
> 
> The peak clock reading is useful for judging differences in boosting behaviour between AGESA versions, and pretty much nothing else. FWIW, there are days when my rig sees a lot of multi-core load from startup to shutdown, and at the end of the day cores 5 and 7 will still be hitting 43.5x max. On other days when it's idling for 5 hours at a time, HWInfo will record 44x on those two cores. Which is a good example of how useless peak clock actually is, _on stock boost behaviour._
> 
> ...



I have 1usmus plan installed and am using it (another piece of good advice from here). 
I'm not looking for fantastic figures as such but do want my setup to be as good, or as near good as it can be. After all I've invested a tidy sum in it, going to go down the open loop eventually, so I want to not only have a properly specced rig, but know Why it is.



ShrimpBrime said:


> You'll be doing lots of that. The suggestions ideas and opinions at this forum from everyone will put you in a good direction learning and actually doing.



That's good to hear, thanks


----------



## tabascosauz (Dec 8, 2019)

lorry said:


> I have 1usmus plan installed and am using it (another piece of good advice from here).
> I'm not looking for fantastic figures as such but do want my setup to be as good, or as near good as it can be. After all I've invested a tidy sum in it, going to go down the open loop eventually, so I want to not only have a properly specced rig, but know Why it is.



"As it can be"? We're on the first iteration of TSMC's 7nm process. Your chip knows exactly how good it can be based on its own binning, as CPPC tells itself exactly that, and is already giving you as much performance as it can while respecting its original boost and Pstate behaviour. This isn't 2014, this isn't 22nm. No longer do we have that kind of headroom to experiment with.

You ask why? Because running 46x for an extended amount of time is not feasible on this silicon. There's not much more to it.

It might be easier to demonstrate this visually:






Here, Cores 5 and 7 being the best silicon on die is plain to see. But while the Peak is reported as a mythical 44x and 43.5x (well, not so magical, since it goes up to 43.8x and 44x) respectively, effective clock tops out at roughly 41.25x on both. Why? But aren't I supposed to be getting 4392MHz out of at least my two best cores?

Because I haven't done anything with my PC today, that's why. The 41.25x is merely reflective of CPU-Z's quick multi-threaded benchmark, which pushes all the cores up to 40.5-41.5x. Meanwhile, Core 0 (unfortunately, my worst core, but that's just how the lottery goes) has the highest effective clock of them all because CPU-Z defaults to Core 0 for the single-threaded bench. The 44x has indeed been reached, but it's such a transient event that it's all but pointless.

Think of it like the 8086K's turbo tables. Yes, it can reach 5GHz, but that's only for a single core, and in 2019 how many instances are there in which you will be running any sort of load in Windows 1909 on just one core?

I mean, if you want that affirmation of the 46x multiplier to make yourself feel a little more comforted, then the simple method is to run your PC for longer periods of time. Leave it on for the whole day, and you'll get your two 46x cores under Peak Clock. But all it takes is one quick look a bit down the HWInfo list to see that it's a more complicated ordeal than the 46x multiplier seems to imply.


----------



## lorry (Dec 8, 2019)

tabascosauz said:


> "As it can be"? We're on the first iteration of TSMC's 7nm process. Your chip knows exactly how good it can be based on its own binning, as CPPC tells itself exactly that, and is already giving you as much performance as it can while respecting its original boost and Pstate behaviour. This isn't 2014, this isn't 22nm. No longer do we have that kind of headroom to experiment with.
> 
> You ask why? Because running 46x for an extended amount of time is not feasible on this silicon. There's not much more to it.
> 
> ...


Yes i was looking at the effective clock speed numbers and wondered about them, but decided that would best be looked into tomorrow (I'm already upstairs with the rig turned off). Again though, more pointers of what to look for, thanks

I am lucky I guess then, in that core 0 is one of my best from what I can see



tabascosauz said:


> As of recent revisions, HWInfo shows Effective Clock parameters. Your "effective clock" readings are going to be much more accurate of performance than peak clock, because your 3900X isn't holding a 46x multiplier, even on a single core, for any meaningful period of time. It will "spike" to 46x for a split second, then spend most of its time at no more than 45x. Effective Clock essentially takes an average of the frequency over a short period of time, as HWInfo's polling rate will never reflect the 1-2ns reaction time of Ryzen 3000.
> 
> The peak clock reading is useful for judging differences in boosting behaviour between AGESA versions, and pretty much nothing else. FWIW, there are days when my rig sees a lot of multi-core load from startup to shutdown, and at the end of the day cores 5 and 7 will still be hitting 43.5x max. On other days when it's idling for 5 hours at a time, HWInfo will record 44x on those two cores. Which is a good example of how useless peak clock actually is, _on stock boost behaviour._
> 
> ...



Two questions -

Does setting PBO max boost to 200 actually do anything? (as I cannot see much in the way of change)

My effective clock seems to be 4159 - 4161 for the majority with the best core being 4317 and another at 4224 and a bus clock of 100.
Is that normal, good, bad?  Or do I have a setting not right?



Just noticed that the infinity fabric is at 1600, should that be set to 1799? If so, how please?

I wish that the CPU OC MAX was true mind! lol





ShrimpBrime said:


> There are quite a few guides out there. Here's one that I really like alot.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



just finished reading the article, very interesting, i'll come back with questions after I've read it again and can pick out parts where I have a query.
In the meantime can you have a look at my last comment about my effective clock speeds etc if possible please when you can I mean.


----------



## Zach_01 (Dec 9, 2019)

InfinityFabric clock should match the DRAM clock for minimizing a latency penalty between the CPU and memory. Your ram now runs at 3200MT/s so the actual clock is 1600MHz and the IF match it. So you are ok for know. Just check in RyzenMaster that all subsystems match speed.
RAM:MemoryController:InfinityFabric
Remember the video I linked you a week ago about ZEN2 memory subsystem?
It explains a lot...










Just check in RyzenMaster that all subsystems match speed.
RAM:MemoryController:InfinityFabric
(MCLK:UCLK:FCLK)

And something about the effective clock by the author of HWiNFO





						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


----------



## lorry (Dec 9, 2019)

Yes I remember you saying that, so I did wonder if it was linked to that but wasn't certain, hence my next read being 'Theory: Infinity Fabric and types of Ram' from this forum.
I am using 6.20.403 HWINFO, here are a couple of screenshots I just took

 

You can see the differences between the two readings (although it's a shame that you cannot see all 12 cores at once in RM)

The current values are closer together than the peak values though

It's all Very new isn't it, I'm sure that there are many confused people around, in fact I have seen various posts where even i could see how the poster isn't getting it, there's a lot to take in.


----------



## Zach_01 (Dec 9, 2019)

Yes there is confusion about the clocks and the boost behavior. All this couldn’t be explained while marketing the chip, and we as users are used to very different things and definition of boosting.
While AMD did not lie about boosting... did not disclosure the whole truth about boost (and it’s factors) either. For me the bottom line is that the performance is real as promised.


----------



## lorry (Dec 9, 2019)

@Zach_01 what about both RM and the summary page of HW both reporting the max OC speed as being 4850  (4650 + 200 MHz max CPU boost clock)?

Ans I am still working through that video from BZ, this will be about the 6th time (or more) that I have seen it



Zach_01 said:


> Yes there is confusion about the clocks and the boost behavior. All this couldn’t be explained while marketing the chip, and we as users are used to very different things and definition of boosting.
> While AMD did not lie about boosting... did not disclosure the whole truth about boost (and it’s factors) either. For me the bottom line is that the performance is real as promised.



Yes, I have said several times now that their PR could have done a lot better job I felt in preparing the users about what was going on, but I also realise that until you actually have one and experience what they are saying, can you appreciate what they say.


----------



## Zach_01 (Dec 9, 2019)

lorry said:


> @Zach_01 what about both RM and the summary page of HW both reporting the max OC speed as being 4850  (4650 + 200 MHz max CPU boost clock)?


Have you seen 4850MHz at HWiNFO or RM? I'm not aware of any CPU auto clocking/boosting that high... 200~250MHz over rated boost. Maybe some rare chips can do +25~50MHz over stock max boost.

ZEN architecture is unique (so far) to the layout of cores, SoC/IO subsystems and the way they are implemented are introducing high latency among core-to-core (out of a CCX) and core-to-ram communication. AMD compensates in a way this high latency with large amounts of Level3 cache. This helps with the core-to-ram communication (reduces frequent access to ram) but still the core-to-core "talk" (out of CCX) is delayed. In order to do what best for this core-to-core (out of CCX) cross talk the infinity fabric must run as high as possible because this is the channel that cores talk through to each other. But IF cant clock all that high. Most chips can raise this clock between 1800~1900MHz. But you cant change this IF speed by its own. In order to not delay further the core-to-ram access you need to match with IF the speed of ram and the speed of the UMC (UnifiedMemoryController) that it is contained into the SoC along with IF.

Another important thing about effective clock that may not be clear. The reported eff clock of HWiNFO is not the actual clock of the cores. It contains also the halted(sleeping) states of the cores. As said by the author of HWiNFO there is no software that can catch every state change of cores perfectly accurate. The dynamics of the cores can change whithin a few mseconds and thus can change states a few hundread times within a whole second.

The pic below is after an hour of browsing work load. I have marked the 3 high quality cores in blue lines and the 3 less quality in orange. Threads are 2 per core. Core 0 has Thread 0(Physical core and colored) and Thread 1(logical core and black).
Watch the "*perf # x/x*" numbers. The second perf number is the order of the quality cores as the CPU reports them and as RM reports too (with stars and dots). The first perf number is the order of cores windows chooses to load.
1usmus's power plan and later maybe some windows/UEFI updates (rumoured) helped windows to choose the right cores to load first. Prior to this the loads where all over the cores and windows's scheduler did not pay well attention to core perf# order.
You can see that while the high quality cores are the 1/2/3 (in blue/red square) the loads are mostly on the cores 0/1/2 (green square) and core 3 has lower eff clock (86.1) than core 0 (217.9). This in theory may improve performance by win scheduler neglecting core 3 and choosing core 0 instead because the cores 0/1/2 are in the same CCX and this way may improve the core-to-core cross talk, even tho core 0 is 4th in actual perf# order.





All this is very new for all (users, software/windows developers). The platform is still in the early stages of development and it can be improved further from gen to gen along with software/windows.
ZEN3 (4000series) will continue to improve IPC and performance. What is heard so far is that cores within the same CCD (6 or 8) will be unified and the 2x 3/4core CCXs will be 1 CCD/CCX of 6 or 8 cores sharing the same resources. This will reduce the core-to-core latency for up to 8 cores instead of up to 4 cores that exists today. And I believe that they need to increase IF clock capability beyond 1800~1900MHz.
We'll see...


----------



## lorry (Dec 10, 2019)

Zach_01 said:


> Have you seen 4850MHz at HWiNFO or RM? I'm not aware of any CPU auto clocking/boosting that high... 200~250MHz over rated boost. Maybe some rare chips can do +25~50MHz over stock max boost.
> 
> ZEN architecture is unique (so far) to the layout of cores, SoC/IO subsystems and the way they are implemented are introducing high latency among core-to-core (out of a CCX) and core-to-ram communication. AMD compensates in a way this high latency with large amounts of Level3 cache. This helps with the core-to-ram communication (reduces frequent access to ram) but still the core-to-core "talk" (out of CCX) is delayed. In order to do what best for this core-to-core (out of CCX) cross talk the infinity fabric must run as high as possible because this is the channel that cores talk through to each other. But IF cant clock all that high. Most chips can raise this clock between 1800~1900MHz. But you cant change this IF speed by its own. In order to not delay further the core-to-ram access you need to match with IF the speed of ram and the speed of the UMC (UnifiedMemoryController) that it is contained into the SoC along with IF.
> 
> ...



Re the reported boost of 4850, yes, I posted screenshots above and do so here to save going hunting for them

  
I know that this is only PBO being enabled and then Max CPU Boost Override being set to 200MHz (is that the way to do it? Or is it one or the other and not both?), but that could confuse people as they might then expect the max boost to actually be 4850. BTW even before applying the Max CPU Boost Override, my 'CPU OC Max in HW was still showing 4650, which I thought somewhat odd?
My bus clock is always on 100MHz, that never changes at all from what I have seen.

So to potentially improve speeds I would need to increase the timings of my Ram from 3200 to hopefully 3600? I say hopefully as I know that Bill Zoid calls the Corsair B die Dominator ram 'rubbish' so I don't know what to expect when/if I get around to that.

It would seem that CCD0 is a pretty good chiplet as it would seem as though 1 of the cores (core 0), 2 of the cores will hit 4.575 and 3 reach 4.550, according to HW.
I noted on that thread on HW site that the coder said that 1usmus's power plan did not cure the problem and I'm not too sure why he came to that conclusion. The workload does seem to be spread fairly evenly across my first four cores

I am wondering just how many more bios updates there will be before they are considered 'fixed', as from various threads that I have read, there does seem to be a number of confused users.


----------



## tabascosauz (Dec 10, 2019)

lorry said:


> Re the reported boost of 4850, yes, I posted screenshots above and do so here to save going hunting for them
> 
> I know that this is only PBO being enabled and then Max CPU Boost Override being set to 200MHz (is that the way to do it? Or is it one or the other and not both?), but that could confuse people as they might then expect the max boost to actually be 4850. BTW even before applying the Max CPU Boost Override, my 'CPU OC Max in HW was still showing 4650, which I thought somewhat odd?
> 
> ...



You have to expand the first text column in HWInfo to see the CPPC and scheduler core rankings. Though from what your RM screenshot shows, you're doing pretty well for yourself. My Core 0 is dead last in both rankings, so in applications that won't have their loads shifted off Core 0, I'm at an inherent slight disadvantage on account of losing the lottery.

3200MT/s is the "frequency" (strictly speaking, 1600MHz is) not your timings. 16-18-18-36 are your main timings, and you'll need to figure them and the subtimings out in BIOS and Ryzen Master. 3200 with timings around 14 as opposed to 16 will get you into the range of the other normal B-die kits out there.

"Rubbish" from buildzoid is something you'll have to find out for yourself, as he deals mostly in pretty hardcore overclocking as is evident from the channel name. A lot of Corsair's B-die is poorly-binned B-die, or in other words, the B-die that the more elite companies like G.Skill wouldn't touch with a ten-foot-pole. That plays a part in why the XMPs on Corsair B-die are rated about the same speeds and latencies as other companies' non-Bdie SKUs.

Get those timings down to 14, and it'll be pretty damn respectable. Even at 3200/16, you're doing way, way better than the vast crowds out there running 2133 or 2400 on Ryzen. Just to put things into perspective.


----------



## lorry (Dec 10, 2019)

tabascosauz said:


> You have to expand the first text column in HWInfo to see the CPPC and scheduler core rankings. Though from what your RM screenshot shows, you're doing pretty well for yourself. My Core 0 is dead last in both rankings, so in applications that won't have their loads shifted off Core 0, I'm at an inherent slight disadvantage on account of losing the lottery.
> 
> 3200MT/s is the "frequency" (strictly speaking, 1600MHz is) not your timings. 16-18-18-36 are your main timings, and you'll need to figure them and the subtimings out in BIOS and Ryzen Master. 3200 with timings around 14 as opposed to 16 will get you into the range of the other normal B-die kits out there.
> 
> ...



is this what you mean? It didn't look as it they would expand at first. You say both ranking? Do you mean Ryzen and Windows rankings? My core 0 is perf #1/2, core 1 perf #1/1, are they the two rankings?


Oh, I'm aware that I either  got lucky and I'm not complaining in the slightest. What I am doing is learning about what is going on, and more importantly, why.

The ram was the very first thing that I bought for this rig and at the time I only knew enough to realise that it was 'respectable' and even then it was only two sticks. I then found out about the different dies and found another B die to 'match', considering that it's not on Gigabytes vendors list I'm happy that it even runs at 3200, lol. If I can get the timings down and the speed up to say 3400 I'll be damn pleased, if not it's still way way better than anything I've had. My last build to this was back in the mists of time, an Am486 DX4-100 ! Only had laptops until now, so this was quite a jump in learning what was needed and what worked with what!


----------



## Zach_01 (Dec 10, 2019)

You hit the lottery because you


lorry said:


> Re the reported boost of 4850, yes, I posted screenshots above and do so here to save going hunting for them
> 
> I know that this is only PBO being enabled and then Max CPU Boost Override being set to 200MHz (is that the way to do it? Or is it one or the other and not both?), but that could confuse people as they might then expect the max boost to actually be 4850. BTW even before applying the Max CPU Boost Override, my 'CPU OC Max in HW was still showing 4650, which I thought somewhat odd?
> My bus clock is always on 100MHz, that never changes at all from what I have seen.
> ...


Yes but you dont actually getting speeds anything above 4600... are you?

Like mine. CPU OC Max says 4400 but never saw anything above 4200.


----------



## lorry (Dec 10, 2019)

Zach_01 said:


> You hit the lottery because you
> 
> Yes but you dont actually getting speeds anything above 4600... are you?
> 
> ...



No, as I said, the highest I've seen is 4.600 according to HW and I think about 4.400 according to RM.
I know that it won't go to 4.85 (gawd, I wish! lol) but I was wondering why both HW and RM stated that my CPU OC Max was 4850 when it obviously cannot go that high.
Also why when the 'Max CPU Boost Clock Override is left at zero the CPU Max OC is then 4650 and not 4600? Surely that cannot mean that this CPUs' limit is 4650???

Are they just bad reporting by both apps? As in not taking the 200MHz into account, or what?

Question - I know that I am reporting on the 'normal' clock speeds now, but is it normal to have two cores that reach 4.6?
As I now have two at 4.600, two at 4.575 and two at 4.525. (I'm not bragging or anything, but I am asking if that is usual.


----------



## tabascosauz (Dec 10, 2019)

lorry said:


> I know that it won't go to 4.85 (gawd, I wish! lol) but I was wondering why both HW and RM stated that my CPU OC Max was 4850 when it obviously cannot go that high.
> Also why when the 'Max CPU Boost Clock Override is left at zero the CPU Max OC is then 4650 and not 4600? Surely that cannot mean that this CPUs' limit is 4650???
> 
> Question - I know that I am reporting on the 'normal' clock speeds now, but is it normal to have two cores that reach 4.6?
> ...



It's like the theoretical power draw limits under manual OC - when will you ever reach the limit of 1000W of power draw on anything? It's pointless to fret over, and has no bearing on what you actually get. Better for AMD to set an unattainable ceiling than one that will actually limit performance.

If you're using 1usmus or 1909, the scheduler tries its best to keep lightly threaded loads within the same CCX for latency purposes. For you, a CCX is populated by 3 active cores. Seeing as your two best cores are in the first complex, it's not hard to see why the scheduler would want to keep most of the load in there.

Your Core 0 quality makes it easy, because as far as the scheduler is concerned, there is literally no reason ever to migrate load out of the first CCX unless more than 3 cores are needed, which is probably why you see lower freqs and usage on the other 9 cores. On the other hand, if your chip is like mine with Core 0 and the best core at opposite ends of the silicon, the scheduler will feel a bit torn at times.

I described Corsair as "poorly-binned" B-die, but it's still B-die. Throw a little bit extra DRAM voltage at it and you'll likely be able to comfortably get a little frequency and tighter timings out of it. Ryzen DRAM calculator has everything you need, maybe check the V2 profile instead for a more relaxed set of timings.


----------



## lorry (Dec 10, 2019)

tabascosauz said:


> It's like the theoretical power draw limits under manual OC - when will you ever reach the limit of 1000W of power draw on anything? It's pointless to fret over, and has no bearing on what you actually get. Better for AMD to set an unattainable ceiling than one that will actually limit performance.
> 
> If you're using 1usmus or 1909, the scheduler tries its best to keep lightly threaded loads within the same CCX for latency purposes. For you, a CCX is populated by 3 active cores. Seeing as your two best cores are in the first complex, it's not hard to see why the scheduler would want to keep most of the load in there.
> 
> ...




Yes I am using 1usmus. And yes I know what you mean re limits, I was just wondering why it was being shown that high.
I was watching the load as it went through a R20 and it was interesting to see the load being switched mostly between the first three cores, with the fourth occasionally getting into the mix

With the Dram Calc do you select the speed that you have or the speed that you want? (first time that I have looked at it) As for throwing voltage at it etc, I think I'll need to have a read first lol.


----------



## Zach_01 (Dec 10, 2019)

I bet you can do:
3600MT/s 16-16-16-16-32-48 with 1.4V easily, even if its low quality b-dies like mine...


----------



## lorry (Dec 10, 2019)

Zach_01 said:


> I bet you can do 3600MT/s 16-16-16-16-32 with 1.4V easily, even if its low quality b-dies like mine...




Do you mean like this?  All I;ve done is enter what details it looked like it needed then hit the safe calculate




Fast is this


----------



## Zach_01 (Dec 10, 2019)

Hit purple button first before safe or fast and profile V1


----------



## lorry (Dec 10, 2019)

safe with  r-xmp added



fast with r-xmp added



is the dram modules correct? I have 4 sticks


----------



## Zach_01 (Dec 10, 2019)

Try
3600
Profile V1
4 modules
2 rank


----------



## lorry (Dec 10, 2019)

safe


Fast


----------



## Zach_01 (Dec 10, 2019)

The suggested settings are I think same as mine (I’m not on my PC now) except the termination block and that’s because you have 4 modules and I have 2.

IMPORTANT:
Change the rank from 2 to 1. I forgot that your sticks are 8GB and not 16.
For sure set check again what Thaiphoon software reports.


----------



## lorry (Dec 10, 2019)

Zach_01 said:


> The suggested settings are I think same as mine (I’m not on my PC now) except the termination block and that’s because you have 4 modules and I have 2.
> 
> IMPORTANT:
> Change the rank from 2 to 1. I forgot that your sticks are 8GB and not 16.
> For sure set check again what Thaiphoon software



Thaiphoon software ?


----------



## tabascosauz (Dec 10, 2019)

lorry said:


> Thaiphoon software ?



Thaiphoon Burner. You gotta get on Google a little here, help us help you. Open it up and read one of the SMBuses for deets on your RAM sticks. Also lots of good guides on Ryzen DRAM calculator out there, as to the less-explained features like single rank/dual rank and the V1/V2 profiles.


----------



## lorry (Dec 10, 2019)

tabascosauz said:


> Thaiphoon Burner. You gotta get on Google a little here, help us help you. Open it up and read one of the SMBuses for deets on your RAM sticks. Also lots of good guides on Ryzen DRAM calculator out there, as to the less-explained features like single rank/dual rank and the V1/V2 profiles.



i just looked it up and got this from malwarebytes -


*Website blocked due to trojan*
Website blocked:  www.softnology.biz
*Malwarebytes Browser Guard blocked this website because it may contain malware activity.*
*We strongly recommend you do not continue.*


?


----------



## Zach_01 (Dec 10, 2019)

Try this...









						Download Thaiphoon Burner 17.0.0.1 build 1220 Beta 12
					

Download Thaiphoon Burner - This application displays multiple information about Serial Presence Detect and allows you to modify the firmware of SPD EEPROM devices




					www.softpedia.com


----------



## lorry (Dec 10, 2019)

ok got it



I hadn't heard of Thaiphoon Burner  before, so it took me a sec to realise it was software to do with memory, apologies,



Zach_01 said:


> View attachment 139037
> 
> Try this...
> 
> ...



no that just took me to the same site. Its not just myself that gets that warning btw, I googled it and saw a few posts that said the same thing that I did.

I see that your clock frequency is higher than mine, is that significant?

Just watched a couple of videos, one from Hardware Unboxed. It seems quite easy, is it as easy as it looked?

Also, the suggested voltage is 1.36v, but if you look at my screen shots from HW you'll see that it is already at 1.38v,so should I leave the voltage alone or bump it up higher than the 1.38 it is already at? 

One last question for now, if its stable how much of a performance increase is there likely to be please?


----------



## Zach_01 (Dec 10, 2019)

Ok the ICs (actual memory chips) are a bit worst than mine but it doesn't matter all that much. Major factor about RAM OC for Ryzen is the UMC (Unified Memory Controller) of the CPU and I bet yours is better than mine cause R9 3900X is a higher quality chip overall than R5 3600.
As i thought the modules are 1 ranked (says so the "Memory Module" -> "Organization" on Thaiphoon) meaning that all 8GB is on 1 side of the modules like most 8GB sticks.

First you need to get a starting point for your DRAM performance and how is it now. You can run "AIDA64 cache and memory benchmark".

First raw is the important about mem read/write/copy bandwidth (higher) and latency the most out of all (lower)


Your bandwidth could end up higher than mine and latency lower due to higher threads and speed of your CPU.
Be aware that AIDA64 is a paid benchmark. If you dont want to pay for it then you can run the individual 4 tests for memory read/write/copy/latency like this...



You can find the first pic memory/cache benchmark right above the Start button in Tools drop down menu.
Run them 1 or 2 times each and save the numbers.
When you get the current performance you can proceed with DRAMcalculator like this



You dont have to set all the settings provided here but just those in blue squares for start. All else in *auto* and* XMP disabled*. All these settings are in the *Tweaker* page of your BIOS. Set the mem multi to 36 and timings in the *Advanced Memory Settings*. Be aware that the timings order is different in BIOS.
The 1.35 recommendation for mem voltage is really for high end/quality B-dies and ours are not... Mine works with 1.4V (DRAM voltage CH A/B) for these kind of settings. Max recommended safe 24/7 mem voltage especially for b-dies is 1.45V and some users do even 1.5V with active cooling upon modules.

Under *AMD CBS* and *XFR Enhancement (settings page)* in BIOS you will find the IF speed (*FCLK*  set it to *1800MHz*)
You also need to be sure about the matching speeds of DRAM and UMC so set the* UCLK DIV1 MODE *to:* UCLK==MEMCLK*
Also you can set the *SoC/Uncore OC Mode* to *Enable*. This disables the power savings of the SOC/IO die and can help with IF/UMC OC (can raise the avg power consumption of SOC/IO by a few watts, but nothing really important)

Feel free to ask further questions and/or clarifications. Once all set (double checked) and before save and exit I suggest to save this profile preferably to a usb stick.
When you manage to boot and get in windows first thing is to open RM and see that you have the correct settings.



Run AIDA64 again and see what you have gained. You can run other benchmarks before and after, like 3d marks, superposition, blender or anything you like. Higher mem speed and lower latency is not benefit CB scores all that much but you can run them too...

*EDIT:* some typos and...

The 3rd page of RyzenDRAMcalc contains a memory benchmark/stability test (last about 2~3 min) and it is a good show about the overall stability of the memory subsystem as a whole. If you finish it without errors there is a good chance that your system is stable by 99% if not 100%. Just click RUN as is, and dont do anything else. The test will start after 5~10sec.
And definately do some real (AAA) gaming too for at least ~2 hours sessions.


----------



## lorry (Dec 11, 2019)

Zach_01 said:


> Ok the ICs (actual memory chips) are a bit worst than mine but it doesn't matter all that much. Major factor about RAM OC for Ryzen is the UMC (Unified Memory Controller) of the CPU and I bet yours is better than mine cause R9 3900X is a higher quality chip overall than R5 3600.
> As i thought the modules are 1 ranked (says so the "Memory Module" -> "Organization" on Thaiphoon) meaning that all 8GB is on 1 side of the modules like most 8GB sticks.
> 
> First you need to get a starting point for your DRAM performance and how is it now. You can run "AIDA64 cache and memory benchmark".
> ...



Hi and first of all thanks for taking the time to explain all this, I appreciate it.

First of all my Aida64 cach and memory benchmark



These are my settings for the D-ram Calc as they currently are. With profile V1, memory rank 1, frequency 3200, BCLK 100, Dimm modules 4, motherboard B450/X470



These are the settings for a safe preset for 3600 (if I have understood you correctly



Again if I have understood correctly in Bios (unsure if there is a dedicated page for tweaking but I'll watch some videos again), I set 

XMP to disabled
tCL 16
tRCDWR 16
trCDRD 16
tRP 16
tRAS 32
tRC 48

tRFC 345

FCLK 1800

What would you suggest I set the DRAM voltage to as it is Already between 1.344 - 1.392 and currently 1.38? Would it be ok to set to 1.400v as a beginning, or even leave it as it is for a starting point?? If it doesn't boot I presume that I just go back into bios and up it in 0.1 amounts and try again, or smaller stages?

Also, if it doesn't boot at all, no matter what voltage I try reasonably, do I then go back and set every memory setting back to auto/original settings and FCLK to 1600?
And then come back here and shout"Help!" lol

Oh and I have done a full memtest86, took 7 hours!


----------



## Zach_01 (Dec 11, 2019)

lorry said:


> XMP to disabled
> tCL 16
> tRCDWR 16
> trCDRD 16
> ...


My suggestion is pretty much those settings yes.

XMP: disabled
Memory multi: 36
tCL: 16
tRCDWR: 16
trCDRD: 16
tRP: 16
tRAS: 32
tRC: 48
tRFC: 345
DRAM voltage: 1.40V
FCLK: 1800MHz
UCLK==MEMCLK
SoC/Uncore OC: Enabled


I’m pretty confident that you will boot with these and get into Windows.
Getting out of stability tests without errors is another case, but I think you will.

Tests:
AIDA64
RyzenDRAMcalc MEMbench
...if you finish(2-3mins) this MEMbench without errors then proceed with any test of your liking...

The main goal is to bring down that memory latency from 78ns below 70 and close to 65 if possible. The best I’ve ever seen is 62-63ns on ZEN2 platform but with expensive high quality ram sticks.
Increased GB/s is welcomed too if happened along.

Im getting 68ns with similar settings.

Tweaking the memory and find its limits is more painful than CPU OC. Be patient and thorough


----------



## lorry (Dec 11, 2019)

Zach_01 said:


> My suggestion is pretty much those settings yes.
> 
> XMP: disabled
> Memory multi: 36
> ...



Thanks,
I'll likely have a try tomorrow as I am Knackered for today, I Hurt.
I have Chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (*CIDP*) and have limited amounts of 'spoons' to do something each day. I moved things around in here today to make it easier for me on the days that I'm relegated to the wheelchair, so that's it as far as anything constructive for today. It's something I've been meaning to do for ages and never got around to it until now.

More information learned (latency). It's obvious when pointed out but until you get into that mindset you have no clue as to what you are hoping to achieve beyond making it 'better'

@Zach_01  a quick question re RyzenDRAMcalc MEMbench
Just opened up RyzenDRAMcalc MEMbench to have a look at that section and where it says 'Ram size (mb)' it has 12000 greyed out and cannot be changed. I tried to as I wasn't sure it was correct, is it?
I have set membench mode to default, as I do have more than 8GB of ram of course


----------



## Frick (Dec 11, 2019)

lorry said:


> and have limited amounts of 'spoons' to do something each day. I



I like the energy bar analogy better. 

Anyways, like this thread. Weird how Ryzen kinda sorta made overclocking (or tweaking) slightly popular even if it’s largely pointless.


----------



## lorry (Dec 11, 2019)

Frick said:


> I like the energy bar analogy better.
> 
> Anyways, like this thread. Weird how Ryzen kinda sorta made overclocking (or tweaking) slightly popular even if it’s largely pointless.



Why weird? They made decent kit affordable to far more people that Intel did. Not getting into the red/blue 'fight' simply saying that AMD CPUs' in general are more affordable than Intel generally, giving people access to higher spec kit. As to being largely pointless I disagree, free extra performance, however small is always a good thing and needing to learn more about PCs and their components to get that free extra performance is hardly a detriment either.


----------



## Frick (Dec 11, 2019)

lorry said:


> Why weird? They made decent kit affordable to far more people that Intel did. Not getting into the red/blue 'fight' simply saying that AMD CPUs' in general are more affordable than Intel generally, giving people access to higher spec kit. As to being largely pointless I disagree, free extra performance, however small is always a good thing and needing to learn more about PCs and their components to get that free extra performance is hardly a detriment either.



Ironic may be a better word. Coincidence. I mean people are into overclocking them, but afaik you don’t get a whole lot out of them. The chips are by design running more or less as hard as they can already, at least the bigger models. As someone said: AMD opened up for tinkering but killed overclocking with the boost thingie (hyperbole). Late first gen low end Ryzens could be pushed decently hard though. I mean there’s not much free performance to be had.

but again, I love how involved it is, and that people (such as yourself) are into it.  Much more interesting than just setting a speed in BIOS and you’re done.


----------



## lorry (Dec 11, 2019)

Frick said:


> Ironic may be a better word. Coincidence. I mean people are into overclocking them, but afaik you don’t get a whole lot out of them. The chips are by design running more or less as hard as they can already, at least the bigger models. As someone said: AMD opened up for tinkering but killed overclocking with the boost thingie (hyperbole). Late first gen low end Ryzens could be pushed decently hard though. I mean there’s not much free performance to be had.
> 
> but again, I love how involved it is, and that people (such as yourself) are into it.  Much more interesting than just setting a speed in BIOS and you’re done.



Hmm, not sure there, as I am very late to the 'game' so to speak. For a start, every AMD cpu pretty much is clockable, again something that can't be said about Intel, add that to their affordability and you then have the opportunity available for anyone. Yes there isn't much headroom to be had, but it is there all the same. Plus as I am just finding out now, there is the ram to improve on as well, again as not everyone can afford expensive exotic ram.

I think more than anything else it's that AMD have made tinkering/tweaking your PCs performance available to anyone, not just those with enough money to buy an unlocked Intel.
Plus of course, everyone loves an 'underdog' but I'm not so sure just how many still class AMD as that These days.

@Zach_01  yet another question whilst i think of it. CPU Core Voltage (SV12 TFN). I'm seeing lows of 1.09V, highs of 1.494V with an average of 1.419V. 
CPU VCORE SOC is lows of 1.080V, highs of 1.116V and an average of 1.097V.\

Is this normal for the 3900x? i read that the cpu operates in the region of 1.2V to 1.5V, yet always thought that was high ?


----------



## Zach_01 (Dec 11, 2019)

For the RyzenCalc MEMbench leave it and run it as is...

I also noticed (by your screenshots) that your CPU voltage averages in the higher region. While it is not out of spec by any means could indicate that the CPU is mostly on the “awake” mode, and less on the “sleeping” (low p-states/parking cores). This can be affected by a lot of factors. Powerplan settings, background services/apps or could be the board it self preventing the CPU to enter the low p-states.

And it’s not that this reading of voltage is wrong. With your cooling setup (CPU/case coolers) I would expect to see your idle temp somewhere around 35C and not around 40C.
Sure temps affected by ambient but not the voltage. Although a chip needs higher voltage as temps are rising, but not so much in order to get your avg idle voltage to 1.4+V. And for sure not on idle/very low loads.

Question:
When the PC is idle (even with browser open or YT vids) how is the average CPU usage after like 2-3 hours?

I have a sh*t load of opened apps and monitors sitting in sys tray and my CPU avg usage is about 2.5% (hwinfo)

SoC voltage is perfectly normal around a steady 1.08V


----------



## lorry (Dec 11, 2019)

Zach_01 said:


> For the RyzenCalc MEMbench leave it and run it as is...
> 
> I also noticed (by your screenshots) that your CPU voltage averages in the higher region. While it is not out of spec by any means could indicate that the CPU is mostly on the “awake” mode, and less on the “sleeping” (low p-states/parking cores). This can be affected by a lot of factors. Powerplan settings, background services/apps or could be the board it self preventing the CPU to enter the low p-states.
> 
> ...



I've been browsing and watching YouTube videos for the past few hours, average temp is 45-50 depending on what I am doing at That time, average 5% cpu usage (but that does include a CB run I did an hour or so ago I think), literally just before I began typing this it was at 2.8%.

Everything that I have read about the 3900x says that 1.4V is usual for it, just seems high to me.

Room temp is 22.5C btw

Power plan is 1usmus one.

You can see here that 18 out of the 24 threads have a min of <50MHz, which I believe is when the core goes to sleep?


----------



## Zach_01 (Dec 11, 2019)

From what you say seem normal... I don’t have experience with 3900X first hand so I’m just speculating...
We must not forget that this CPU has double cores than mine.

But...
At that screenshot what you see below 100MHz effective clock or report minimum usage (all are T1 threads) are the logical cores. Meaning (to me at least) that the physical cores are kind of active, or more active at least.

I don’t really know if this is 100% normal. Perhaps someone else with same CPU could help


----------



## lorry (Dec 11, 2019)

Zach_01 said:


> From what you say seem normal... I don’t have experience with 3900X first hand so I’m just speculating...
> We must not forget that this CPU has double cores than mine.
> 
> But...
> ...



Yes but min usage from core 5 onward the min usage is below 50MHZ, which I read was when the cores go to sleep. So surely if all the threads from core 5 to core 11 have at some point dropped below 50MHz doesn't that mean that they would have gone to sleep? I'm trying to understand here not stating any facts, also speculating from what I have read.

Oh, correction to the average CPU usage when at desktop with Firefox with Lots of pages open, Thunderbird, Hangouts, file explorer, cinebench, Dram Calc and HWinfo all running, was 2.9%
I also looked through all my HWInfo screenshots and the highest the VRM MOS reaches was 45c and an average of 38c.


----------



## Zach_01 (Dec 11, 2019)

Yes I know you are trying to learn as we all do the same thing because the Zen2 CPUs are fairly new chips/architecture. I like to observe and learn about them too.

VRM MOS temp has max value way over 100C. In fact, most of these mosfets have throttling points from 115 to 125C even the crapiest ones, so do not worry about it.


----------



## lorry (Dec 11, 2019)

Zach_01 said:


> Yes I know you are trying to learn as we all do the same thing because the Zen2 CPUs are fairly new chips/architecture. I like to observe and learn about them too.
> 
> VRM MOS temp has max value way over 100C. In fact, most of these mosfets have throttling points from 115 to 125C even the crapiest ones, so do not worry about it.



Oh I know that they can go pretty high, seen plety of BZ breakdown videos of VRMs, all I was saying really was that the cpu temp wasn't being affected by anything else, as nothing else was under any stress.

One interesting thing I just noticed, every single effective thread today has a Min high of 4250MHz. That is around 200MHz higher than any of my other screenshots of HWinfo. The highest in fact is 4,373MHz !


----------



## Zach_01 (Dec 11, 2019)

lorry said:


> Oh I know that they can go pretty high, seen plety of BZ breakdown videos of VRMs, all I was saying really was that the cpu temp wasn't being affected by anything else, as nothing else was under any stress.


Understood...



lorry said:


> One interesting thing I just noticed, every single effective thread today has a Min high of 4250MHz. That is around 200MHz higher than any of my other screenshots of HWinfo. The highest in fact is 4,373MHz !


Can’t really say why...

I still see you have a bit high avg CPU usage (5.2%). I know that was after some 100% loads but still it’s 14+hours avg. I guess you run a lot of tests during that time.


----------



## lorry (Dec 11, 2019)

Zach_01 said:


> Understood...
> 
> 
> Can’t really say why...
> ...




Not really, maybe 4 or 5 CB R29 but Firefox has a Ton, as in 40+ tabs open!


----------



## Zach_01 (Dec 11, 2019)

Yeah... I also have minimum about ~25 tabs open (Chrome). At least on chrome don’t put any stress on the CPU, just Ram space.


----------



## lorry (Dec 11, 2019)

Zach_01 said:


> Yeah... I also have minimum about ~25 tabs open (Chrome). At least on chrome don’t put any stress on the CPU, just Ram space.



no idea re Firefox

Watching ;
*3rd-gen Ryzen Overclocking - Everything you need to know!*
by that tubby guy from linus tech tips (forget his name right now)

So far he has said this -

"
for high speed memory enable gear down mode
disable power down mode

Manually change every voltage that you can to stock value"


----------



## tabascosauz (Dec 11, 2019)

lorry said:


> Oh I know that they can go pretty high, seen plety of BZ breakdown videos of VRMs, all I was saying really was that the cpu temp wasn't being affected by anything else, as nothing else was under any stress.
> 
> One interesting thing I just noticed, every single effective thread today has a Min high of 4250MHz. That is around 200MHz higher than any of my other screenshots of HWinfo. The highest in fact is 4,373MHz !
> 
> View attachment 139122



Are you applying a undervolt? Those voltages look okay to me. Maybe you have a fair bit of room for undervolting.

MOSFET temps don't scale like CPU temps. You'll see them start to creep up when applying full loads like P95 for an extended period of time. A short bench usually won't cause them to get too hot. Less than 50 is ice cold!


----------



## lorry (Dec 11, 2019)

tabascosauz said:


> Are you applying a undervolt? Those voltages look okay to me, maybe even slightly on the low side.
> 
> MOSFET temps don't scale like CPU temps. You'll see them start to creep up when applying full loads like P95 for an extended period of time. A short bench usually won't cause them to get too hot. Less than 50 is ice cold!



no, every voltage is as the bios set them

Just seen this though, which vindicates what I was saying about 1.4V being average


----------



## tabascosauz (Dec 11, 2019)

lorry said:


> no, every voltage is as the bios set them
> 
> Just seen this though, which vindicates what I was saying about 1.4V being average
> 
> View attachment 139124



I hate general "recommendations" like that for Ryzen 3000 because of how dynamic Vcore is on this generation, and how each chip is of different quality. What is be interested in knowing is your SVI2 TFN voltage under maximum possible load, as it will drop a fair bit.


----------



## lorry (Dec 11, 2019)

tabascosauz said:


> I hate general "recommendations" like that for Ryzen 3000 because of how dynamic Vcore is on this generation, and how each chip is of different quality. What is be interested in knowing is your SVI2 TFN voltage under maximum possible load, as it will drop a fair bit.



would R20 do that? As I can quickly run that now


----------



## Zach_01 (Dec 11, 2019)

lorry said:


> no idea re Firefox
> 
> Watching ;
> *3rd-gen Ryzen Overclocking - Everything you need to know!*
> ...


Did not read it but I suspect is for a static CPU OC, right?
If yes then it does not apply to me or anyone leaving the CPU with stock boosting.
As for Gear/Power down settings yes I knew that but it is more for 3600+ Mem speed.
RyzenDRAMcalc also suggest these settings according to Speed/timings


----------



## lorry (Dec 11, 2019)

Zach_01 said:


> Did not read it but I suspect is for a static CPU OC, right?
> If yes then it does not apply to me or anyone leaving the CPU with stock boosting.
> As for Gear/Power down settings yes I knew that but it is more for 3600+ Mem speed.
> RyzenDRAMcalc also suggest these settings according to Speed/timings



ah! okay
and yes for a static OFC



tabascosauz said:


> I hate general "recommendations" like that for Ryzen 3000 because of how dynamic Vcore is on this generation, and how each chip is of different quality. What is be interested in knowing is your SVI2 TFN voltage under maximum possible load, as it will drop a fair bit.



R20 obviously wasn't enough, as the SV12 TFN didn't move from 1.087V during R20

Any other suggestions re a test?


----------



## tabascosauz (Dec 11, 2019)

lorry said:


> would R20 do that? As I can quickly run that now



If it stresses all 24 threads heavily, then I guess it would. Gets kinda difficult to tell with voltage on these bigger SKUs because Ryzen boost will call for different Vcore depending on the load (even if they all display "100% usage") and the amount of cores being utilized. Highest Vcore will be seen under light, almost "idle" load, and lowest will be the heaviest load across the most cores.

The voltage offset you can apply is applied all the time, so regardless of what Vcore the chip is calling for at that instant, the same offset will be applied.

P95 Small or smallest? But some people don't like P95 as they believe it "unrealistic loads" and causes a lot of heat and power draw


----------



## lorry (Dec 11, 2019)

tabascosauz said:


> If it stresses all 24 threads heavily, then I guess it would. Gets kinda difficult to tell with voltage on these bigger SKUs because Ryzen boost will call for different Vcore depending on the load (even if they all display "100% usage") and the amount of cores being utilized. Highest Vcore will be seen under light, almost "idle" load, and lowest will be the heaviest load across the most cores.
> 
> The voltage offset you can apply is applied all the time, so regardless of what Vcore the chip is calling for at that instant, the same offset will be applied.
> 
> P95 Small or smallest? But some people don't like P95 as they believe it "unrealistic loads" and causes a lot of heat and power draw



I ran the Membench within Dram Calc for 4 mins and it dropped no lower than 1.081V

No idea quite what these memtest results show, but here they are





I understand that 74 is my current latency, or I think it is, and that 260 is my current time and the best is 230. Would that then mean that using this memtest my PC of ram needs to be as close to 230 as I can get it?
And the graph? Any ideas on that?


----------



## Zach_01 (Dec 11, 2019)

The important thing is to finish it without errors, as you tweak the memory of course. Raising speed and lower timings.
Yes the 230sec is probably the best 3200 ram that the calc has in its data base for this 24threaded CPU.
If you change speed (ex. 3600) the "best" result would be something else (lower)


----------



## lorry (Dec 11, 2019)

Zach_01 said:


> The important thing is to finish it without errors, as you tweak the memory of course. Raising speed and lower timings.
> Yes the 230sec is probably the best 3200 ram that the calc has in its data base for this 24threaded CPU.
> If you change speed (ex. 3600) the "best" result would be something else (lower)



How good is this compared to memtest86? 
As I presume that once stable at 3600 I do this test and if it passes is there still a need to do the full memtest86? 
I presume it's best to ensure complete stability?


----------



## ShrimpBrime (Dec 11, 2019)

Hey Lorry,

Does your motherboard have a setting called SenseMi Skew and SenseMi offset by any chance?
If it does, I can help you with an alternative to boosting affects for the cpu.... (After you get your ram sorted out of course)


----------



## lorry (Dec 11, 2019)

ShrimpBrime said:


> Hey Lorry,
> 
> Does your motherboard have a setting called SenseMi Skew and SenseMi offset by any chance?
> If it does, I can help you with an alternative to boosting affects for the cpu.... (After you get your ram sorted out of course)



Offhand I don't know, but I don't recall seeing either as an option or heading anywhere. Where might it be under?


----------



## ShrimpBrime (Dec 11, 2019)

lorry said:


> Offhand I don't know, but I don't recall seeing either as an option or heading anywhere. Where might it be under?



On my Asus ROG board, it's in the tweaker's paradise section. I'm not familiar with your board, but would be in perhaps advanced section?? (not really sure, you'll have to look)

Give you some nifty tips and tricks. These processors do amazing things when altering these settings. You'll see a lot less idle time, higher P-states maintained. 
I'll explain more if you have these settings, I hope you do. So much tweaking Ryzen chips.... just gotta have the right board. (not saying you don't just not familiar with yours)


----------



## lorry (Dec 11, 2019)

ShrimpBrime said:


> On my Asus ROG board, it's in the tweaker's paradise section. I'm not familiar with your board, but would be in perhaps advanced section?? (not really sure, you'll have to look)
> 
> Give you some nifty tips and tricks. These processors do amazing things when altering these settings. You'll see a lot less idle time, higher P-states maintained.
> I'll explain more if you have these settings, I hope you do. So much tweaking Ryzen chips.... just gotta have the right board. (not saying you don't just not familiar with yours)



I'll check tomorrow.
I intend to boot into the bios first thing tomorrow and just familiarise myself with where all the various ram settings are, so looking for a couple more would be best done then

Just did a search online for it And gigabyte board but nothing showed. I'll find out properly tomorrow


----------



## ShrimpBrime (Dec 11, 2019)

No hurries.

Don't be terribly picky with the memory timings. Tighter is better, but often times sacrifice speed. If you can do a clean 16-16-16-16-x-x 1 or 2T 1.40v or less, 3600mhz that's a great place to be.
Performance and latency happens from Raw speed, tighter timings only enhance this.

Memtest is really good for testing memory. But like with anything, it's not the "tell all" just like P95 or OCCT by themselves. Do test with multiple testers and for sure take the time to enjoy the rig and do some gaming. Testing does require some gaming testing you know. Benchmarks/stress tests (synthetic or not) are pretty straight forward. But doesn't simulate actual usage, like pause game Alt/Tab, open browser, throw on some music and so forth.

Unless you intend to make some scores, don't over think all this k?


----------



## lorry (Dec 11, 2019)

ShrimpBrime said:


> No hurries.
> 
> Don't be terribly picky with the memory timings. Tighter is better, but often times sacrifice speed. If you can do a clean 16-16-16-16-x-x 1 or 2T 1.40v or less, 3600mhz that's a great place to be.
> Performance and latency happens from Raw speed, tighter timings only enhance this.
> ...



Good advice 
Really I'm just learning atm, see how it all goes


----------



## ShrimpBrime (Dec 11, 2019)

lorry said:


> Good advice
> Really I'm just learning atm, see how it all goes



And that's why you don't over think it.. You just get the main chunk of performance from some enhancements and enjoy.

However... I'll advertise to help any one on the seek for no stability (or very little) and smoke everyone else with a similar processor lol. (I'm, far from the best, but have had my fair share of fun  )

There is no sweet spot between daily use and bench-marking purposes. period. Once I give you the red pill, we go down the rabbit hole. You'll never return the same lol. Turn into a hw junkie. I've seen it many times in the last couple of decades. This hobby can become very addictive. 

Oh and by the way, you can slap a fan on the memory if it feels warm to the back of your finger. (this helps stability just like a cpu  )


----------



## Zach_01 (Dec 11, 2019)

ShrimpBrime said:


> Does your motherboard have a setting called SenseMi Skew and SenseMi offset by any chance?


Mine doesnt have anything like that in UEFI... Gigabyte but X570


----------



## ShrimpBrime (Dec 12, 2019)

Zach_01 said:


> Mine doesnt have anything like that in UEFI... Gigabyte but X570



Oh the SenseMi offset??
Yea Im not sure if its an exclusive thing to certain boards.


Perhaps it's labeled differently? Might be ROG only? Not sure.


----------



## lorry (Dec 12, 2019)

ShrimpBrime said:


> And that's why you don't over think it.. You just get the main chunk of performance from some enhancements and enjoy.
> 
> However... I'll advertise to help any one on the seek for no stability (or very little) and smoke everyone else with a similar processor lol. (I'm, far from the best, but have had my fair share of fun  )
> 
> ...



I do already have a specific ram fan kit, with RGB lol. Happened across it on eBay 

Trouble is that it damn near made the ram as tall as the Noctua cpu cooler! 

Oh and don't worry, I can become as obsessed as the next person, especially as I have way too much time.


----------



## ShrimpBrime (Dec 12, 2019)

Ah yes. I have one as well. For older memory but still works the same.
Good. Bulky but at least has RGB and does the job. Just what you need!

The bestest way to get hooked on overclocking is buying older hardware which is generally cheap. Then you don't have to beat on your daily gamer.
Overclocking methodology has been pretty much the same since AMD socket A (462 pin). So what you're learning today can be applied to yesterdays PCs.


----------



## Zach_01 (Dec 12, 2019)

Have one too... an old one 







lorry said:


> I do already have a specific ram fan kit, with RGB lol. Happened across it on eBay
> View attachment 139149
> Trouble is that it damn near made the ram as tall as the Noctua cpu cooler!
> 
> Oh and don't worry, I can become as obsessed as the next person, especially as I have way too much time.


How much did you find it on eBay? Noise?
I saw your ram sticks have temp sensors. How much does this help?
Here at local market is about 60~65€ and on eBay just found it 70~120€ + 15~20€ shipping


----------



## lorry (Dec 12, 2019)

Zach_01 said:


> Have one too... an old one
> 
> 
> View attachment 139155
> ...



Think it was £39 ? 
I have no idea how much it helps, as I've not used them. 
And not tried as yet because their height would prevent any decent cpu cooler


----------



## Zach_01 (Dec 12, 2019)

£39 ah... that's about 46€
Out of 10 retailers here only 1 has it at stock and 85€ ... others (65~80€) saying order first.
Hardware is expensive here me think so...


----------



## lorry (Dec 12, 2019)

ShrimpBrime said:


> Hey Lorry,
> 
> Does your motherboard have a setting called SenseMi Skew and SenseMi offset by any chance?
> If it does, I can help you with an alternative to boosting affects for the cpu.... (After you get your ram sorted out of course)



I looked completely through the bios and didn't see either of those settings 



Zach_01 said:


> £39 ah... that's about 46€
> Out of 10 retailers here only 1 has it at stock and 85€ ... others (65~80€) saying order first.
> Hardware is expensive here me think so...



This was a private sale, new from a retailer Scan they are between £60 - £72

Saw an interesting setting whilst in the bios, might be a Gigabyte only setting?

XMP High Freq Support - settings are auto, level 1, 2, 3,

Found this on a search -

"This was actually easy to figure out - I just enabled all three and each time checked in Ryzen master. It's just a quick toggle for Fabric speeds and possibly voltages - I did not check voltages - but can confirm the manual fabric speeds that were adjusted. Level 1 sets your fabric (uclk) to 1600mhz to support DDR4 3200, Level 2 sets it at 1700mhz to support DDR4 3400 and Level 3 obviously is the magic 1800mhz to support DDR3600. Auto works fine on my board using DDR4 3600, sets the fabric correctly to 1800mhz "


----------



## tabascosauz (Dec 12, 2019)

lorry said:


> "This was actually easy to figure out - I just enabled all three and each time checked in Ryzen master. It's just a quick toggle for Fabric speeds and possibly voltages - I did not check voltages - but can confirm the manual fabric speeds that were adjusted. Level 1 sets your fabric (uclk) to 1600mhz to support DDR4 3200, Level 2 sets it at 1700mhz to support DDR4 3400 and Level 3 obviously is the magic 1800mhz to support DDR3600. Auto works fine on my board using DDR4 3600, sets the fabric correctly to 1800mhz "



Yeah, it's a Gigabyte thing. It works well enough on Auto though, no need to set it as long as you're still using 3600 as you are.


----------



## lorry (Dec 12, 2019)

tabascosauz said:


> Yeah, it's a Gigabyte thing. It works well enough on Auto though, no need to set it as long as you're still using 3600 as you are.



no, ATM it is on 3200, I have yet to try 3600


----------



## tabascosauz (Dec 12, 2019)

lorry said:


> no, ATM it is on 3200, I have yet to try 3600



I meant, I have no idea how it would work if you decided to OC past 3600. It's easy enough to check if the board is doing its job, though; HWInfo 6.20 has FCLK and UCLK just under CPU power.


----------



## Zach_01 (Dec 12, 2019)

lorry said:


> This was a private sale, new from a retailer Scan they are between £60 - £72


I see...



lorry said:


> Saw an interesting setting whilst in the bios, might be a Gigabyte only setting?
> XMP High Freq Support - settings are auto, level 1, 2, 3,
> Found this on a search -
> "This was actually easy to figure out - I just enabled all three and each time checked in Ryzen master. It's just a quick toggle for Fabric speeds and possibly voltages - I did not check voltages - but can confirm the manual fabric speeds that were adjusted. Level 1 sets your fabric (uclk) to 1600mhz to support DDR4 3200, Level 2 sets it at 1700mhz to support DDR4 3400 and Level 3 obviously is the magic 1800mhz to support DDR3600. Auto works fine on my board using DDR4 3600, sets the fabric correctly to 1800mhz "


I'm on auto for this too when XMP enabled. But if you disable XMP to set your own freq/timings has no point.
...and just a clarification
UCLK = UMC/UnifiedMemoryController clock
FCLK = Infinity Fabric clock



tabascosauz said:


> I meant, I have no idea how it would work if you decided to OC past 3600. It's easy enough to check if the board is doing its job, though; HWInfo 6.20 has FCLK and UCLK just under CPU power.


Yes and RyzenMaster has all the info too


----------



## lorry (Dec 12, 2019)

tabascosauz said:


> I meant, I have no idea how it would work if you decided to OC past 3600. It's easy enough to check if the board is doing its job, though; HWInfo 6.20 has FCLK and UCLK just under CPU power.



Yes I see them



Zach_01 said:


> I see...
> 
> 
> I'm on auto for this too when XMP enabled. But if you disable XMP to set your own freq/timings has no point.
> ...



So do \i disable that when I try for 3600? Or simply leave it alone?


----------



## Zach_01 (Dec 12, 2019)

You have several option regarding XMP...

Ex.
1) Keep XMP enabled, raise the multi to 36, level3, leave timings as is (auto=XMP regulated), 1.4V
2) Keep XMP enabled, raise the multi to 36, level3, change primary timings to 16-16-16-16-32 (all else auto by XMP), 1.4V
3) XMP disabled, raise the multi to 36, change timings to 16-16-16-16-32-48, TRFC 345 or 358, 1.4V

You may try with option 3 to keep XMP enabled but there is a chance that results would be worst that now (XMP 3200). Sometimes at some settings there is a conflict between manual settings and other XMP settings that are on auto leading to large latency penalty. The principal is the more timings you manually set the XMP must be disabled to avoid such latency penalty.

If you have the patience you can try combinations.
Out of experience the 3rd option would return the most performance (XMP enabled/disabled... depends).

There are alot more to tweak in there about memory but these I say are ok for a good start.


----------



## lorry (Dec 12, 2019)

Zach_01 said:


> You have several option regarding XMP...
> 
> Ex.
> 1) Keep XMP enabled, raise the multi to 36, level3, leave timings as is (auto=XMP regulated), 1.4V
> ...



ATM I;m searching to see Where the SoC/Uncore OC is to set it to enabled
As I didn't see it in bios


----------



## tabascosauz (Dec 12, 2019)

Zach_01 said:


> You have several option regarding XMP...
> 
> Ex.
> 1) Keep XMP enabled, raise the multi to 36, level3, leave timings as is (auto=XMP regulated), 1.4V
> ...



I was also wondering whether to "use" XMP when I'm using custom timings and subtimings. Still 3600, obviously, but there are three timings that DRAM calculator doesn't provide, TRCPAGE which doesn't have values, and TRFC2 and TRFC4 which conflicting sources say we either leave them Auto or apply some mathematical formula to derive them from TRFC. With XMP, I just leave them as is and change everything else. Doesn't seem to be any penalties for me once I fill out everything I can, I'm down to 69ns on the dot now.

But XMP also automatically overvolts my sticks a bit past the profile (profile always calls for 1.35v, actually always 1.38-1.4v). But at the same time, if I turn off XMP, it defaults to the JEDEC 1.2v, which can't sustain literally anything. And then when I try to tweak it to 1.35v, often my board just doesn't listen and stays at whatever it wants (1.2v). Gigabyte BIOSes are terrible.



lorry said:


> ATM I;m searching to see Where the SoC/Uncore OC is to set it to enabled
> As I didn't see it in bios



It's under AMD Overclocking in Peripherals and you have to accept a disclaimer to get to it. But I really don't see why you need anything in that category if you're working on RAM timings.

SoC voltage is just under Advanced Voltage Settings like the Vcore and the rest. What does HWInfo say you're getting for SoC voltage stock, under the board sensors and the SVI2 TFN? Knowing Gigabyte, it's probably already 1.1V. Ryzen DRAM Calculator will tell you the voltage range you want when you work out the timings in the program.

Like Vcore it gives you Normal in addition to Auto as an option, but Normal is quite a bit lower. I put it on Normal and it went all the way down to 0.95v. Was running that for hours without issue, strangely enough, until I realized what I had done.


----------



## lorry (Dec 12, 2019)

tabascosauz said:


> I was also wondering whether to "use" XMP when I'm using custom timings and subtimings. Still 3600, obviously, but there are three timings that DRAM calculator doesn't provide, TRCPAGE which doesn't have values, and TRFC2 and TRFC4 which conflicting sources say we either leave them Auto or apply some mathematical formula to derive them from TRFC. With XMP, I just leave them as is and change everything else. Doesn't seem to be any penalties for me once I fill out everything I can, I'm down to 69ns on the dot now.
> 
> But XMP also automatically overvolts my sticks a bit past the profile (profile always calls for 1.35v, actually always 1.38-1.4v). But at the same time, if I turn off XMP, it defaults to the JEDEC 1.2v, which can't sustain literally anything. And then when I try to tweak it to 1.35v, often my board just doesn't listen and stays at whatever it wants (1.2v). Gigabyte BIOSes are terrible.
> 
> ...



Thank you, TRCPAGE, TRFC2, TRCFC4 were three that I found  odd in my bios

I wanted to know where it was as @Zach_01 said to ensure that SoC/Uncore OC was set to enabled

SOC SV12TFN is 1.087 (and last night doing the memtest in Dram Calc it went down to 1.081

DRAM voltage is 1.38 (min 1.356, max 1.392)


----------



## tabascosauz (Dec 12, 2019)

ShrimpBrime said:


> Hey Lorry,
> 
> Does your motherboard have a setting called SenseMi Skew and SenseMi offset by any chance?
> If it does, I can help you with an alternative to boosting affects for the cpu.... (After you get your ram sorted out of course)



I'm pretty sure the SenseMI skew was only for temperature purposes on Zen and Zen+, and won't be there for anything for us running a Ryzen 3000 chip (though how much our X470 and B450 BIOSes can hide/show their settings depending on the CPU that's in them is a mystery to me). So much has changed with the Zen 2 generation, I don't think the concept works anymore. Only thing SenseMI related I can think of for Ryzen 3000 is the SenseMI prediction in AMD marketing that was first introduced with the 2000s, some sort of perceptron branch predictor so "neural net" in the loosest possible sense of the word.

In the temperature department, however, ever since HWInfo added the Tdie and CCX temperature readings that read lower than Tctl/Tdie and closer to RM, I wonder if any board vendors will add Tdie to their fan control. As far as I can tell, all boards right now rely on the ol Tctl/Tdie when binding fan speed to CPU. Would seem to have a similar effect to SenseMI skew, if it ever becomes a thing.


----------



## lorry (Dec 12, 2019)

tabascosauz said:


> I was also wondering whether to "use" XMP when I'm using custom timings and subtimings. Still 3600, obviously, but there are three timings that DRAM calculator doesn't provide, TRCPAGE which doesn't have values, and TRFC2 and TRFC4 which conflicting sources say we either leave them Auto or apply some mathematical formula to derive them from TRFC. With XMP, I just leave them as is and change everything else. Doesn't seem to be any penalties for me once I fill out everything I can, I'm down to 69ns on the dot now.
> 
> But XMP also automatically overvolts my sticks a bit past the profile (profile always calls for 1.35v, actually always 1.38-1.4v). But at the same time, if I turn off XMP, it defaults to the JEDEC 1.2v, which can't sustain literally anything. And then when I try to tweak it to 1.35v, often my board just doesn't listen and stays at whatever it wants (1.2v). Gigabyte BIOSes are terrible.
> 
> ...



The SoC/Uncore OC isn't where you said? 
Need to ensure it is set it to enabled 

There is only
Dynamic Vcore (DVID)
Dynamic VCORE SOC (DVID)
CPU VDDP
CHIPSET CORE 1.05V
DRAM voltage (CH A/B)
DRAM Termination (CH A/B)

Watch (from 588 secs when he goes through the advanced voltage settings


----------



## tabascosauz (Dec 12, 2019)

lorry said:


> The SoC/Uncore OC isn't where you said?
> Need to ensure it is set it to enabled
> 
> There is only
> ...



Ah. I was thinking of the wrong menu. It's the one next to it called CBS. Once inside, it should be under XFR Enhancement.

Strange that your Advanced Voltage Settings is so poorly featured. What BIOS revision are you running? Mine's been like it is since F42c.  Is there a drop-down line once you set SoC to Normal? But anyways, you're getting 1.08v stock which should be plenty.


----------



## lorry (Dec 12, 2019)

tabascosauz said:


> Ah. I was thinking of the wrong menu. It's the one next to it called CBS. Once inside, it should be under XFR Enhancement.
> 
> Strange that your Advanced Voltage Settings is so poorly featured. What BIOS revision are you running? Mine's been like it is since F42c.  Is there a drop-down line once you set SoC to Normal? But anyways, you're getting 1.08v stock which should be plenty.



F50a AMD Agesa combo-AM 1.0.0.4  11/8/19
The latest on gigabytes site



tabascosauz said:


> Ah. I was thinking of the wrong menu. It's the one next to it called CBS. Once inside, it should be under XFR Enhancement.
> 
> Strange that your Advanced Voltage Settings is so poorly featured. What BIOS revision are you running? Mine's been like it is since F42c.  Is there a drop-down line once you set SoC to Normal? But anyways, you're getting 1.08v stock which should be plenty.



Nope not in that section either 

DRAM Termination (CH A/B)There is Customized Precision Boost Overdrive Scaler but nothing called SoC


----------



## ShrimpBrime (Dec 12, 2019)

tabascosauz said:


> I'm pretty sure the SenseMI skew was only for temperature purposes on Zen and Zen+, and won't be there for anything for us running a Ryzen 3000 chip (though how much our X470 and B450 BIOSes can hide/show their settings depending on the CPU that's in them is a mystery to me). So much has changed with the Zen 2 generation, I don't think the concept works anymore. Only thing SenseMI related I can think of for Ryzen 3000 is the SenseMI prediction in AMD marketing that was first introduced with the 2000s, some sort of perceptron branch predictor so "neural net" in the loosest possible sense of the word.
> 
> In the temperature department, however, ever since HWInfo added the Tdie and CCX temperature readings that read lower than Tctl/Tdie and closer to RM, I wonder if any board vendors will add Tdie to their fan control. As far as I can tell, all boards right now rely on the ol Tctl/Tdie when binding fan speed to CPU. Would seem to have a similar effect to SenseMI skew, if it ever becomes a thing.


Its not just SenseMi skew there is also the "offset" which is direclty related to overclocking, of course skew may be related to temps but not sure how directly or what difference it would make.
The cpu will boost until it throttles at temp anyhow.

Checked my non ROG boards and they do not have any SenseMi settings at all. 

The only way for me to find out about 3000 chips on this board is to get one. 
But not ready to spend a lot for a cpu, while Im happy with the 2700x flagship. 

Id be willing to temporarily trade someone, but my chip is delidded and would require special attention for mounting. I did not re-glue the IHS plate.


----------



## lorry (Dec 12, 2019)

Just seen this on a post on overclockers -



*Quote:*     Originally Posted by * Robbert Hallock (AMD)* 

Hi, I work for AMD.
The CPU is programmed to use these voltages automatically. We know it's safe, because we designed it that way. The CPU cannot and does not use voltages that are unsafe for the silicon.
The key thing that people forget in these cases is *time* and *temperature*. Running 1.4V or 1.5V here and there is not a big deal, because the CPU will eventually back down according to its pre-programmed model. Or if you have great cooling, that also offsets the thermal effect of voltage. In either case, you're seeing momentary blips of voltage that are offset by the hours per day your CPU is probably doing nothing at all--at a very low voltage.
The average vcore for Ryzen over _time_ is around 1.25V (give or take).
tl;dr: leave the CPU alone, let it do its thing, don't worry. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 We designed the CPU to do this.


----------



## ShrimpBrime (Dec 12, 2019)

That post is made for the general public. It does not apply to myself. Lol.


----------



## lorry (Dec 12, 2019)

ShrimpBrime said:


> That post is made for the general public. It does not apply to myself. Lol.


I'm no longer concerned about the SV12 TFN voltage
Right now I'm trying to see Where this blinking SoC/Uncore OC is in the gigabyte bios lol


----------



## Zach_01 (Dec 12, 2019)

Setting the SOC/Uncore to Enable as BZ said in videos you disable the power savings of the SOC/IO die. It does not change its voltage. There is a separate setting for voltage and there is no need to alter it at least for now.
While this SOC/Uncore is not essential, it could help when you OC memory/UCLK/FCLK becuase all these 3 subsystems are directly related to SOC.


----------



## lorry (Dec 12, 2019)

Zach_01 said:


> Setting the SOC/Uncore to Enable as BZ said in videos you disable the power savings of the SOC/IO die. It does not change its voltage. There is a separate setting for voltage and there is no need to alter it at least for now.
> While this SOC/Uncore is not essential, it could help when you OC memory/UCLK/FCLK becuase all these 3 subsystems are directly related to SOC.



I'd like to just know where it is in the bios, or even If it is a setting in the bios at all, that's all.
Things like that bug me, I know that they shouldn't but they do. Makes me think that I've not checked properly


----------



## Zach_01 (Dec 12, 2019)

RyzenDRAMcalc has a tRFC calculator to find tRFC2/4. There is a relation (ratio) between them that I dont remember right now.
Anyway, this goes like this:
tRFC---tRFC2---tRFC4
345----256----158
358----266----164

I dont even know if X470/B450 has this SOC/Uncore setting. At mine is Under AMD CBS --> XFR Enhancement. Look there or could be inside M.I.T page. Check all those settings one by one.


----------



## lorry (Dec 12, 2019)

Zach_01 said:


> RyzenDRAMcalc has a tRFC calculator to find tRFC2/4. There is a relation (ratio) between them that I dont remember right now.
> Anyway, this goes like this:
> tRFC---tRFC2---tRFC4
> 345----256----158
> ...



So tRFC2 is Not tFRC (alt) then ?


----------



## Zach_01 (Dec 12, 2019)

No, some settings provided with alternative values in case the recommended doesnt work


----------



## lorry (Dec 12, 2019)




----------



## Zach_01 (Dec 12, 2019)

Found the tRFC ratio:

 tRFC2 should be (tRFC / 1.346), and tRFC4 should be (tRFC2 / 1.625)


----------



## lorry (Dec 12, 2019)

Hmm OK this is odd, everything but the mouse has frozen, was watching BZ video. 
Ctrl-alt-del won't work., so How do I get out of this, press reset?


----------



## Zach_01 (Dec 12, 2019)

Everything on auto/default?
Yes, if its locked then reset...


----------



## lorry (Dec 12, 2019)

Zach_01 said:


> Everything on auto/default?
> Yes, if its locked then reset...



Yeah rebooting now
Where do I look to find out what happened please?

Hmm, it would seem that there have been a number of warnings and critical due to this

Faulting application path: C:\Program Files (x86)\Virgin Media\Security Advisor Extension\3.6.3.62400\Opswat\3.6.8858.62326\64bitProxy.exe

I  have now uninstalled it


----------



## tabascosauz (Dec 12, 2019)

lorry said:


> I'd like to just know where it is in the bios, or even If it is a setting in the bios at all, that's all.
> Things like that bug me, I know that they shouldn't but they do. Makes me think that I've not checked properly



If it makes you feel any better, if you can't find it under CBS it may not be in the BIOS at all. Same goes for the voltage menu. In F50, I now have two goddamn RGB Fusion menus on the same page, but one has only two options in it and only displays color control in hex codes. They also added the per-CCX clock control option, which doesn't work at all and causes the boot logo to freeze. If Gigabyte would just learn to make BIOSes properly and consistently.


----------



## lorry (Dec 12, 2019)

tabascosauz said:


> If it makes you feel any better, if you can't find it under CBS it may not be in the BIOS at all. Same goes for the voltage menu. In F50, I now have two goddamn RGB Fusion menus on the same page, but one has only two options in it and only displays color control in hex codes. They also added the per-CCX clock control option, which doesn't work at all and causes the boot logo to freeze. If Gigabyte would just learn to make BIOSes properly and consistently.



I have Exactly the same double RGB Fusion menus as I am on F50 as well. In some ways I'd wished that I'd have waited just a little and got a x570 board. Trouble there is, anything that had enough USB headers, SATA, etc I was looking at £350 - £400!

Question, just been reading 'AMD Ryzen Memory Tweaking & Overclocking Guide; from on here. It states at the end that "All memory on Samsung chips can without exception work at 3533 MHz CL14"
If that is the case, how much of a performance increase is there in trying 3600 MHz CL16 ?


----------



## tabascosauz (Dec 12, 2019)

lorry said:


> I have Exactly the same double RGB Fusion menus as I am on F50 as well. In some ways I'd wished that I'd have waited just a little and got a x570 board. Trouble there is, anything that had enough USB headers, SATA, etc I was looking at £350 - £400!
> 
> Question, just been reading 'AMD Ryzen Memory Tweaking & Overclocking Guide; from on here. It states at the end that "All memory on Samsung chips can without exception work at 3533 MHz CL14"
> If that is the case, how much of a performance increase is there in trying 3600 MHz CL16 ?



I went with the B450 to save money, and kinda wish I had waited for the X570I Strix instead.

In all seriousness, Gigabyte is consistent about one thing: half-assing its BIOSes. We have more or less the same generation BIOS as the X570s, minus some features obviously. My H97N-WIFI is even worse, laggy and a nightmare to navigate.

As for the guide, that statement is kinda questionable and not one of 1usmus' brightest moments. All he's tested in that one are a smattering of B-die, some CJR and one MFR. "All Samsung" includes E-die and D-die; the former does 3200/14 maybe, and the latter is a dumpster fire. That's without even mentioning A-die that's starting to appear now.

Not to mention, B-die is really doing a disappearing act now that it's discontinued. A lot of the model identification guides out there written during the Zen+ era aren't going to be accurate anymore, and the former B-die SKUs might have E-die, CJR/DJR or Micron now.

You should try for 3200/14 and make it stable. Performance difference to 3600/16 is pretty minimal as tested in a number of guides out there.


----------



## lorry (Dec 12, 2019)

tabascosauz said:


> I went with the B450 to save money, and kinda wish I had waited for the X570I Strix instead.
> 
> In all seriousness, Gigabyte is consistent about one thing: half-assing its BIOSes. We have more or less the same generation BIOS as the X570s, minus some features obviously. My H97N-WIFI is even worse, laggy and a nightmare to navigate.
> 
> ...




I'm reasonably lucky in that mine is Intel® 11ac 2x2 WAVE2 WIFI but use Ethernet. The wi-fi seems to pick up just about every router that's nearby though and with decent signal strengths, so I'm lucky there.

So, when I first start, I drop out of XMP I'm sure, do I then set something to manual to enable all the timings to be edited? Memory Timing Mode, or something else?
I was looking this morning for an IF speed (FCLK?) but don't recall seeing it
And I never found the UCLK DIV1 MODE to set it UCLK ==MEMCLK
Thoughts?


----------



## Zach_01 (Dec 12, 2019)

tabascosauz said:


> You should try for 3200/14 and make it stable. Performance difference to 3600/16 is pretty minimal as tested in a number of guides out there.


Still prefering 3600 CL16-16-16...
First of all 3200 C14-14-14... is difficult to achieve with no expensive sticks and second 3600+ lets you raise UCLK/FCLK with ram. Higher bandwidth, lower latency. Worst case senario is even performance with 3200 CL14 but could benefit perf at some cases.

@lorry if you cant find SOC/Uncore OC just let it go and proceed with the other settings, when you feel like it...
If you cant find UCLK DIV1 MODE either skip that too. At least you must have a FCLK setting...
We will see after going into win what RyzenMaster says about the RAM:UCLK:FCLK ratio


----------



## lorry (Dec 12, 2019)

Zach_01 said:


> Still prefering 3600 CL16-16-16...
> First of all 3200 C14-14-14... is difficult to achieve with no expensive sticks and second 3600+ lets you raise UCLK/FCLK with ram. Higher bandwidth, lower latency. Worst case senario is even performance with 3200 CL14 but could benefit perf at some cases.
> 
> @lorry if you cant find SOC/Uncore OC just let it go and proceed with the other settings, when you feel like it...
> ...



What I should have done is take pics of each section instead of Just the advanced memory section. My excuse was a crappy night gave up at 02:30 with trying to sleep and was downstairs by 03:30, but wasn't thinking things through, heh.


----------



## tabascosauz (Dec 12, 2019)

lorry said:


> I'm reasonably lucky in that mine is Intel® 11ac 2x2 WAVE2 WIFI but use Ethernet. The wi-fi seems to pick up just about every router that's nearby though and with decent signal strengths, so I'm lucky there.
> 
> So, when I first start, I drop out of XMP I'm sure, do I then set something to manual to enable all the timings to be edited? Memory Timing Mode, or something else?
> I was looking this morning for an IF speed (FCLK?) but don't recall seeing it
> ...



You don't have to drop out of XMP. You can leave it on in order to keep the 3200 frequency, and scroll down in the same timings page and switch it to manual, and start editing below it immediately. The perk about that is that you don't have to worry about DRAM voltage, XMP takes care of that at 1.35v.

I have a feeling manual settings for FCLK is buried somewhere in either AMD Overclocking or CBS. Even with manual timings with XMP "enabled", FCLK does a pretty good job of syncing itself up with MCLK at 3200-3600.

My Wifi is also Wave2, as I'm sure most 400-series boards are, but my router is so trash that whether it's ac, ac Wave2, or ax matters little to me. Ethernet is my lifeline.

@Zach_01 not sure I agree with the reasoning here, but let's just say that it might be easier with less things to tweak if he gave 3200 a shot, since XMP is 3200. Even 16-16-16-36 should be in the 74ns range and better than it is currently.


----------



## Zach_01 (Dec 12, 2019)

73ns is where I started, with XMP 3466 CL16-18-18-18-36 and know I'm at 68ns with 3600 CL16-16-16-16-32-48 and a few GB/s increase in bandwidth.
I even manage to do a 65.5~66ns at 3800 CL16-17-16-16-36 but with 1.45+V DRAM and other voltages up like SoC voltage(1.2V), but I decide that wasnt worth the stress.
3600 is a good spot IMHO. Every CPU can do it... depending the RAM.


----------



## ShrimpBrime (Dec 12, 2019)

Just a heads up for you Lorry.
Your board supports up to 2933mhz native. Anything past that is O.C. for your motherboard. So your best stability will be at that speed. Even 3000mhz is an O.C. for that board.
Don't feel bad, mine only supports 2666 native and anything above that is considered an O.C. to my board. Good, I like overclocking!

So loosing stability past 3200mhz may be a real thing.

The X570 AORUS PRO WIFI is 3200mhz native (ryzen 3000 series chips) and anything higher is considered an O.C.  to this board and will have an easier time stabilizing 3600mhz than your current X470 which was built based on the Zen + platform much like mine is.

Start low, work your way up the testing chain. Run XMP timings at 3200mhz and go up each selection of speed until reaching max stable. Then, you tweak the timings at that speed if able to.



> I'd wished that I'd have waited just a little and got a x570 board.



Yep. You can still save moneys, get new board, sell old board, probably save for much faster memory too. 
Sell your used stuff to recuperate some moneys. You'll get much better performance if you can get 3600-4000mhz memory frequencies.


----------



## lorry (Dec 12, 2019)

I'll give 3600 a go seeing as I already have those timings already printed out. I found a video tonight where the guy showed adjusting the memory multiplier, he just highlighted & simply typed in the new figure, I had been clicking on it expecting it to open up an area where you adjusted, not just simply type the figures in once highlighted. 
Goes to show just how many YouTube folk forget the exceedingly easy stuff, heh


----------



## tabascosauz (Dec 12, 2019)

Zach_01 said:


> 73ns is where I started, with XMP 3466 CL16-18-18-18-36 and know I'm at 68ns with 3600 CL16-16-16-16-32-48 and a few GB/s increase in bandwidth.
> I even manage to do a 65.5~66ns at 3800 CL16-17-16-16-36 but with 1.45+V DRAM and other voltages up like SoC voltage(1.2V), but I decide that wasnt worth the stress.
> 3600 is a good spot IMHO. Every CPU can do it... depending the RAM.



I wouldn't be so quick to say that. Even on TPU alone, we've already had at least a 3-chiplet CPU (3900X) that couldn't even sustain 1800 FCLK. And the 3-chiplets are supposed to be a bit better binned - we all know how some of the binning on the 3600s and 3600Xs have turned out, being at the bottom of the stack.

I'm at 3600 too, 16-19-16-19-32-48, 69ns. I'm not disputing that 3600/16 is an nice place to be. 

I think I understand what you're getting at with 3600/16, 3200/14 might be a stretch even with looser tRP and tRCD. What I want to know is what DRAM calc is telling @lorry for 3600, V2 profile (as his B-die most definitely counts as less than "high quality"). I don't think it's going to recommend flat 16 timings at 3600, some 17s mixed in there.



ShrimpBrime said:


> Just a heads up for you Lorry.
> Your board supports up to 2933mhz native. Anything past that is O.C. for your motherboard. So your best stability will be at that speed. Even 3000mhz is an O.C. for that board.
> Don't feel bad, mine only supports 2666 native and anything above that is considered an O.C. to my board. Good, I like overclocking!
> 
> ...



The thing about "official" 3200 support this generation is that it's a bit of a misnomer. "3200" from AMD refers to JEDEC spec, which is CAS 20, with 20s across the main timings. That's incredibly loose. Most medium-quality 3200 kits out there are running XMP for 16 or even 16 flat timings, and B-die as we all know was usually 14.


----------



## ShrimpBrime (Dec 12, 2019)

lorry said:


> I'll give 3600 a go seeing as I already have those timings already printed out. I found a video tonight where the guy showed adjusting the memory multiplier, he just highlighted & simply typed in the new figure, I had been clicking on it expecting it to open up an area where you adjusted, not just simply type the figures in once highlighted.
> Goes to show just how many YouTube folk forget the exceedingly easy stuff, heh



3200 XMP to 3600mhz? Yea give it a go. Give Memory voltage a little bump if it's shakey. Would start 3533mhz first, test then 3600 same timings. 
Since you are actively cooling, you can exceed 1.400v with that memory. Nothing to really worry about. 1.50v would be max fanless IMO. 
Now this really all depends how far down that rabbit hole goes. I fear not 1.600v personally. 

But keep in mind, I constantly alter my settings and timings. Memory swaps too. I like to compare my Hynix to samsung especially at lower speeds. Both do Cas 13 3000mhz 1.450-v and cas 12 at 1.60v stable (enough for me) but yes with errors over time. 

In short, memory overclocking is very similar to chipset or Cpu overclocking. Faster speeds may require more voltage, very quite normal.
The only issue is my suggestions may be way out of the normal for average user base, I will be shunned no doubt for my above comments lol. IDC though. It's muh hobby


----------



## Zach_01 (Dec 12, 2019)

lorry said:


> I'll give 3600 a go seeing as I already have those timings already printed out. I found a video tonight where the guy showed adjusting the memory multiplier, he just highlighted & simply typed in the new figure, I had been clicking on it expecting it to open up an area where you adjusted, not just simply type the figures in once highlighted.
> Goes to show just how many YouTube folk forget the exceedingly easy stuff, heh


I dont like using the mouse...
At Gigabyte UEFI when settings have other pages in them, have a red/orange square/dot on the left side. If the dot is absence then you can cycle settings with +/- or when there is a value you can type it Or hit enter to see the drop down menu


----------



## ShrimpBrime (Dec 12, 2019)

tabascosauz said:


> I wouldn't be so quick to say that. Even on TPU alone, we've already had at least a 3-chiplet CPU (3900X) that couldn't even sustain 1800 FCLK. And the 3-chiplets are supposed to be a bit better binned - we all know how some of the binning on the 3600s and 3600Xs have turned out, being at the bottom of the stack.
> 
> I'm at 3600 too, 16-19-16-19-32-48, 69ns. I'm not disputing that 3600/16 is an nice place to be.
> 
> ...



Not really. Look at your Memory support list once. you won't find much over 2400mhz supported for your QVL list. it'll list timing specs and voltages for said support.

Cpu supports up to X speed, XMP said speed for memory and X speed for X motherboard. That's how it really works. The speed that matches all 3 is the true supported speed and you will find it right when you clear cmos and post it up. THAT is the native set speed for all 3 devices. Anything altered by all technicality actually voids all 3 warranties.... not that any one ever questions it even when you RMA lol. But still, the point is, no, JEDEC is a memory spec, not a motherboard spec.


----------



## lorry (Dec 12, 2019)

Zach_01 said:


> I dont like using the mouse...
> At Gigabyte UEFI when settings have other pages in them, have a red/orange square/dot on the left side. If the dot is absence then you can cycle settings with +/- or when there is a value you can type it Or hit enter to see the drop down menu


Thanks, I've not spent much time in the  bios as I'd have liked for now. I'll have another look tomorrow morning and play around (I know that as long as I don't save than I can't do any harm to my settings

Well I tried.
First time the two clocks were out of sync and decoupled - 1600 & 1800
2nd time one was at around 1000, the other 1200
3rd time wouldn't even get to bios, it tried about 3,4,5,6 times, i ended up turning power off, clearing CMOS and Finally getting back into bios, loaded up the regular profile that I'd saved of PBO & XMP etc enabled. Windows then went into automatic repair and I'm back were I started

About the only good thing is that I found were FCLK, UCLK==MEMCLK, SoC/Uncore OC are.

I'll try again later, I have a daily post to make and then I don't know, as the torys got back in, which makes my life really hard Again


----------



## Zach_01 (Dec 13, 2019)

Did you try with 16-16-16-16-32 and 1.4V?
If yes then try 16-17-17-17-36, 1.4V

tRFC?


----------



## lorry (Dec 13, 2019)

Zach_01 said:


> Did you try with 16-16-16-16-32 and 1.4V?
> If yes then try 16-17-17-17-36, 1.4V
> 
> tRFC?



tfrc was 345, as suggested by dram calc

thing i dont understand is how could they become uncoupled when i had set UCLK==MEMCLK ?


----------



## Zach_01 (Dec 13, 2019)

It will take time to find the stable settings.
When you are able to figure out the MEMCLK: UCLK:FCLK couple, try the 16-17-17... and tRFC 480. If you are patient try first the 17 settings and if not work, then try the tRFC 480 with 16 and 17


----------



## lorry (Dec 13, 2019)

Zach_01 said:


> It will take time to find the stable settings.
> When you are able to figure out the MEMCLK: UCLK:FCLK couple, try the 16-17-17... and tRFC 480. If you are patient try first the 17 settings and if not work, then try the tRFC 480 with 16 and 17



MEMCLK: UCLK:FCLK couple  ? is that separate from the UCLK==MEMCLK setting?

question - should all USB drives be removed when booting like this?
Asking as I had a usb drive with lots of old files from my laptop left in situ. Just gone to look at it and its been completely wiped ??
I can redo that, no problem just wondered why that happened?


----------



## Zach_01 (Dec 13, 2019)

Shouldn’t wipe the drive... I always have a usb  drive on the back IO panel with all the Bios profiles, some bios version files and other stuff. And I have a bunch of other stuff connected to the back usb IO.

About the couple thing I meant when you manage to set all 3 to the same speed.
No, other that MEMCLK==UCLK and the separate FCLK speed there isn’t anything else.


----------



## lorry (Dec 13, 2019)

Zach_01 said:


> Shouldn’t wipe the drive... I always have a usb  drive on the back IO panel with all the Bios profiles, some bios version files and other stuff. And I have a bunch of other stuff connected to the back usb IO.
> 
> About the couple thing I meant when you manage to set all 3 to the same speed.
> No, other that MEMCLK==UCLK and the separate FCLK speed there isn’t anything else.



unless it had been wiped before and I'd not noticed it, that could be it I guess
And yes they were all set to 36/1800MHz

oddly the firast two trys booted into windows okay and it was in RyzenMaster where I saw that they werfe uncoupled. The last try was where it all went AWOL.

I'm going to try again in a while, just copying that back up of all my old files again


----------



## Zach_01 (Dec 13, 2019)

You can go easier on the settings...
1800MHz Mem:UCLK:FCLK, 16-18-18-18-36-54, tRFC480, 1.4V and see what gains AIDA shows... maybe keep it this way for a couple of days, do some benches, and of course some AAA gaming...


----------



## lorry (Dec 13, 2019)

Zach_01 said:


> You can go easier on the settings...
> 1800MHz Mem:UCLK:FCLK, 16-18-18-18-36-54, tRFC480, 1.4V and see what gains AIDA shows... maybe keep it this way for a couple of days, do some benches, and of course some AAA gaming...



I'm thinking that it might be an idea to try again, as it couldn't have been That wrong IF I had all the settings correct surely?

Was early in the day and my first time trying, so I could have done it wrong?


----------



## Zach_01 (Dec 13, 2019)

You can try again with the same... there is no law against it... haha! It’s up to you, if you are not sure that was set correctly.
But first of all try to enjoy your system! OC is a time consuming procedure, like days or even weeks...


----------



## ShrimpBrime (Dec 13, 2019)

Zach_01 said:


> You can go easier on the settings...
> 1800MHz Mem:UCLK:FCLK, 16-18-18-18-36-54, tRFC480, 1.4V and see what gains AIDA shows... maybe keep it this way for a couple of days, do some benches, and of course some AAA gaming...


May need a mem volt jump at 1800. A touch SOC extra too. Imo


----------



## lorry (Dec 13, 2019)

Zach_01 said:


> You can try again with the same... there is no law against it... haha! It’s up to you, if you are not sure that was set correctly.
> But first of all try to enjoy your system! OC is a time consuming procedure, like days or even weeks...



I AM enjoying, mostly lol


Zach_01 said:


> You can try again with the same... there is no law against it... haha! It’s up to you, if you are not sure that was set correctly.
> But first of all try to enjoy your system! OC is a time consuming procedure, like days or even weeks...



I am enjoying it. 
Going to try now, have taken pics of every setting I've changed 

I also set power down mode & gear down mode to enabled, as dram cal said to

Am I correct in thinking that I've got it right now?




Dram memtest result



Couple of questions, some random, lol.

Can you see bios profile files on a USB stick in file explorer? Asking as I can't see any yet I thought I had saved it to USB, Certainly saved it as a profile in the bios


----------



## Zach_01 (Dec 13, 2019)

ShrimpBrime said:


> May need a mem volt jump at 1800. A touch SOC extra too. Imo


Could have been the case, but he wasn’t sure that was all done correctly the first time, so...

And I with similar sticks doing the 1800 16-16-16.... with stock SOC voltage so I thought to give it a try like that...

@lorry give as the tests please!!!

Don’t remember for sure if you can see it, I think you can. Definitely can’t read it though. I’m not on my PC now so can’t tell...


----------



## lorry (Dec 13, 2019)

Zach_01 said:


> Could have been the case, but he wasn’t sure that was all done correctly the first time, so...
> 
> And I with similar sticks doing the 1800 16-16-16.... with stock SOC voltage so I thought to give it a try like that...
> 
> ...



results as above mate


----------



## Zach_01 (Dec 13, 2019)

AIDA...?

And if you like you can set
tRFC2=256
tRFC4=158

It’s the right ones for tRFC 345


----------



## lorry (Dec 13, 2019)

Zach_01 said:


> AIDA...?
> 
> And if you like you can set
> tRFC2=256
> ...



yep I'll give Aida a try now



This is that result

This is a previous one


----------



## Zach_01 (Dec 13, 2019)

Much better than previous/stock...

I suggest keep it this way for a few days, just see if tRFC2/4 gives anything better. I don’t expect much of it, tho...


----------



## lorry (Dec 13, 2019)

Zach_01 said:


> Much better than previous/stock...
> 
> I suggest keep it this way for a few days, just see if tRFC2/4 gives anything better. I don’t expect much of it, tho...



Ok, thats great thanks.
Tells me that I shouldn't try and do things at 4, 5Am ! LOL


----------



## Zach_01 (Dec 13, 2019)

Yeah I bitter regret those times...


----------



## lorry (Dec 13, 2019)

Thank you All, especially @Zach_01 of course.
I'll see what's what and see what speeds it gives me, how stable it is etc.

When I next go into the bios I'll take a pic of saving to a USB, talk about confusing!!
Not sure if I even saved it to the right place to be honest


----------



## Zach_01 (Dec 13, 2019)

If it’s stable after a few days of benching and gaming and if you feel like it, we can see other sub-timings and try to bring that latency even further down (under 70).


----------



## lorry (Dec 13, 2019)

Just seen this, maybe this is why? I have the USB in a 3.1 gen 1 port at the front


Pendrive probably must be formatted as FAT32 and plugged into a USB 2.0 port.
I'm not sure but these steps should ensure the best compatibility.

The most reliable way to transfer settings is printscreen.
Collect your most important settings in the "favorites" tab with the Insert key.

The F12 key creates and saves a print screen on a connected flash drive.



Zach_01 said:


> If it’s stable after a few days of benching and gaming and if you feel like it, we can see other sub-timings and try to bring that latency even further down (under 70).



Sounds good to me, thanks


----------



## Zach_01 (Dec 13, 2019)

I have the usb drive to the BIOS flashback port, and if I’m not mistaken it’s a 3.0 gen. And the drive it’s on FAT32


----------



## lorry (Dec 13, 2019)

Zach_01 said:


> I have the usb drive to the BIOS flashback port, and if I’m not mistaken it’s a 3.0 gen. And the drive it’s on FAT32



so can you see your bios profile files in it then?


----------



## Zach_01 (Dec 13, 2019)

I think I can... I will tell for sure in about 4+hours. I was right about the USB port. It’s the white one.


----------



## lorry (Dec 13, 2019)

Zach_01 said:


> I think I can... I will tell for sure in about 4+hours. I was right about the USB port. It’s the white one.
> 
> View attachment 139260




Hmm, looks like I haven't saved it then to me



Not quite sure what is happening? Maybe it does need to be in a USB 2 port?
I have just tried saving a new bios profile and from what I can see, it hasn't saved it


----------



## ShrimpBrime (Dec 13, 2019)

Go to bios and look for usb emulator. Should help 2.0 device on 3.0/3.1 ports.


----------



## Zach_01 (Dec 13, 2019)

lorry said:


> Hmm, looks like I haven't saved it then to me
> Not quite sure what is happening? Maybe it does need to be in a USB 2 port?
> I have just tried saving a new bios profile and from what I can see, it hasn't saved it


Third BIOS screenshot shows the “3600 SAFE” (not new) profile tho.

Some heads up...
If you update BIOS/UEFI you can’t use a profile that was created on another version. This is done to avoid a mess up if UEFI change structure or some settings change location, naming and/or other stuff.

So you have to know your settings to apply them again. Taking pictures is a nice way to go


----------



## lorry (Dec 13, 2019)

Zach_01 said:


> Third BIOS screenshot shows the “3600 SAFE” (not new) profile tho.
> 
> Some heads up...
> If you update BIOS/UEFI you can’t use a profile that was created on another version. This is done to avoid a mess up if UEFI change structure or some settings change location, naming and/or other stuff.
> ...




Yes I saw that, but I Think that was the one in the bios, as I named it that there as well (should have differentiated more I'm sure)
I have the Dram Calc printout with the 3600 safe settings , so can always use that again manually if needed, plus I printed out sections from our comments in here into a file, so I have them typed out as well. Hopefully it won't be a problem.

I'm guess that If I boot back into bios and try to load from the USB that will be the proof of the pudding?
(just odd that I cannot see anything in file explorer)



ShrimpBrime said:


> Go to bios and look for usb emulator. Should help 2.0 device on 3.0/3.1 ports.



any clues as to where that might be located?
There is a usb mass storage driver support but the default is enabled

Port 60/64 emulatiion ?

R20 seems Very finicky to me
just ran it, first score was 6890, second was 7288, my second best score. Both run within seconds of each other yet 400 points difference, how come?


----------



## Zach_01 (Dec 13, 2019)

Other/more runs? If that low score is a 1 time run I wouldn’t worry about it. A lot background tasks/services can mess with benchmark results.


----------



## lorry (Dec 13, 2019)

Zach_01 said:


> Other/more runs? If that low score is a 1 time run I wouldn’t worry about it. A lot background tasks/services can mess with benchmark results.



Trying time spy / extreme etc
But so far I'm close but no coconut. Think the reason is that today the peak speed (so far) is 4575 on 2 cores, the other days it was 4600 on 2 cores. 
No idea why that changes though, guessing temp, background apps etc?

7293 is my best on R20. Today 7288, so within distance

Hmm, this is weird then.
To me it looks as if the bios is saving the profiles just fine, but win10 doesn't seem to see them in file explorer!
I saved the file 3600-safe-new on the usb and then loaded it into the bios and it looks to have loaded, then went back to the profile on the bios, just in case




But the bios sure as hell has some weird names for drives!


----------



## Zach_01 (Dec 13, 2019)

I can see them... but cant read them. Unknown file...
And its win10 home v1909



I have an idea... check this


----------



## lorry (Dec 13, 2019)

Zach_01 said:


> I can see them... but cant read them. Unknown file...
> And its win10 home v1909
> 
> View attachment 139285
> ...



Nah, I always reset that


----------



## Zach_01 (Dec 13, 2019)

lorry said:


> Trying time spy / extreme etc
> But so far I'm close but no coconut. Think the reason is that today the peak speed (so far) is 4575 on 2 cores, the other days it was 4600 on 2 cores.
> No idea why that changes though, guessing temp, background apps etc?
> 
> 7293 is my best on R20. Today 7288, so within distance


But for all core result, the single core boost doesnt apply...
"These days" when happens your all core boost is also reduced?


----------



## lorry (Dec 13, 2019)

Zach_01 said:


> But for all core result, the single core boost doesn't apply...
> "These days" when happens your all core boost is also reduced?



Don't think so, that seems to hit 4.3000 pretty much every time from what I remember

Do any of the monitors show you an all core average?


----------



## Zach_01 (Dec 13, 2019)

lorry said:


> Don't think so, that seems to hit 4.3000 pretty much every time from what I remember
> 
> Does any of the monitors show you an all core average?


On both HWiNFO and RM if you clear the readings right after the CB R20 starts you will have the avg right before it finishes.
Start R20, quickly clear readings and a few boxes before its finished take screenshot (for reference). Make temps visible on screenshots for comparison. You can note the starting/before temp also...



lorry said:


> Nah, I always reset that
> 
> View attachment 139287


Dont know whats going on...
Try to place/save them into a folder within the usb drive...
Sorry... at this point I tell whatever is crossing my mind


----------



## lorry (Dec 13, 2019)

Zach_01 said:


> On both HWiNFO and RM if you clear the readings right after the CB R20 starts you will have the avg right before it finishes.
> Start R20, quickly clear readings and a few boxes before its finished take screenshot (for reference). Make temps visible on screenshots for comparison. You can note the starting/before temp also...
> 
> 
> ...



Oh I appreciate your thoughts.
I don't think it is possible to place them into a folder, but I'll try, next reboot

I might put a post up, see if anyone else knows why


----------



## Zach_01 (Dec 13, 2019)

lorry said:


> Oh I appreciate your thoughts.
> I don't think it is possible to place them into a folder, but I'll try, next reboot


Of course its possible... its how I do it!


----------



## lorry (Dec 13, 2019)

Zach_01 said:


> Of course its possible... its how I do it!




oh! wasnt aware

I am wondering if the bios is saving them to a volume on the USB that win10 cannot see?

Might  have figured it out, the USB was NTFS formatted, , not FAT or EXFAT

Reformatted to FAT and I can read the files, plus the bios then sees the USB drive as one simple volume!!

Solved lol


----------



## Zach_01 (Dec 13, 2019)

Still I'm not sure what is going on but look down below the pics and you will see whats different on your saving than mine... and its not the folder.
I actually see the name of the usb drive, and you dont..!!
Check it on the 3rd

These are with F12 function. Only issue is the BIOS saves them as BMP and TPU does not support it eventually, and had to convert them (PNG).







About the boosting thing.
Does these match with yours? Wherever they may be placed in your board's UEFI.



Didnt see you latest replay... Good you find it. I thought you already had it on FAT32.... LOL


----------



## lorry (Dec 13, 2019)

Zach_01 said:


> Still I'm not sure what is going on but look down below the pics and you will see whats different on your saving than mine... and its not the folder.
> I actually see the name of the usb drive, and you dont..!!
> Check it on the 3rd
> 
> ...




I think those settings match with mine (from memory)

Don't know if you saw my previous comment, but the usb was formatted as NTFS and of course the bios cant handle that! Reformatted to FAT and they are now saved and seen in file explorer



Zach_01 said:


> Didnt see you latest replay... Good you find it. I thought you already had it on FAT32.... LOL




I thought that it was as well ! i just did a quick format and it now obviously defaults to NTFS. Time MB makers caught up with the times lol

Highest score so far in R20, pretty  damn impressive I think


----------



## ShrimpBrime (Dec 13, 2019)

Lorry, check your PM box. Have a holiday gift for you to try out. Let me know how it does for you.


----------



## lorry (Dec 13, 2019)

ShrimpBrime said:


> Lorry, check your PM box. Have a holiday gift for you to try out. Let me know how it does for you.


Just replied mate

Hmm, that;s not bad, added 50 points to my best benchmark score today and am Now within 100 points of the person above me 







						Cinebench - R20 overclocking records @ HWBOT
					

Overclocking records




					hwbot.org
				








@Zach_01 did a couple of hours gaming in Control today, plus some R20 benchmarking as above, temps never went above mid to high 50s C. GPU was pretty much the same temps as well.


----------



## lorry (Dec 15, 2019)

@Zach_01
These are my bios settings currently


----------



## Zach_01 (Dec 15, 2019)

Other than the location of some settings like “CPPC Preferred Cores” the settings/values are the same with mine...
Used to be like yours, but on previous UEFI version gigabyte put them all together and added the “AMD Cool&quiet“ and the “PPC Adjustment”. You can see it in the last screenshot of post #162
Maybe at some point/version they will add them for your board too. I believe even if those 2 are not visible now with yours the are on the proper value by auto.

Any good benchmark after the DRAM OC? Other than AIDA memory and CB I mean... Any heavy gaming? or any other stress test... Prime95, AIDA stress or whatever...?

Oh and something else...
Under XFR Enchancement the VDDP/VDDG voltages at mine was set by the board on Manual and 1000/1050. Found it weird...
I tried to set them on auto, but after every immediate save/restart and ender the BIOS were again at manual 1000/1050...!! Tried several times, and also in RM saw the same values of 1000/1050.
So I let it in manual but at VDDP 900mv and VDDG 950mv which are the default values.
No issue if you leave them 1000/1050 but if it’s not needed why to add voltages and heat...

Those voltages are separate from another setting called CPU VDDP voltage. You can see it right now in HWiFNO sensors the CPU VDDP ~900mv while RM reports the cLDO VDDP/G 1000/1050. It’s not the same.


----------



## lorry (Dec 15, 2019)

Zach_01 said:


> Other than the location of some settings like “CPPC Preferred Cores” the settings/values are the same with mine...
> Used to be like yours, but on previous UEFI version gigabyte put them all together and added the “AMD Cool&quiet“ and the “PPC Adjustment”. You can see it in the last screenshot of post #162
> Maybe at some point/version they will add them for your board too. I believe even if those 2 are not visible now with yours the are on the proper value by auto.
> 
> ...



cLDO VDDP/G  0.9976/1.0477 in RM, In HW 0.912
In bios its manual 1000/1050

7348 in R20, which is good enough to put me in 17th place world wide out of 500 I think? About 100 points below the guy ahead of me, so Masses to catch up there.

Aida now down to 70



Gaming wise, did about 2.5 hours in Control yesterday with no issues

Oh and a quick blender time of 11:08, so not Quite as good as the other 3900x's - they were 10:55

Did try the stress test in Aida but it got silly, seemed to lock everything up, as in I couldn't use the mouse or close anything down. It was stressing everything though on its standard settings, so should I maybe not test everything at once?

Add on, retrying blender stability test again and it's working just fine. Did have other programs running yesterday though so maybe that was it, as the mouse responds just fine now.

I just tried to set those back to auto but no go and they are stull sitting at 0.9002/1.0477

Ran Aida stability for 20 mins, likely should have been a lot longer?
Seemed fine to me, max temps of 82c


----------



## Zach_01 (Dec 15, 2019)

Its ok... seem it’s stable so far. Also I got a complete lockup with AIDA stress once. Not mind... Keep using it like normal and do gaming, or any other benchmark you like...

The default values of cLDO are:
cLDO VDDP 900mV
cLDO VDDG 950mV
...leave them on manual and set the above if you like. I did it like this.

What you see in HW as VDDP is different. It’s separate setting, in another section of UEFI as CPU VDDP 900mV default.


----------



## lorry (Dec 15, 2019)

Zach_01 said:


> Its ok... seem it’s stable so far. Also I got a complete lockup with AIDA stress once. Not mind... Keep using it like normal and do gaming, or any other benchmark you like...
> 
> The default values of cLDO are:
> cLDO VDDP 900mV
> ...



ah, ok, I'll set them manually next boot then, thanks.
I'll see what Prime 95 does etc soon as well


----------



## Zach_01 (Dec 15, 2019)

Had a screenshot eventually...
The CPU VDDP that HWiNFO reports:


----------



## lorry (Dec 15, 2019)

Ah!a
so there are two VDDP settings then?


----------



## Zach_01 (Dec 15, 2019)

lorry said:


> Ah!a
> so there are two VDDP settings then?


Yes... different things...
I believe the CPU VDDP is refering to a Core chiplet subsystem (dont know what) and the cLDO VDDP/VDDG is for the I/O chiplet (UCLK/FCLK)


----------



## lorry (Dec 15, 2019)

Zach_01 said:


> Yes... different things...
> I believe the CPU VDDP is refering to a Core chiplet subsystem (dont know what) and the cLDO VDDP/VDDG is for the I/O chiplet (UCLK/FCLK)



Almost as if they named them all very similar to confuse users


----------



## tabascosauz (Dec 15, 2019)

@lorry  when you bench, remove all unnecessary background apps. Dropbox, MEGA, HWInfo, airplane mode to avoid mail notifications...just having them running as they do random shit at random times can cost me upwards of 1ns.

Those are good results compared to before. The latency is slightly high for the timings (I'm getting 68.5ns on 3600 16-18-18-32-50-480-1T, but that might be due to the Hynix quirk), but that write speed is really sweet from being a 2-chiplet SKU, and the latency might also be due to the two chiplets.


----------



## lorry (Dec 15, 2019)

tabascosauz said:


> @lorry  when you bench, remove all unnecessary background apps. Dropbox, MEGA, HWInfo, airplane mode to avoid mail notifications...just having them running as they do random shit at random times can cost me upwards of 1ns.
> 
> Those are good results compared to before. The latency is slightly high for the timings (I'm getting 68.5ns on 3600 16-18-18-32-50-480-1T, but that might be due to the Hynix quirk), but that write speed is really sweet from being a 2-chiplet SKU, and the latency might also be due to the two chiplets.



Atm I'm seeing what, if any, diff that 200MHz 'max cpu boost clock override' does, if anything


----------



## tabascosauz (Dec 15, 2019)

lorry said:


> Atm I'm seeing what, if any, diff that 200MHz 'max cpu boost clock override' does, if anything



Couldn't really tell you what difference it makes. That's probably the one responsible for the "4800 Max Boost" ceiling you see.

There are some who claim they can get 4600MHz out of a 3600X, whereas others are obviously having trouble hitting even rated boost speeds on 3700X and 3900X. So it being achievable is either a wild guess based on silicon quality (of which there is much variety in Ryzen 3000) or the bigger chips just don't have as much room from being clocked higher to begin with. Board choice and AGESA probably affect it too.

Personally I don't even use PBO, it reduces my performance. Mileage varies for everyone. God I wish Zen 2 was made on 7EUV and more consistent.


----------



## oxrufiioxo (Dec 15, 2019)

tabascosauz said:


> @lorry  when you bench, remove all unnecessary background apps. Dropbox, MEGA, HWInfo, airplane mode to avoid mail notifications...just having them running as they do random shit at random times can cost me upwards of 1ns.
> 
> Those are good results compared to before. The latency is slightly high for the timings (I'm getting 68.5ns on 3600 16-18-18-32-50-480-1T, but that might be due to the Hynix quirk), but that write speed is really sweet from being a 2-chiplet SKU, and the latency might also be due to the two chiplets.




Assuming identical memory kits and timings the dual CCX chips have better latency. 
His latency is definitely high for 3600 16-16-16 should be around 66-67ns 
I would be shooting for Sub 65ns which is pretty easily doable with good Bdie.


----------



## lorry (Dec 15, 2019)

tabascosauz said:


> Couldn't really tell you what difference it makes. That's probably the one responsible for the "4800 Max Boost" ceiling you see.
> 
> There are some who claim they can get 4600MHz out of a 3600X, whereas others are obviously having trouble hitting even rated boost speeds on 3700X and 3900X. So it being achievable is either a wild guess based on silicon quality (of which there is much variety in Ryzen 3000) or the bigger chips just don't have as much room from being clocked higher to begin with. Board choice and AGESA probably affect it too.
> 
> Personally I don't even use PBO, it reduces my performance. Mileage varies for everyone. God I wish Zen 2 was made on 7EUV and more consistent.



Feeling a tad crappy so just messing somewhat really, keeping myself occupied. 

No idea what this 
max cpu boost clock override' even does, if anything



oxrufiioxo said:


> Assuming identical memory kits and timings the dual CCX chips have better latency.
> His latency is definitely high for 3600 16-16-16 should be around 66-67ns
> I would be shooting for Sub 65ns which is pretty easily doable with good Bdie.
> 
> View attachment 139460



This was the very first time they were over locked & are only 3200 cl16 originally


----------



## NoJuan999 (Dec 15, 2019)

lorry said:


> No idea what this
> max cpu boost clock override' even does, if anything


You will Never hit that Max Boost clock of 4800 MHz.
That setting just raises the limits built into the Ryzen CPU so that it will hold at higher Boost clocks for longer as long as your motherboard can supply the power and current needed to do that.

Setting my PBO limit to +200 does the same for me with my 3700x, I will never hit 4.6 GHz But it will supposedly allow me to stay at 4.4 GHZ longer than if it is set at zero.


----------



## lorry (Dec 15, 2019)

NoJuan999 said:


> You will Never hit that Max Boost clock of 4800 MHz.
> That setting just raises the limits built into the Ryzen CPU so that it will hold at higher Boost clocks for longer as long as your motherboard can supply the power and current needed to do that.
> 
> Setting my PBO limit to +200 does the same for me with my 3700x, I will never hit 4.6 GHz But it will supposedly allow me to stay at 4.4 GHZ longer than if it is set at zero.



Ahah! 
Thank you for that explanation, first time I've heard anything said about it


----------



## oxrufiioxo (Dec 15, 2019)

lorry said:


> Feeling a tad crappy so just messing somewhat really, keeping myself occupied.
> 
> No idea what this
> max cpu boost clock override' even does, if anything
> ...




Unless you game at 1080p with a 2080 ti you're not going to get much out of overclocking your ram 3600 with ok timings is more than adequate. 
Also the default performance of a 3900X with just stock settings is already pretty amazing so assuming you're staying sub 75c in everything you're using your cpu for I wouldn't stress much and just let it boost on its own.


----------



## Zach_01 (Dec 15, 2019)

oxrufiioxo said:


> Assuming identical memory kits and timings the dual CCX chips have better latency.
> His latency is definitely high for 3600 16-16-16 should be around 66-67ns
> I would be shooting for Sub 65ns which is pretty easily doable with good Bdie.


We both have rather crappy b-dies... im doing 68ns with identical as @lorry's settings.


----------



## lorry (Dec 15, 2019)

oxrufiioxo said:


> Unless you game at 1080p with a 2080 ti you're not going to get much out of overclocking your ram 3600 with ok timings is more than adequate.
> Also the default performance of a 3900X with just stock settings is already pretty amazing so assuming you're staying sub 75c in everything you're using your cpu for I wouldn't stress much and just let it boost on its own.



Its more for my learning than anything else really. But yrs I'd rather not leave any easy obtainable performance on the table if it's easy settings


----------



## NoJuan999 (Dec 15, 2019)

PS
I have Hynix DJR (D Die) 3600 G.Skill Ripjaws and my Latency was around 70 ns at the XMP (DOCP) setttings.



With it OC'd to 3733 with tighter sub timings, my Latency is down to 65 - 66 ns.


----------



## oxrufiioxo (Dec 15, 2019)

Zach_01 said:


> We both have rather crappy b-dies... im doing 68ns with identical as @lorry's settings.




Even 3000mhz ram with decent timings can game just fine though with ryzen 3000.

If you're going to buy a new kit of ram then yeah buy the best you can afford but we're talking 5% gains from the absolute best 3600 CL14 bdie kits avail.


----------



## lorry (Dec 15, 2019)

NoJuan999 said:


> PS
> I have HynixDJR (D Die) 3600 G.Skill Ripjaws and my Latency was around 70 ns at the XMP (DOCP) setttings.
> View attachment 139464
> With it OC'd to 3733 with tighter sub timings, my Latency is down to 65 - 66 ns.
> View attachment 139465



Yeah cool, gimme a chance though mate , lol. It was only a few days ago when this was totally stock


----------



## oxrufiioxo (Dec 15, 2019)

NoJuan999 said:


> PS
> I have HynixDJR (D Die) 3600 G.Skill Ripjaws and my Latency was around 70 ns at the XMP (DOCP) setttings.
> View attachment 139466
> With it OC'd to 3733 with tighter sub timings, my Latency is down to 65 - 66 ns.
> View attachment 139465



pretty sure if you had a 3900X that would be Sub 65ns 


Similar to this anyway


----------



## Zach_01 (Dec 15, 2019)

oxrufiioxo said:


> Even 3000mhz ram with decent timings can game just fine though with ryzen 3000.
> 
> If you're going to buy a new kit of ram then yeah buy the best you can afford but we're talking 5% gains from the absolute best 3600 CL14 bdie kits avail.


nah, not gonna... I pretty pleased with what I got now. I rather throw a +100~200$ on GPU than ram...


----------



## NoJuan999 (Dec 15, 2019)

lorry said:


> Yeah cool, gimme a chance though mate , lol. It was only a few days ago when this was totally stock


LOL
Actually you are doing pretty well so far.
Your RAM may have slightly higher latency than mine but it has better throuoghput.
I'm sure with just a little more tweaking, your  latency can be lowered as well.


----------



## lorry (Dec 15, 2019)

Once I know just what I might be able to adjust i'll have a play and see what can be done

And even more importantly, well to me anyway, is Why changing a particular setting brings improvements. That to me is far more important that just following someones figures


----------



## oxrufiioxo (Dec 15, 2019)

lorry said:


> Once I know just what I might be able to adjust i'll have a play and see what can be done




Just don't forget to enjoy your system even at bone stock it's pretty awesome... I would know it's not a whole lot different than my 3900X system.


----------



## Zach_01 (Dec 15, 2019)

lorry said:


> Once I know just what I might be able to adjust i'll have a play and see what can be done


Like we said before, if you are sure about the (now) stability, when you feel ready we all are here to find what else can be done... and what @oxrufiioxo said!


----------



## lorry (Dec 15, 2019)

Zach_01 said:


> Like we said before, if you are sure about the (now) stability, when you feel ready we all are here to find what else can be done... and what @oxrufiioxo said!



It;s being rebooted several times in an hour, had various benchmarks tried out, gamed on, been left running 18 hours at a time, etc
Surely if it was unstable that would have showed by now I'd have thought?

You seen this?


----------



## Zach_01 (Dec 15, 2019)

Impresive... size and performance. And its only a prototype...

Actually, Thermosiphon is a Greek word. It means boiler... (not to produce steam tho), just the one to use in home to heat water (for home usage, bath and washing in kitchen) with a big electrical resistance/resistor (4000Watt). Old tech that most houses in big cities have replaced with natural gas heating.
I quess they gave this name because its boiling the fluid and they needed a new name for it...


----------



## lorry (Dec 15, 2019)

Zach_01 said:


> Impresive... size and performance. And its only a prototype...
> 
> Actually, Thermosiphon is a Greek word. It means boiler... (not to produce steam tho), just the one to use in home to heat water (for home usage, bath and washing in kitchen) with a big electrical resistance/resistor (4000Watt). Old tech that most houses in big cities have replaced with natural gas heating.
> I quess they gave this name because its boiling the fluid and they needed a new name for it...



No idea but it will be interesting to see some proper reviews on it when it launches

@Zach_01 Thought I;d try super pi and this morning it was running fine, did the 32 million test in 9 minutes.
This afternoon though it now brings up 'not convergent in sqr05' error, which on searching says that it is an unstable overclock of the ram. Nothing has changed, so, suggestions if Possible please?

Edit, it completes the dram calc memtest with no errors but a finish time now of 231 with a latency of 69.1


----------



## lorry (Dec 16, 2019)

Ran Prime95 for two hours -
[Dec 16 21:11] Torture Test completed 43 tests in 1 hour, 56 minutes - 0 errors, 0 warnings.

Now running TechPowerUp memtest64 v1.0


----------



## Zach_01 (Dec 16, 2019)

I wouldnt worry too much about it since everything else runs fine. If nothing is going wrong with your every day tasks, gaming etc. I personally dont do extensive testing. If the system does what I want with no erros or BSODs I dont mess with it.

Unless you seek every little bit of stability... its ok.
At this point its unknown what causes this "sqr05" error. Could be DRAM settings/speed/voltage, could be UCLK speed/voltage, or FCLK speed/voltage.
1. Easiest thing to do first is to raise DRAM voltage from 1.4V to 1.42~1.43V and see if anything changes.
2. If this doesnt fix it, next I would raise the SoC voltage, from 1.08V to 1.1~1.125V. (this one probably requires to raise the SoC LLC table along with voltage to achieve the desired value)
3. If the error persists I would raise the cLDO VDDP/VDDG from 900mV/950mV to 950mV/1000mV

You can try to raise these 3 voltages (DRAM, SoC, cLDOs) all together or 1 by 1 alone to determine which part causes the error. Almost always the right method to do these things is the time consuming one...
All voltages I suggested are 100% safe for 24/7 usage.


----------



## lorry (Dec 16, 2019)

Zach_01 said:


> I wouldnt worry too much about it since everything else runs fine. If nothing is going wrong with your every day tasks, gaming etc. I personally dont do extensive testing. If the system does what I want with no erros or BSODs I dont mess with it.
> 
> Unless you seek every little bit of stability... its ok.
> At this point its unknown what causes this "sqr05" error. Could be DRAM settings/speed/voltage, could be UCLK speed/voltage, or FCLK speed/voltage.
> ...



The odd bit was that it ran fine in the morning, I only tried the Dann thing cos BZ mentioned that he managed to complete in under 6 minutes in his latest video about his new ram, so wondered how far behind him I'd be.
Then when I tried again in the afternoon it wouldn't run, even though every setting was the same, especially as I'd not rebooted. 

What do SoC, cLDOs do? 
Dram I know lol, I take it that the slightly higher voltage helps with stability or what? 

No rush with you reply, I'm in no rush, it seems perfectly stable to me


----------



## ShrimpBrime (Dec 16, 2019)

400mhz o.c. memory at only .05v increase?

Bump the memory voltage before touching SoC VDDP ect. Chances are they are already over-volted on auto.



lorry said:


> Atm I'm seeing what, if any, diff that 200MHz 'max cpu boost clock override' does, if anything



This is 200mhz over all core boost. So what ever the all core boost is stock auto, add 200mhz to that. Mine goes from 4000mhz to 4200mhz with this setting for example.


----------



## lorry (Dec 16, 2019)

ShrimpBrime said:


> 400mhz o.c. memory at only .05v increase?
> 
> Bump the memory voltage before touching SoC VDDP ect. Chances are they are already over-volted on auto.



Its what the Dram Calc suggested



ShrimpBrime said:


> 400mhz o.c. memory at only .05v increase?
> 
> Bump the memory voltage before touching SoC VDDP ect. Chances are they are already over-volted on auto.
> 
> ...



So mine should in theory go from 4.3 to 4.5?
Seems like wishful thinking surely, if max boost for a single core is 4.6?


----------



## ShrimpBrime (Dec 16, 2019)

lorry said:


> Its what the Dram Calc suggested


Never said it wasn't.

So the sticks are tested 1.35v at 3200mhz. You are 400mhz beyond that. 

his suggestion to raise voltage memory is good. 1.4125v test. 1.4250v test. 1.4350v, test, wash rinse repeat.

Less errors the better.

just fyi - (not for you to use)

But I start tweaking high clocks and tight timings in the 1.60v range. 

With your memory cooled with the fans, you're plenty safe up to 1.50v.


----------



## lorry (Dec 16, 2019)

ShrimpBrime said:


> Never said it wasn't.
> 
> So the sticks are tested 1.35v at 3200mhz. You are 400mhz beyond that.
> 
> ...


So does increasing the voltage increase the stability (up to a point I'm sure) & does it do that by having the power to enable it to run at the higher speeds?


----------



## ShrimpBrime (Dec 16, 2019)

lorry said:


> So does increasing the voltage increase the stability (up to a point I'm sure) & does it do that by having the power to enable it to run at the higher speeds?



Yes exactly, OR to support tight timings. 

See your memory is a lower binning. It did not test well enough to be sold as 3600 XMP sticks. They probably require more voltage that 1.35v which is a pretty standardized XMP voltage at these rated speeds. 

I added to my last comment to further touch on it. ^^



lorry said:


> So mine should in theory go from 4.3 to 4.5?
> Seems like wishful thinking surely, if max boost for a single core is 4.6?



Yes, 
Not wishful thinking. It'll throttle down when it gets too hot. Everything else on auto(minus mem), set 200mhz only. 

This is why it's so hard to beat SenseMi technology with static (manual) overclocking. The system handles the powers much better than straight shot clocks and voltage. All you gotta do is keep a happy cpu cool as possible!


----------



## Zach_01 (Dec 16, 2019)

lorry said:


> What do SoC, cLDOs do?
> Dram I know lol, I take it that the slightly higher voltage helps with stability or what?


SoC voltage is the voltage of the entire SoC/IO die.
cLDO VDDP and cLDO VDDG if I remember correctly is the UMC/UCLK (memory controller) and FCLK respectively. The UMC and IF are in theSoC/IO die.
The cLDO VDDP/VDDG can never be set equal or above to SoC voltage.

Like I said and @ShrimpBrime said... try to raise the DRAM voltage first.


----------



## lorry (Dec 16, 2019)

ShrimpBrime said:


> Yes exactly, OR to support tight timings.
> 
> See your memory is a lower binning. It did not test well enough to be sold as 3600 XMP sticks. They probably require more voltage that 1.35v which is a pretty standardized XMP voltage at these rated speeds.
> 
> I added to my last comment to further touch on it. ^^



From memory the sticks vary


ShrimpBrime said:


> Yes exactly, OR to support tight timings.
> 
> See your memory is a lower binning. It did not test well enough to be sold as 3600 XMP sticks. They probably require more voltage that 1.35v which is a pretty standardized XMP voltage at these rated speeds.
> 
> ...



So PBO enabled And Max Boost Overdrive set to 200 is All you need to do in reality?


----------



## ShrimpBrime (Dec 16, 2019)

lorry said:


> From memory the sticks vary
> 
> 
> So PBO enabled And Max Boost Overdrive set to 200 is All you need to do in reality?



Most sticks generally from 3200-3600mhz are rated 1.35v / Jedec 1.20v standard.
They do have some variances, my 4277 sticks are rated 1.40v, but that's a much higher binning and clock.

XFR PBO enabled, boost over ride set 200mhz. Testing is at full load (cinebench is fine) and keep on eye on clocks and temp. When the clocks drop 100mhz or more, then you know where you need to keep your processor cool at that throttling temp.


----------



## lorry (Dec 16, 2019)

ShrimpBrime said:


> Most sticks generally from 3200-3600mhz are rated 1.35v / Jedec 1.20v standard.
> They do have some variances, my 4277 sticks are rated 1.40v, but that's a much higher binning and clock.
> 
> XFR PBO enabled, boost over ride set 200mhz. Testing is at full load (cinebench is fine) and keep on eye on clocks and temp. When the clocks drop 100mhz or more, then you know where you need to keep your processor cool at that throttling temp.



I didn't finish that
From memory (and now just checked in a screenshot), all 4 sticks are between 28 - 30c


----------



## ShrimpBrime (Dec 16, 2019)

lorry said:


> I didn't finish that
> From memory (and now just checked in a screenshot), all 4 sticks are between 28 - 30c



Oh they run nice and cool. Doing just fine.

+1 Zach. You're doing a great job helping Lorry here.  I've been watching. 
When you carry on, have him take note of what the voltages are doing on auto in bios. SoC ....ect. This will help you a lot.


----------



## lorry (Dec 17, 2019)

The DRAM voltage settings on this MB only go as fine as 100s, so I've set it at 1.41V.
The temps are now 30/31c at desktop/browser, 34/35 during a benchmark.
According to HWInfor the min was 1.404, max of 1.440 and actual usage 1.416-1.428
latency according to Dram was down to 67.1 but with Aida still 70.4 ?


----------



## Zach_01 (Dec 17, 2019)

lorry said:


> The DRAM voltage settings on this MB only go as fine as 100s, so I've set it at 1.41V.
> The temps are now 30/31c at desktop/browser, 34/35 during a benchmark.
> According to HWInfor the min was 1.404, max of 1.440 and actual usage 1.416-1.428
> latency according to Dram was down to 6701 but with Aida still 70.4 ?


Yes, this is 10mV steps. Pretty small steps. The fluctuation in voltage is normal.

Do not compare measurements between test/benchmarks.
I know you may thing that despite the difference between two benches they must be going up or down together but you have to consider that every time you run a bench the CPU is running on a slightly different clock/boost and this alone affects the result.


----------



## lorry (Dec 17, 2019)

Zach_01 said:


> Yes, this is 10mV steps. Pretty small steps. The fluctuation in voltage is normal.
> 
> Do not compare measurements between test/benchmarks.
> I know you may thing that despite the difference between two benches they must be going up or down together but you have to consider that every time you run a bench the CPU is running on a slightly different clock/boost and this alone affects the result.



I wasn't comparing as such, pointing out that in one test it had dropped from 70 ish to 67 whilst in the other test it had remained pretty much unchanged

Worth trying 1.42, 1.43 later on?
That super pi still produces the same fault


----------



## Zach_01 (Dec 17, 2019)

lorry said:


> I wasn't comparing as such, pointing out that in one test it had dropped from 70 ish to 67 whilst in the other test it had remained pretty much unchanged


That’s why I said that CPU boost clock can affect benchmarks differently.



lorry said:


> Worth trying 1.42, 1.43 later on?
> That super pi still produces the same fault


Yes, of course you can try
If you want you can set it to 1.45V and if the error go away you can work your way down 1.45->1.44->1.43->1.42...

Most DDR4 sticks can handle easily up to 1.5V if they cooled properly


----------



## lorry (Dec 17, 2019)

Zach_01 said:


> That’s why I said that CPU boost clock can affect benchmarks differently.
> 
> 
> Yes, of course you can try
> ...



Might as well stick with the original and go up slowly, nothing to be gained by jumping high to begin with


----------



## Zach_01 (Dec 17, 2019)

By doing the jump you quickly determine if this is the source of the issue... If it is positive then starting to reduce.
If it doesn’t fix it then there is no point to continue with this, and you start messing with something else.


----------



## lorry (Dec 17, 2019)

Zach_01 said:


> By doing the jump you quickly determine if this is the source of the issue... If it is positive then starting to reduce.
> If it doesn’t fix it then there is no point to continue with this, and you start messing with something else.



yes, true, hadn't thought of it that way. 
Okay I'll give 1.45 a try later on this morning hopefully



Zach_01 said:


> By doing the jump you quickly determine if this is the source of the issue... If it is positive then starting to reduce.
> If it doesn’t fix it then there is no point to continue with this, and you start messing with something else.



Up to 1.45V now, results are slightly confusing to me -

In HWINFO the voltage is min 1.440, max 1.488, current seems to be around 1.464 no matter which benchmark is run, briefly shows 1.52v on desktop
Latency in Dram seems to be sub 70 now (69.3 - 69.8) whilst in Aida64 it remains the same at around 70.3.
Temps are now 37/38c during benchmarks and 31/32 at desktop
Super pi continues to have that same error when trying to run but I'm not overly bothered about that as everything else seems stable.
I'll try some R20 and 3Dmark now but if those show no real improvement would it be better to lower that voltage or leave it there for the time being?
Raise the SoC voltage, from 1.08V to 1.1~1.125V?
You said (this one probably requires to raise the SoC LLC table along with voltage to achieve the desired value) what should the SoC LLC be raised to?


----------



## Zach_01 (Dec 17, 2019)

lorry said:


> Up to 1.45V now, results are slightly confusing to me -
> 
> In HWINFO the voltage is min 1.440, max 1.488, current seems to be around 1.464 no matter which benchmark is run, briefly shows 1.52v on desktop
> Latency in Dram seems to be sub 70 now (69.3 - 69.8) whilst in Aida64 it remains the same at around 70.3.
> ...


About the fluctuation... is pretty much normal for DRAM voltage to fluctuate for some boards, others not so much. The average value is most important but since the is no error elimination in you case there is no need to keep that 1.45V setting. Should lower it to 1.42V IMO and not 1.4V. Could help with other voltage increases like SoC...
And dont seek performance increases from DDR voltage raise since your system is pretty much stable already.



lorry said:


> Raise the SoC voltage, from 1.08V to 1.1~1.125V?
> You said (this one probably requires to raise the SoC LLC table along with voltage to achieve the desired value) what should the SoC LLC be raised to?


I'll walk you through it with pics if necessary... Are you familiar with LLC settings?
First, before you touch SoC LLC you manually set the SoC voltage to 1100mV, reboot... enter the BIOS again and then see the actual value you are getting in PC health section for SoC voltage...


----------



## lorry (Dec 17, 2019)

Zach_01 said:


> About the fluctuation... is pretty much normal for DRAM voltage to fluctuate for some boards, others not so much. The average value is most important but since the is no error elimination in you case there is no need to keep that 1.45V setting. Should lower it to 1.42V IMO and not 1.4V. Could help with other voltage increases like SoC...
> And dont seek performance increases from DDR voltage raise since your system is pretty much stable already.
> 
> 
> ...



I'm not familiar with them, no.  I take it that neither HWINFO or RM are able to give you those figures then?


----------



## Zach_01 (Dec 17, 2019)

Yes you can see the values in RM or HWiNFO but ther is no need to boot into windows to look at it and go into UEFI to make adjustments (time consuming).
You set it... reboot... go into UEFI again... see it at PC Health... make adjustment... reboot... go into UEFI... see it at PC Health... etc...

Now while its set on Auto is RM and HW report 1.08V for SoC voltage?


----------



## lorry (Dec 17, 2019)

Zach_01 said:


> Yes you can see the values in RM or HWiNFO but ther is no need to boot into windows to look at it and go into UEFI to make adjustments (time consuming).
> You set it... reboot... go into UEFI again... see it at PC Health... make adjustment... reboot... go into UEFI... see it at PC Health... etc...
> 
> Now while its set on Auto is RM and HW report 1.08V for SoC voltage?



RM reports it as 1.1v HWINFO as 1.081V


----------



## Zach_01 (Dec 17, 2019)

The actual true value is the 1.08V. RM reports the auto setting. Once you set it to manual RM will also report the true value...

Ok... Here is the concept:

I also had it manual and saw in HW the 1.08V

*1.* I reboot and go into UEFI and set manual 1.100V as shown in pic...
VCORE SOC = 1.100V



*2.* After entering UEFI again, PC Health reported 1.068~1.080V (fluctuates)


*3. *Raised the VCORE SOC to 1.1125V, its a 2 step raise by pressing the plus*(+)* button twice.


*4.* After entering UEFI again, PC Health reported 1.080~1.094V (fluctuates)
(no screenshot)

*5.* I enter "CPU/VRM settings" and set SOC LLC to Medium
 

*6. *After entering UEFI again, PC Health reported 1.104V


*7.* Boot into windows and check RM and HWiNFO
RM now reports 1.104V and HWiNFO report 2 different values (blue lines)


The second one is the most acurate (1.104V)

Do this and try to reproduce the error.


----------



## lorry (Dec 17, 2019)

Zach_01 said:


> The actual true value is the 1.08V. RM reports the auto setting. Once you set it to manual RM will also report the true value...
> 
> Ok... Here is the concept:
> 
> ...



so the CPU vcore SoC in HWinfo is the correct reading? In which case mine is fluctuating between 1.092 - 1.104V

And what does setting SOC LLC to Medium do?


----------



## Zach_01 (Dec 17, 2019)

It reports 1.092~1.104V now without touching anything from the above?


----------



## lorry (Dec 17, 2019)

Zach_01 said:


> It reports 1.092~1.104V now without touching anything from the above?



yes it is reporting that Now, with no settings altered since this morning
(Top right, 4th column)


----------



## Zach_01 (Dec 17, 2019)

Ok, just do what I've done and show above and then we can see where its going to land and go from there. This one should be treated with extra care. By the way the upper safe every day SoC voltage is 1.200V MAX for Ryzen 3000.

A very nice explanation:
(Refers to CPU core voltage LLC and not SOC but the principal is 100% the same)

*Load-Line Calibration* (*LLC*) is a mechanism offered to overclockers designed to compensate for large voltage droops when a CPU or GPU is under increased load. The mechanism attempts to compensate for the sudden sagging in voltage by preemptively applying additional voltage. The LLC, which is part of the voltage regulator module, was introduced in order to ensure a more smooth voltage delivery when the CPU/GPU is both idle as well as under heavy load, thereby eliminating related system instability or crashes on overclocked systems. This feature is aimed at overclockers as for normal systems the LLC is usually disabled by default because typical Vdroop is part of the system specification.


*Note:* While extremely helpful at times, load-line calibration must be used with extreme care!









						Load-Line Calibration (LLC) - WikiChip
					

Load-Line Calibration (LLC) is a mechanism offered to overclockers designed to compensate for large voltage droops when a CPU or GPU is under increased load. The mechanism attempts to compensate for the sudden sagging in voltage by preemptively applying additional voltage. The LLC, which is part...




					en.wikichip.org


----------



## lorry (Dec 17, 2019)

Zach_01 said:


> Ok, just do what I've done and show above and then we can see where its going to land and go from there. This one should be treated with extra care. By the way the upper safe every day SoC voltage is 1.200V MAX for Ryzen 3000.
> 
> A very nice explanation:
> (Refers to CPU core voltage LLC and not SOC but the principal is 100% the same)
> ...



as can be seen the max is 1.116V

I will try to do it this evening, but may not be able to try it until tomorrow (my evenings are usually restricted adding in new things), see how I go. Will let you know ASAP.

so, the steps are -

1) set manual 1.100V as shown in pic. 
2) check PC Health 
3)  Raise the VCORE SOC to 1.1125V, its a 2 step raise by pressing the plus*(+)* button twice. 
4)  check PC Health reported 
5)  enter "CPU/VRM settings" and set SOC LLC to Medium 
6)  enter UEFI again, check PC Health reported
7)  Boot into windows and check RM and HWiNFO


----------



## Zach_01 (Dec 17, 2019)

Yes thats the steps...
Dont mind the 1.116V max value now, once set on manual this could go away. The large fluctuation I mean...
Do it when you are free and clear minded!


----------



## lorry (Dec 17, 2019)

Zach_01 said:


> Yes thats the steps...
> Dont mind the 1.116V max value now, once set on manual this could go away. The large fluctuation I mean...
> Do it when you are free and clear minded!



will do. Have a medicated shampoo to apply to my dogs non-existent hair on his tail tonight!/
He's lost all the hair as he is producing excessive amounts of oil in his skin

Just out of interest, when 3DMark reports Maximum turbo core clock            4,551 MHz  in a stress test, is that the single core boost or all core boost?
Because If that's All core that would be incredible surely?


----------



## Zach_01 (Dec 17, 2019)

lorry said:


> Just out of interest, when 3DMark reports Maximum turbo core clock 4,551 MHz  in a stress test, is that the single core boost or all core boost?
> Because If that's All core that would be incredible surely?


Cant be all core boost... no real ZEN2 exists with this kind of all core boost, past 4.2~4.3 maybe (very very rare), but only in our imagination (wishful thinking and I would want one, eyes closed...)


----------



## lorry (Dec 18, 2019)

Ok, done that but it doesn't look to have done anything to that voltage jumping around between 1.09 - 1.104 (was it supposed to?), nor has that allowed super pi to run

PCHEALTH before




PCHEALTH after setting 1.125



Set SOC LLCC to medium



Two pics on HWinfo showing that SCOC still jumping between 1.092 & 1.104





Finally RM screenshot



Hope that I did it correctly ?

If I understand this correctly, this means that the voltage droop isn't being controlled by a 'medium' setting, so should I now try the 'high' setting?

I also found this for my MB









						Gigabyte X470 AORUS GAMING 7 WIFI overclocking &amp...
					

Board features   Board layout   Known non power delivery ICs: * ICS 9FGL1214AKLF (clock generator) * ITE IT8686E for SuperIO + ITE IT8792E (near PCIE slot) * Realtek ALC1220-VB + ESS Sabre DAC * Richtek RT8288A for USB 3.0 DAC UP 2 * Intel 1211-AT Gigabit LAN * Asmedia ASM1143 USB 3.1 controller...




					www.overclock.net
				




Anything needed doing about Dynamic Vcore SOC(DVID) ?


----------



## Zach_01 (Dec 18, 2019)

All this was just to find the starting point of the SoC voltage.
There are 2 ways to continue now

1. SOC LLC to high and SOC voltage 1.11250V
2. SOC LLC medium and SOC voltage from 1.11250 to 1.12500V. Just 2 more plus(+)

Be aware of the numbers. The voltage right now is set to 1.11250 and not 1.12500 as you have written above.
I would continue this up until 1.15000V to see if anything changes

I saw RM reports cLDO VDDP/VDDG again the 1000/1050V settings. Did you raise them or the board by itself?

SoC voltage is pretty much a static voltage. There is no need for a dynamic setting.


----------



## lorry (Dec 18, 2019)

Zach_01 said:


> All this was just to find the starting point of the SoC voltage.
> There are 2 ways to continue now
> 
> 1. SOC LLC to high and SOC voltage 1.11250V
> ...




Which of the two methods do you think would be the better to try?

yes that was a typo here, my board doesn't seem to use the ++ ? I tried that and it didn't seem to do anything (unless you need to use the + on the num pad maybe?). I had to enter the voltage manually this morning as a result.

Also on my board again the LLC is as follows - 1 = standard, 2 = low, 3 = medium, 4 = high, etc.

The board must have altered those settings as I haven't touched them, what needs to be done there?


----------



## Zach_01 (Dec 18, 2019)

Leave cLDOs as is for now. Could help this way.
Yes the (+) button works from numpad.

Try the first one
SOC LLC to the next level (high) with the same SOC voltage setting of 1.11250V
The goal is for the actual value to match as possible to the setting value. And a small fluctuation is normal, like the 1.092~1.104V you saw.
Setting SOC LLC to high will bring the voltage closer to the 1.11250V set if not on the spot...


----------



## NoJuan999 (Dec 18, 2019)

Here is a pretty good article about Memory Overclocking which will help you better understand some of these timings and how to best set them for your RAM/CPU:








						MemTestHelper/DDR4 OC Guide.md at master · integralfx/MemTestHelper
					

C# WPF to automate HCI MemTest. Contribute to integralfx/MemTestHelper development by creating an account on GitHub.




					github.com
				




Hynix DJR ICs aren't specified in it, But Hynix CJR is and is pretty similar to our DJR IC's.

And this post has definitions/decsritpions of the different timings:

__
		https://www.reddit.com/r/overclocking/comments/ahs5a2


----------



## lorry (Dec 18, 2019)

Zach_01 said:


> Leave cLDOs as is for now. Could help this way.
> Yes the (+) button works from numpad.
> 
> Try the first one
> ...



Lows of 1.092 still, highs of 1.116, average of 1.106







@NoJuan999  thanks!
I'll not quote you (there's masses there without repeating it, Have bookmarked them).


----------



## Zach_01 (Dec 18, 2019)

Its ok about the lows...
Now that is close to the setting give a 2 (+) from numpad to target 1.1250 or if you like set 1.15000 to test if the error persists.
I remind you that up to 1.20000V is safe but past 1.15000V I dont expect it to really change anything.


----------



## lorry (Dec 18, 2019)

Zach_01 said:


> Its ok about the lows...
> Now that is close to the setting give a 2 (+) from numpad to target 1.1250 or if you like set 1.15000 to test if the error persists.
> I remind you that up to 1.20000V is safe but past 1.15000V I dont expect it to really change anything.



I'll go up in stages, that way we see exactly what each change does I'd have thought?


----------



## Zach_01 (Dec 18, 2019)

Whatever makes you feel comfortable...
Keep in mind that all this voltage tweaking cannot change performance. The goal is to eliminate the error you are getting.


----------



## lorry (Dec 18, 2019)

Zach_01 said:


> Whatever makes you feel comfortable...
> Keep in mind that all this voltage tweaking cannot change performance. The goal is to eliminate the error you are getting.



Yes, I realise it is to correct the error, just that my thinking says go with the least setting that will work?


----------



## Zach_01 (Dec 18, 2019)

You can always retract settings if the cause of issue has been found...


----------



## lorry (Dec 18, 2019)

@Zach_01  1.1250V doesn't look to have changed anything?
So go to 1.1500?


----------



## Zach_01 (Dec 18, 2019)

It did actually...
There is no more drops to 1.092V and that other sensor reporting of ΗWiNFO the "SVI2 TFN" has matched the "CPU VCORE SOC" reading.

Did you try superPI?

Yes next is 1.15000V


----------



## lorry (Dec 18, 2019)

Zach_01 said:


> It did actually...
> There is no more drops to 1.092V and that other sensor reporting of ΗWiNFO the "SVI2 TFN" has matched the "CPU VCORE SOC" reading.
> 
> Did you try superPI?
> ...



Oh! I missed that!
Super pi is Still giving the same error
So should I do 1.1500 now?

Just watched BZ video on CPU Vcore LLC. he explained it well and I now have an understanding of that.
I presume that the Vcore LLC is the same but for SoC ?


----------



## Zach_01 (Dec 18, 2019)

Yes its the same principal with CPU VCORE LLC.

Did you try SOC 1.15V? I would say to try 1.16~1.18V just for 1 superPI test and if the error comes again then we will drop this (leave it at 1.1~1.12V) and work with DRAM settings.


----------



## lorry (Dec 18, 2019)

Zach_01 said:


> Yes its the same principal with CPU VCORE LLC.
> 
> Did you try SOC 1.15V? I would say to try 1.16~1.18V just for 1 superPI test and if the error comes again then we will drop this (leave it at 1.1~1.12V) and work with DRAM settings.



I haven't as yet, was going to but thought I'd try a membench in Dram calc - got the same time pretty much, 230 but latency has now dropped to 68.4

I'll try 1.1500 now, try it on medium First? I will just to see


----------



## Zach_01 (Dec 18, 2019)

AIDA?

No with high LLC as it is

From @NoJuan999 link

_On Ryzen 3000, there's also CLDO_VDDG (not to be confused with CLDO_VDD*P*), which is the voltage to the Infinity Fabric. I've read that SOC voltage should be at least 40mV above CLDO_VDDG, but other than that there's not much information about it._


> _Most cLDO voltages are regulated from the two main power rails of the CPU. In case of cLDO_VDDG and cLDO_VDDP, they are regulated from the VDDCR_SoC plane. Because of this, there are couple rules. For example, if you set the VDDG to 1.100V, while your actual SoC voltage under load is 1.05V the VDDG will stay roughly at 1.01V max. Likewise if you have VDDG set to 1.100V and start increasing the SoC voltage, your VDDG will raise as well. I don't have the exact figure, but you can assume that the minimum drop-out voltage (Vin-Vout) is around 40mV. Meaning you ACTUAL SoC voltage has to be at least by this much higher, than the requested VDDG for it to take effect as it is requested.
> Adjusting the SoC voltage alone, unlike on previous gen. parts doesn't do much if anything at all. The default value is fixed 1.100V and AMD recommends keeping it at that level. Increasing the VDDG helps with the fabric overclocking in certain scenarios, but not always. 1800MHz FCLK should be doable at the default 0.9500V value and for pushing the limits it might be beneficial to increase it to =< 1.05V (1.100 - 1.125V SoC, depending on the load-line)._


----------



## lorry (Dec 18, 2019)

Zach_01 said:


> AIDA?
> 
> No with high LLC as it is
> 
> ...



why high ?

Too late, i tried it with medium , these are the results





i installed the new version of HWinfo, seems to have different settings?


Enhanced sensor monitoring on GIGABYTE X299X and TRX40 series.
Added monitoring of Noise sensor on some GIGABYTE mainboards.
Added reporting of total Average Effective Clock.
Added reporting of SATA/NVMe current interface in summary.
Added reporting of PBO Scalar value for AMD Matisse.
Improved reporting of HDA Codec.
Fixed losing of some sensor items on some CPUs after suspend/resume.
Improved support of ATI mach64.
Enhanced sensor monitoring on Intel Quartz Canyon and Ghost Canyon NUC.
Added reporting of TDP setting for AMD Ryzen APUs.
Enhanced sensor monitoring on ASUS WS C422 series.
Enhanced sensor monitoring on ASUS STRIX TRX40-E GAMING and PRIME TRX40-PRO.
Added reporting of Collaborative Processor Performance Control (CPPC) core order.
Enhanced support of AMD 3rd Gen Ryzen Threadripper.
Enhanced support of Intel Rocket Lake.
Enhanced sensor monitoring on ASRock TRX40 Taichi and TRX40 Creator.
Added reporting and monitoring of PPT, TDC and EDC limits and actual values for AMD Zen2 family.
Added universal monitoring of FCLK for AMD Zen2 family.
Added monitoring of CPU Die average temperature for AMD Zen2 family.
Adjusted reporting of SVI2 TFN Current/Power, removed reporting on systems where accurate values are not guaranteed.
Added reporting of cLDO VDDP and VDDG for AMD Zen2 family.


----------



## Zach_01 (Dec 18, 2019)

This version is out at least a week ago... Today 6.21 beta has just been realesed

Updated reporting of PPT/TDC/EDC limits when OC-Mode active (no limits).
Added monitoring of Effective CPU Core VID on AMD Zen CPUs.
Multiple sensor items can now be configured at once via settings.
Added support of selective sensor items for logging.
Improved FCLK monitoring on AMD Zen2.
I'm going to try it in a minute...

See that medium SOC LLC let enough Vdroop. With 1.15000 setting you're getting 1.11900 (almost 1.12V)
In order not to consum more time on to this I would try at least 1.16~1.17V with high SOC LLC and see if error misses


----------



## lorry (Dec 18, 2019)

Zach_01 said:


> This version is out at least a week ago... Today 6.21 beta has just been realesed
> 
> Updated reporting of PPT/TDC/EDC limits when OC-Mode active (no limits).
> Added monitoring of Effective CPU Core VID on AMD Zen CPUs.
> ...



this is the new one





Zach_01 said:


> This version is out at least a week ago... Today 6.21 beta has just been realesed
> 
> Updated reporting of PPT/TDC/EDC limits when OC-Mode active (no limits).
> Added monitoring of Effective CPU Core VID on AMD Zen CPUs.
> ...



1.16? Is that high?


----------



## Zach_01 (Dec 18, 2019)

Up to 1.20V its safe...


----------



## lorry (Dec 18, 2019)

Zach_01 said:


> Up to 1.20V its safe...



1.1625, high


----------



## Zach_01 (Dec 18, 2019)

Any luck with error?
If not, then go back to 1.1125 and leave it there.

I'd like to see the last section of RM down at the bottom...


----------



## lorry (Dec 18, 2019)

1.165V, High









and no, the same error on super pi

mine have diff settings to yours ?


----------



## Zach_01 (Dec 18, 2019)

Yes there is a difference (look mine post #252) but that is normal. We cant have the same because most of them down there are related to stick/rank count. While all our sticks are 1 ranked you have 4 and I have 2, so...
Look what RyzenCalc suggests for them

But before start tweaking with those just try 1 more thing.
Go into UEFI timings and set tRCDRD from 16 to 17. Just and only that... and try superPI for error and the benches for latency.

I told you that DRAM tweaking is painful and time consuming...  I hope its not too overwhelming


----------



## lorry (Dec 18, 2019)

Zach_01 said:


> Yes there is a difference (look mine post #252) but that is normal. We cant have the same because most of them down there are related to stick/rank count. While all our sticks are 1 ranked you have 4 and I have 2, so...
> Look what RyzenCalc suggests for them
> 
> But before start tweaking with those just try 1 more thing.
> ...



No not at all painful, I'm enjoying the testing.
Do I keep it at 1.1625V and high, or 1.1250V and high when I change tRCDRD to 17 ?


----------



## Zach_01 (Dec 18, 2019)

This... 
*1.1250V*_ and high when I change tRCDRD to 17 ? _

There is no point to keep SOC voltage too high even if its safe.


----------



## lorry (Dec 18, 2019)

Zach_01 said:


> This...
> *1.1250V*_ and high when I change tRCDRD to 17 ? _
> 
> There is no point to keep SOC voltage too high even if its safe.



That's what I thought, seeing as how that didn't remove the error
Ok brb



Zach_01 said:


> This...
> *1.1250V*_ and high when I change tRCDRD to 17 ? _
> 
> There is no point to keep SOC voltage too high even if its safe.



Super pi error still present, running membench in Dram now

latency still the same 68.6, time is about 4 secs quicker at 226









should the vcore come down any?
Max is 1.488V


----------



## Zach_01 (Dec 18, 2019)

You mean CPU Vcore? But its not constant 1.488V
From HW I see it quiet normal


----------



## lorry (Dec 18, 2019)

Zach_01 said:


> You mean CPU Vcore? But its not constant 1.488V
> From HW I see it quiet normal



Yes, it was just the max I noted


----------



## Zach_01 (Dec 18, 2019)

Its not too high for your CPU. Other screenshot of yours are showing 1.50V max for CPU Vcore.

Another thing I noticed is that you have auto the tRFC2/4. I know alot of people say that is not necessary but I like to set them to the right values
For tRFC 345...
tRFC2: 256
tRFC4: 158


----------



## lorry (Dec 18, 2019)

Zach_01 said:


> Its not too high for your CPU. Other screenshot of yours are showing 1.50V max for CPU Vcore.
> 
> Another thing I noticed is that you have auto the tRFC2/4. I know alot of people say that is not necessary but I like to set them to the right values
> For tRFC 345...
> ...



I have them written down but earlier I thought you had said that auto was ok?
Should they be changed to those settings then?

@Zach_01  looks like it was the version of super pi that I had?
I had ver 1.1, found ver 1.9 and it did the 1M cals, now doing the 32M one!


----------



## Zach_01 (Dec 18, 2019)

So now no errors?

Yes I have tRFC2/4 to the right values


----------



## lorry (Dec 18, 2019)

Zach_01 said:


> So now no errors?
> 
> Yes I have tRFC2/4 to the right values



ver 1.9 takes a year and a day to open as it scans the hardware it says (and by ages I mean like 5-10 mins!)
But it just calculated pi to 32,000,000 with now errors in just over 9 minutes

It's now completed every variation with no errors. For some reason though there seems to be a max number of variations that it logs



I'll set the tRFC2/4 after my meal
For tRFC 345...
tRFC2: 256
tRFC4: 158


----------



## Zach_01 (Dec 18, 2019)

I thought i give it a try... my God is taking long to open...!!


----------



## lorry (Dec 18, 2019)

Zach_01 said:


> I thought i give it a try... my God is taking long to open...!!



Did warn you
Said 5-10 mins, but it Does open

And oddly the old version still refuses to work


----------



## Zach_01 (Dec 18, 2019)

Just finished


----------



## lorry (Dec 18, 2019)

Zach_01 said:


> Just finished
> 
> View attachment 139787


Only 8 secs longer than mine and I have the 3900x


----------



## Zach_01 (Dec 18, 2019)

Dont have a clue if this is affected a lot by RAM except single core performance. I constanly getting ~68ns in AIDA and calc bench ~67ns, time ~135 but this is so low because I have half the threads. "Only" 12.
In general Ryzen3000 CPUs have small differences in single core perf.


----------



## lorry (Dec 18, 2019)

Zach_01 said:


> Dont have a clue if this is affected a lot by RAM except single core performance. I constanly getting ~68ns in AIDA and calc bench ~67ns, time ~135 but this is so low because I have half the threads. "Only" 12.
> In general Ryzen3000 CPUs have small differences in single core perf.



Just finished dram membench after changing tfrc2/4
68.4 latency, so down a fraction but 223.04 time

Just going to run Aida now









So nothing much has really changed


----------



## Zach_01 (Dec 18, 2019)

See the RM red box
If you like copy the ones that are lower than yours and give it a try


----------



## lorry (Dec 18, 2019)

Zach_01 said:


> See the RM red box
> If you like copy the ones that are lower than yours and give it a try
> 
> View attachment 139799



in bios?


----------



## Zach_01 (Dec 18, 2019)

Yep... First save current profile.


----------



## lorry (Dec 18, 2019)

Zach_01 said:


> Yep... First save current profile.



a;ready saved, twice



Zach_01 said:


> See the RM red box
> If you like copy the ones that are lower than yours and give it a try
> 
> View attachment 139799



trrdl I have 10, you have 11
tcke I have 0, you have 1
tfaw i have 38, you have 20
trdrdDd i have 5, you have 4
twrwDd i have 7, you have 6


----------



## Zach_01 (Dec 18, 2019)

You try the last 3 and I will try the first 2.... lol


----------



## lorry (Dec 18, 2019)

lorry said:


> a;ready saved, twice
> 
> 
> 
> ...



hahahahaha

ok I'll try the last three once I have stabbed my dog in his neck 
(before you panic, he is diabetic and requires an insulin injection twice daily)

I went to try the last 3 settings @Zach_01 and wasn't sure about some of the settings, as although RM reported them as whatever, in the bios they were set on auto with a chipset figure that I thought was different?







the tfaw in particular, chipset says 23, RM says 38  ??


----------



## Zach_01 (Dec 18, 2019)

Those 2 columns on the right are drawn from one of the JEDEC profiles 2133 1.2V DRAM voltage. These are not auto settings for 3600 not even 3200 XMP profile. You can see it on the top... the 21.33 multi.
What you see in RM are current values for all auto timing settings




I tried the...
tRRDL 10
tCKE  0
...but did not see any significant change


----------



## lorry (Dec 18, 2019)

Zach_01 said:


> Those 2 columns on the right are drawn from one of the JEDEC profiles 2133 1.2V DRAM voltage. These are not auto settings for 3600 not even 3200 XMP profile. You can see it on the top... the 21.33 multi.
> What you see in RM are current values for all auto timing settings
> 
> View attachment 139814
> ...



Ah, I did wonder if that was the case. 
In the end I played with Gigabyte's SIV, system information viewer, which is sort of a win version of Smart Fan 5.
Beat it into submission so to speak. It's actually pretty good, you can tie in each fan to the various built in temperature sensors that are on the MB. 
I got all the fans working so that their noise wasn't intrusive when it sat at the desktop And had the CPU temp below 50c most of the time, with the occasional spike up to 52c.

I call that a win.


----------



## Zach_01 (Dec 18, 2019)

Yes I'm using SIV from day one. Really handy...


----------



## lorry (Dec 19, 2019)

I've just tried those settings and like you they didn't seem to do much
So, what next?


----------



## Zach_01 (Dec 19, 2019)

lorry said:


> So, what next?


1 out of 2...
1. Decrease some timings (could improve latency) 
2. Increase speed (1833-1866-1900) with potential loosen timings (improve bandwidth and could improve latency)

...the second is what will make the most difference


----------



## lorry (Dec 19, 2019)

Zach_01 said:


> 1 out of 2...
> 1. Decrease some timings (could improve latency)
> 2. Increase speed (1833-1866-1900) with potential loosen timings (improve bandwidth and could improve latency)
> 
> ...the second is what will make the most difference



Which of the two are usually chosen, and why?
And which is the more important? Speed or latency?

And should I go back into UEFI timings and* set tRCDRD from 17 back to 16 again* ?

Also, on another note - when I can finally look to get an open loop for it, I was looking to install the radiator up top and keep the 2 X 200mm front fans, to aid with overall cooling.
Does that make sense?


----------



## Zach_01 (Dec 19, 2019)

lorry said:


> Which of the two are usually chosen, and why?
> And which is the more important? Speed or latency?
> And should I go back into UEFI timings and* set tRCDRD from 17 back to 16 again* ?


Both benefit different things. I would say that you will see the most difference with increasing the speed of DRAM. This will increase GB/s and reduce latency.
For tRCDRD you can leave it 17. It will help if you go 1833.
You can try it whenever you like. Just set memory multi to 36.66 and FCLK to 1833, without touching anything else for now (voltages or timings). You will see if you need to alter anything else when you boot and go into win, run a few benches, AAA gaming is a nice stability test...



lorry said:


> Also, on another note - when I can finally look to get an open loop for it, I was looking to install the radiator up top and keep the 2 X 200mm front fans, to aid with overall cooling.
> Does that make sense?


I dont have experience with water cooling other than the 280mm AIO I have (doesnt count much). And I dont have a case either. What I know is that the best way to keep the water as cool as possible is to place the rad in front of the case as intake to the coolest possible ambient air. But since the front 200mm fans cant be placed differently (like at the top) if I understant it correctly, then you really dont have other option but to place the rad at top as exhaust. If you keep high air flow (case) then the inside of the case would be as close to ambient as possible.

I think when the time comes for this you should start a separate thread for this.


----------



## lorry (Dec 19, 2019)

Zach_01 said:


> Both benefit different things. I would say that you will see the most difference with increasing the speed of DRAM. This will increase GB/s and reduce latency.
> For tRCDRD you can leave it 17. It will help if you go 1833.
> You can try it whenever you like. Just set memory multi to 36.66 and FCLK to 1833, without touching anything else for now (voltages or timings). You will see if you need to alter anything else when you boot and go into win, run a few benches, AAA gaming is a nice stability test...
> 
> ...



The TRCDRD I returned to 16,as it seemed to produce better R20 results (around 90 points more in fact),but easily changed as needed. 
I'll have a proper read of this tomorrow as I'm on the phone right now, thank you. 

Re the open loop, I was mostly just asking out of curiosity for now, but I can run the 2 x 200mm fans up top, the case is big enough for that but that should then mean I cut look at a far thicker radiator, as it's limited to 43mm up top. May have to cut back the PSU shroud somewhat (not checked the specs for how thick a front radiator it can take), but as it's already had small sections cut out to allow the vertical GPU mount, that's no biggie. 

On a totally different note not sure how good geekbench results are, but here's mine



			lawrencewilliams's Profile  - Geekbench Browser


----------



## ShrimpBrime (Dec 19, 2019)

lorry said:


> Also, on another note - when I can finally look to get an open loop for it, I was looking to install the radiator up top and keep the 2 X 200mm front fans, to aid with overall cooling.
> Does that make sense?



If you are going custom, you want more than one radiator. 
OverKill is never bad. More radiator = less fan noise also.
I would think about a case better fitted for liquid cooling. (imo)


----------



## lorry (Dec 19, 2019)

ShrimpBrime said:


> If you are going custom, you want more than one radiator.
> OverKill is never bad. More radiator = less fan noise also.
> I would think about a case better fitted for liquid cooling. (imo)



Its quite large as it is and can have at least 2 x 360 rads I know
Did think about the cooler master cm700 I think it was (their flash one with rails up top and angles glass doors) but it's base weight is quite high and although my desk is fine I wasn't too sure about the total weight. 
But I have now found somewhere local that sells used pub/restaurant/old tables that are solid wood for good prices, so really just a matter of timing it right for when they get something close to what I want.


----------



## Zach_01 (Dec 19, 2019)




----------



## lorry (Dec 19, 2019)

Cool


----------



## ShrimpBrime (Dec 19, 2019)

lorry said:


> Its quite large as it is and can have at least 2 x 360 rads I know
> Did think about the cooler master cm700 I think it was (their flash one with rails up top and angles glass doors) but it's base weight is quite high and although my desk is fine I wasn't too sure about the total weight.
> But I have now found somewhere local that sells used pub/restaurant/old tables that are solid wood for good prices, so really just a matter of timing it right for when they get something close to what I want.


I have a TJ07 case. I ran 2x 120.3 and an 80.2 on the back and 120.2 on the top. Side panel off and case fans front intake. Was going to mod the side panel glass to fit 220mm for Intake but decided to just leave the panel off. 
I could game with all but the two 80mm fans turned off. Basically passively cooled, but always turn a fan or to for safe measures.


----------



## lorry (Dec 19, 2019)

ShrimpBrime said:


> I have a TJ07 case. I ran 2x 120.3 and an 80.2 on the back and 120.2 on the top. Side panel off and case fans front intake. Was going to mod the side panel glass to fit 220mm for Intake but decided to just leave the panel off.
> I could game with all but the two 80mm fans turned off. Basically passively cooled, but always turn a fan or to for safe measures.



Who makes that?


----------



## ShrimpBrime (Dec 19, 2019)

lorry said:


> Who makes that?


SilverStone.


----------



## lorry (Dec 19, 2019)

ShrimpBrime said:


> SilverStone.



Just looked, it's a nice size


----------



## ShrimpBrime (Dec 19, 2019)

lorry said:


> Just looked, it's a nice size



Huge is often what I like to use lol.
It can house 2 power supplies.


----------



## lorry (Dec 20, 2019)

Zach_01 said:


> Both benefit different things. I would say that you will see the most difference with increasing the speed of DRAM. This will increase GB/s and reduce latency.
> For tRCDRD you can leave it 17. It will help if you go 1833.
> You can try it whenever you like. Just set memory multi to 36.66 and FCLK to 1833, without touching anything else for now (voltages or timings). You will see if you need to alter anything else when you boot and go into win, run a few benches, AAA gaming is a nice stability test...



Would you suggest V1 or V2 timings?


----------



## Zach_01 (Dec 20, 2019)

I would say to just raise clocks to 3666/1833 and leave all others as you have them right now.
If you DRAM is now 1.4V give it +0.1~0.2V. If its 1.45V then just raise clocks.


----------



## lorry (Dec 20, 2019)

Zach_01 said:


> I would say to just raise clocks to 3666/1833 and leave all others as you have them right now.
> If you DRAM is now 1.4V give it +0.1~0.2V. If its 1.45V then just raise clocks.



MEM VDDIO is at 1.45 v according to RM, so just raise the clocks



Zach_01 said:


> Both benefit different things. I would say that you will see the most difference with increasing the speed of DRAM. This will increase GB/s and reduce latency.
> For tRCDRD you can leave it 17. It will help if you go 1833.
> You can try it whenever you like. Just set memory multi to 36.66 and FCLK to 1833, without touching anything else for now (voltages or timings). You will see if you need to alter anything else when you boot and go into win, run a few benches, AAA gaming is a nice stability test...




Running 3666 now.
Currently, doing some Prime95. (on 3rd run currently)
Dram membench latency is down to 69.0 now, time is pretty much the same


Aida64 are the best figures across the board yet, including latency


Interestingly the Geekbench 5 scores are different - the single core score has gone up and the multi core has gone down somewhat, I'll do some more later on to see






						Gigabyte Technology Co., Ltd. X470 AORUS GAMING 7 WIFI  - Geekbench Browser
					

Benchmark results for a Gigabyte Technology Co., Ltd. X470 AORUS GAMING 7 WIFI with an AMD Ryzen 9 3900X processor.



					browser.geekbench.com
				




I have noted that there are some differences between Dram Cal settings and my actual, as follows (how much, if any, difference would they make?). Worth trying?

                              Dram figures         Mine

tFAW                    36                           39
tWTRS                 4                            5
tWTRL                 12                          14
tWR                     12                           26
tRFC                    351                        345
tRTP                    8                            14
tWRRD                4                            3
tWWRWE SD      7                            6
tRDRD SD           5                            4
tRFC2                  ?                            258
tFRC4                  ?                             158
CAD_BUS CsOdtDrv 20                 24







On a separate note, there seems to be quite a discrepancy between RM and HWinfo regarding the cpu temperature (core temp seems to agree with HWinfo BTW)
You can see in this picture that there looks to be about a 7 degree discrepancy, which is quite significant I feel


----------



## Zach_01 (Dec 20, 2019)

As the speed of DRAM increases the board is also auto-increasing timings that are set to auto. This adds stability but loosing some of the performance gained by speed-up (especially loosing latency). Actually wou gain quiet the bandwidth!!

You could try the suggested timings of the calc but prepare for potential instability, errors, crashes and even BSODs. But you can try... it doesnt hurt the hardware.
I did try all the calc suggested timings (V1) for 3666/1833 with 1.42V DRAM so far but the system was completely unstable and restarted while gaming. For heads-up, the V1 profiles are for high quality and expensive b-dies. I may try it again with 1.45V DRAM voltage.

RM's reported temp is different on all Ryzen3000 compared to HWiNFO. AMD in RM uses a proprietary method for temp reporting unknown to public. For me the RM temp is some kind of an average between the absolute hot spot(Tctl/Tdie) and the hottest CCD(Tdie). Dont mind that and keep consulting HW, the temps that reports are as accurate as possible. You will notice that RM temp value will almost match HWiNFO value at max temp. At that point the *"Tctl/Tdie"*, the hottest CCD *"Tdie"*, the CPU DIE *"average"* and the RM temp will be as close as possible. Again I say, only at max load/temp.

Its really nice that you got to 1833 without errors to begin with... 

The numbers speak for them selves...
Memory row is most important.
+6~9GB/s and -8~9ns


----------



## lorry (Dec 20, 2019)

Zach_01 said:


> As the speed of DRAM increases the board is also auto-increasing timings that are set to auto. This adds stability but loosing some of the performance gained by speed-up (especially loosing latency). Actually wou gain quiet the bandwidth!!
> 
> You could try the suggested timings of the calc but prepare for potential instability, errors, crashes and even BSODs. But you can try... it doesnt hurt the hardware.
> I did try all the calc suggested timings (V1) for 3666/1833 with 1.42V DRAM so far but the system was completely unstable and restarted while gaming. For heads-up, the V1 profiles are for high quality and expensive b-dies. I may try it again with 1.45V DRAM voltage.
> ...



Thing is that Apart from those settings that I posted, I Am using V1 profile -  for most of the major timings anyway -
tCL 16, tRCDWR 16, tRCDRD 16, tRP 16, tRAS 32, tRC 48, tRRDS 6, tRRDS 8, tRDRD SWL 5, tWRWR SCL 5, tCWL 16, tRDWR 8, tWRWR SC 1, tWRWR DD 7, tRDRD SC 1, tRDRD DD 5

These are the only ones that differ -

                              Dram figures         Mine

tFAW                    36                           39
tWTRS                 4                            5
tWTRL                 12                          14
tWR                     12                           26
tRFC                    351                        345
tRTP                    8                            14
tWRRD                4                            3
tWWRWE SD      7                            6
tRDRD SD           5                            4
tRFC2                  ?                            258
tFRC4                  ?                             158
CAD_BUS CsOdtDrv 20                 24


----------



## Zach_01 (Dec 20, 2019)

We (both) cant say that we use V1 profile because the profile includes all settings. The remaining timings can make some or a lot difference between gaining further performance(GB/s - ns) and/or introducing instability.
You can try them, nothing to loose but time. I did as I said (but with 1.42V) and didnt work. I probably try them again with 1.45V but I dont get my hopes too high.


----------



## lorry (Dec 20, 2019)

Zach_01 said:


> We (both) cant say that we use V1 profile because the profile includes all settings. The remaining timings can make some or a lot difference between gaining further performance(GB/s - ns) and/or introducing instability.
> You can try them, nothing to loose but time. I did as I said (but with 1.42V) and didnt work. I probably try them again with 1.45V but I dont get my hopes too high.



okay, i'll give them a try tomorrow, just for the heck of it, see what occurs. For sh*ts and giggles if nothing else.

By the way, now that I have got something decent, any thoughts on back up?
i have got EaseUS todo backup, but that only goes to an external drive which I really should only be running when backing up (not connected at any other time, to prevent any viruses getting onto it).
But I wondered about cloud backups etc etc?


----------



## ShrimpBrime (Dec 20, 2019)

tCL 16, tRCDWR 16, tRCDRD 16, tRP 16, tRAS 32, tRC 48 

Change tRas to 26 and Trc to 36, test here see if that helps latency a tad bit.


----------



## lorry (Dec 20, 2019)

ShrimpBrime said:


> tCL 16, tRCDWR 16, tRCDRD 16, tRP 16, tRAS 32, tRC 48
> 
> Change tRas to 26 and Trc to 36, test here see if that helps latency a tad bit.



What do those timings actually cover/do? 
I don't just want to copy numbers, which i will do obviously, but I would like to know what those timings do & what happens when you tighten them up like that? 

(yes, have got that explanation page bookmarked and even open in the bre, but I'm now upstairs on just my phone). 
Thanks


----------



## ShrimpBrime (Dec 20, 2019)

The answer was in the last statement, latency.

So to keep it basic.

Tight timing vs loose timing = exactly what it is.... a timing. 

So changing say Cas latency from 19 to 16 shaves off 3ns of "time" also why there are called "timing sets".

The less time information takes to be read, written and copied to memory the better.
Performance and latency gains for everyone!! 

If the Ram doesn't like it, most likely just a tad stability issue while it's a back-end of the main timing set so to speak. Bump the memory voltage up.

example.


----------



## lorry (Dec 20, 2019)

ShrimpBrime said:


> The answer was in the last statement, latency.
> 
> So to keep it basic.
> 
> ...



You say bump the memory voltage up, it's already at 1.45.
I thought that was about as high as you could reasonably go?


----------



## ShrimpBrime (Dec 20, 2019)

lorry said:


> You say bump the memory voltage up, it's already at 1.45.
> I thought that was about as high as you could reasonably go?



Well, Intel states 1.50v max. I've been to 1.9v (and more). Typically start at 1.5v - Many good clocks and timings at 1.60v.

Overclocking is a risk. Low voltage = lower risk.

The Rabbit hole. Did I mention something about that rabbit hole?? It's deep man.
So, You're learning and I never like putting numbers up high on open non overclocking forums for someone to come back and tell me that I made them break the stuff. Well. I give you the door and you open it. But you have to be the one to walk through. Results vary.

You can also think of different profile settings instead of just one. Like this.
Stock
Basic small oc.
General med oc for daily
OC scoring oc.

It's an example really. I typically have 3 or 4 profiles to play with.

3000Mhz Cas 12 or Cas 13 depending on the voltage I pick. Obviously the Cas 12 takes a tad more  My SK Hynix sticks at low speeds are no joke. They can do the same as my samsung sticks are the same frequency. My issue, much like yours is the motherboard memory support speeds (also my cpu more so than yours "imc") I can only get so much from the hardware. Once I find some settings that I like and perform well, I save that as a profile. At any time, load the profile and further tweak if in the mood for example.

I'm at 1.60v daily. I can NEVER recommend anyone to do the same as I do. But that's what my 2700x memory controller and RAM and board combo like most. I can get away with 1.56250v vs the 1.6000v, but I found less errors at a high voltage.

_____

In short..... you've started to oc and tweak. Got some ways to go. lol.


----------



## lorry (Dec 20, 2019)

ShrimpBrime said:


> Well, Intel states 1.50v max. I've been to 1.9v (and more). Typically start at 1.5v - Many good clocks and timings at 1.60v.
> 
> Overclocking is a risk. Low voltage = lower risk.
> 
> ...


Some ways he says, lol. That's a tad generous. I knew that I was somewhat limiting myself re the MB but at the time And with limited knowledge, well a damn sight less than now (and I still consider it limited now) I wasn't sure if the x570 boards were any good, nor who would need to bring out a revised board early due to some error. I know that the crosshair is considered The overclock board, but I'd heard if some negative vibes now coming out, so went with what I thought was a good board, if with an unconventional bios. 

The other thing that I have to consider is that I Only have one of all the major pc parts, so If I Bork it, I'm stuffed. 

Hence the slowly slowly, catchee monkey approach I can't work, so have all day, every day to time into this.


----------



## ShrimpBrime (Dec 20, 2019)

Yes I know. That's why I suggest older cheap hardware for hard overclocking adventures. It's the same, just older and slower lol. (and cheap, way cheaper)


----------



## lorry (Dec 21, 2019)

ShrimpBrime said:


> Yes I know. That's why I suggest older cheap hardware for hard overclocking adventures. It's the same, just older and slower lol. (and cheap, way cheaper)



OK, earlier you said Change tRas to 26 and Trc to 36,
Why those specific figures? That's the sort of reasoning I want to learn, why 26 and not say 28? I know that gear down mode disables odd numbers but why only shave 6 and not say, 8 off of that timing? 
Is that only from experience or is there a defined reason?


----------



## ShrimpBrime (Dec 21, 2019)

lorry said:


> OK, earlier you said Change tRas to 26 and Trc to 36,
> Why those specific figures? That's the sort of reasoning I want to learn, why 26 and not say 28? I know that gear down mode disables odd numbers but why only shave 6 and not say, 8 off of that timing?
> Is that only from experience or is there a defined reason?



Well it's a hand picked number from testing actually.
I generally get decent results 16-16-16-(26-36). You could do 28-38.


----------



## lorry (Dec 21, 2019)

ShrimpBrime said:


> Well it's a hand picked number from testing actually.
> I generally get decent results 16-16-16-(26-36). You could do 28-38.



I wondered if it was simply results from earlier testing, thanks


----------



## ShrimpBrime (Dec 21, 2019)

lorry said:


> I wondered if it was simply results from earlier testing, thanks



Well the nice thing is it's tested across more than one make and model of memory on a couple of different cpus. Granted not a 3900x, but none the less, we aren't talking about high frequencies here. Your at 3600mhz, may as well take advantage everywhere you can. 

CL 16 is still on the loose end at 3600mhz. 
Here's a better example of memory tweaking. 
Keep in mind the imc of the 2700x is not as strong as your 3900x


----------



## lorry (Dec 21, 2019)

ShrimpBrime said:


> Well the nice thing is it's tested across more than one make and model of memory on a couple of different cpus. Granted not a 3900x, but none the less, we aren't talking about high frequencies here. Your at 3600mhz, may as well take advantage everywhere you can.
> 
> CL 16 is still on the loose end at 3600mhz.
> Here's a better example of memory tweaking.
> ...



i'm now on 3666


----------



## ShrimpBrime (Dec 21, 2019)

lorry said:


> i'm now on 3666



My 8700K is running 4300mhz 16-16-16 and is partly because my memory in that system are 4277mhz rated cas 19, and the imc on the 8700k is pretty powerful.

Your 3900X has a pretty decent memory controller. Again, we are back to talking about the motherboard capabilities..... your original should have X570 comment was pretty spot on.
And having purchased a higher frequency memory kit would help as well. Remember I mentioned binning speeds. 

For what it is, you're doing very very well. No joke you have the memory well past it's rated XMP and I'm proud you've accomplished this so far. 

According to AMD, memory frequencies up to 4200mhz should be common. 

See a lot of people are bent on keeping 1:1:1 infinity fabric and so forth. Well even if you ran 2:1 for example, you could make up for it with these tweaks to the timings and have significant performance gains at these much higher clock frequencies. And that depends most certainly on the main timing set and command rate (1T/2T) plus voltage required. 

Understanding it is half the battle. Having expensive hardware can sometimes be the other half lol. 

So passing 3600mhz, you want to unlink the infinity fabric.


----------



## lorry (Dec 21, 2019)

ShrimpBrime said:


> My 8700K is running 4300mhz 16-16-16 and is partly because my memory in that system are 4277mhz rated cas 19, and the imc on the 8700k is pretty powerful.
> 
> Your 3900X has a pretty decent memory controller. Again, we are back to talking about the motherboard capabilities..... your original should have X570 comment was pretty spot on.
> And having purchased a higher frequency memory kit would help as well. Remember I mentioned binning speeds.
> ...



What exactly does unlocking the infinity fabric do then?


----------



## ShrimpBrime (Dec 21, 2019)

Its a fancy term replacing Hyper Transport which is the interconnect for peripherals. 
Like everything else, it only clocks so far before stability.

You will still benefit with unlinked and high ram speeds.

At work so dont have time to explain in further detail. 
One of the other gentleman here may be able to help. I wont be home for at least 10 hours.


----------



## Zach_01 (Dec 21, 2019)

Personally I dont recommend uncoupling the UCLK from MEMCLK and FCLK


----------



## ShrimpBrime (Dec 21, 2019)

Can you explain why not to uncouple? 

Is that to keep low memory speeds.

No reason to keep it linked actually. The performance hit is so small....


----------



## Zach_01 (Dec 21, 2019)

Its the only way to keep latency low and the bandwidth as high as possible.
The videos showing this.

Only Threadripper3000 sees benefits with uncoupled clocks because of quad mem channel and huge cache.


----------



## ShrimpBrime (Dec 21, 2019)

Zach_01 said:


> Its the only way to keep latency low and the bandwidth as high as possible.
> The videos showing this.
> 
> Only Threadripper3000 sees benefits with uncoupled clocks because of quad mem channel and huge cache.



Latency comes from raw memory speeds. 

These chips are capable of running far past 4000mhz.  

HT frequency and NB frequency only yields small performance gains and the loose stability because cannot remain linked at say even 3800mhz or 4000mhz. 

So thw infinity fabric linked is really only good up to 3600mhz.

Pretty sure TPU has a small write up about this but where unable to test high memory frequency because they wanted to keep fabric linked.

Since Nb and Ht dont bring a lot to the table, you go as fast as you can and push memory further. No different than past generations.....

Most top clockers are not running 3200mhz or even 3600mhz memory frequencies. 
The budget minded fabric link is not neccessary for performance gains, they can be found elsewhere.... And is why you guys tweak timings.


----------



## cucker tarlson (Dec 21, 2019)

Zach_01 said:


> Yes there is confusion about the clocks and the boost behavior. All this couldn’t be explained while marketing the chip, and we as users are used to very different things and definition of boosting.
> While AMD did not lie about boosting... did not disclosure the whole truth about boost (and it’s factors) either. For me the bottom line is that the performance is real as promised.


as long as you've got decent cooling.
e.g. running box coolers can impact min. fps tremendously,with over 10% difference


----------



## lorry (Dec 21, 2019)

Interesting discussion, of which I have no experience to even begin to  contribute to sadly.
Not been able to do any testing today - got a decent deal on cloud storage (2TB), ran a file back up fine (eventually) but I decided to add 123GB of USB  up there, Big mistake! Now on hour 5 out of 8!
It would have been quicker to add them to the SSD temporarily and uploaded them that way I think.
Then out with a friend this evening, so no chance to try out any settings









						Optimal FCLK vs MCLK
					

Sheet1  MCLK,max possible FCLK MCLK,1766 FLCK,1800 FCLK,1833 FCLK,1866 FCLK,1900 FCLK,1933 FCLK 2133,1766,1800,1833,1866,1900,1933 2400,1766,1800,1833,1866,1900,1933 2666,1766,1800,1833,1866,1900,1933 2933,1766,1800,1833,1866,1900,1933 3200,1766,1800,1833,1866,1900,1933 3333,1666,1666,1833,1866,1900




					docs.google.com


----------



## ShrimpBrime (Dec 21, 2019)

AMD Zen 2 Memory Performance Scaling with Ryzen 9 3900X
					

We take a close look at memory scaling on AMD's new Zen 2 Ryzen 3900X, testing both application and gaming performance at seven different memory speed and timing combinations ranging from 2400 MHz all the way up to 4000 MHz.




					www.techpowerup.com


----------



## Zach_01 (Dec 22, 2019)

ShrimpBrime said:


> AMD Zen 2 Memory Performance Scaling with Ryzen 9 3900X
> 
> 
> We take a close look at memory scaling on AMD's new Zen 2 Ryzen 3900X, testing both application and gaming performance at seven different memory speed and timing combinations ranging from 2400 MHz all the way up to 4000 MHz.
> ...


Its nice but I would like to see more variations and combinations at the 3600~3800 space, like with medium and low CLs and 1T...
That 3600 2T CL17-19-19... man...

@lorry how is it going? Made any changes?
Here is my latest... care to try?



If you decide to give it a try dont just copy all of them. Remember the last section down at the bottom (from ProcODT and after) it should be different due to your 4 sticks vs 2 (mine). Consult the calc or leave them auto. Do try the Gear/Power down disabled tho...

ProcODT: CPU *O*n-*D*ie *T*ermination


----------



## lorry (Dec 22, 2019)

Zach_01 said:


> Its nice but I would like to see more variations and combinations at the 3600~3800 space, like with medium and low CLs and 1T...
> That 3600 2T CL17-19-19... man...
> 
> @lorry how is it going? Made any changes?
> ...



Not been able to do anything today or yesterday sadly. I've been trying out Idrive to see how much use they are as a back up. As a simple individual cloud file back up they seem ok, but as an image back up they look to be Far too slow. Tried a drive image and Watching paint dry was faster. Just trying out their system image now to see if it is Any faster as the drive image was only 250MB per minute upload speed (they are in the USA).

What back up do you use?

These are the settings recommended for mine


----------



## Zach_01 (Dec 22, 2019)

Other than OneDrive for my photos/documents/pictures/screenshots, and iCloudDrive nothing else really...


----------



## lorry (Dec 22, 2019)

Zach_01 said:


> Other than OneDrive for my photos/documents/pictures/screenshots, and iCloudDrive nothing else really...



but it's such a PITA installing from scratch again surely?

May just use my external drive as a system back up and leave it at that


----------



## Zach_01 (Dec 22, 2019)

lorry said:


> but it's such a PITA installing from scratch again surely?


It is... but not how its used to be like a decade ago. Things install alot faster now, and with the sync abilities that are available I can have back most things within a couple of hours. And its been a long time since I had a drive (HDD) failure, and any of my SSDs did not so far. I'm not prone to OS data corruption as a user either, so...
Anyway, I dont recommend my practices to anyone!


----------



## lorry (Dec 22, 2019)

Zach_01 said:


> It is... but not how its used to be like a decade ago. Things install alot faster now, and with the sync abilities that are available I can have back most things within a couple of hours. And its been a long time since I had a drive (HDD) failure, and any of my SSDs did not so far. I'm not prone to OS data corruption as a user either, so...
> Anyway, I dont recommend my practices to anyone!



what sync abilities are you talking about?


----------



## Zach_01 (Dec 22, 2019)

Nothing special, settings, preferences, bookmarks, user names and passwords(norton 360 vault).
I only going to miss game progress and even for this there is "GameSave Manager"...


----------



## lorry (Dec 23, 2019)

Zach_01 said:


> Nothing special, settings, preferences, bookmarks, user names and passwords(norton 360 vault).
> I only going to miss game progress and even for this there is "GameSave Manager"...



What is desperately needed is something like the Google sync on Android. I know there is sync in Win but that is really only themes and bookmarks & passwords on IE and who uses that these days?

I'll have a try at 3733 MHz today, see IF it's any good. Wasted two days on that backup rubbish now, just going to stick with what I have, the external drive and back up to that and not have it connected except for the weekly back up.

Your settings for 3733 are tighter than what is suggested for my ram though


----------



## Zach_01 (Dec 23, 2019)

lorry said:


> Your settings for 3733 are tighter than what is suggested for my ram though


Yes, so was mine from the calc, looser. I kept a combination of V1 and V2 settings and between fast and safe...
Most of them are on auto in UEFI except the usual...

tCL -  *16*
tRCDWR -  *16*
tRCDRD -  *16*
tRP -  *16*
tRAS -  *32*
tRC -  *48*
tFAW -  *36*  (to be tested: 20/28)
tRFC/2/4 -  *351/261/160*  (to be tested: 345/256/158)
tCKE -  *9*  (to be tested: 1)

PowerDown -  Disabled
GearDown -  Disabled

DRAM voltage -  1.46V
SOC voltage auto with SOC LLC at medium
cLDO VDDP -  950mV
cLDO VDDG - 1000mV


----------



## lorry (Dec 23, 2019)

Zach_01 said:


> Yes, so was mine from the calc, looser. I kept a combination of V1 and V2 settings and between fast and safe...
> Most of them are on auto in UEFI except the usual...
> 
> tCL -  *16*
> ...





   

   

That's with 16-17-17-17-60-480 and gear down mode disabled

Does R20 fine, Blender not as yet tried it with anything else as yet - had some issues to deal with

there is no V2 for mine - not supported it said?


----------



## Zach_01 (Dec 23, 2019)

There is no V2 "fast" beyond 3600 yes... thats why I mixed them up with V1.
You gained some more bandwidth from speed up, but latency is pretty much the same because of the loosen timings.
Its normal results...


----------



## lorry (Dec 23, 2019)

Zach_01 said:


> There is no V2 "fast" beyond 3600 yes... thats why I mixed them up with V1.
> You gained some more bandwidth from speed up, but latency is pretty much the same because of the loosen timings.
> Its normal results...



Yeah I wanted to see If it would do it first of all, then see if I could tighten up the timings somewhat.
It booted first time, no ram training needed



Zach_01 said:


> There is no V2 "fast" beyond 3600 yes... thats why I mixed them up with V1.
> You gained some more bandwidth from speed up, but latency is pretty much the same because of the loosen timings.
> Its normal results...



  

one says 65.9 the other 67.5 ??

need to go back into bios though the tRFC is still 480, could have sworn I put that to 351?




Now at 351
I can Inadvertently confirm that TCKe 1 works, as that's what mine is I think?
Latency is now respectable , Dram saying 64.8, Aida reporting 66.5. That's still a difference though, how come, just a variation in progs and the actual times that you run it?

Could you have a look over the settings please, see if they are now all correct? Thanks

 

 

Notice though that your cmd2t is 1t whereas mine is 2t  ?

Should I be trying for 1T ?




okay 1t now sorted out, seems okay in Dram memtest and Aida64
64.5 for Dram, 66.4 for Aida64

My tRFC/2/4 is 351/256/160 as well


----------



## Zach_01 (Dec 23, 2019)

Very nice results!
From what I see all settings are ok...

It is common and acceptable to see variations of results (latency and bandwidth) between 2 different benches due to different way of measurements.
And with ZEN2 and it’s variable boost behavior at same conditions (complicating things further) it’s even common and acceptable to get different results within the same bench. In order to get accurate results one must lock CPU speed to static, but not all are doing so. I don’t, like most users.


----------



## lorry (Dec 24, 2019)

Zach_01 said:


> Very nice results!
> From what I see all settings are ok...
> 
> It is common and acceptable to see variations of results (latency and bandwidth) between 2 different benches due to different way of measurements.
> And with ZEN2 and it’s variable boost behavior at same conditions (complicating things further) it’s even common and acceptable to get different results within the same bench. In order to get accurate results one must lock CPU speed to static, but not all are doing so. I don’t, like most users.



Yes I thought that was likely to be the case, I was expecting there to have been a smaller discrepancy though, say 1ns but not higher
Where would you suggest that I go from here?
I would imagine tightening up those timings but which ones and why please?
I reckon that This is where the real learning begins, knowing what can be tweaked and what should be left alone, etc ?


----------



## lorry (Dec 25, 2019)

Just realised that my R20 scores seem to be lower? 7033 best compared to what was 7300 ?
Thoughts?


----------



## Zach_01 (Dec 25, 2019)

Must not be about the ram tho... CB scores are not so much affected by small DRAM differences.
Boost clocks maybe? =temp related?
Other benchmarks?


----------



## lorry (Dec 25, 2019)

Zach_01 said:


> Must not be about the ram tho... CB scores are not so much affected by small DRAM differences.
> Boost clocks maybe? =temp related?
> Other benchmarks?



All looking lower, not sure why

temps are no different than usual

@Zach_01
Merry Christmas
Interestingly powerdown mode enabled incurs about a 2ns increase in my ram latency.

OH, and 345/256/158 works, gave me my best latency in Aida64 so far





Just out of interest, any thoughts on this? Settings are off, moderate, maximum


----------



## Zach_01 (Dec 26, 2019)

lorry said:


> All looking lower, not sure why
> 
> temps are no different than usual
> 
> ...


Marry Christmas and wishing good health as possible to all people!

PowerDown mode is about power savings of memory. If enabled it decreases voltage when ram not used. So I believe that disabled helps response of the Ram and that may be the cause of latency difference.

With very similar settings I have the same latency (66~66.5ns AIDA) and I consider it a win situation from my initial 73ns, given the cost and quality of my Ram.

The LinkStatePowerManagement of PCI-E I know for sure that when is enabled (mod/max) is about decreasing the “x” (like from x16 to x8) when it’s not heavy used at least for the GPU slot. Also can decrease general bandwidth of the link (like from gen3 to gen1.1) You can check your current PCI-E link with GPU-Z.
It’s a more of a laptop power saving feature and not so crucial for desktops. I have it off.

Also I’m not sure if affects other PCI-E devices like NVMe drives.


----------



## lorry (Dec 26, 2019)

Zach_01 said:


> Marry Christmas and wishing good health as possible to all people!
> 
> PowerDown mode is about power savings of memory. If enabled it decreases voltage when ram not used. So I believe that disabled helps response of the Ram and that may be the cause of latency difference.
> 
> ...



Good health would be a Seriously wonderful present to me, seeing as my own immune system has decided to wage war against me, heh.
Same for you and yours though 

I'll try setting it off and see if it makes any difference - wonder why it is even turned on in the 1usmus? Not like many are going to be running Ryzen 3000 on laptops surely?

i feel that not many must be using geekbench 5 right now, as I am smashing the hell out of their 3900x figures



			lawrencewilliams's Profile  - Geekbench Browser
		




			AMD Ryzen 9 3900X Benchmarks  - Geekbench Browser
		


Oddly R20 continues to be 200 points lower than pre ram overclocking, any thoughts as to why? I'm not particularly concerned just interested in ideas.
Also i take it that it Now time to begin tweaking for real? if so, what and why?


----------



## Fry178 (Dec 26, 2019)

Skipped a couple pages when it started to go into timing details, so i might state what was already posted.

i would get a cheap internal hdd (better ssd) to use exclusively for (windows) backups like true image,
this way it eliminates the need to reinstall/redo settings if oc/tweak goes wrong or in case of infection.
dont worry about it getting the drive infected, they are looking for win install or data, not cloned-drive data.
im doing images after changes/installs, e.g. pretty often, so i installed games on a seperate drive to keep C drive small,
with nvme to ssd it takes about 2-3 min to clone about 50GB of data.


with Ryzen 3xxx cpus usually running IF at 1800 (1900) is best, so running 3600 on the ram should have priority over lower timings.
one reason im fine to run some cheap corsair (3600/18-22-22-42T1 @1.35).
any power saving stuff like gear/power down should be off, but i read some ram using 2T doing better with it turned on (will see if i remember the site).

x570 power design/limits arent a bottleneck for ryzen anymore (outside some lower end/value boards),
heat transfer (small chip) is one of the biggest limiters "we" can affect, and one reason why a proper block (performance wise) will be around 60-80$ (XSPC Raystorm pro) and up.
anything below will not really make big difference to even an aio.
e.g. i've seen a noticeable drop (min/max temp) swapping thermal paste for liquid metal, compared to what i saw going from H100i to Eisbaer (using same fans).


with the latest bios, build 1909 and newest chipset driver (+ amd profile), clocks/performance is as expected/advertised.
i prefer to tweak the amd plan, as the 1usmus plan does not change core affinity (only MS update/fix will do that)
and only gains performance by preventing cores from going to sleep (faster/deeper).

since im running a UPS (that also allows for quick switching between profiles like on a lappy), im using 2 profiles.
power savings is set to 0/50% (min/max cpu) thus locking clocks to 2200 (R5 3600).
not once did i see a negative impact on stuff like surfing/streaming etc, UHD video playback or running older games.
even on the balanced profile i have min cpu set to 30% (not 99%) which lowers voltage/avg temp noticeable  (about 5-10*C less),
and short of some 1080p high fps games/or feeding a 2080ti monster, shouldn't impact gameplay at all.
i mean i ran synthetic benches and had sub 1% diff.

And as said before dont use the pcie power savings setting, it affects not just the gpu, but also other stuff like drives.


----------



## lorry (Dec 26, 2019)

Fry178 said:


> Skipped a couple pages when it started to go into timing details, so i might state what was already posted.
> 
> i would get a cheap internal hdd (better ssd) to use exclusively for (windows) backups like true image,
> this way it eliminates the need to reinstall/redo settings if oc/tweak goes wrong or in case of infection.
> ...



I have 2 SSD already (no more SSD drives on this MB). No money ATM for Anything else, I maxed it all. There is an external 3TB usb drive as a physical backup.

3600 gave me crap latency

i do not have a x570 mb, I have a x470 mb and will do for the foreseeable future

it is build 1909, everything is up to date

No idea what running UPS has to do with profiles and power savings
my light usage see temps around 50c and have a 2070 super

as far as pcie power savings go i am as yet undecided - as from initial explorations seems to suggest that for some reason turning that off impacts performance _ram latency etc)


----------



## Fry178 (Dec 26, 2019)

because windows only shows the battery icon when its a laptop, or when running a UPS,
which allows me to switch profiles a lot quicker.

one reason most will not use more than one profile (and either giving up perf, or will get higher temps)
is because they dont care to open settings every time to change between them.

change min cpu to something like 30% and you will see temps drop even more.
the 99% only makes ryzen act like its on meth, and even a 3600 "crippled" to 2.2ghz is fast enough
to feel much snappier (running win) than my i7 running at 3.9 on all cores.
i just dont see why i would run (any) cpu at higher clocks, than the min needed to do office/browsing etc.

not sure if thats a problem with your HW or the x470 in general,
on mine but using amd balanced plan, there is ZERO diff between running it off/min or even on max (70ns).


----------



## lorry (Dec 26, 2019)

Fry178 said:


> because windows only shows the battery icon when its a laptop, or when running a UPS,
> which allows me to switch profiles a lot quicker.
> 
> one reason most will not use more than one profile (and either giving up perf, or will get higher temps)
> ...



I am new to All of this, so I have no idea quite what you are on about, or what point(s) you are trying to make


----------



## Fry178 (Dec 26, 2019)

because i wanted to state that a lot of ppl are too lazy to switch profiles, hence using the balanced plan only (which causes higher temps).

which is easier/quicker when you have a battery icon in the taskbar (laptop/UPS) allowing to switch profiles with 2 clicks (vs up to 7).

i most ppl are using the 99/100% for min/max cpu state, which keeps the cpu clocks artificially high (to keep the system responsive),
but even with fixed very low clocks i still dont see any impact on performance 3.6-4.2 vs 2.2), but temps dropped by 10C.


----------



## lorry (Dec 26, 2019)

Fry178 said:


> because i wanted to state that a lot of ppl are too lazy to switch profiles, hence using the balanced plan only (which causes higher temps).
> 
> which is easier/quicker when you have a battery icon in the taskbar (laptop/UPS) allowing to switch profiles with 2 clicks (vs up to 7).
> 
> ...



the frequency lows are between 0.8MHz to 200MHz, across all cores. The temps currently are 46c on air cooled, browsing, watching Youtube etc, they are hardly high


----------



## Fry178 (Dec 26, 2019)

oh, not saying they are high.
but im running water for cpu and gpu, so can exclude heat from other components affecting this:
32-34*C on low load (0/50), but on balanced (30/100) increases temps by  5-15*C, but nothing runs "better" (win/browser/videos).

as long as its allowed to boost, temps on avg will be about 10*C higher, without any useful gains outside gaming/content editing etc.


----------



## lorry (Dec 26, 2019)

Fry178 said:


> oh, not saying they are high, but im running 32*C on low load (0/50),
> when balanced (30/100) gives me about 5-15*C higher temps, but nothing runs "better" (win/browser/videos).
> 
> as long as its allowed to boost, temps on avg will be about 10*C higher.



you are also water cooling


----------



## Fry178 (Dec 26, 2019)

that affects both numbers equally.
i saw the same on air before i got the bracket for my AIO.

plus i wouldnt run ryzen on air (affects the clocks a bit, especially when gpu is on air too).


----------



## lorry (Dec 26, 2019)

Fry178 said:


> that affects both numbers equally.
> i saw the same on air before i got the bracket for my AIO.
> 
> plus i wouldnt run ryzen on air (affects the clocks a bit, especially when gpu is on air too).



As I have said I have no more funds at present to buy either an open loop or a UPS and will not have for months. All of my funds went on the current rig


----------



## Fry178 (Dec 26, 2019)

i know, just saying 
as long as there arent issues with brow/black outs in your area, go with water first.
you can make desktop shortcuts for power profiles, if you want to make it easier to switch between them/use a power saving setup for low load.


----------



## lorry (Dec 26, 2019)

Fry178 said:


> i know, just saying
> as long as there arent issues with brow/black outs in your area, go with water first.
> you can make desktop shortcuts for power profiles, if you want to make it easier to switch between them/use a power saving setup for low load.



Again, I know little about the specifics of this
yes I know where in the power settings i think where it specifies a 99% min power I think? But not how to make any profile


----------



## Fry178 (Dec 27, 2019)

No need, just tweak the existing plans.
Cange the min cpu state to 30% on your 1usmus or amds balanced plan.

And for the power savings plan, change to 0/50% for min/max.


----------



## tabascosauz (Dec 27, 2019)

He has twice the silicon under the IHS, and a D15...he's fine. 45c light usage is not a problem. Air coolers will spike a little bit more than water, which has the "capacity" to eat up a little bit more heat from those idle spikes, thus resulting in a seemingly calmer and cooler idle.

When the load and cores start coming online in benches, the playing field is levelled between air and water (AIOs).

@lorry try benching right after restarting. Close as many unnecessary background apps like Dropbox that might interfere, and wait for the initial processes to finish (antimalware exec, etc.). On mine it makes a huge difference depending on if I bench at start or after hours of usage.


----------



## Fry178 (Dec 27, 2019)

except ryzen 3xxx are producing heat in a very small area (compared to previous/other designs),
which makes water coolers perform better, because the heat transfer is better/faster,
which air will never reach (after saturation of the cooler)


----------



## lorry (Dec 27, 2019)

tabascosauz said:


> He has twice the silicon under the IHS, and a D15...he's fine. 45c light usage is not a problem. Air coolers will spike a little bit more than water, which has the "capacity" to eat up a little bit more heat from those idle spikes, thus resulting in a seemingly calmer and cooler idle.
> 
> When the load and cores start coming online in benches, the playing field is levelled between air and water (AIOs).
> 
> @lorry try benching right after restarting. Close as many unnecessary background apps like Dropbox that might interfere, and wait for the initial processes to finish (antimalware exec, etc.). On mine it makes a huge difference depending on if I bench at start or after hours of usage.



Wish I'd read this before I opened my email, hangouts HW, Browser (to read this), hmm LoL
Seriously though I'll try it, but looking at the PERF and EFFECTIVE clock speeds in HWinfo, it seems to take a while before each core hits its peak speeds.

Sure wish the two chiplets were more similar in peak speeds though -
Core 0  4600 MHz
Core 1 4600
Core 2 4575
Core 3 4575
Core 4 4500
Core 5 4500

Cores 6 through 11 are all between 4325 and 4400 MHz.

So AMD are obviously pairing one decent with one crap chiplet (Presumably the 3950x gets a better second chiplet)
I wish that De8baur (think that's how he spells it) would run another survey to see just what peak speeds each persons chiplets hit, as I feel that would be more revealing that just a simple peak speed as he did previously

@Fry178  from what I have read there seems to be little difference in heat dissipation between the best air cooled and most AIO. It is only once you enter the ranges of the open loops with bigger rads and far better/faster pumps that water cooling wins out. At least on these higher specced cpus that can generate much higher temps.

Oh and @Fry178 









						Create a Change Power Plan Shortcut in Windows
					

Changing Windows Power Plans regularly can get tedious going through Control Panel. Here's how to create shortcuts for plan options to set them quicker.




					www.groovypost.com
				








And









						How To Customize Windows Folder Icons
					

If you like to tweak the Windows interface, one option is to customize folders in Windows Explorer. Not only does it make for groovy eye candy, but it's helpful in finding the folders you need quickly. Here’s how to do it in Windows XP and higher.




					www.groovypost.com
				





These are my GUIDs


Existing Power Schemes (* Active)
-----------------------------------
Power Scheme GUID: 322be999-4397-488c-ad00-bbcd93d2e512  (My Custom Plan 2)
Power Scheme GUID: 381b4222-f694-41f0-9685-ff5bb260df2e  (Balanced)
Power Scheme GUID: 82e2c877-7383-4d19-8b24-81625d64cff3  (1usmus Ryzen Power Plan) *
Power Scheme GUID: 858f1bf1-35f0-4b98-b92b-ab359b998869  (My Custom Plan 1)
Power Scheme GUID: 8c5e7fda-e8bf-4a96-9a85-a6e23a8c635c  (High performance)
Power Scheme GUID: 951a752a-925f-4830-ab5a-e013024f4a92  (AMD Ryzen™ Power Saver)
Power Scheme GUID: 9897998c-92de-4669-853f-b7cd3ecb2790  (AMD Ryzen™ Balanced)
Power Scheme GUID: 9935e61f-1661-40c5-ae2f-8495027d5d5d  (AMD Ryzen™ High Performance)
Power Scheme GUID: a1841308-3541-4fab-bc81-f71556f20b4a  (Power saver)
Power Scheme GUID: a2565842-e47e-4630-b45a-9936583b45b9  (1usmus Ryzen Universal)

There are also times when the best core will Only boost to 4750MHz and Nothing that I try will get it to 4600MHz, why I don't know.
But a reboot will then often hit the 4600MHz

Why? Again I don't know @Zach_01 @tabascosauz @Fry178


----------



## tabascosauz (Dec 27, 2019)

lorry said:


> Sure wish the two chiplets were more similar in peak speeds though -
> Core 0  4600 MHz
> Core 1 4600
> Core 2 4575
> ...



Heh, I don't even have two chiplets, and half of the chiplet (one CCX) is visibly worse than the other. My initial hope in September was that the first-generation DUV process at TSMC would work out to a bit better yield later on, but it seems the difference may either only come to fruition close to the launch of Ryzen 4000, or not end up materializing at all. The EUV process being leveraged for Ryzen 4000 is said to improve silicon consistency quite a bit, but knowing AMD, they might aggressively push the clockspeed envelope _again_ in a bid to take the single thread crown, which means those consistency gains might just go down the crapper, again.

3800X and 3900X already get *relatively* good chiplets, not on the level of the 3950X, but miles better than the 3600/3600X/3700X.

As for not hitting 46x, if you are already using your PC for extended periods of time (~5 hours+), non-stop load can keep effective clock up and peak clock down possibly keeping you away from seeing 46x, but it'd have to be *non-stop *multi thread load from startup to shutdown. Otherwise, knowing that you're already on the F50 BIOS, sometimes it must not feel like it.  Too much is taken out of our hands with these boost behaviours; I understand why, but the traditionalist in me hates it.


----------



## lorry (Dec 27, 2019)

tabascosauz said:


> Heh, I don't even have two chiplets, and half of the chiplet (one CCX) is visibly worse than the other. My initial hope in September was that the first-generation DUV process at TSMC would work out to a bit better yield later on, but it seems the difference may either only come to fruition close to the launch of Ryzen 4000, or not end up materializing at all. The EUV process being leveraged for Ryzen 4000 is said to improve silicon consistency quite a bit, but knowing AMD, they might aggressively push the clockspeed envelope _again_ in a bid to take the single thread crown, which means those consistency gains might just go down the crapper, again.
> 
> 3800X and 3900X already get *relatively* good chiplets, not on the level of the 3950X, but miles better than the 3600/3600X/3700X.
> 
> As for not hitting 46x, if you are already using your PC for extended periods of time (~5 hours+), non-stop load can keep effective clock up and peak clock down possibly keeping you away from seeing 46x, but it'd have to be *non-stop *multi thread load from startup to shutdown. Otherwise, knowing that you're already on the F50 BIOS, sometimes it must not feel like it.  Too much is taken out of our hands with these boost behaviours; I understand why, but the traditionalist in me hates it.



I have a feeling that the 'badly' binned chips are a direct result of AMD's contract with TSMC, after all I have never heard of an Apple phone or tablet etc not being as fast as others, have you? I suspect that the chips are already binned at TSMC's end and Apple only get the better ones? Maybe with the success (sales, profits) from the 3000 series they can now afford to negotiate a better contract with TSMC?

I know that the 3800 x and 3900x  are better than the  3600/3600X/3700X and I think that maybe the 3950x is in reality a 3900x with two good chiplets, rather than the one good, one mediocre as is the 3900x?

That may well be the case, constant load keeping the single peak speed down, although that doesn't seem to be consistent. My PC is always on by 5am, often earlier, and I have a nap of 2 hours between 6 to 8am (this damn neuropathy), from startup the two fastest cores will start around 4300MHz then go to 4500, another jump to 4550, then 4575 and there they will often remain, even with that 2 hour break of being only at the desktop. That extra 250MHz seems elusive to me about 50% of the time. That is also across the board on the better chip.  If you remember, last night I stated that there were two cores each at 4600, 4575 and 4500. Today they are at 4575, 4550 and 4525, yet it has just scored 7338 in R20, which is 300 points More than yesterday when it was hitting 4600.

That doesn't bother me in that I know that is damn fast and a good score, but what I need is the understanding of Why it is doing that with a supposedly lower speed all round.
I do know that there are varying bootups with this board. By that I mean there are some that are very smooth and it boots quickly, going from the bios splash screen to win desktop quickly. Possibly not needing to go through ram training or something?

Also there are times when I enter the bios and the mouse is highly unresponsive and erratic, also any keyboard usage is ridiculously slow (several seconds between hitting the enter key and it saving. I think that is an issue with this MB/bios/cpu maybe? Yet I will reboot and everything acts normally, mouse and keyboard are all fully responsive.


----------



## Zach_01 (Dec 27, 2019)

lorry said:


> Also there are times when I enter the bios and the mouse is highly unresponsive and erratic, also any keyboard usage is ridiculously slow (several seconds between hitting the enter key and it saving. I think that is an issue with this MB/bios/cpu maybe? Yet I will reboot and everything acts normally, mouse and keyboard are all fully responsive.


This behaviour tells me that something is going on. I have experience this too at the times that I've pushed DRAM and IF more than I should. Oh and I had to lower my clocks from 3733/1866 to 3666/1833 as my system wasnt stable after all. Every time that I was getting app/game crashes, errors or even BSODs and I enter BIOS/UEFI to reconfigure the response in UEFI was sluggish.
Consider this...



lorry said:


> I have a feeling that the 'badly' binned chips are a direct result of AMD's contract with TSMC, after all I have never heard of an Apple phone or tablet etc not being as fast as others, have you? I suspect that the chips are already binned at TSMC's end and Apple only get the better ones? Maybe with the success (sales, profits) from the 3000 series they can now afford to negotiate a better contract with TSMC?
> 
> I know that the 3800 x and 3900x  are better than the  3600/3600X/3700X and I think that maybe the 3950x is in reality a 3900x with two good chiplets, rather than the one good, one mediocre as is the 3900x?
> 
> ...


The 3950X's chiplets are even higher binned than best 3900X's. Of course its programmed by AMD not with too high clocks but to use less voltage at same speeds to keep TDP at same levels while having 33.3% more cores.

Remember also and keep in mind that (all core) CB score has nothing to do with single core CPU boost.


----------



## lorry (Dec 27, 2019)

Zach_01 said:


> This behaviour tells me that something is going on. I have experience this too at the times that I've pushed DRAM and IF more than I should. Oh and I had to lower my clocks from 3733/1866 to 3666/1833 as my system wasnt stable after all. Every time that I was getting app/game crashes, errors or even BSODs and I enter BIOS/UEFI to reconfigure the response in UEFI was sluggish.
> Consider this...



No BSOD, no crashes, no nothing once windows enters, everything that runs works as it should and the bios works fine, just Very slowly at times. Plus it's been happening at least since we began to OC the ram and I think even before that.
I have a feeling that it is more MB and bios related, maybe This particular bios version isn't as 'ideal' for this combination as they believe. If it continues with the next new bios update, then I will look into it deeper, but everything is as stable as you would like for now. I would have thought that as we began pushing the ram faster and tighter it would have become even more unstable if it was the ram ?
I Am considering getting a x570 board before I get the open loop though, just not decided as yet.




Zach_01 said:


> The 3950X's chiplets are even higher binned than best 3900X's. Of course its programmed by AMD not with too high clocks but to use less voltage at same speeds to keep TDP at same levels while having 33.3% more cores.
> 
> Remember also and keep in mind that (all core) CB score has nothing to do with single core CPU boost.



yes, hadn't thought of that re the extra cores and temperatures

Oh I know re the single and all core differences, it just seems to me that the highest all core speeds and the highest single core seem to be linked, which I guess makes sense IF there really is a 225MHz variation in highest speeds.
My two best cores are still sitting at 4575MHz, yet I have Just scored my best all core And single core score in R20, go figure, lol


----------



## Zach_01 (Dec 27, 2019)

Unfortunately we can’t figure it out... ZEN2 is so weird about boost clocks and it’s so complex and advanced that only a few know every aspect of it. And you have to be at software/hardware engineer level knowledge to fully understand, comprehend, or predict behavior. We as users know just about enough...
First of all we don’t know what the internal manager of the CPU is watching/reading at any time. Temps, voltages, current, wattage.


----------



## lorry (Dec 27, 2019)

Zach_01 said:


> Unfortunately we can’t figure it out... ZEN2 is so weird about boost clocks and it’s so complex and advanced that only a few know every aspect of it. And you have to be at software/hardware engineer level knowledge to fully understand, comprehend, or predict behavior. We as users know just about enough...
> First of all we don’t know what the internal manager of the CPU is watching/reading at any time. Temps, voltages, current, wattage.



Oh I know. I'm really just fishing for clues and the easier answers, lol
Wish now though that I had gone with a x570 board, but at the time they were completely new out and I had no idea if any particular ones were turkeys


----------



## Fry178 (Dec 27, 2019)

@lorry
Not talking about avg temps, but how fast the part sitting directly in the heatsink can transfer heat away.
A water based cooler will have the (cold) water takes the heat better away.
One reason why most aio are performing equal to air (not enough flow/waterblock is lower grade).


----------



## lorry (Dec 27, 2019)

Fry178 said:


> @lorry
> Not talking about avg temps, but how fast the part sitting directly in the heatsink can transfer heat away.
> A water based cooler will have the (cold) water takes the heat better away.
> One reason why most aio are performing equal to air (not enough flow/waterblock is lower grade).



But that is only true up to a point I thought? As the water begins to heat up, it's initial advantage levels off, unless the pump can move the water around fast enough And the radiator can dissipate the heat well enough before returning the water to its return cycle. Which is why an open loop, with superior parts, can beat a AIO?


----------



## Fry178 (Dec 27, 2019)

The water is still cooler, no matter if its saturated after a few hours.
On custom loop ppl usually are using blocks that are same/more expensive than most cheap aio, so will always perform better than aio.
But, my eisbaer 240 with liquid metal as thermal paste is so close to the passive custom loop (5L of coolant) i had, that i wont deal with custom stuff until i can build my plexi desk with pc/cooling inside.

Just look at how long a human can survive at 0* air temp (no wind) vs the same temp in water
Its the heat transfer..


----------



## lorry (Dec 27, 2019)

@Fry178  how did you create your shortcuts to various power options?
as I have created them using the link above, but they do not seem to actually change the power settings


----------



## Zach_01 (Dec 27, 2019)

lorry said:


> But that is only true up to a point I thought? As the water begins to heat up, it's initial advantage levels off, unless the pump can move the water around fast enough And the radiator can dissipate the heat well enough before returning the water to its return cycle. Which is why an open loop, with superior parts, can beat a AIO?


That’s the idea... I have an AIO. The cooling system takes longer to soak heat than a tower. A few minutes. After this if the AIO doesn’t have the capacity to dissipate the heat it’s equal or worst than a large air tower.
Fast pump and fast fans are required to help dissipation.
My AIO is 280mm with a 2-speed pump (2350/2850rpm) and fans 500-2200rpm. I’m always using low pump speed, and fans 800-1400rpm. The cooling is very good but not much better than air tower. I don want to work the pump in high speed and fans beyond 1500rpm for noise and longevity of the system. What I can improve, is the block’s plate heat transfer rate. I order liquid metal to apply to the block. I’m expecting it next month.

AIOs can improve cooling but for me you want min a 280mm with high speed pump/fans. Personally I find it hard to go back to air tower coolers.
A 360mm AIO with fast block cold plate heat transfer will be ideal for me with not breaking the bank. I don’t like custom loops for the cost, and work that is needed to setup and maintain.


----------



## lorry (Dec 27, 2019)

figured it! There was a space that I diodn't notice!
Power Scheme GUID: 82e2c877-7383-4d19-8b24-81625d64cff3

Now have it running at a min of 50% not 99% See if that makes any difference to the temps


----------



## Zach_01 (Dec 27, 2019)

I will try it tomorrow as I will not have the time today...


----------



## lorry (Dec 27, 2019)

Zach_01 said:


> I will try it tomorrow as I will not have the time today...




That link that I gave works, just remember to add the space between the setactive and the actual profile

F me!
Best figures yet for R20!
7357 all cores and 500 single core!


----------



## Fry178 (Dec 27, 2019)

@Zach_01
Less of a problem with ryzen cpus, as the heatsink is the biggest bottleneck, even on aio.
I ran a couple of different ones, and they all can drop temps once load is gone, so its not so much pump speed.

@lorry 
Not sure if i read wrong, so to make sure:
Use 0 for min, 50% for max on power saving profile.
Use 30 for min and 100% for max on amd balanced/1usmus plan.


----------



## lorry (Dec 27, 2019)

Fry178 said:


> @Zach_01
> Less of a problem with ryzen cpus, as the heatsink is the biggest bottleneck, even 9n aio.
> I ran a couple of different ones, and they all can drop temps once load is gone, so its not so much pump speed.
> 
> ...



Okay, now been running this min power setting at 30% for about 100 minutes or so.
To give some background I happen to have smart meters in my home for both gas and electricity, and whilst I cannot the actual power draw for my PC I can see the combined total electricity used and theres has been no change in power usage for 30% min, 100% max but there Might be a small temp lowering of a couple of degrees.
I will now try it on reduced with 0% and 50%

@fry, How do you get your power plan short cuts to work?
As Mine don't seem to switch between the profile settings and I am Not sure How to copy the 1usmus plan to create another?


----------



## Fry178 (Dec 27, 2019)

If your not gaming or anything with similar load, run the power savings plan and you will be able to see the difference. 

On idle with 0/50 i draw about 94w (whole rig incl 2080) and up to 108, on 30/100 its at least 108 to 140.


----------



## lorry (Dec 27, 2019)

Fry178 said:


> If your not gaming or anything with similar load, run the power savings plan and you will be able to see the difference.
> 
> On idle with 0/50 i draw about 94w (whole rig incl 2080) and up to 108, on 30/100 its at least 108 to 140.



No i did not mean that.
I have created two shortcuts (see above) but it does not seem to switch between the two - the min and max settings do not alter
So How did you create Your shortcuts?

as in when activated, they do not switch the power settings between low usage and high usage, yet I am sure that I have them set up correctly.
I am not sure if you can copy a power plan and then rename it?

ok I have it ALL sorted now - I now have two shortcuts of 1usmus powerplans that you edit individually

type cmd in search (run command prompt)

type powercfg /list (this will list all of your power plans with GUID)

Make a note of the '1usmus Ryzen Power Plan'
(mine is 82e2c877-7383-4d19-8b24-81625d64cff3 for example)


type powercfg /duplicatescheme GUID-ref (82e2c877-7383-4d19-8b24-81625d64cff3 is mine)
(this will create a duplicate)- make a note of the NEW GUID - mine becomes 039ad1df-2666-40f5-a282-ac186dbae8d9

type powercfg /changename NEW-GUID (mine is 039ad1df-2666-40f5-a282-ac186dbae8d9) "1usmus Reduced Power Plan"

then see https://www.groovypost.com/howto/create-power-plan-shortcut-windows/ to create shortcuts on your desktop to each powerplan
(do NOT forget to alter thye appropiate power settings, Min & max)

You can then switch between the two plans with a double click on either powerplan




Also you can export and import power plans as follows -

powercfg -export

/export

Exports a power scheme, represented by the specified GUID, to the specified file.

Syntax:

powercfg /export file_name GUID

Arguments:

file_name
Specifies a fully-qualified path to a destination file.

GUID
Specifies a power scheme GUID. A power scheme GUID is returned by running powercfg /list.

Examples:

powercfg /export c:\scheme.pow 381b4222-f694-41f0-9685-ff5bb260df2e



/import

Imports a power scheme from the specified file.

Syntax:

powercfg /import file_name [GUID ]

Arguments:

file_name
Specifies a fully-qualified path to a file returned by running powercfg /export.

GUID
Specifies the GUID for the imported scheme. If no GUID is specified, a new GUID is created.

Examples:

powercfg /import c:\scheme.pow

Okay, not really noticing any real reduction in power usage as yet, but the temps Now seem to be switch between low 40s to about 50c.
I do not expect it to improve much from that right now. I feel that is likely just the nature of the 3900x. On desktop idle the highest that any thread will go is 1000MHz (as recorded by HW in the 'effective clock' records, which are Far lower than the perf cores), yet the temp will jump between as low as 41 to a high of 51, seemingly for no reason that I can see.


----------



## Fry178 (Dec 27, 2019)

Its normal.
Because the cores still get some boost here and there, as well as some go to sleep/wake up, affecting numbers.
Once you are on powet saving 0/50, it should be less jumpy.


----------



## lorry (Dec 27, 2019)

Fry178 said:


> Its normal.
> Because the cores still get some boost here and there, as well as some go to sleep/wake up, affecting numbers.
> Once you are on powet saving 0/50, it should be less jumpy.



Nope, I Am on power saving  of 0 - 50% and have been for nigh on three or four hours now and Nothing has changed.
I still reckon that this is simply just the situation for the higher cored CPUs.


----------



## Fry178 (Dec 27, 2019)

Thats why i said its normal (on yours), but you can improve it bu using (and tweaking) the windows power savings plan (not an adjusted 1usmus plan)


----------



## lorry (Dec 27, 2019)

Fry178 said:


> Thats why i said its normal (on yours), but you can improve it bu using (and tweaking) the windows power savings plan (not an adjusted 1usmus plan)



Why not the 1usmus one specifically though? What is contained within that one that you do not feel is appropiate ?
And also why not the ryzen specific ones?


----------



## Zach_01 (Dec 27, 2019)

Don’t forget that 1usmus power plan is a setup primarily for performance. And it’s along with UEFI CPU P-states settings. I don’t really know how those UEFI settings affecting the power savings. I guess they do...


----------



## lorry (Dec 27, 2019)

Zach_01 said:


> Don’t forget that 1usmus power plan is a setup primarily for performance. And it’s along with UEFI CPU P-states settings. I don’t really know how those UEFI settings affecting the power savings. I guess they do...



Hmm, could well be a point i guess

Theres are the required changes aren't they



Global C-state Control = Enabled
Power Supply Idle Control = Low Current Idle
CPPC = Enabled
CPPC Preferred Cores = Enabled
AMD Cool'n'Quiet = Enabled
PPC Adjustment = PState 0


----------



## Fry178 (Dec 27, 2019)

Not really. If bios is updated it will use it even if left on auto.
But you need build 1909 and the latest chipset driver from amd to make use of 1usmus profile


----------



## lorry (Dec 27, 2019)

Fry178 said:


> Not really. If bios is updated it will use it even if left on auto.
> But you need build 1909 and the latest chipset driver from amd to make use of 1usmus profile



which is what I have. 1909 and all the latest chipset drivers available from the Gigabyte download area


----------



## Zach_01 (Dec 27, 2019)

lorry said:


> which is what I have. 1909 and all the latest chipset drivers available from the Gigabyte download area


Chipset drivers from Gigabyte is released when? AMD has update them in November last time I checked. I got them directly from AMD and you should too...


----------



## lorry (Dec 27, 2019)

Zach_01 said:


> Chipset drivers from Gigabyte is released when? AMD has update them in November last time I checked. I got them directly from AMD and you should too...


BIOS update was 27th Nov, 2 days after AMD released them
Agesa 1.0.0.4.B


----------



## Zach_01 (Dec 27, 2019)

Chipset Drivers?
I bet they are for 1903 and not 1909...

v1.0 1usmus power plan is for 1903
v1.1 universal 1usmus power plan is for 1909

Download here


			https://www.amd.com/en/support


----------



## lorry (Dec 27, 2019)

Zach_01 said:


> Chipset Drivers?
> I bet they are for 1903 and not 1909...
> 
> v1.0 1usmus power plan is for 1903
> v1.1 universal 1usmus power plan is for 1909








						X470 AORUS GAMING 7 WIFI (rev. 1.1) Gallery | Motherboard - GIGABYTE Global
					

Lasting Quality from GIGABYTE.GIGABYTE Ultra Durable™ motherboards bring together a unique blend of features and technologies that offer users the absolute ...




					www.gigabyte.com
				





Update AMD AGESA 1.0.0.4 B
Improve system boot time
Improve RAID function compatibility
Improve PCIe device compatibility

from AMD site -

*Package Includes:*
        AMD Chipset Drivers
       AMD Ryzen™ Power Plans (required for UEFI CPPC2 in Windows® 10 May 2019 Update)


I Have those power plans as an option, so they must be the correct chipset


----------



## Zach_01 (Dec 27, 2019)

check here


			https://www.amd.com/en/support


----------



## lorry (Dec 27, 2019)

Zach_01 said:


> check here
> 
> 
> https://www.amd.com/en/support



i just quoted from that site

from AMD site -

*Package Includes:*
        AMD Chipset Drivers
       AMD Ryzen™ Power Plans (required for UEFI CPPC2 in Windows® 10 May 2019 Update)


I Have those power plans as an option, so they must be the correct chipset


----------



## Zach_01 (Dec 27, 2019)

So did you install this?
Rev 1.11.22.0454 (11/25/2019)


----------



## lorry (Dec 27, 2019)

Zach_01 said:


> So did you install this?
> Rev 1.11.22.0454 (11/25/2019)



no, as I said I installed F50 from the gigabyte site. their chipsets were updated 2 days after AMD released it


----------



## Zach_01 (Dec 27, 2019)

But F50 is a BIOS/UEFI file not chipset drivers.

From what I see... latest chipset drivers for your board from Gigabyte is 2019/07/05 and as they describe is for 1903.





						X470 AORUS GAMING 7 WIFI (rev. 1.1) Support | Motherboard - GIGABYTE Global
					

Lasting Quality from GIGABYTE.GIGABYTE Ultra Durable™ motherboards bring together a unique blend of features and technologies that offer users the absolute ...




					www.gigabyte.com


----------



## Fry178 (Dec 27, 2019)

Get the latest chipset driver from the amd site, update from dec and they run on 1903.


----------



## lorry (Dec 27, 2019)

Zach_01 said:


> But F50 is a BIOS/UEFI file not chipset drivers.
> 
> From what I see... latest chipset drivers for your board from Gigabyte is 2019/07/05 and as they describe is for 1903.
> 
> ...



sorry misunderstood what you were specifying, yes That chipset is installed, as that was/is the newer one


----------



## Zach_01 (Dec 27, 2019)

If you did not install chipset drivers from AMD then you should.
Just download the 50MB file, install it and reboot.

And then check the boosting/voltage behaviour of the min99%/max100% power plan or any other plan you've made.


----------



## lorry (Dec 27, 2019)

Zach_01 said:


> If you did not install chipset drivers from AMD then you should.
> Just download the 50MB file, install it and reboot.
> 
> And then check the boosting/voltage behaviour of the min99%/max100% power plan or any other plan you've made.



No as I said, it was installed. I thought you meant bios version. 
Apologies, my mind has been elsewhere tonight. 
My dog moved at the last second during his insulin injection and didn't get anything like the full dose. I gave him a second smaller dose (under half) and have been watching him like a hawk to see if he was acting any differently - that would mean a hypo if he had too little sugar in his blood, or a hyper if he had too much. 
A hypo can be deadly, so I was watching him. Thankfully 3 hrs afterwards he seems to be ok still.


----------



## lorry (Dec 27, 2019)

I was new here only last week myself


----------



## Zach_01 (Dec 27, 2019)

lorry said:


> No as I said, it was installed. I thought you meant bios version.
> Apologies, my mind has been elsewhere tonight.
> My dog moved at the last second during his insulin injection and didn't get anything like the full dose. I gave him a second smaller dose (under half) and have been watching him like a hawk to see if he was acting any differently - that would mean a hypo if he had too little sugar in his blood, or a hyper if he had too much.
> A hypo can be deadly, so I was watching him. Thankfully 3 hrs afterwards he seems to be ok still.


Yeah, I know how dangerous a hypoglycaemic contition can be...
Apologies are not required really...


----------



## lorry (Dec 27, 2019)

Zach_01 said:


> Yeah, I know how dangerous a hypoglycaemic contition can be...
> Apologies are not required really...


He concerned me because I had to guess how much he didn't get. When he came back from his walk he drank a lot which was worrying but hasn't done it since, so fingers crossed, all will be OK. 

Just out of interest, what difference would using older chipset drivers make? I thought it was the bios version itself that controlled most things?


----------



## tabascosauz (Dec 27, 2019)

lorry said:


> I have a feeling that the 'badly' binned chips are a direct result of AMD's contract with TSMC, after all I have never heard of an Apple phone or tablet etc not being as fast as others, have you? I suspect that the chips are already binned at TSMC's end and Apple only get the better ones? Maybe with the success (sales, profits) from the 3000 series they can now afford to negotiate a better contract with TSMC?
> 
> I do know that there are varying bootups with this board. By that I mean there are some that are very smooth and it boots quickly, going from the bios splash screen to win desktop quickly. Possibly not needing to go through ram training or something?
> 
> Also there are times when I enter the bios and the mouse is highly unresponsive and erratic, also any keyboard usage is ridiculously slow (several seconds between hitting the enter key and it saving. I think that is an issue with this MB/bios/cpu maybe? Yet I will reboot and everything acts normally, mouse and keyboard are all fully responsive.



As for TSMC and Apple, Apple is either 1/2 or 1 process generation ahead. Same story for Qualcomm, 855/865 on N7/N7P. Like Ryzen 3000, the A12 in the XR was manufactured on N7FF, but the current A13 in the 11s is made on N7P, which is a product-improved N7, but not a more revolutionary upgrade that the EUV N7+ will be. That, and ARM has always been efficiency-minded due to its intended form factors (even performance-leading Apple SoCs), even discounting all the other big differences in architecture and performance between x86 and ARMv8.

Apple also isn't the one pushing the absolute performance limit out of N7, whereas AMD is. Around base clock to 4GHz, Vcore and thermals stay around 1.0V on Ryzen 3000, but Vcore blasts off as soon as we start approaching rated max boost clocks (save for that elusive 1-in-a-thousand unicorn chip). The jump to "sub-10nm" is markedly more efficient, but only if manufacturers do as Ice Lake does and keep clocks low. AMD doesn't want that, as they want to stick it to Intel, which is what got us here today, pushing N7FF a bit harder than it really wants to be pushed. For all the other ARM manufacturers, that level of power consumption and heat increase due to aggressively pushing the envelope would be unacceptable, as that would be big SD810 vibes all over again.

I get those fast and slow boots too, both before POST and during Windows loading, neither of which happen on my Intel PCs. Every time I change the timings on this 32GB kit, I get really fast pre-POST times for a few restarts, then it's back to the long POST. Almost every timing is manually filled out now, including tRFC2/4, doesn't make a difference for POST.

The unresponsive BIOS might be down to your board or the BIOS written for it. My F50 BIOS should be functionally identical as are most 400-series, just for a different board, doesn't do that. But I used to get similar unresponsive behaviour in Windows right after boot, like all the cores were limited to 200MHz or something. A quick restart would solve it, and it was a very rare occurrence that went away when I switched RAM kits, but still unexplained. That might also have been F42g or F50a, can't remember.

Hope your dog gets back to his usual self soon.


----------



## Zach_01 (Dec 27, 2019)

lorry said:


> Just out of interest, what difference would using older chipset drivers make? I thought it was the bios version itself that controlled most things?


Usually not taking advantage of some new features. Some instances they could fix some things with drivers.
Win10 v1909, November chipset drivers from AMD, new UEFI version, all came close to one another and after first (v1.0) of 1usmus power plan. Its not a coincidence...


----------



## Fry178 (Dec 28, 2019)

@tabascosauz/lorry
had the same weird stuff until another bios update,
and the only time i saw 2 betas very shortly after another, before a full (non beta) came out


----------



## lorry (Dec 28, 2019)

tabascosauz said:


> As for TSMC and Apple, Apple is either 1/2 or 1 process generation ahead. Same story for Qualcomm, 855/865 on N7/N7P. Like Ryzen 3000, the A12 in the XR was manufactured on N7FF, but the current A13 in the 11s is made on N7P, which is a product-improved N7, but not a more revolutionary upgrade that the EUV N7+ will be. That, and ARM has always been efficiency-minded due to its intended form factors (even performance-leading Apple SoCs), even discounting all the other big differences in architecture and performance between x86 and ARMv8.
> 
> Apple also isn't the one pushing the absolute performance limit out of N7, whereas AMD is. Around base clock to 4GHz, Vcore and thermals stay around 1.0V on Ryzen 3000, but Vcore blasts off as soon as we start approaching rated max boost clocks (save for that elusive 1-in-a-thousand unicorn chip). The jump to "sub-10nm" is markedly more efficient, but only if manufacturers do as Ice Lake does and keep clocks low. AMD doesn't want that, as they want to stick it to Intel, which is what got us here today, pushing N7FF a bit harder than it really wants to be pushed. For all the other ARM manufacturers, that level of power consumption and heat increase due to aggressively pushing the envelope would be unacceptable, as that would be big SD810 vibes all over again.
> 
> ...



ARM though is aimed at a totally different market though, even if it is really two markets nowadays (mobile and extremely small form factor), and both have cooling restrictions due to their size. Neither can afford to push speeds as hard as AMD are able to do (just). I think that once you begin to push (overclock) yourself, you begin to realise/appreciate just How hard AMD are doing so out of the box.

My slow posts seem to be intermittent, with no reason that I can see for them to occur, as the bios will seem to 'hang' for a while on different Q-codes, but the ones that seem to occur the most are -
F8 Recovery PPI is invalid and more occasionally 6* CPU DXE initialization is started. It also never hangs once in Win itself, mine are All during the post

My dog seems to have been 'lucky' as in he is responsive etc this morning. he should hopefully be back on the right track once he eats and has insulin again at his regular time in roughly 3 hours
Thanks



Zach_01 said:


> Usually not taking advantage of some new features. Some instances they could fix some things with drivers.
> Win10 v1909, November chipset drivers from AMD, new UEFI version, all came close to one another and after first (v1.0) of 1usmus power plan. Its not a coincidence...



I only asked as of course my win build was 1909 right from the word go and i spent very little time on the old chipset, as I updated to it almost immediately, so have little to base any difference on.

One interesting thing though is that I Had to drop down to 6 cores Just so that I could install windows! it would not complete the installation otherwise.
Once installed though and I had installed the Gigabyte App Centre - that then updated the Intel wi-fi driver and I was then able to go back into bios to enable all 12 cores.

This is why I feel that this particular motherboard has some peculiar issues with F50 and will hopefully be sorted out with the next bios update.



Fry178 said:


> @tabascosauz/lorry
> had the same weird stuff until another bios update,
> and the only time i saw 2 betas very shortly after another, before a full (non beta) came out



I feel that on reflection, one bios cannot be completely compatible with Every single motherboard out there.


----------



## ShrimpBrime (Dec 28, 2019)

> went away when I switched RAM kits



That's where having a few memory kits comes in handy. 

Might be wise to back the memory overclock down a bit and see if the Bios issues go away.


----------



## lorry (Dec 28, 2019)

ShrimpBrime said:


> That's where having a few memory kits comes in handy.
> 
> Might be wise to back the memory overclock down a bit and see if the Bios issues go away.



"went away when I switched RAM kits"

Not sure who you are replying to there but it wasn't myself?


----------



## Zach_01 (Dec 28, 2019)

lorry said:


> "went away when I switched RAM kits"
> 
> Not sure who you are replying to there but it wasn't myself?


The...
_"went away when I switched RAM kits"_
...was said by @tabascosauz at post #400 about the bios issues.

But I believe that @ShrimpBrime ‘s suggestion to backdown the mem oc is for you too... and to see if anything occurs again. Does not matter if you have no errors or any obvious mishaps while in Windows.


----------



## lorry (Dec 28, 2019)

Zach_01 said:


> The...
> _"went away when I switched RAM kits"_
> ...was said by @tabascosauz at post #400 about the bios issues.
> 
> But I believe that @ShrimpBrime ‘s suggestion to backdown the mem oc is for you too... and to see if anything occurs again. Does not matter if you have no errors or any obvious mishaps while in Windows.



I have been having these occasional sluggish bios access issues from the start, near enough. 
A save and exit (reboot) has always then seen the mouse/keyboard /bios return to it usual responsive


----------



## tabascosauz (Dec 28, 2019)

@lorry I got you beat on that ST score, don't ask me how, I've no idea :




I guess 1usmus must be putting my Cinebench ST test on Core 5 and 7, because if it was on Core 0 then I'd be way down in Zen+ and Intel territory. But 7300pts is very respectable for your 3900X. 500pts is also pretty much at the top of the pack, so could be down to chip variance or normal benchmark variation.


```
I feel that on reflection, one bios cannot be completely compatible with Every single motherboard out there.
```

You are undoubtedly correct; however, Gigabyte evidently has a different opinion on that matter. Though in all fairness to them, all the vendors do it to some extent - no sense in writing something new from the ground up for every board of a given generation. Then again, it's Gigabyte, so they're copy-pasting hot garbage in place of a polished and verified BIOS.

Haven't heard anything regarding the next iteration of AGESA for Matisse, so you may be stuck with F50 for a while. Is it possible to downgrade Gigabyte BIOSes?


@NoJuan999 you are not on the "latest" Windows, 1909 has a new scheduler that v1.1 of 1usmus is designed to work with; you're supposed to use the Universal plan if you don't have 3000 on 1909, and Ryzen Power Plan if you have 3000 on 1909. Also, "2.2GHz" and "3.6GHz" minimum clockspeed is a HWInfo bug, your chip is doing a lot of idle behind the scenes that only Ryzen Master can show.


----------



## NoJuan999 (Dec 28, 2019)

I will put my 2 cents in here, the difference in performance between the various Power Plans is negligible.
I have Windows 10 (1903 Build 18362.535), the latest AMD Chipset drivers and the newest BIOS for my MB and I personally choose to use the AMD Ryzen balanced power Plan.
I have tried the 1usmus Ryzen Power Plan and it keeps my clocks set at 3.6GHz (no matter what my minimum processor state is set at) vs 2.2GHz minimum with the AMD Ryzen Balanced Power Plan set at 20% minimum/100% maximum.
No matter what Power Plan I use, I get the same multi and Single Core Performance.
So for me the AMD Ryzen Balanced Plan is the best option for performance vs power consumption/temps.
Therefore in my case the 1usmus and Power Saving plans are a waste of time.

And I have even tried the Ultimate Power plan (min and max set at 100%) and the difference in performance between them is negligible.
So I use the AMD Balanced Power Plan (set at 20%/100%) for everyday use on my 3700x.

I also run my 3600 G.Skill Ripjaw V (Hynix D die) RAM kit at 3733 with FCLK (IF) set at 1867 and it is 100% stable.

My best R20 run so far (using the AMD Ryzen Balanced Power Plan):


----------



## lorry (Dec 28, 2019)

NoJuan999 said:


> I will put my 2 cents in here.
> I have the latest version of Windows 10 (1903 Build 18362.535), the latest AMD Chipset drivers and the newest BIOS for my MB and I personally choose to use the AMD Ryzen balanced power Plan.
> I have tried the 1usmus Ryzen Power Plan and it keeps my clocks set at 3.6GHz (no matter what my minimum processor state is set at) vs 2.2GHz minimum with the AMD Ryzen Balanced Power Plan set at 20% minimum/100% maximum.
> No matter what Power Plan I use, I get the same multi and Single Core Performance.
> ...


Latest build though is 1909?


----------



## NoJuan999 (Dec 28, 2019)

lorry said:


> Latest build though is 1909?


Last Post edited.
Version 1903 Build 18362.535 is the December 10, 2019 update and the newest version available to me.


----------



## lorry (Dec 28, 2019)

tabascosauz said:


> @lorry I got you beat on that ST score, don't ask me how, I've no idea :
> 
> View attachment 140583
> 
> ...



I have a feeling that CB is quite fickle when it wants to be, lol. For ages I was stuck on 49* then hit 500,why I don't know, but we'll done, that's a great score there. 

I thought that gigabyte generally had a decent enough reputation? 

This board has a dual BIOS (another reason I decided on it), so I'm completely unsure if downgrading the bios is even possible, why would that be an idea though?



NoJuan999 said:


> Last Post edited.
> Version 1903 Build 18362.535 is the December 10, 2019 update and the newest version available to me.



Ah! Understood. 

I have the distinct feeling that with Ryzen 3000 not only comparing apples with pears is impossible, but also comparing cox's apples with cranberry apples is as well. 

In other words unless each two setups are physically the same, then different settings are extremely difficult to compare


----------



## tabascosauz (Dec 28, 2019)

lorry said:


> I have a feeling that CB is quite fickle when it wants to be, lol. For ages I was stuck on 49* then hit 500,why I don't know, but we'll done, that's a great score there.
> 
> I thought that gigabyte generally had a decent enough reputation?
> 
> This board has a dual BIOS (another reason I decided on it), so I'm completely unsure if downgrading the bios is even possible, why would that be an idea though?



They've got solid hardware, but their BIOS designs have always leaned towards dead last. I don't like Asus boards for their price and AM4 stock overvolting but their current BIOSes since Skylake have been really, really good. I miss DualBIOS, most GB Intel boards had that.

It's just an idea I've been toying with. My clocks have dropped slightly on 1.0.0.4 (and probably my benchmark scores, if I had tested R20 on ABBA) compared to 1.0.0.3ABBA which came in F42g and 1.0.0.3AB in F42c. Not sure I want to put up with the crazy idle again (which 1.0.0.4 fixed), but I have lost a bit of performance. Note that @NoJuan999's scores are on pre-1.0.0.4 AGESA (but his chip is probably binned better anyway).

Also no idea how 1usmus and Chipset Drivers would react to going backwards to 1.0.0.3ABBA, so I probably won't go be the guinea pig, lol.


----------



## NoJuan999 (Dec 28, 2019)

tabascosauz said:


> @NoJuan999 you are not on the "latest" Windows, 1909 has a new scheduler that v1.1 of 1usmus is designed to work with; you're supposed to use the Universal plan if you don't have 3000 on 1909, and Ryzen Power Plan if you have 3000 on 1909. Also, "2.2GHz" and "3.6GHz" minimum clockspeed is a HWInfo bug, your chip is doing a lot of idle behind the scenes that only Ryzen Master can show.


I do understand that HWinfo doesn't register the fact that most of my cores are sleeping and only shows the minimumas 2.2GHz, but when I use the 1usmus plan it shows my minimum clocks at 3.6 GHz.
My point was that with the AMD Balanced Plan my temps are lower at idle, But my CB R20 scores are the same.

PS
I am Installing Version 1909 now to see if the 1usmus power plan improves my performance.


----------



## tabascosauz (Dec 28, 2019)

NoJuan999 said:


> I do understand that HWinfo doesn't register the fact that most of my cores are sleeping and only shows the minimumas 2.2GHz, but when I use the 1usmus plan it shows my minimum clocks at 3.6 GHz.
> My point was that with the AMD Balanced Plan my temps are lower at idle, But my CB R20 scores are the same.
> 
> PS
> I am Installing Version 1909 now to see if the 1usmus power plan improves my performance.



Are your idle temps actually consistently lower on Ryzen Balanced over a number of days, or did you just happen to have more background tasks going on the day that you decided to switch? The idle temps on these chips fluctuate way too much to properly measure. I can't think of any reason why the 1usmus plan would run hotter; it pretty much just shifts the load around and parks some cores. Your R20 scores should be the same, it doesn't really give you any real increase in fully threaded performance.


----------



## oxrufiioxo (Dec 28, 2019)

single core for a 3900X should be in this range. I've seen as high as 535.


----------



## NoJuan999 (Dec 28, 2019)

tabascosauz said:


> Are your idle temps actually consistently lower on Ryzen Balanced over a number of days, or did you just happen to have more background tasks going on the day that you decided to switch? The idle temps on these chips fluctuate way too much to properly measure. I can't think of any reason why the 1usmus plan would run hotter; it pretty much just shifts the load around and parks some cores. Your R20 scores should be the same, it doesn't really give you any real increase in fully threaded performance.


The idle temps in RM were consistently around 5c higher when using the 1usmus plan on 1903.
I just manually updated to 1909 so I will see if that is still the case now and post back.


----------



## lorry (Dec 28, 2019)

tabascosauz said:


> They've got solid hardware, but their BIOS designs have always leaned towards dead last. I don't like Asus boards for their price and AM4 stock overvolting but their current BIOSes since Skylake have been really, really good. I miss DualBIOS, most GB Intel boards had that.
> 
> It's just an idea I've been toying with. My clocks have dropped slightly on 1.0.0.4 (and probably my benchmark scores, if I had tested R20 on ABBA) compared to 1.0.0.3ABBA which came in F42g and 1.0.0.3AB in F42c. Not sure I want to put up with the crazy idle again (which 1.0.0.4 fixed), but I have lost a bit of performance. Note that @NoJuan999's scores are on pre-1.0.0.4 AGESA (but his chip is probably binned better anyway).
> 
> Also no idea how 1usmus and Chipset Drivers would react to going backwards to 1.0.0.3ABBA, so I probably won't go be the guinea pig, lol.



i don't fancy going backwards in bios, especially if i have no obvious reason to, which I don't.  i have only really used 1.0.0.4



tabascosauz said:


> They've got solid hardware, but their BIOS designs have always leaned towards dead last. I don't like Asus boards for their price and AM4 stock overvolting but their current BIOSes since Skylake have been really, really good. I miss DualBIOS, most GB Intel boards had that.



the BIOS being clunky is an aesthetic though, doesn't affect how it works at all, I can show you any number of bikes and cars that are as ugly as sin and a bitch to ride/drive but they go like a bat out of hell.
Their design reminds me somewhat of the old Nokia mobiles where you had to drill down through the menu to get to the bit that you wanted.

Also just noticed a massive temperature reading difference between RM and HW


----------



## tabascosauz (Dec 28, 2019)

lorry said:


> i don't fancy going backwards in bios, especially if i have no obvious reason to, which I don't.  i have only really used 1.0.0.4
> 
> the BIOS being clunky is an aesthetic though, doesn't affect how it works at all, I can show you any number of bikes and cars that are as ugly as sin and a bitch to ride/drive but they go like a bat out of hell.
> Their design reminds me somewhat of the old Nokia mobiles where you had to drill down through the menu to get to the bit that you wanted.
> ...



For me, having duplicate RGB settings and redundant / system-breaking (somehow) voltage settings, as well as the hilarious "PWM/°C" setting in older GB BIOSes is pretty indicative of where GB is at in BIOS design, haha. It works for the most part (as every BIOS should, at the minimum), but I haven't yet been able to change SoC voltage without either causing major errors or nuking my Windows installation.

The RM reading is usually closer to the new CPU Die (average) reading added a few revisions back, than the old Tctl/Tdie, but unfortunately, all BIOSes as far as I can tell still only read Tctl/Tdie.

Also, have you fooled around with the PBO power limits and temperature limits? I eked out a bit extra in clocks and a CPU-Z bench, but had no improvement in CB R20 while drawing about 90W. Maybe I'm reaching the limits of the U9S and my chip, but yours might fare better. Maybe you'll even get a little surprise like this:



Louder fans, hotter chip, more power draw, and stock voltage all for some HWInfo and CPU-Z e-peen. I went right back to PBO disabled afterwards, lol.


----------



## Zach_01 (Dec 28, 2019)

The 1usmus power plans (both) are primarily designed for optimal core loading. What it does, is to keep Windows’s scheduler to load the best/high quality cores and prevent the threads from jumping around to all cores CCXs and CCDs in single and light threaded situations. Those are the perf# numbers in HWiNFO. I remind (to all) that this requires UEFI settings to work properly, the right plan version for the right win version. Latest win version, latest chipset drivers and latest UEFI version are also implement the same logic.
These plans are specifically designed for 2 CCD CPUs like the 3900X/3950X but I saw difference in loading at mine with 1 CCD.

————————

You can go back in BIOS version only if the board has bios flashback button. Otherwise I think the integrated utility does not accept earlier version.

————————

The RM temp report is matching the average report from HWiNFO.

————————

I remember that different AGESA versions required different PBO settings in order to keep single core CPU boosting the same. And it’s not universal settings. Every board/bios has its own response to AGESA. One must try different settings to find the best.


----------



## lorry (Dec 28, 2019)

tabascosauz said:


> For me, having duplicate RGB settings and redundant / system-breaking (somehow) voltage settings, as well as the hilarious "PWM/°C" setting in older GB BIOSes is pretty indicative of where GB is at in BIOS design, haha. It works for the most part (as every BIOS should, at the minimum), but I haven't yet been able to change SoC voltage without either causing major errors or nuking my Windows installation.
> 
> The RM reading is usually closer to the new CPU Die (average) reading added a few revisions back, than the old Tctl/Tdie, but unfortunately, all BIOSes as far as I can tell still only read Tctl/Tdie.
> 
> ...






Zach_01 said:


> The 1usmus power plans (both) are primarily designed for optimal core loading. What it does, is to keep Windows’s scheduler to load the best/high quality cores and prevent the threads from jumping around to all cores CCXs and CCDs in single and light threaded situations. Those are the perf# numbers in HWiNFO. I remind (to all) that this requires UEFI settings to work properly, the right plan version for the right win version. Latest win version, latest chipset drivers and latest UEFI version are also implement the same logic.
> These plans are specifically designed for 2 CCD CPUs like the 3900X/3950X but I saw difference in loading at mine with 1 CCD.
> 
> ————————
> ...



________________________________

I can state, having watched thread usage in HWINFO during various benchmarks, that the thread load is mainly spaced out over the 3 best threads and that even shows in Core Temp as well

________________________________

This MB only supports Q-FLASH, Not flashback, sadly

________________________________

the RM temp is Not matching the HWINFO average with mine, if you look you will see that HWINFO shows the average as 46C yet RM reports 40.2C

________________________________

I haven't tried other settings really, as you know.


----------



## Zach_01 (Dec 28, 2019)

lorry said:


> View attachment 140600
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yes I know that you know... I wrote all the above for all the conversation participants.

about the temp...
RM temp is matching the current value of _“CPU DIE (average)” _ not the average value of Tctl/Tdie.
That’s the first value of second green line for your HW that matches the RM.


----------



## lorry (Dec 28, 2019)

Zach_01 said:


> Yes I know that you know... I wrote all the above for all the conversation participants.
> 
> about the temp...
> RM temp is matching the current value of _“CPU DIE (average)” _ not the average value of Tctl/Tdie.
> That’s the first value of second green line for your HW that matches the RM.



Ah okay, except that RM seems to be more responsive than HWINFO. The temp spikes last a lot longer in HWINFO than on RM, just in case no one had noriced that


----------



## Zach_01 (Dec 28, 2019)

From what I’ve seen on mine the RM temp seem more stable on low-middle values than any temp of HWiNFO. As I said before, a few days ago, AMD uses a proprietary report method in RM not known (it’s undisclosed) publicly, and how much of accurate it is.
Personally I don’t pay much attention to RM for temp.


----------



## lorry (Dec 28, 2019)

Zach_01 said:


> From what I’ve seen on mine the RM temp seem more stable on low-middle values than any temp of HWiNFO. As I said before, a few days ago, AMD uses a proprietary report method in RM not known (it’s undisclosed) publicly, and how much of accurate it is.
> Personally I don’t pay much attention to RM for temp.



It looks to me like AMD use a lot of proprietary means of recording that they aren't overly interested in making public, just how accurate they are is also difficult to determine.
As an aside I watched a video last night from BZ on ram temps and case temps, what affects them (GPU temps and radiant heat, CPU dies and infinity fabric links with one end being red hot). It was interesting but most of it only really seemed to apply to those that build really bad setups with next to no airflow, cooling etc


----------



## Fry178 (Dec 28, 2019)

messing with PBO and its limits is useless (outside fixing broken bios), as multiple sites have tested even with the top boards from msi/asus/gigabyte,
all more or less limited by voltage/heat transfer (away from chip).
major reason why it should be on auto (and bios sees it as OFF but still uses PB).

@lorry
i had looked into bios settings for my board and came across posts saying some of the latest updates
wouldnt wipe settings with bios update, even when removing bios battery/clearing cmos.

backup your bios settings (pics with ur phone?!),
put the latest bios on a usb stick (no matter if u r already using it), reboot and load defaults then shutdown.

use Qflash to flash the bios again, reboot and load the default/optimized bios settings, save them, reboot again.
now change settings to your liking...


----------



## lorry (Dec 28, 2019)

Fry178 said:


> messing with PBO and its limits is useless (outside fixing broken bios), as multiple sites have tested even with the top boards from msi/asus/gigabyte,
> all more or less limited by voltage/heat transfer (away from chip).
> major reason why it should be on auto (and bios sees it as OFF but still uses PB).
> 
> ...



for what reason though?
As that is pretty much what has already been done
latest bios was flashed by myself (F50), optimized settings used and then edited to the current settings


----------



## Fry178 (Dec 28, 2019)

because my bios related probs went away after i did it that way.


----------



## lorry (Dec 28, 2019)

Totally unrelated to any of this, just something I saw in a video

*Windows Sysinternals*


    12/11/2019                                                 
5 minutes to read          
 
The Sysinternals web site was created in 1996 by Mark Russinovich to host his advanced system utilities and technical information. Whether you’re an IT Pro or a developer, you’ll find Sysinternals utilities to help you manage, troubleshoot and diagnose your Windows systems and applications.



Read the official guide to the Sysinternals tools, Troubleshooting with the Windows Sysinternals Tools
Read the Sysinternals Blog for a detailed change feed of tool updates
Watch Mark’s top-rated Case-of-the-Unexplained troubleshooting presentations and other webcasts
Read Mark’s Blog which highlight use of the tools to solve real problems
Check out the Sysinternals Learning Resources page
Post your questions in the Sysinternals Forum











						Sysinternals Utilities - Sysinternals
					

Evaluate and find out how to install, deploy, and maintain Windows with Sysinternals utilities.



					docs.microsoft.com


----------



## Zach_01 (Dec 28, 2019)

Fry178 said:


> messing with PBO and its limits is useless (outside fixing broken bios), as multiple sites have tested even with the top boards from msi/asus/gigabyte,
> all more or less limited by voltage/heat transfer (away from chip).
> major reason why it should be on auto (and bios sees it as OFF but still uses PB).


I guess you didn’t experience it or you didn’t notice it or you board/CPU responded in different way than others.... and please let me explain

When I was on AGESA 1003ABBA I had PBO in advanced mode +200MHz and the CPU was boosting to the rated 4200MHz for the high perf# cores. When AGESA 1004B initially released, my CPU has lost about 50-100MHz single core boost clock. Note that I was with win v1903.
Setting the PBO to Auto from advanced has got me back to proper boost of 4200MHz.
After v1909 and later versions of 1004B UEFIs I’m back to PBO advanced +200MHz and 4200MHz single core boosting.

That I was talking about and nothing else...


----------



## Fry178 (Dec 28, 2019)

Might work in your case.
I meant there is proof it doesn't always help performance on 3xxx cpus  compared to pbo auto/off, and most of the time overall perf is actually slightly less.


----------



## tabascosauz (Dec 28, 2019)

lorry said:


> It looks to me like AMD use a lot of proprietary means of recording that they aren't overly interested in making public, just how accurate they are is also difficult to determine.
> As an aside I watched a video last night from BZ on ram temps and case temps, what affects them (GPU temps and radiant heat, CPU dies and infinity fabric links with one end being red hot). It was interesting but most of it only really seemed to apply to those that build really bad setups with next to no airflow, cooling etc



Yeah, I saw that video. Pretty interesting. Memtest86 is ice cold because the CPU is under no load and it runs outside of Windows, but P95 Large stresses the mem controller hard. In about 15 minutes, I was up to 49° on the DIMMs. Didn't get any errors on my DJR, but it seems B-die can be much more sensitive to temperature. 

Mine might be small, but I'm still running a U9S and A12x25 intakes with one almost directly over the DIMMs. I have a feeling that one would start running into problems with shaky timings/freq on the edge of stability, coupled with a split SFF case with zero airflow like the A4 or Ghost S1 (one of the reasons why I'm not fond of those), a low profile cooler like the L9x65 or Blackridge, and a 290X dumping heat everywhere.



Fry178 said:


> Might work in your case.
> I meant there is proof it doesn't always help performance on 3xxx cpus  compared to pbo auto/off, and most of the time overall perf is actually slightly less.



...which is why I suggested lorry poke around in that PBO submenu to see if anything will change. Everyone's experience varies. Mine very clearly clocks higher, but it lowers my CB R20 score slightly, presumably because in order to realize those PBO gains I have to return my Vcore to stock, which is quite hot and seems detrimental under heavy sustained load on my U9S.

This time around, reviews literally don't mean anything beyond VRM temps. There are so many factors influencing the performance you get; even having the same board is no guarantee, as some identical RAM kits use different DRAM and the wild silicon lottery takes care of the rest.


----------



## lorry (Dec 28, 2019)

tabascosauz said:


> Yeah, I saw that video. Pretty interesting. Memtest86 is ice cold because the CPU is under no load and it runs outside of Windows, but P95 Large stresses the mem controller hard. In about 15 minutes, I was up to 49° on the DIMMs. Didn't get any errors on my DJR, but it seems B-die can be much more sensitive to temperature.
> 
> Mine might be small, but I'm still running a U9S and A12x25 intakes with one almost directly over the DIMMs. I have a feeling that one would start running into problems with shaky timings/freq on the edge of stability, coupled with a split SFF case with zero airflow like the A4 or Ghost S1 (one of the reasons why I'm not fond of those), a low profile cooler like the L9x65 or Blackridge, and a 290X dumping heat everywhere.
> 
> ...



must admit that I've not checked temps on ram when running P95, but I presume that as it ran for over an hour that nothing was much wrong

Showing my absolute zero knowledge here - my gigabyte aorus rtx 2070 super (the 1905 factory OC one), does that dump a lot of its heat outside the case or inside?
Asking as mine is vertically mounted (proper vertical mount, actually sits where the PCI case brackets are). I mean, I've not seen the ram temps go above 31c (but like I said, didn't check whilst P95).

You say poke around in PBO, but not mention what can be adjusted, nor by how much. That's what is of interest to me, how much does say 1 unit on any particular setting alter things?


----------



## Fry178 (Dec 28, 2019)

one reason i went LC for cpu and now gpu.
lowers case/vrm and many other temps by about 30*C, cpu stays below 70C and gpu below 55C under full load.
and that with 8dba fans throttled (full rpm reached at 40-60*C, depending what the fan is for.)


----------



## tabascosauz (Dec 29, 2019)

lorry said:


> must admit that I've not checked temps on ram when running P95, but I presume that as it ran for over an hour that nothing was much wrong
> 
> Showing my absolute zero knowledge here - my gigabyte aorus rtx 2070 super (the 1905 factory OC one), does that dump a lot of its heat outside the case or inside?
> Asking as mine is vertically mounted (proper vertical mount, actually sits where the PCI case brackets are). I mean, I've not seen the ram temps go above 31c (but like I said, didn't check whilst P95).
> ...



It'll only heat up the RAM if you're running Large FFTs, as it's the IMC and DIMMs being stressed in that one (it'll fit pretty much as large a workload as it can into whatever amount RAM you have, for maximum RAM usage). Small and Smallest both use small enough tests to fit entirely in the CPU's L3. I don't think there's much else that can heat up those sticks aside from P95 Large.

I have a feeling single rank sticks could also run cooler than dual rank, but that depends on where the temp sensor is placed on the DIMM PCB, and I've no clue.

All axial coolers dump heat into the case, but I mentioned the 290X because Hawaii was a particularly hot and hungry chip and was up there with the likes of the GTX 480 and heavily OCed 7970 GHz in being space heaters. You have a big case; you'll be fine with good airflow.

This is the PBO submenu under AMD Overclocking if you set it to Advanced:






Because no one really knows how many of them make a difference, if any at all, just set PBO limits to Disable, then yeet PBO scalar and boost clock override to their maximum settings. For thermal limit, I put 95, but I'm pretty certain that setting does nothing. And if they don't make any observable difference at all, just turn PBO back to whatever setting you had before.


----------



## lorry (Dec 29, 2019)

tabascosauz said:


> It'll only heat up the RAM if you're running Large FFTs, as it's the IMC and DIMMs being stressed in that one (it'll fit pretty much as large a workload as it can into whatever amount RAM you have, for maximum RAM usage). Small and Smallest both use small enough tests to fit entirely in the CPU's L3. I don't think there's much else that can heat up those sticks aside from P95 Large.
> 
> I have a feeling single rank sticks could also run cooler than dual rank, but that depends on where the temp sensor is placed on the DIMM PCB, and I've no clue.
> 
> ...




At the moment I have PBO set to advanced & max CPU Boost Clock Override set to 200MHz but everything else in that section is untouched

I see that in your example you have PBO manual, PPT to 105, TDC to100 & EDC to 0 ??? What reasonable limits should they be?
Also scaler set to 10x
You say set PBO limits to disable yet show it as manual ?
Also you show platform thermal limit set to 0, I presume that is just an example and that it should be set to 95?


----------



## tabascosauz (Dec 29, 2019)

lorry said:


> At the moment I have PBO set to advanced & max CPU Boost Clock Override set to 200MHz but everything else in that section is untouched
> 
> I see that in your example you have PBO manual, PPT to 105, TDC to100 & EDC to 0 ??? What reasonable limits should they be?
> Also scaler set to 10x
> ...



You can just set PBO Limits to Disable, it comes up as an option in the menu that pops up; it takes away all of PPT/TDC/EDC. I usually have all of PBO as Disabled for better performance and thermals, so I just switched it to Advanced to take a screenshot. You can set all three to an arbitrarily high number too, as it won't matter since the voltage limiter is still in place and it won't be drawing inane amounts of current and power.

No, I was just fooling around with 95 as that's the AMD-set throttle limit. You can set it to whatever you want, and I can't remember if there's also a Disable option for that. I don't think it makes much of a difference. 

Again, don't sweat the details. I'm not convinced all of this has very much an effect on performance unless your chip is binned so amazingly well that it's capable of far more than the stock limiters allow.


----------



## lorry (Dec 29, 2019)

tabascosauz said:


> You can just set PBO Limits to Disable, it comes up as an option in the menu that pops up; it takes away all of PPT/TDC/EDC. I usually have all of PBO as Disabled for better performance and thermals, so I just switched it to Advanced to take a screenshot. You can set all three to an arbitrarily high number too, as it won't matter since the voltage limiter is still in place and it won't be drawing inane amounts of current and power.
> 
> No, I was just fooling around with 95 as that's the AMD-set throttle limit. You can set it to whatever you want, and I can't remember if there's also a Disable option for that. I don't think it makes much of a difference.
> 
> Again, don't sweat the details. I'm not convinced all of this has very much an effect on performance unless your chip is binned so amazingly well that it's capable of far more than the stock limiters allow.




You have PBO set to disabled? Doesn't that then loose the boosting for a longer period? I thought the idea was to set it to advanced and then set 200MHz?
or did you mean setting PPT/TDC/EDC to disabled and then let the auto limiters take effect?


----------



## tabascosauz (Dec 29, 2019)

lorry said:


> You have PBO set to disabled? Doesn't that then loose the boosting for a longer period? I thought the idea was to set it to advanced and then set 200MHz?
> or did you mean setting PPT/TDC/EDC to disabled and then let the auto limiters take effect?



PBO kills my performance. It varies for everybody, some will find that PBO boosts performance, and others will find it a detriment. Probably down to silicon quality variation, again. My chip hits something of a voltage wall after 4.2GHz; trying to manually run P95 Smallest after that just turns my rig into Reactor #4.

I was referring to the FIT voltage limiter, which will stop your CPU from doing stupid things even if you take all the other limits off regarding PPT (socket power) and temperature. It puts a ceiling on what Vcore can be safely given to you over the SVI2 bus, depending on the circumstances in the given moment.

The only testing I did was setting PPT/TDC/EDC all to 105, thermal to 95, scalar and override to max, and stock Vcore. It boosted one step past the maximum rated boost clock for the 3700X (4430MHz), but my gains were limited to CPU-Z bench, and the chip was quite a bit hotter.

Side note, if you use P95 Small or Smallest for testing conventional CPUs, it appears that in a recent AGESA version, AMD has set some sort of multiplier limit when running Small FFTs. Smallest usually caps out at 41x or so, which is usual for a heavy all-core load, but now Small is limited to about 39x, being the more intensive of the two tests. It wasn't like this, at least in 1.0.0.3AB, where Small used to pull the same 40.5x multipliers before dropping gradually. Either that, or the FIT has been updated to accommodate for Small. Or AMD might have implemented a power limiter for that.


----------



## Zach_01 (Dec 29, 2019)

I have tried the PBO limits up until 900 for all PPT/EDC/TDC and does nothing. The internal self regulator/manager of the CPU is setting the limits as programmed by AMD. This is only for board bypass restrictions.
The temp limit (thermal throttle) of the CPU by AMD is 95C and I never tried it to like 100C or more to see if anything changes.
CPU temp never exceeds 64C full load with low pump speed and medium fan rpm. Ambient 22C.


----------



## lorry (Dec 29, 2019)

tabascosauz said:


> PBO kills my performance. It varies for everybody, some will find that PBO boosts performance, and others will find it a detriment. Probably down to silicon quality variation, again. My chip hits something of a voltage wall after 4.2GHz; trying to manually run P95 Smallest after that just turns my rig into Reactor #4.
> 
> I was referring to the FIT voltage limiter, which will stop your CPU from doing stupid things even if you take all the other limits off regarding PPT (socket power) and temperature. It puts a ceiling on what Vcore can be safely given to you over the SVI2 bus, depending on the circumstances in the given moment.
> 
> ...



No idea What, or even Where, FIT voltage limiter is, or even if it is configurable ?

I have to ask all this because the MB manual doesn't even have a PBO section in the BIOS chapter!

When I run/ran P95 i hyst started the auto configured stress test, which i believe has a mixture of everything in it?



Zach_01 said:


> I have tried the PBO limits up until 900 for all PPT/EDC/TDC and does nothing. The internal self regulator/manager of the CPU is setting the limits as programmed by AMD. This is only for board bypass restrictions.
> The temp limit (thermal throttle) of the CPU by AMD is 95C and I never tried it to like 100C or more to see if anything changes.
> CPU temp never exceeds 64C full load with low pump speed and medium fan rpm. Ambient 22C.



I guess that I will have to go into BIOS to see exactly what mine does?
Or would HWINFO show me the max settings for PPT/EDC/TDC ?


----------



## Zach_01 (Dec 29, 2019)

lorry said:


> I guess that I will have to go into BIOS to see exactly what mine does?
> Or would HWINFO show me the max settings for PPT/EDC/TDC ?


HWiNFO simply read and report UEFI limits of PPT/EDC/TDC.  If those are set to auto then it reports the default values of the specific CPU type as the 100%. If you set them manually for example to 900 then HW will take and report 900 as the 100%. RM also report the same.


----------



## lorry (Dec 29, 2019)

Zach_01 said:


> HWiNFO simply read and report UEFI limits of PPT/EDC/TDC.  If those are set to auto then it reports the default values of the specific CPU type as the 100%. If you set them manually for example to 900 then HW will take and report 900 as the 100%. RM also report the same.



So where would I find those figures online then please?
Are they Cpu specific or MB, or both?


----------



## Zach_01 (Dec 29, 2019)

You mean the default figures, right? Yes they are CPU specific by model. 3600, 3600X, 3700X... etc...

If now you have them auto, then you can see the max allowed values in RM, above histogram.

yours are these:
Temp throttle limit 95C
PPT 142W
TDC 95A
EDC 140A


----------



## lorry (Dec 29, 2019)

Zach_01 said:


> You mean the default figures, right? Yes they are CPU specific by model. 3600, 3600X, 3700X... etc...
> 
> If now you have them auto, then you can see the max allowed values in RM, above histogram.
> 
> ...



Thanks, is that available online? Guess it has to be, but where please?

And also, is there any suggestions as to what you might increase those figures by? 5%, 10%? etc


----------



## Zach_01 (Dec 29, 2019)

I found that those numbers are 2 tier.
65W TDP CPUs. (like mine)
105W TDP CPUs (like yours)

This review of GamerNexus explains a lot for, PrecisionBoost, PBO and other factors of ZEN2 CPUs.
It’s very confusing...









						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


----------



## lorry (Dec 29, 2019)

Zach_01 said:


> I found that those numbers are 2 tier.
> 65W TDP CPUs. (like mine)
> 105W TDP CPUs (like yours)
> 
> ...



Thanks and yes I completely agree with you about it being confusing, and I feel conflicting, information.
Take 1usmus power plan for instance, from what I can see, others weren't able (or willing?) to reproduce his results and claims, yet many individuals say that they have improved their own setups. So who is right in just that one particular case?
I also read about ZEN3 last night and that they will possibly see a 20% overall increase over ZEN2 with higher clock speeds matching Intel !









						Zen 3 is rumored to be flaunting monumental IPC gains in early testing
					

As AMD confirmed at the HPC-AI Advisory Council UK conference, their next-generation server architecture, Milan, is being tested by their biggest customers. Milan and Ryzen 4000 will...




					www.techspot.com


----------



## Zach_01 (Dec 29, 2019)

lorry said:


> Thanks and yes I completely agree with you about it being confusing, and I feel conflicting, information.
> Take 1usmus power plan for instance, from what I can see, others weren't able (or willing?) to reproduce his results and claims, yet many individuals say that they have improved their own setups. So who is right in just that one particular case?


I believe that users who claim not seeing anything with 1usmus plan are in 2 categories
1. They expected different things from what this power plan was meant to be
2. They did not set/install all that are required for it to work properly 



lorry said:


> I also read about ZEN3 last night and that they will possibly see a 20% overall increase over ZEN2 with higher clock speeds matching Intel !
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I will read this... but I do not believe that we will see any time soon Intel like boost clocks. Those figures (of 5GHz) will become long past even for Intel after introducing a whole new 7nm architecture.


----------



## lorry (Dec 29, 2019)

Zach_01 said:


> I believe that users who claim not seeing anything with 1usmus plan are in 2 categories
> 1. They expected different things from what this power plan was meant to be
> 2. They did not set/install all that are required for it to work properly
> 
> ...



I'm not so sure, ZEN3 looks to be radically different from ZEN2 from the little that I have read and I wouldn't rule anything out at the moment. Sure, when more leaks/info leaks out we will know a lot more, but for now anyway, AMD look to be the better bet when it comes to 7nm.


----------



## Zach_01 (Dec 29, 2019)

For now yes it is AMD better in 7nm because Intel doesn’t even have 7nm. And 10nm are still with a lot of issues. For now Intel is left behind, but will catch up on AMD in the next 2-3 years top.

As for ZEN3 I believe (and the techspot article said the same) that single core clocks will increase about 100-200MHz max. We may see a larger clock increases for all core clocks but not something ground breaking. The war of performance from now on will focus on the IPC gains and the multicore optimization.
It’s physically impossible to keep increasing clocks as more and more shrinking occurs and a higher density is achieved. The clock wall is near. And the shrinking wall is getting closer (~3nm) also, with the current UV/eUV method and the materials that manufacturers are using.


----------



## lorry (Dec 29, 2019)

Zach_01 said:


> I found that those numbers are 2 tier.
> 65W TDP CPUs. (like mine)
> 105W TDP CPUs (like yours)
> 
> ...



I had read that a while back, but rereading it now make it interesting reading. In R20 my single core results do not match there, with PBO on or off - they hit 520 whilst my very best so far is 502, but my multi core is 100 points higher, also for myself PBO does seem to increase multi core scores.
I feel that PBO is such a finicky thing even between the same setup but at different times, that it looks to be that there are no 'rules' or guidelines that can be given. Yes you _Might_ increase your performance by a percent or two, but nothing significant beyond besting your best benchmark by a few points, certainly nothing usable in real use. By far the biggest factor that many didn't appreciate and still don't is temperature. i did realise that and the reason why I went for the best air cooling that I could at the time (even going to the expense of adding another Noctua Chromax fan to the  NH DI-15S). I know that by far the best method is to get an open cooled loop and I am saving up for that, but at £400 roughly and limited funds, that won't happen next week either.



Zach_01 said:


> For now yes it is AMD better in 7nm because Intel doesn’t even have 7nm. And 10nm are still with a lot of issues. For now Intel is left behind, but will catch up on AMD in the next 2-3 years top.
> 
> As for ZEN3 I believe (and the techspot article said the same) that single core clocks will increase about 100-200MHz max. We may see a larger clock increases for all core clocks but not something ground breaking. The war of performance from now on will focus on the IPC gains and the multicore optimization.
> It’s physically impossible to keep increasing clocks as more and more shrinking occurs and a higher density is achieved. The clock wall is near. And the shrinking wall is getting closer (~3nm) also, with the current UV/eUV method and the materials that manufacturers are using.



Yes Intel will, but also remember that AMD would have also been developing and fine-tuning their own 7nm products that would be already out. So, as to whether they match each other or one remains ahead only time will tell.

I have a distinct feeling that given the designs of both Intel and AMD, that Intel will likely always be ahead in the fastest speeds and that AMD will be ahead in multicore usage. Unless of course either or both of them radically change the designs of their CPUs.

I feel that the clock wall being near is relative though. It is near, but I also do not expect it to be reached within the next couple of years. I am sure that the actual production process will be far more of a hindrance as the chiplets become thinner and that will then slow the progress to the thinnest wafer that can be made.

It may even be that we see a radical change in design. For instance, instead of going thinner and thinner, reaching an obvious end point, what if say AMD were able to develop and expand upon the Infinity Fabric to increase the distance between cores without loss of communication speed? That way you even see the size of the CPU increase significantly to allow distance between everything and dissipate the generated heat better, thus increasing performance that way?


----------



## Zach_01 (Dec 29, 2019)

lorry said:


> I had read that a while back, but rereading it now make it interesting reading. In R20 my single core results do not match there, with PBO on or off - they hit 520 whilst my very best so far is 502, but my multi core is 100 points higher, also for myself PBO does seem to increase multi core scores.
> I feel that PBO is such a finicky thing even between the same setup but at different times, that it looks to be that there are no 'rules' or guidelines that can be given. Yes you _Might_ increase your performance by a percent or two, but nothing significant beyond besting your best benchmark by a few points, certainly nothing usable in real use. By far the biggest factor that many didn't appreciate and still don't is temperature. i did realise that and the reason why I went for the best air cooling that I could at the time (even going to the expense of adding another Noctua Chromax fan to the  NH DI-15S). I know that by far the best method is to get an open cooled loop and I am saving up for that, but at £400 roughly and limited funds, that won't happen next week either.


Yes temperature has big impact on clocks for ZEN2. Even if the throttle temp(95C) is never reached, or even getting close.
When I first build the system (August, ~33C ambient, CPU max ~75C) I was studying HWINFO values during various usage scenarios and I never saw “CPU package power” more than ~75W for all core load and ~45W for single core.
Now with 22 ambient, CPU max 62~63C the max CPU package power is hitting 88W for all core and 55W for single. Max PPT allowed is 88W for my CPU.



lorry said:


> Yes Intel will, but also remember that AMD would have also been developing and fine-tuning their own 7nm products that would be already out. So, as to whether they match each other or one remains ahead only time will tell.
> 
> I have a distinct feeling that given the designs of both Intel and AMD, that Intel will likely always be ahead in the fastest speeds and that AMD will be ahead in multicore usage. Unless of course either or both of them radically change the designs of their CPUs.
> 
> ...


Intel will eventually switch architecture and may loose any high clock advantage in the future. Intel’s current tech was designed for monolithic low core count and high clocks dies. I believe this will come to en end soon (2021-22).

Manufacturers already know how things are going for the next decade or a little more. 7nm -> 5nm -> 3nm -> end of current UV tech or unknown factors. They also want the higher density (within reason) for optimal space management and for higher die count production per wafer. Higher yields is also a key factor for them to make as much profit they can get and offer a reasonable priced products at the same time. Chiplets(small dies) are helping with this. So they will be forced to use less voltage and clocks to achieve that density and will hunt performance gains through IPC and other optimizations. I will find a video about all this and post it here.

There it is... published March 2019.
It’s very interesting and I suggest to watch it all.


----------



## tabascosauz (Dec 29, 2019)

lorry said:


> No idea What, or even Where, FIT voltage limiter is, or even if it is configurable ?
> 
> I have to ask all this because the MB manual doesn't even have a PBO section in the BIOS chapter!
> 
> ...



FIT is set by AMD and is not configurable. It's like a knock sensor for your car's engine, which knows exactly where the limit of the engine is to prevent damage through knocking/detonation (here, unsafe voltage). But unlike the car's ECU, FIT can't be changed by the user like the ECU can be tuned.

Like before and like I've said, you'll find the PBO menu under AMD Overclocking in the Peripherals tab.

P95 gives you an option of Smallest, Small, Large and Blend when you open it. Use either Smallest or Small for CPU stability (whichever gets hotter on your system) and Large for memory stability. Blend isn't great because P95's main selling point is that it's extremely intensive and generates a lot of heat; that makes it useful to see where the equilibrium of your cooling setup lies. When the temps basically stop climbing and settle around a particular point, you know how much your system can take. Blend would simply shift the load into something else and allow the part that's heated up to cool down again.

The 1usmus plan is easily explained. The earlier your Windows version was when you switched to 1usmus, combined with the farther your best cores are from Core 0, the more you stand to gain from the 1usmus plan. If your chip has its best cores already in the first CCX (like yours), you stand to gain relatively little; Windows is using them by default. If your chip has its best cores in the last goddamn CCX and the first CCX is home to hot garbage of an excuse for silicon (like mine), there _can _be increased gains for those who have been shafted by AMD and TSMC; that's still subject to if those best cores are actually able to clock appreciably higher than the shitty ones. It's the exact same story for 1909 vs 1903, you *may or may not* notice a difference. The ridicule towards 1usmus really only shows some reviewers need to check their privilege, having received relatively well-off chips either in binning or core quality and distribution, and get off their fucking high horse.


----------



## Fry178 (Dec 29, 2019)

@tabascosauz
not looking into difference in perf etc, just looking at scheduling/which cores are being used, that plan changes nothing.
i read a test from a website (dont remember name, but one i knew for years so i know it wasnt a 12y old in the grandparents basement),
as well as some guy not being happy that his stuff wasn't running on the best clocking cores, both times they could show,
that there was no change which "cores were picked".

it does improve things for some because of they having the wrong "settings" (win etc) or un-tweaked power profiles,
but not for most of us running all the latest (bios/drivers), and so far most that looked under the hood,
stated its done by adjusting sleep of cores/cxx (delay/depth/wake up).

seeing that i couldn't measure any negative impact compared to the latest amd profiles that came with the chipset update,
i decide to use that (further tweaked).

but hey, if it works better on yours (vs the amd ones), why not.


----------



## tabascosauz (Dec 29, 2019)

Fry178 said:


> @tabascosauz
> not looking into difference in perf etc, just looking at scheduling/which cores are being used, that plan changes nothing.
> i read a test from a website (dont remember name, but one i knew for years so i know it wasnt a 12y old in the grandparents basement),
> as well as some guy not being happy that his stuff wasn't running on the best clocking cores, both times they could show,
> ...



What are you trying to say?

I've read a few of the "debunking" tests. Did any of them test beyond the Ryzen 3000 samples they already had on hand? Did any of them account for the improved scheduler in 1903/1909 that they would be running at the time of testing? Did they level the playing field by eradicating variation in AGESA versions? One hell of a "trusted" reviewer. That's like me dismissing hundreds of other F150 owners suffering oil consumption on the 5.0 Gen3 motor just because mine happened to be problem free. Conduct a thorough test with a more significant sample size, and now we're getting somewhere with results that the community can actually make use of.

I've literally just described the conditions under which you _might stand_ to experience some gains: without the Windows scheduler improvements that render the plan anywhere from slightly to largely redundant, with a chip that has suboptimal distribution of its best cores, with a chip that actually has an appreciable delta (read: thus, actual potential gain) in performance/clocks/voltages amongst its cores. And most definitely, without running AGESA 1.0.0.4-based BIOSes with actual CPPC controls that didn't exist at the time of the plan's release.


----------



## lorry (Dec 29, 2019)

tabascosauz said:


> FIT is set by AMD and is not configurable. It's like a knock sensor for your car's engine, which knows exactly where the limit of the engine is to prevent damage through knocking/detonation (here, unsafe voltage). But unlike the car's ECU, FIT can't be changed by the user like the ECU can be tuned.
> 
> Like before and like I've said, you'll find the PBO menu under AMD Overclocking in the Peripherals tab.
> 
> ...



Yep, I know where PBO is, it's currently set to advanced and the +200MHz option selected. I couldn't remember seeing a FIT setting though, that's why I asked
Thanks re prime95, so small for CPU and large for memory, got it.
I'm pretty sure that by the time I installed 1usmus I was already on 1909 (the Ryzen power plans were already an option and I Had selected those).
I'd like to see what say Gamers Nexus reports re 1usmus, as I tend to trust his testing (states the How they test and the Why), but from their reports and videos etc they tend to think that there isn't any big improvements to be made. Even so if there's a few percent to be had for free, it would be daft not to say thank you very much and grab it!
To be honest I doubt that I will see much in the way of any realistic improvements in my CPU, AMD have already got it set up at close to max performance already, sure a few tweaks here and there but nothing earth shattering. I have a feeling that for myself the only major improvements were in the ram, and even there it is likely close to what can be got out of it without Much better knowledge than I currently have.


----------



## Zach_01 (Dec 29, 2019)

tabascosauz said:


> FIT is set by AMD and is not configurable. It's like a knock sensor for your car's engine, which knows exactly where the limit of the engine is to prevent damage through knocking/detonation (here, unsafe voltage). But unlike the car's ECU, FIT can't be changed by the user like the ECU can be tuned.


I tried to find some info about this FIT and I couldnt. And I never heard/read about such term either.
Can you link us somewhere we can read about it? I'm interested in such things, and I believe @lorry too...


----------



## tabascosauz (Dec 29, 2019)

Zach_01 said:


> I tried to find some info about this FIT and I couldnt. And I never heard/read about such term either.
> Can you link us somewhere we can read about it? I'm interested in such things, and I believe @lorry too...



References to FIT are really patchy, as with most things AMD (try looking up resources on the SVI2 bus for Ryzen 3000 specifically, kek). A Reddit comment here, a AMD forum post there...some do point to an OCN post by the Stilt, "Strictly technical: Matisse (not really)". A chunk of the info there is deprecated due to it being written after release and subsequent AGESA having changed how the CPUs, work, but the references to FIT are in the "The overclocking capabilities" section.

More importantly, there's a lot under there that affirms what I've been saying about Zen 2, that in order to attain the advertised clockspeeds, the chips have to go beyond what is considered efficient for N7FF, which lies around the area of 3700X and lower SKUs' base clock: 3.5-3.6GHz. After this, necessary Vcore rises like magma up through a volcano. It explains why shitty chips have to be made into 3600/3700X, and why the lucky "good" 3600 can be OCed to rival 3700X/3800X speeds. At or below 3.6GHz, Vcore is low but not amazingly so (~1.0V), and power consumption and thermals are nearly dormant. If AMD can just stop trying to bite off more than they can chew, EUV 7nm could be a revolutionary efficiency leap for 4000.

Interestingly, he notes that Matisse has nothing like an AVX-512 offset that Intel has, which keeps thermals in check in those AVX scenarios. From what I've been seeing lately in P95 Small specifically as opposed to the normal clocks in Smallest, I can't help but wonder if this is still true.


----------



## lorry (Dec 29, 2019)

Strictly technical: Matisse (Not really)
					

07/08/2019 6:33 PM (GMT) - Update on the bios issue on Crosshair VIII Hero motherboard ("the thing").  Earlier today I received a response to my inquiries from ASUS. The response was rather technical and I cannot go into the specifics of what exactly it involved. However, it confirmed my...




					www.overclock.net
				












						CCX Overclocking Tool for AMD CPUs Updated With New Features
					

Today an overclocking utility for AMD Ryzen CPUs called "Work Tool" has been updated with new features. The tool enables per-CCX overclocking, which is said to enable additional overclocking performance if one CCX is more capable than the other, so the whole CPU doesn't have to run at the speed...




					www.techpowerup.com
				




A comment posted by 1usmus in that thread -

"*Delete this application and forget about existence, you will kill your processors!
 This is hacking FIT limits, the last line of protection for the processor* "


----------



## mtcn77 (Dec 29, 2019)

If you are into PBO overclocking/undervolting, I suggest using EDC for undervolting purposes and PPT for overclocking intentions. I find the standard power-performance curve being most easily adjustable single-handedly by that respective order.


----------



## lorry (Dec 29, 2019)

mtcn77 said:


> If you are into PBO overclocking/undervolting, I suggest using EDC for undervolting purposes and PPT for overclocking intentions. I find the standard power-performance curve being most easily adjustable single-handedly by that respective order.



Do you have any links you could suggest where I could read up some more on it?


----------



## mtcn77 (Dec 29, 2019)

lorry said:


> Do you have any links you could suggest where I could read up some more on it?


Just wrote a review on it: [Based on a Reddit post]


----------



## tabascosauz (Dec 29, 2019)

lorry said:


> Strictly technical: Matisse (Not really)
> 
> 
> 07/08/2019 6:33 PM (GMT) - Update on the bios issue on Crosshair VIII Hero motherboard ("the thing").  Earlier today I received a response to my inquiries from ASUS. The response was rather technical and I cannot go into the specifics of what exactly it involved. However, it confirmed my...
> ...



Seems like you just have to set manual voltage to stop it from going to 1.405V Vcore. Not sure how your BIOS reacts; mine straight up doesn't POST if I start splitting up clocks by CCX, so I'm not too enthusiastic about this tool. Also, I can't seem to find any reference to it beyond its initial release in July, which isn't promising, considering all the changes that have happened since then.



mtcn77 said:


> If you are into PBO overclocking/undervolting, I suggest using EDC for undervolting purposes and PPT for overclocking intentions. I find the standard power-performance curve being most easily adjustable single-handedly by that respective order.



Didn't seem to do anything positive at those settings. I still bench best and perform best day to day in CB R20 with PBO off and -0.075V offset. Running stock PPT and TDC with slightly lower EDC and stock Vcore just behaved like a worse maxed-out PBO experience. If undervolting gives you gains, there's a much easier way and surefire way to do it than messing around in PBO.


----------



## mtcn77 (Dec 29, 2019)

tabascosauz said:


> Seems like you just have to set manual voltage to stop it from going to 1.405V Vcore. Not sure how your BIOS reacts; mine straight up doesn't POST if I start splitting up clocks by CCX, so I'm not too enthusiastic about this tool. Also, I can't seem to find any reference to it beyond its initial release in July, which isn't promising, considering all the changes that have happened since then.
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't seem to do anything positive at those settings. I still bench best and perform best day to day in CB R20 with PBO off and -0.075V offset. Running stock PPT and TDC with slightly lower EDC and stock Vcore just behaved like a worse maxed-out PBO experience. If undervolting gives you gains, *there's a much easier way and surefire way to do it* than messing around in PBO.


Well, if there is any, please provide directions as to how. This normally entails a larger debate as to whether PPT or EDC provides the higher benefit to which I myself base my verdict on, so if you would have just told to undervolt I would thusly state no, PPT is better and even further is EDC. PPT relies on voltage through being dependent on the socket wattage. EDC is totally exempt from this.


----------



## tabascosauz (Dec 29, 2019)

mtcn77 said:


> Well, if there is any, please provide directions as to how. This normally entails a larger debate as to whether PPT or EDC provides the higher benefit to which I myself base my verdict on, so if you would have just told to undervolt I would thusly state no, PPT is better and even further is EDC. PPT relies on voltage through being dependent on the socket wattage. EDC is totally exempt from this.



Yeah, the surefire way is to set an offset. lol

Is that your test and your graph? I see that it's supposedly made by someone named vpcf90. That's almost the exact same platform as I am running, and I don't seem to get any of those power efficiency gains from reducing EDC or PPT. Since that just eliminated the motherboard variable, that's kinda telling. 

I have to run the lower PPT or EDC with stock Vcore or the test would be kinda moot, and I'm not getting any semblance of power savings. Still sounds like a jet engine, and still gets as hot as it does with all stock settings.


----------



## Fry178 (Dec 29, 2019)

@tabascosauz
please read the first sentence of my post again.

im not saying there is no gains, im saying its NOT because the cpu starts using the highest clocking cores (vs it didnt before) like many thing/believe.
affinity/scheduling for cores can only be "fixed" by MS updates that change windows, not by some added stuff/profile/software etc.

stuff is still heavily tweaked for intel cpus, so i expect this to get better, but with intel still recognizing non intel cpus and treat them like such is another point for massive gains.


----------



## mtcn77 (Dec 29, 2019)

tabascosauz said:


> Yeah, the surefire way is to set an offset. lol
> 
> Is that your test and your graph? I see that it's supposedly made by someone named vpcf90. That's almost the exact same platform as I am running, and I don't seem to get any of those power efficiency gains from reducing EDC or PPT. Since that just eliminated the motherboard variable, that's kinda telling.
> 
> I have to run the lower PPT or EDC with stock Vcore or the test would be kinda moot, and I'm not getting any semblance of power savings. Still sounds like a jet engine, and still gets as hot as it does with all stock settings.


Not, I just research others.
If it struggles to run cool, that is definitely a limited sample issue. You could troubleshoot. However, the general statements wouldn't be jeopardised.
In my experience smartfan is the way to go. It sets a custom bios range where the fan only operates through the prescribed rpm window. 73 degrees Celcius & 88 watts is not hot by my standards and all things considered if there is cpu headroom to spare, having a one stop solution to overclocking through PBO just might be too tempting to resist considering all the hassle of oc-personalisation.


----------



## tabascosauz (Dec 29, 2019)

mtcn77 said:


> If it struggles to run cool, that is definitely a limited sample issue. You could troubleshoot. However, the general statements wouldn't be jeopardised.
> In my experience smartfan is the way to go. It sets a custom bios range where the fan only operates through the prescribed rpm window. 73 degrees Celcius & 88 watts is not hot by my standards and all things considered if there is cpu headroom to spare, having a one stop option to overclock through PBO just might be too tempting to resist the hassle of oc-personalisation.



It doesn't really struggle to run cool, it's just that a few degrees happens to be a major acoustic difference on two NF-A9s. I mean, it never really gets up past 74 degrees in anything, now that P95 Small is subject to a handicapped multiplier.

So apparently, in order for EDC 80 to make a difference, all the other PBO settings have to be on Auto. Seems I jumped the gun - that's my mistake. With EDC of 80, it's basically down to the same Vcore and temperature and acoustics range as -0.075V offset.

But there's no power savings and the CB R20 score is still about the same. Going off the graph, I'm not sure if I can recognize a +10pt gain in CB as a real gain; even without changing any settings, that kind of gain is fair game for regular variations.

Also, there's seems to be a LOT more than a 0.006V difference in Vcore between EDC 80 and stock EDC 90 than the graph makes it look like.


----------



## mtcn77 (Dec 29, 2019)

tabascosauz said:


> It doesn't really struggle to run cool, it's just that a few degrees happens to be a major acoustic difference on two NF-A9s. I mean, it never really gets up past 74 degrees in anything, now that P95 Small is subject to a handicapped multiplier.
> 
> So apparently, in order for EDC 80 to make a difference, all the other PBO settings have to be on Auto. Seems I jumped the gun - that's my mistake. With EDC of 80, it's basically down to the same Vcore and temperature and acoustics range as -0.075V offset.
> 
> ...


Good thing we are on the same page. Now, I spoke to you about Q-fan or smartfan or whatever its name - if you do that, you can do all sorts of things. Be leery about it, if you fine tune your Q-fan for your attention threshold, there is a golden nugget down the line - the cpu does the rest for you. So, there is no exception to not using it. The wee spinner can go up to 5200 rpm! Just set it to 60/30% & 70/60C and I honestly don't hear it over ambient case fans. It idles around 2000-2500rpm, never surpassing 3500rpm - statistically a nonentity. The way I settled through these numbers were I was pushing small fft P95 and just measured how it settled. Notice, on Ryzen you don't even have to undervolt. Just set it and forget it.
PS: there is more than one setting, though. You first do the setting I told you about and then set it on windows fan monitor. The windows settings are 20%/30C, 50%/60C and 90%/70C since it does not allow for a deeper section carved fan lobe.


----------



## tabascosauz (Dec 30, 2019)

mtcn77 said:


> Good thing we are on the same page. Now, I spoke to you about Q-fan or smartfan or whatever its name - if you do that, you can do all sorts of things. Be leery about it, if you fine tune your Q-fan for your attention threshold, there is a golden nugget down the line - the cpu does the rest for you. So, there is no exception to not using it. The wee spinner can go up to 5200 rpm! Just set it to 60/30% & 70/60C and I honestly don't hear it over ambient case fans. It idles around 2000-2500rpm, never surpassing 3500rpm - statistically a nonentity. The way I settled through these numbers were I was pushing small fft P95 and just measured how it settled. Notice, on Ryzen you don't even have to undervolt. Just set it and forget it.



Oh, I always bench with the side panel off and both A9s and A12x25s at full speed. Just to eliminate one more variable. Otherwise, it's small and on my desk, so I try to keep the noise down when I can - the reason why I can't stand maxed out PBO settings, even if there was a performance improvement (there isn't). I intended to use my C14S, which would have tamed the 3700X down right away, but the socket placement prevents that. 2500rpm idle seems a bit high, mine is usually around 1000rpm and goes up to 1500rpm at full load.

I'm not sure if reducing EDC to 80 does much, now. EDC 80, noPBO -0.075V, AutoPBO AutoVcore......they all seem to have the same results in temperature, Vcore, noise, CB R20 results, and power consumption. The settings are sticking, I'm sure of that, but nothing else seems to be different.

The undervolt used to be absolutely necessary. The old F42c BIOS pumped way too much Vcore. Then F50 and 1.0.0.4 probably discreetly changed things, and it appears the undervolt setting doesn't work anymore and Auto just does the same thing. I hate secret behind-the-scenes changes.


----------



## mtcn77 (Dec 30, 2019)

tabascosauz said:


> Oh, I always bench with the side panel off and both A9s and A12x25s at full speed. Just to eliminate one more variable. Otherwise, it's small and on my desk, so I try to keep the noise down when I can - the reason why I can't stand maxed out PBO settings, even if there was a performance improvement (there isn't). I intended to use my C14S, which would have tamed the 3700X down right away, but the socket placement prevents that. 2500rpm idle seems a bit high, mine is usually around 1000rpm and goes up to 1500rpm at full load.
> 
> I'm not sure if reducing EDC to 80 does much, now. EDC 80, noPBO -0.075V, AutoPBO AutoVcore......they all seem to have the same results in temperature, Vcore, noise, CB R20 results, and power consumption. The settings are sticking, I'm sure of that, but nothing else seems to be different.
> 
> The undervolt used to be absolutely necessary. The old F42c BIOS pumped way too much Vcore. Then F50 and 1.0.0.4 probably discreetly changed things, and it appears the undervolt setting doesn't work anymore and Auto just does the same thing. I hate secret behind-the-scenes changes.


One thing you never mentioned is your cpu fan speeds which I find ironic because I had the same issues when using a Zalman CNPS9500 cooler. I hate open heatpipe design starting with it.
PS: looks like you did, my mistake.

If you get where I'm at, you will likely suspect I blame AMD for being too hesitant which would be correct. Where is my single sliding scale at!


----------



## tabascosauz (Dec 30, 2019)

mtcn77 said:


> One thing you never mentioned is your cpu fan speeds which I find ironic because I had the same issues when using a Zalman CNPS9500 cooler. I hate open heatpipe design starting with it.
> PS: looks like you did, my mistake.
> 
> If you get where I'm at, you will likely suspect I blame AMD for being too hesitant which would be correct. Where is my single sliding scale at!



The U9S is a few degrees cooler than the CNPS9500, but that's about it. There's not much performance left to squeeze out of the 92mm tower; the U9S and D9L have already done that compared to the U9B SE2. I have all three, and it might be time for something larger.

Only one I blame is Gigabyte for their idiotic socket placement, lol. It's always higher than everybody else's, meaning the C14S can't be used. 

I'm curious to see what results @lorry might turn out with PPT and EDC reduction. He seems to have a better chip.


----------



## mtcn77 (Dec 30, 2019)

tabascosauz said:


> The U9S is a few degrees cooler than the CNPS9500, but that's about it. There's not much performance left to squeeze out of the 92mm tower; the U9S and D9L have already done that compared to the U9B SE2. I have all three, and it might be time for something larger.
> 
> Only one I blame is Gigabyte for their idiotic socket placement, lol. It's always higher than everybody else's, meaning the C14S can't be used.
> 
> I'm curious to see what results @lorry might turn out with PPT and EDC reduction. He seems to have a better chip.


You could always use air ducting, you still haven't measured how it fares though I know it isn't too efficient, heat pipes don't have particularly good heat capacity vs. conduction.


----------



## lorry (Dec 30, 2019)

tabascosauz said:


> Yeah, the surefire way is to set an offset. lol
> 
> Is that your test and your graph? I see that it's supposedly made by someone named vpcf90. That's almost the exact same platform as I am running, and I don't seem to get any of those power efficiency gains from reducing EDC or PPT. Since that just eliminated the motherboard variable, that's kinda telling.
> 
> I have to run the lower PPT or EDC with stock Vcore or the test would be kinda moot, and I'm not getting any semblance of power savings. Still sounds like a jet engine, and still gets as hot as it does with all stock settings.




What is this offset then? What does it do and how do you use it / apply it?



tabascosauz said:


> The U9S is a few degrees cooler than the CNPS9500, but that's about it. There's not much performance left to squeeze out of the 92mm tower; the U9S and D9L have already done that compared to the U9B SE2. I have all three, and it might be time for something larger.
> 
> Only one I blame is Gigabyte for their idiotic socket placement, lol. It's always higher than everybody else's, meaning the C14S can't be used.
> 
> I'm curious to see what results @lorry might turn out with PPT and EDC reduction. He seems to have a better chip.



Eh?
"PPT and EDC reduction" ? Thought we were talking about increasing. You have lost me, explain Please?

Just to remind ourselves - there's a 'post your R20 scores' on the AMD forum.
This is a pic from a 3950x user. Look at how far ahead of us his multi core score is, And the compare that amount compared to how little he is ahead of us in single core.
It is multi core where AMD excells, not the single core


----------



## tabascosauz (Dec 30, 2019)

lorry said:


> What is this offset then? What does it do and how do you use it / apply it?
> Eh?
> "PPT and EDC reduction" ? Thought we were talking about increasing. You have lost me, explain Please?
> 
> ...



The idea of messing with PPT and EDC is that you can achieve similar results to undervolting with supposedly better performance, and allegedly increase your CB score very slightly with a slight decrease in EDC. Your stock EDC is 140, mine is 90. There seemed to be a near-negligible CB improvement with mine set at 80, basically -10. Again, you'll find PPT, TDC and EDC under the PBO menu, and they'll appear if PBO limits are set to Manual. You'll need to have PBO itself on Advanced settings, as before.

However, at least for me, all aspects of behaviour and (otherwise) performance are pretty much identical to disabling PBO altogether and setting a -0.075V offset. When I talk about undervolting, it's always through setting a dynamic-running voltage offset that applies to whatever Vcore figure the CPU is receiving at any given point in time. You'll be able to adjust a negative (undervolt) or positive (overvolt) offset if you set Vcore to Normal as opposed to Auto (just type in N in that field for Normal and A for Auto), in the Core Voltage setting under MIT>Advanced Voltage Settings. But I'm not exactly sure yet if the F50 BIOS has broken the offset functionality, meaning that if you leave it on Auto or Normal, it'll might just do the same Vcore regardless of what offset you set.

Setting a manual Vcore (in the aforementioned Core Voltage field, typing in any [reasonable] number instead of N for Normal and A for Auto will set a fixed Vcore) outside of setting manual fixed clocks is ridiculous, and I can't believe idiot reviewers actually made headlines at launch by setting a 1.0V Vcore. 1.0V is good for all-core manual 3.5-3.6GHz on a decent chip, and that's about it. With the boost still on, Ryzen needs more volts to hit any higher speeds, and if it's not getting those volts, it's not going anywhere past. Simple as that. In the context of undervolting: if you run fixed clocks, set a manual Vcore; if you want boost to work as it is intended, set an offset.

I mean, the 3950X only boosts 100MHz higher. 4.7GHz is more or less the very ceiling of what Zen 2 is capable of on the current process, there's 0 headroom left at that point. Multi-core, they all scale down their multipliers drastically, or they'd all burn up like FX-9590s.


----------



## lorry (Dec 30, 2019)

tabascosauz said:


> The idea of messing with PPT and EDC is that you can achieve similar results to undervolting with supposedly better performance, and allegedly increase your CB score very slightly with a slight decrease in EDC. Your stock EDC is 140, mine is 90. There seemed to be a near-negligible CB improvement with mine set at 80, basically -10. Again, you'll find PPT, TDC and EDC under the PBO menu, and they'll appear if PBO limits are set to Manual. You'll need to have PBO itself on Advanced settings, as before.
> 
> However, at least for me, all aspects of behaviour and (otherwise) performance are pretty much identical to disabling PBO altogether and setting a -0.075V offset. When I talk about undervolting, it's always through setting a dynamic-running voltage offset that applies to whatever Vcore figure the CPU is receiving at any given point in time. You'll be able to adjust a negative (undervolt) or positive (overvolt) offset if you set Vcore to Normal as opposed to Auto (just type in N in that field for Normal and A for Auto), in the Core Voltage setting under MIT>Advanced Voltage Settings. But I'm not exactly sure yet if the F50 BIOS has broken the offset functionality, meaning that if you leave it on Auto or Normal, it'll might just do the same Vcore regardless of what offset you set.
> 
> ...



I remember a video by BZ where he went through all the BIOS settings in the gigabyte X470 board and I think he said the max offset the board allowed was 300, I think that was mv but I'm not sure. I have it bookmarked downstairs though. 

At some point I'd like to run through an offset with you so that I understand what is required, if that's ok with you?


----------



## tabascosauz (Dec 30, 2019)

lorry said:


> I remember a video by BZ where he went through all the BIOS settings in the gigabyte X470 board and I think he said the max offset the board allowed was 300, I think that was mv but I'm not sure. I have it bookmarked downstairs though.
> 
> At some point I'd like to run through an offset with you so that I understand what is required, if that's ok with you?



It's your thread - you don't have to ask  those of us that are here are here because it's fun to hang out here lol

Perhaps -0.3V is what he meant by the maximum offset allowed? In any case, that's too much of an offset, either way - positive or negative. If you set that much of an offset, performance will drop for sure, and it may be unstable. You shouldn't have to go past -0.1V. As a general rule, start from 0, work your way down in the increments it allows (I think it's like 0.0075V steps or something that small), and make sure that it's actually changing your Vcore (I think some of the values are somewhat redundant, they result in the same Vcore as the setting just above or below them, like -0.06875 and -0.075 are the same). Find a spot that's a good balance between performance/heat/noise. For me, -0.05V is good, but -0.075V is actually still where I bench highest on CB. A lot of boards will feed too much Vcore stock on Auto voltage, which seems to be detrimental as it generates too much heat, and hurts performance by hitting the limiter all the time.

I think I figured out -0.075V was stable through a couple of hours of P95 Smallest back in September or so, and just kept at it all this time. I think -0.08V started logging WHEA errors in HWInfo (WHEA errors kinda like a friendly "hey, I think this will run into problems down the road" reminder for me, followed up in order of severity by P95 crashing, OCCT crashing, BSODs, graphical artifacting, and finally failed boot), so I stayed at -0.075V.

The Core Voltage field and offset setting seems to be really janky; Auto setting is default and doesn't allow you to set offset as it's greyed out. If you change Voltage to Normal, you can then set an offset. You can change it back to Auto if ever you wish to go back to stock Vcore, *however, *the offset doesn't go away, it somehow stays even if you're back on Auto (and you can't change or remove the offset on Auto, it's greyed out even though it's there). Like, if you run the system on Auto again but didn't manually reset the offset to 0, boot into Windows with it on Auto voltage and it'll still act like it's offset. So if you ever want to change the Vcore offset back, you have to be in Normal mode first, remove it, then switch to Auto mode, and you'll be back on stock Vcore.


----------



## Fry178 (Dec 31, 2019)

I read someone mentioned CB15 (?) in a 300s loop was one of the quickest ways to get to max boost clocks (pass=stable).
not sure if he himself or others well and just posting) but i know they did it on a couple of different chips to verify.
at least faster than running prime (which iirc is not always a 100% guarantee for stable clocks outside prime).

anyone knows what a 3600 can usually do on all cores?
trying to push clocks a bit, but not to squeeze everything out of it.


----------



## lorry (Dec 31, 2019)

tabascosauz said:


> It's your thread - you don't have to ask  those of us that are here are here because it's fun to hang out here lol
> 
> Perhaps -0.3V is what he meant by the maximum offset allowed? In any case, that's too much of an offset, either way - positive or negative. If you set that much of an offset, performance will drop for sure, and it may be unstable. You shouldn't have to go past -0.1V. As a general rule, start from 0, work your way down in the increments it allows (I think it's like 0.0075V steps or something that small), and make sure that it's actually changing your Vcore (I think some of the values are somewhat redundant, they result in the same Vcore as the setting just above or below them, like -0.06875 and -0.075 are the same). Find a spot that's a good balance between performance/heat/noise. For me, -0.05V is good, but -0.075V is actually still where I bench highest on CB. A lot of boards will feed too much Vcore stock on Auto voltage, which seems to be detrimental as it generates too much heat, and hurts performance by hitting the limiter all the time.
> 
> ...



I ask because that's manners, you owe me nothing 

Yeah, that's what I meant, plus or minus 0.3v. He was just saying what the range was. The BIOS run-through is actually on a  Gigabyte X470 Ultra Gaming , but the BIOS is virtually identical and good enough as an example.
Which would be the best to use to check ? HWInfo or RM?
Is it the CPU Core Voltage (SVI2 TFN) in HWInfo? That, at desktop sits around 1.1-1.4V, Lowest is 1.094, highest is 1.481
"To change the Vcore offset back, you have to be in Normal mode first, remove it, then switch to Auto mode, and you'll be back on stock Vcore." - good to know, I may well have missed that














Fry178 said:


> I read someone mentioned CB15 (?) in a 300s loop was one of the quickest ways to get to max boost clocks (pass=stable).
> not sure if he himself or others well and just posting) but i know they did it on a couple of different chips to verify.
> at least faster than running prime (which iirc is not always a 100% guarantee for stable clocks outside prime).
> 
> ...



They say 4.3 here at 1.43V









						AMD Ryzen 5 3600 CPU Review & Benchmarks: Strong Recommendation from GN
					

Alongside the 3900X and 3700X that we’re also reviewing, AMD launched its R5 3600 today to the public. We got a production sample of one of the R5 3600 CPUs through a third-party and, after seeing its performance, we wanted to focus first on this one for our initial Ryzen 3000 review.  -




					www.gamersnexus.net


----------



## tabascosauz (Dec 31, 2019)

Fry178 said:


> I read someone mentioned CB15 (?) in a 300s loop was one of the quickest ways to get to max boost clocks (pass=stable).
> not sure if he himself or others well and just posting) but i know they did it on a couple of different chips to verify.
> at least faster than running prime (which iirc is not always a 100% guarantee for stable clocks outside prime).
> 
> ...



I could have sworn I've seen someone hitting 4.3 or 4.4 over on the Zen Owner's Garden thread. Fixed freq of course. It's easy enough to test your chip's limits with manual clocks and Vcore. Minimum silicon quality on 3600 sucks butt.

Smallest FFTs is alright, but Small appears no longer viable because it seems to artificially reduce the multiplier. The nice thing about something like Smallest is that it'll be pretty much the max load possible, meaning Vcore droops to its maximum. Even at maximum droop, there is some fluctuation, and it is those tiny lows that quickly kill worker threads and therefore stability if you're right on the edge.



lorry said:


> I ask because that's manners, you owe me nothing
> 
> Yeah, that's what I meant, plus or minus 0.3v. He was just saying what the range was. The BIOS run-through is actually on a  Gigabyte X470 Ultra Gaming , but the BIOS is virtually identical and good enough as an example.
> Which would be the best to use to check ? HWInfo or RM?
> ...



Yes, SVI2 TFN is reported by the CPU and is the most accurate. The other Vcore you'll see is reported by your board's ITE chip, and is not as useful. RM has been really glitchy in the past (there was this period of time when it would report Vcore as a constant 1.4V+ as long as you had the histogram display enabled in the application), so just use HWInfo.

I think I see the source of possible confusion here. Visually, all 400-series Gigabytes have the same BIOS (and even X570, just kinda reskinned and reshuffled here and there), but the pre-Matisse BIOS versions look a bit different to the post-Matisse release versions. I built a 2600 (Pinnacle) system for a friend with the exact same board as mine, but with an earlier BIOS (F4 or F5, I think), and he has things like EZ Overclock Tuner in BZ's video, which they seem to have taken away for Matisse, as it's not there in F42c, F42g, F50a and F50.




I'm guessing your F50 should like something like this? BZ's Pinnacle BIOS doesn't have a separate CPU Vcore field, which is helpful if you want to run fixed freq but also introduces the whole Normal/Auto headache. There used to be a functional difference between the two, not anymore it seems.

Whether you have anything to gain kinda depends on the chip you have, but that 1.481 Vcore peak is in line with stock highs on mine, though mine goes all the way up to 1.5V without any offset.


----------



## Zach_01 (Dec 31, 2019)

Yesterday found what FIT stands for... thanks to the link @lorry provided.
All and all it’s about FITness silicon manager. What we call the internal regulator/manager of the CPU, the one that controls and regulate the PPT/TDC/EDC and temperature.

I also tried to undervolt my 3600 with offset (vcore normal and offset a couple of notches, -0.00625 each =0.0125 under normal)
I did see a regression in max temp, about 2C but also loosing some clock. At least 25MHz.
I guess I hit the lottery of the worst possible silicon quality and cannot sustain clocks even with the slightest undervolting.

My 3600 at auto vcore clocks to about 4200MHz with short bursts for single/low core load, and about 4000MHz for all core load.

I assume that higher silicon quality CPUs would benefit from a slight undervolt. At least to preserve same clocks with lower powerdraw and temp


----------



## lorry (Dec 31, 2019)

tabascosauz said:


> Smallest FFTs is alright, but Small appears no longer viable because it seems to artificially reduce the multiplier. The nice thing about something like Smallest is that it'll be pretty much the max load possible, meaning Vcore droops to its maximum. Even at maximum droop, there is some fluctuation, and it is those tiny lows that quickly kill worker threads and therefore stability if you're right on the edge.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I'm sure that I still have the 'EZ Overclock Tuner' option in my BIOS, I'll try to remember next time i'm in there and screenshot, but your pic does look familiar
Do still kind of think though that I have little to actually gain re CPU speeds overall. I mean yes I _Might_ gain slightly in one thing, then lose that in another, so that overall most things remain the same.



Zach_01 said:


> Yesterday found what FIT stands for... thanks to the link @lorry provided.
> All and all it’s about FITness silicon manager. What we call the internal regulator/manager of the CPU, the one that controls and regulate the PPT/TDC/EDC and temperature.
> 
> I also tried to undervolt my 3600 with offset (vcore normal and offset a couple of notches, -0.00625 each =0.0125 under normal)
> ...



Cool, FIT makes sense Now, lol.

I'll have to see if mine benefits, but not today  

Today is about consuming silly amounts of 'fuel'


----------



## Fry178 (Dec 31, 2019)

Seems i do get what i paid for (3.95-4 ghz on all core load/4.2 for low load), so i dont expect it to go much higher.
Should have kept the last one that i swapped to try this one, as that got 50-200 MHz more


----------



## lorry (Dec 31, 2019)

Fry178 said:


> Seems i do get what i paid for (3.95-4 ghz on all core load/4.2 for low load), so i dont expect it to go much higher.
> Should have kept the last one that i swapped to try this one, as that got 50-200 MHz more



Ouch


----------



## tabascosauz (Dec 31, 2019)

Zach_01 said:


> Yesterday found what FIT stands for... thanks to the link @lorry provided.
> All and all it’s about FITness silicon manager. What we call the internal regulator/manager of the CPU, the one that controls and regulate the PPT/TDC/EDC and temperature.
> 
> I also tried to undervolt my 3600 with offset (vcore normal and offset a couple of notches, -0.00625 each =0.0125 under normal)
> ...



Pretty much, your chip has to be pulling excessive stock voltage, and also getting too hot on stock voltage for the cooler you're using, to get anything out of undervolting. You've got plenty of cooling, and water isn't afraid of a little extra voltage, so go for performance!

It's mostly a SFF thing. The U9S and D9L are on the small side, but there are a lot of other miserable little coolers in these small cases that make those two 92mm towers look like kings. 

If you'd like, you can test with fixed freq. It gives you a much clearer picture as to how you did in the lottery. As far as I can tell, the 95c throttle limit is the only safeguard with full manual settings.



lorry said:


> I'm sure that I still have the 'EZ Overclock Tuner' option in my BIOS, I'll try to remember next time i'm in there and screenshot, but your pic does look familiar
> Do still kind of think though that I have little to actually gain re CPU speeds overall. I mean yes I _Might_ gain slightly in one thing, then lose that in another, so that overall most things remain the same.
> 
> Cool, FIT makes sense Now, lol.
> ...



A lot of those 1-click OC utilities use obscene amounts of voltage to clock higher (not that it's really possible on Matisse anyway). I'm glad it appears to be removed.

Happy new year, all.


----------



## lorry (Dec 31, 2019)

tabascosauz said:


> Pretty much, your chip has to be pulling excessive stock voltage, and also getting too hot on stock voltage for the cooler you're using, to get anything out of undervolting. You've got plenty of cooling, and water isn't afraid of a little extra voltage, so go for performance!
> 
> It's mostly a SFF thing. The U9S and D9L are on the small side, but there are a lot of other miserable little coolers in these small cases that make those two 92mm towers look like kings.
> 
> ...



Erm, you was saying?   



I played, mind you a lil tip. do not mess with ya BIOS when inebriated, took me Way too long to get the bladdy thing to boot properly again (by properly I mean having the MB RGB working, lol);






Nappy new year all

Just out of interest, has any of you tried this and is it any good?




			https://www.amd.com/en/technologies/store-mi
		


Oh and watching a BZ video sometimes makes me wish that my brain was watercooled!


----------



## NoJuan999 (Jan 1, 2020)

NoJuan999 said:


> The idle temps in RM were consistently around 5c higher when using the 1usmus plan on 1903.
> I just manually updated to 1909 so I will see if that is still the case now and post back.


Update:
With Win 10 1909 and the 1usmus Universal Plan active (with minimum processor state at 20% and max at 100%) my temps are now back in line with what I had with 1903/AMD Ryzen Balanced Plan (same Processor state settings).
I will say that it hasn't made any difference in my CB R20 scores though (multi or single).
And the same cores I saw being utilized with the Ryzen Balanced Pan (and 1903) are still the cores being used by 1909 and the 1usmus plan.

If I had to guess, I'd say that is because my 2 best cores (according to HWinfo) seem to be core 0 (core 1 with silver circle in RM) and core 3 (core 4 with silver star in RM) which are both on the first CCX.
RM shows the first core (RM core 5, HWinfo core 4) on CCX 2 as the best overall core though (gold star).

And HWinfo has shown that all 3 of those cores hit 4.4 GHZ.


----------



## tabascosauz (Jan 1, 2020)

lorry said:


> Just out of interest, has any of you tried this and is it any good?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



StoreMI is basically AMD's version of Intel's Smart Response Technology (SRT) that's been around for a while. Basically takes your SSD and HDD and combines them to make a DIY SSHD of sorts, and visible as a single drive. From the wording, it seems StoreMI can also cache SATA SSDs with NVMe. Neither have ever been that popular, especially that SSDs have gotten so cheap.


----------



## lorry (Jan 1, 2020)

tabascosauz said:


> StoreMI is basically AMD's version of Intel's Smart Response Technology (SRT) that's been around for a while. Basically takes your SSD and HDD and combines them to make a DIY SSHD of sorts, and visible as a single drive. From the wording, it seems StoreMI can also cache SATA SSDs with NVMe. Neither have ever been that popular, especially that SSDs have gotten so cheap.



Yeah I knew that had been around for a while, just wondered if they worked properly. About the only advantage for myself might be the ability to add in some ram, seeing as I have 32GB.
The two drives in here are both SSD (Samsung Evo 970 1TB NVMe M.2 SSD & Intel 660P 2TB NVMe M.2 SSD).
I Was going to get a large HDD but have now decided that my external 3TB USB drive is enough for now as a backup, as it came be easily disconnected after the weekly backup, so totally removed fron any potential virus / ransonware threats.


----------



## tabascosauz (Jan 1, 2020)

lorry said:


> Yeah I knew that had been around for a while, just wondered if they worked properly. About the only advantage for myself might be the ability to add in some ram, seeing as I have 32GB.
> The two drives in here are both SSD (Samsung Evo 970 1TB NVMe M.2 SSD & Intel 660P 2TB NVMe M.2 SSD).
> I Was going to get a large HDD but have now decided that my external 3TB USB drive is enough for now as a backup, as it came be easily disconnected after the weekly backup, so totally removed fron any potential virus / ransonware threats.



Welcome to the all-SSD club   I have a Seagate 2TB external that kinda just accumulates junk that I don't want on the 2.75TB of SSDs. It's worked pretty well over the years 

Aside from the little-documented caching of SATA SSD with NVMe SSD, this kind of caching has really never worked that well. I had a number of experiences with Intel SRT, working as it was designed with a 500GB-1TB HDD and a small 32GB mSATA SSD. It was marginally faster at first, but after a few months it was pretty much indistinguishable from HDD performance, and they all ended up being upgraded as all-SSD setups - much faster.

Another caveat is that this kind of caching is designed for and most prevalent in laptops. I suspect this is because laptops aren't susceptible to power loss from blackouts and the like, unlike non-UPS protected desktops. Same goes for using RAM caching for SSDs (which Samsung has been fond of for years as a Samsung Magician feature). Can you imagine what ugly consequences await when a SRT or RAM cached system suddenly loses power with data currently being moved in and out of cache? *shudder*

There were some people using small (insanely fast) Optane drives to accelerate slower SSDs, but again, very limited market. Since the 660p is a relatively (to 3D TLC) slow drive outside of its limited cache, I guess there might be a small use for caching again. But I'd tread carefully around QLC, so maybe not.


----------



## lorry (Jan 1, 2020)

tabascosauz said:


> Welcome to the all-SSD club   I have a Seagate 2TB external that kinda just accumulates junk that I don't want on the 2.75TB of SSDs. It's worked pretty well over the years
> 
> Aside from the little-documented caching of SATA SSD with NVMe SSD, this kind of caching has really never worked that well. I had a number of experiences with Intel SRT, working as it was designed with a 500GB-1TB HDD and a small 32GB mSATA SSD. It was marginally faster at first, but after a few months it was pretty much indistinguishable from HDD performance, and they all ended up being upgraded as all-SSD setups - much faster.
> 
> ...



Yeah I wasn't seriously considering it, more a case of just wondering about it. Everything loads plenty fast enough for me so I'm not desperate for however few seconds it may or may not shave off. 

An UPS Is something I want get, although we do only get a couple of power cuts a year.


----------



## Fry178 (Jan 1, 2020)

helps with psu life (no voltage fluctuations) as well, but biggest gain is brown-outs or when going out of range for the psu.
can say about once a month i can hear the UPS "click" when it kicks in to regulate the voltage, usually doesnt even need to switch to battery (just using AVR).
really nice as a way to prevent machine from crashing when ur not home (shutdown feat), and works as a backup to charge phone etc if power is out for a while


----------



## Zach_01 (Jan 1, 2020)

Happy New year!!!

Here is about AMD’s storeMI. Works pretty well for those who can’t afford many or large SSD...


----------



## tabascosauz (Jan 1, 2020)

lorry said:


> Yeah I wasn't seriously considering it, more a case of just wondering about it. Everything loads plenty fast enough for me so I'm not desperate for however few seconds it may or may not shave off.
> 
> An UPS Is something I want get, although we do only get a couple of power cuts a year.



That was my reasoning for holding off on a UPS for so long. It used to be a once or twice a year occurrence, and was fixed relatively quickly; within 3 hours at the most. Worst case, I'd just sit in Starbucks up the street with my XPS until power came back on.

This year, things were particularly bad. Blackouts became a monthly or bimonthly occurrence, with one stint where some transformer at a major substation a ways away kept exploding (videos taken by highway commuting people showed some pretty spectacular fireworks going up) three days in a row. Three daily blackouts in a row for tens of thousands of households. The second one wasn't fixed until more than 8 hours later. Had a earsplitting lightning strike pretty much right down the block nuke Internet for most of the day, too.

I had some weird corruption of Windows that kinda lurked in the background and finally gave up the ghost while I was testing timings on the new 32GB DJR kit. Straight up just gave up. Had to reinstall. Sucky thing was that actually occurred after I bought the BR1500MS, but the damage was probably done after months of these power grid events. It's only been a little while with the new APC unit, but it's already saved me from a brownout and a quick blackout (it's become concerningly common to have these 0.5-1 second blackouts from which the PC seems to recover without restarting).



Fry178 said:


> helps with psu life (no voltage fluctuations) as well, but biggest gain is brown-outs or when going out of range for the psu.
> can say about once a month i can hear the UPS "click" when it kicks in to regulate the voltage, usually doesnt even need to switch to battery (just using AVR).
> really nice as a way to prevent machine from crashing when ur not home (shutdown feat), and works as a backup to charge phone etc if power is out for a while



Spot on. Though, now that I have a UPS I actually got more into the habit of putting my PC to sleep when I leave. It wakes quickly, but also only draws 1-3W so if the power does go out, I don't have to lose potential data through a forced shutdown after a certain period of time, nor do I deplete the UPS.


----------



## lorry (Jan 1, 2020)

Fry178 said:


> helps with psu life (no voltage fluctuations) as well, but biggest gain is brown-outs or when going out of range for the psu.
> can say about once a month i can hear the UPS "click" when it kicks in to regulate the voltage, usually doesnt even need to switch to battery (just using AVR).
> really nice as a way to prevent machine from crashing when ur not home (shutdown feat), and works as a backup to charge phone etc if power is out for a while



I have a 1000W Titanium PSU, hopefully that will never top out, at least not anytime soon anyway! I decided on that size in the hope that it would hopefully be good for a couple of generations at least.
When I first moved here we got up to a dozen power cuts a year, as our sub-station wasn't really big enough to handle all the homes power needs once the new roads and homes had been built (I live on the edge of a 'new' town, one built After WWII). They finally upgraded it and since then the power cuts have dropped to a couple a year at the max



tabascosauz said:


> That was my reasoning for holding off on a UPS for so long. It used to be a once or twice a year occurrence, and was fixed relatively quickly; within 3 hours at the most. Worst case, I'd just sit in Starbucks up the street with my XPS until power came back on.
> 
> Spot on. Though, now that I have a UPS I actually got more into the habit of putting my PC to sleep when I leave. It wakes quickly, but also only draws 1-3W so if the power does go out, I don't have to lose potential data through a forced shutdown after a certain period of time, nor do I deplete the UPS.



As I said above, my situation is the reverse, we have gone from at least one a month to twice a year, at the very most.

As I know nothing about UPS apart from the little that I have read, I would like to pick your collective knowledge if I may.
Outervision calculate my power needs as follows (monitor included)








						Power Supply Calculator - PSU Calculator | OuterVision
					

Power Supply Calculator - Select computer parts and our online PSU calculator will calculate the required power supply wattage and amperage for your PC.




					outervision.com
				




Load Wattage: 619 W
Recommended UPS rating: 1250 VA
Recommended PSU Wattage: 669 W

However, I have never seen my Entire home's wattage usage go above 500, even when stress testing.

I know nothing about brands but have looked at these two as possibilities IF they are any good of course!









						Powercool 1200VA Uninterruptable Power Supply
					

Buy from Scan - 1200VA Powercool UPS, 3x UK Plug, 3x Female Kettle Lead Ports, 2x RJ45, USB Type-B, Built in AVR, Audible Alarm




					www.scan.co.uk
				












						APC 1400Va 700W UPS Line Interactive 6x IEC Sockets
					

Buy from Scan - 1400Va APC BX1400UI Mini Tower UPS 700W Line Interactive 6x IEC Sockets Black




					www.scan.co.uk
				




IF they aren't a good type/brand can you guys make some suggestions as to what would be better?

One thing I just Don't get though is that R20 does Not keep my all time best scores. It Only keeps the best score for That session that my pc is switched on and yes 'keep best score' is ticked ??



Zach_01 said:


> Happy New year!!!
> 
> Here is about AMD’s storeMI. Works pretty well for those who can’t afford many or large SSD...




As you say it seems to be useful for those that can't afford large SSD.
What might have persuaded me to try it out would have been being able to use more than 2GB of ram. Having 32GB and rarely seeing more than 10GB in use, I could have easily slapped say 10GB of ram into a 'new drive' Now That technology would have been something to shout about.
But having said all that, just How much of a hardship is to have to wait a minute or so to load a game? I guess that in this 'instant world' that we live in today, some would call it a necessity.


----------



## ShrimpBrime (Jan 1, 2020)

lorry said:


> But having said all that, just How much of a hardship is to have to wait a minute or so to load a game? I guess that in this 'instant world' that we live in today, some would call it a necessity.



The young guys have far less patients than older gentlemen. 

Before SSDs, Running Raid 0 on 10,000 rpm raptors was the way to go. Load times matter.


----------



## lorry (Jan 1, 2020)

ShrimpBrime said:


> The young guys have far less patients than older gentlemen.
> 
> Before SSDs, Running Raid 0 on 10,000 rpm raptors was the way to go. Load times matter.



Kids These days, they need to learn some patience !


----------



## Zach_01 (Jan 1, 2020)

But it’s not only about game load times. Everything go/start faster from app start, OS boot, win explorer opening.
The system feels snappier all together when using SSD. Real or storeMI...

Back then we all used to slow times because that was it. We didn’t have smartphones or tablets and we did know how a fast system can make a difference. Now even me, can’t go back and I want SSD like performance. I want my phone/tablet to be reasonably fast, and my PC too...


----------



## lorry (Jan 1, 2020)

Zach_01 said:


> But it’s not only about game load times. Everything go/start faster from app start, OS boot, win explorer opening.
> The system feels snappier all together when using SSD. Real or storeMI...
> 
> Back then we all used to slow times because that was it. We didn’t have smartphones or tablets and we did know how a fast system can make a difference. Now even me, can’t go back and I want SSD like performance. I want my phone/tablet to be reasonably fast, and my PC too...



oh agreed, i also remember those times, my first build was just after we moved here in '93

so UPS ?



tabascosauz said:


> @lorry I got you beat on that ST score, don't ask me how, I've no idea :
> 
> View attachment 140583
> 
> ...




Hate to steal your thunder.
Oh who am I kidding  





tabascosauz said:


> P95 gives you an option of Smallest, Small, Large and Blend when you open it. Use either Smallest or Small for CPU stability (whichever gets hotter on your system) and Large for memory stability. Blend isn't great because P95's main selling point is that it's extremely intensive and generates a lot of heat; that makes it useful to see where the equilibrium of your cooling setup lies. When the temps basically stop climbing and settle around a particular point, you know how much your system can take. Blend would simply shift the load into something else and allow the part that's heated up to cool down again.




How long should I try P95 on smallest and small, large for each time?
been running smallest now for 15 minutes and CPU hottest was 81c and ram is between 40.5 and 43.8c
ran small for 15 minutes, highest CPU temp was 76c and ram was between 41.5 and 44.5c
ran large for 15 minutes, highest CPU was 76c and ram was between 42 and 45c

basically ran the first 5 sub tests of the 1st main test

Torture Test completed 5 tests in 16 minutes - 0 errors, 0 warnings.


----------



## Zach_01 (Jan 1, 2020)

lorry said:


> oh agreed, i also remember those times, my first build was just after we moved here in '93
> 
> so UPS ?


Got my first in 2001 but had a lot of PC contact from middle 90s.... man... 20~33MHz CPU speed and 4MB of RAM . Golden words of history(1981): _640KB ought to be enough for anybody... _right!!

Cant commend or recommend for a UPS. Not once used one and never had to. Even 20 years ago power loss in my area was rare and now is even better like once a year or not. And the quality (voltage) was always good enough without major flactuations.


----------



## lorry (Jan 1, 2020)

Zach_01 said:


> Got my first in 2001 but had a lot of PC contact from middle 90s.... man... 20~33MHz CPU speed and 4MB of RAM . Golden words of history(1981): _640KB ought to be enough for anybody... _right!!
> 
> Cant commend or recommend for a UPS. Not once used one and never had to. Even 20 years ago power loss in my area was rare and now is even better like once a year or not. And the quality (voltage) was always good enough without major flactuations.


My first ever was either the zx80 or 81,the one with rubber keys - somehow managed to poke to a peek only address (supposedly) and bricked it. 

My first 'proper' was an Amstrad 286 that Originally only had 1MB of ram! I Finally upgraded it to 4MG when I installed win 3.0 on it, tried to run Quicken I think it was and sat watching the screen refresh line, BY line. Oh yeah And I upgraded the HDD to 40MB!

Anyways he was Only one letter wrong

G instead of K


----------



## tabascosauz (Jan 1, 2020)

lorry said:


> Hate to steal your thunder.
> Oh who am I kidding
> 
> View attachment 140999
> ...



Well...  I am surprised your single thread score is low. Is CB using an inferior core?



I used to run Smallest for like two hours at a time, haha. It can take a little longer than you'd expect for the temperature to stop climbing. But since no workload or other test matches the ridiculous heat output of Smallest, and Small is no longer viable due to the reduced multiplier (which your results show as well), I'm not sure if I would rely on Prime as much as I used to. IntelBurnTest is highly recommended for stability testing, it's quick to complete and it works pretty well without melting your rig like the old Small used to; it's just that IBT has never actually caught any CPU instabilities on my system, but P95 caught every one. YMMV

Now that I do think about it, the power grid was pretty safe when I was still at school in Bristol (will be going back again soon), didn't feel the need for a UPS over there at all. CyberPower and APC are the two big brands for consumer UPSes, but the popular models here don't seem to be available over there (the 1500VA simulated sine wave units from them, CP1500AVRLCD and BackUPS BR1500G, as well as the 1500VA pure sine wave units the CP1500PFCLCD and BackUPS Pro BR1500MS). I have the BR1500MS and as far as I can tell, CyberPower and APC are pretty much neck and neck in this market segment, maybe APC having the edge in build quality. For those two simulated sine and pure sine pairs, it's pretty much a "get whatever's cheaper/whatever you like better" affair.

I haven't heard of PowerCool, but the packaging and lack of a website suggests a rebranded generic product. It is a little cheaper than your typical 1350/1500VA from CP and APC, but I'm not sure I'd trust any of my equipment with that one. Just my $0.02. CP and APC (APC is the biggest) are large companies with support and warranty I think I can rely on, even if the equipment damage reimbursement guarantee inevitably requires you to jump thru the usual hoops. Also, buying a high profile and popular product means there's documentation on what and how to replace your batteries down the line.


----------



## Fry178 (Jan 2, 2020)

Usually the cyberpower are quieter than apc, but those are a bit more powerful/efficient.

I would not recommend a simulated sine wave, active PFC psu's need a proper real sine output, or they'll take a hit and go out sooner.

The wattage is to make sure your not running above ups capabilities,
as it will just pop the fuse that you cant reset until below units max.
But your not getting a ups to run it of the battery (those are lead based and dont like longer discharges, similar to starter batteries in cars),
only so you can prevent crash/save your work before proper shutdown,
and to filter incoming power for noise (appliances in the house) and fluctuations on the grid that dont lead to brown/blackout.
Even when you have power that runs your stuff, doesn't mean its not outside the range the psu should have, nor does it mean its stable.
Even if you have numbers within lets say +/- 10 volt, its stress for a psu to constantly have to ramp up/down to make up for the changes and keep steady power going into the rig. Now add different draws during gaming whennloaf changes..

So far i have had not one psu die before the 5-7y warranty was over,
and i like it when it comes to bios/os updates, or even drives that dont get bricked because power issues.

If you can get one, around 1000VA should be fine.
Mine handles R5 3600 and oced 2080 and 32in moni plus other accessories just fine.





						CyberPower CP900EPFCLCD-UK PFC Series, 900VA/540W, 6 Outlets (4 IEC + 2 UK), AVR, Active PFC compatible, Tower: Amazon.co.uk: Computers & Accessories
					

CyberPower CP900EPFCLCD-UK PFC Series, 900VA/540W, 6 Outlets (4 IEC + 2 UK), AVR, Active PFC compatible, Tower: Amazon.co.uk: Computers & Accessories



					www.amazon.co.uk
				




If you can get any other brand with 1000VA or more and real sine out for less, buy it.


----------



## tabascosauz (Jan 2, 2020)

Fry178 said:


> Usually the cyberpower are quieter than apc, but those are a bit more powerful/efficient.
> 
> I would not recommend a simulated sine wave, active PFC psu's need a proper real sine output, or they'll take a hit and go out sooner.
> 
> ...



The BackUPS Pro noise level was an early batch thing. Mine's as quiet as a church mouse on battery power and plugged in. Now, if we were pushing 800W of power draw on either the CP1500PFCLCD or BR1500MS, it could be a different story...

Not that it matters, since it looks like Cyberpower is the only vendor with pure sine wave units in the UK. APC UK lacks the BR-MS line of BackUPS Pro, which is the only consumer line with sine wave. There are a lot of simulated/square wave BackUPS from APC, some of which are pretty affordable, but again, not sinewave. 

You can get sinewave from APC in the SmartUPS line, but that's the commercially oriented heavy duty line that'll cost up upwards of 500 quid for a 1500VA unit, and will probably break your back when you try to lift it on your own. 

Also, what the hell is up with the prices over there? The sine wave units are all priced like they've got gold batteries. The CP1500PFCLCD costs $300 here and the BR1500MS $275; on Amazon.co.uk, the CP1500PFCLCD is £266, the equivalent of $456 Canuckistan pesos.


----------



## Fry178 (Jan 2, 2020)

sorry, should have said fan noise (under any load), but yeah not day&night difference.

The smartups is really nice, tho by the time its something i can use for more than just the pc, its close to a (small house) backup generator.

Yeah, i would check local pc shops, maybe open box from amazon..


----------



## lorry (Jan 2, 2020)

tabascosauz said:


> Well...  I am surprised your single thread score is low. Is CB using an inferior core?
> View attachment 141013
> 
> I used to run Smallest for like two hours at a time, haha. It can take a little longer than you'd expect for the temperature to stop climbing. But since no workload or other test matches the ridiculous heat output of Smallest, and Small is no longer viable due to the reduced multiplier (which your results show as well), I'm not sure if I would rely on Prime as much as I used to. IntelBurnTest is highly recommended for stability testing, it's quick to complete and it works pretty well without melting your rig like the old Small used to; it's just that IBT has never actually caught any CPU instabilities on my system, but P95 caught every one. YMMV
> ...



I have no idea, but my R20 results don't seem to be worth a damn as they vary by such a vast amount.
I can do one run and get around say 6900, do another right away and then get around 7200, so Why 300 point difference? Also that 3950x score I posted a couple of pages back was 'only' 519 and from what I can see people's R29 scores seem to be all over the place (see the thread 'post your R20 scores' on here, or the HWbot scores).

I knew that my P95 runs were too short but this was all I could do given the time I had left before I usually went to bed, so decided on a short 15 minute burst on each, I'll run a longer test today on smallest and largest

I will have a think and If I decide to get one I'll likely go with a APC but it's not a priority so much as my power supply seems pretty consistant nowadays.

Thing that Does bug me somewhat though and makes me unsure of my BIOS settings is that in HWinfo I have never seen the 'effective' go above roughly 4300 - do they not show a single core on that?
The worst chiplet never reaches more than 4150 as well



Fry178 said:


> Usually the cyberpower are quieter than apc, but those are a bit more powerful/efficient.
> 
> I would not recommend a simulated sine wave, active PFC psu's need a proper real sine output, or they'll take a hit and go out sooner.
> 
> ...



How about this one?









						CyberPower 1200VA/720W Tower Line-Interactive UPS IEC Green Power
					

Buy from Scan - 1200VA CyberPower VALUE1200EILCD Tower UPS Line-Interactive IEC Green Power 6 Outputs




					www.scan.co.uk


----------



## tabascosauz (Jan 2, 2020)

lorry said:


> I have no idea, but my R20 results don't seem to be worth a damn as they vary by such a vast amount.
> I can do one run and get around say 6900, do another right away and then get around 7200, so Why 300 point difference? Also that 3950x score I posted a couple of pages back was 'only' 519 and from what I can see people's R29 scores seem to be all over the place (see the thread 'post your R20 scores' on here, or the HWbot scores).
> 
> I knew that my P95 runs were too short but this was all I could do given the time I had left before I usually went to bed, so decided on a short 15 minute burst on each, I'll run a longer test today on smallest and largest
> ...



Yeah, as long as you don't have performance issues and get roughly the right performance out of your 2070 Super, not much point in running R20 all the time. Luck of the draw. Mine topped out at 4958 and I've yet to break that, even with unchanged settings. But my scores have never dipped below 4900, so perhaps the larger difference for you is the larger chip making for wilder boost or things running in the background.

Effective clock really depends on what you happen to be doing on a certain day. I've been playing a bit of BF3 this week, trip down memory lane, and it's really CPU limited and limited to like 2 cores. My GPU is barely even working at all, doesn't break 50 degrees. Yet while I only usually see about 4200MHz of effective clock:



If you're running a lot of the cores a lot of the time, clocks will probably be lower. A really CPU-limited older game might give you something more like this, instead. If you have HWInfo in the background while you bench CB R20 or CPU-Z single-thread, it'll probably boost higher.

That 1200EILCD is probably part of the value line, which explains the blocky design departure from CyberPower's usual fare and simulated sinewave. The thing about simulated sine is that there are a lot of people who get by with no problems at all, but you're essentially playing the lottery with whether your PSU will take a liking to it or not when you buy simulated sine. If it works, great. If it doesn't work, well, you'll find out after the first blackout that you just bought an expensive paperweight.

It's really hard to find professional reviews for these obscure, low-end units. If Amazon reviews are anything to go by...I dunno about this one.


----------



## lorry (Jan 2, 2020)

Seen these two  ?






						CyberPower Sinewave UPS for MAC, 900va/540w, UK Version | Ebuyer.com
					

Get a great deal on a CyberPower Sinewave UPS for MAC, 900va/540w, UK Version as well as thousands of products at Ebuyer!




					www.ebuyer.com
				









						CyberPower CP900EPFCLCD-UK PFC Series, 900VA/540W, 6 Outlets (4 IEC + 2 UK), AVR, Active PFC compatible, Tower: Amazon.co.uk: Computers & Accessories
					

CyberPower CP900EPFCLCD-UK PFC Series, 900VA/540W, 6 Outlets (4 IEC + 2 UK), AVR, Active PFC compatible, Tower: Amazon.co.uk: Computers & Accessories



					www.amazon.co.uk


----------



## tabascosauz (Jan 2, 2020)

lorry said:


> Seen these two  ?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yeah, that's the sinewave line I was talking about when I was referring to the 266 quid CP1500PFCLCD. It's quite popular here in North America. I'm not sure I'd want to go as low as 900VA; it's nice to have some room to plug in some other stuff too without worrying about running out of wattage when gaming.

The 900VA is 540W; I regularly pull upwards of 300W of system+monitor load on my 3700X and 2060S, whereas yours draws more power in both areas. I'm guessing you have more fans that draw a bit more power than me, as well. 

Also, a nice thing about these UPSes is that if CyberPower is anything like APC, you connect a USB cable to your computer and it sends information over ACPI so you can monitor everything about it in HWInfo. As long as it conforms to ACPI, it shows up in Windows as a battery and HWInfo detects it as a UPS.


----------



## Fry178 (Jan 2, 2020)

the 1200/720 is just simulated output.

like apc, cyberpower only has two true sine out lineups for consumer, the CPxxxxPFCLCD series is the cheaper one.

i never meant the output of your psu, but the power it gets fed.
the grid isnt that clean, appliances in your home do the rest, add voltage fluctuations and voila.
i had 5-10 registers down at the store i did cover IT for a year, fixed by replacing the batteries for all UPS (no AVR, so they needed the battery to boost sub 120V).

Also never seen more stable output from psu for "fixed" voltages (IF, i can see a change every couple seconds).

In short, i will not run anything above 200$ without it (even the tv/dvr/router get a APC 650VA with AVR),
and same for units i build for others.

So dont starve yourself for 2 month to get it, but i recommend one with a decent build like yours.
Any chance of buying it in europe (trip/thru family etc)


----------



## lorry (Jan 2, 2020)

This one is £190






						CyberPower Intelligent 1300VA LCD PFC Series UPS | Ebuyer.com
					

Get a great deal on a CyberPower Intelligent 1300VA LCD PFC Series UPS as well as thousands of products at Ebuyer!




					www.ebuyer.com


----------



## tabascosauz (Jan 2, 2020)

lorry said:


> This one is £190
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Looks like a decent deal, especially compared to price of the Value line one. For the APC counterparts, the BR1350MS has cheaper but pretty good batteries that possibly rivals the BR1500MS in runtime, for an appreciably lower price tag. It _could _be a similar story with the CyberPower 1350 and 1500PFCLCDs, which would be pleasant if that was the case.


----------



## Fry178 (Jan 2, 2020)

the "bigger" units usually just have a bigger battery inside (1000/1300 and 1300/1500), and less outlets.
compare the specs and if its only the battery, get the cheaper unit and once you need to replace the battery (+5y),
just order the bigger one.

The 900VA should be fine, your hardware isnt drawing more than 500w,
and its not supposed to run on battery anyway, so the 1 min (if power goes out) it takes to close the game and shutdown pc is gonna be fine.
when you run a UPS connected to the pc with usb (data), you will get additional power options (cpu/gpu/pcie etc) that you can use to minimize power load.

e.g. if i have a blackout i wont keep playing anyway, so having lower game performance for a minute (because of energy settings when the rig is on battery),
might lose you a round/game, but will limit stress on the ups (no matter what size).

its like a flashlights, you dont use em all the time (to replace regular lights)









						What's the Difference Between Pure Sine Wave and Simulated Sine Wave?
					

Shopping for a UPS? Two types exist—and their respective output waveforms do have an effect on the equipment they're backing up.




					blog.tripplite.com
				



so no tripplite units that say its pwm output...






						PFC Sinewave Archives
					

CyberPower manufactures high-quality PFC Sinewave products for consumers and IT professionals.




					www.cyberpowersystems.com
				






and if you need to hook up other stuff, i would rather get multiple small units,
which makes it cheaper (simulated sine out is ok), and anything thats "dumb" tech/cheap to replace, doesnt even need the AVR feature.





						Tripp Lite AVRX550U UPS
					






					uk.pcpartpicker.com
				








						Tripp Lite AVRX750U UPS
					






					uk.pcpartpicker.com


----------



## lorry (Jan 2, 2020)

The only APC that I can see in the UK is this one









						Backup Power | UPS | Generators & More
					

UK #1 for UPS | Generators | PDU | Comms Racks & more www.escpower.co.uk/ Tripp Lite : Riello : APC : Clarke : CertaUPS : Borri : CE&T Power : All-Rack For all your power protection, comms rack enclosure and power distribution needs.




					www.escpower.co.uk


----------



## tabascosauz (Jan 2, 2020)

lorry said:


> The only APC that I can see in the UK is this one
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That one's still simulated sine. Unlike PCs, which just take whatever cable with the right plug on one end and the C14 connector on the other end, UPSes have the lead coming out of the unit itself. Might be why APC decided to run completely different product lines for different regions. 

The BackUPS Pros are split into the MI and SI lines for the 230V market over there. MI is the cheap stepped wave units, SI is the counterpart to the 110V BR-MS units here (even look the same). Except the SIs are unfathomable expensive, like 500 quid. That's SmartUPS pricing......and that's by far the better product.

So just pick out a CyberPower unit you like.


----------



## lorry (Jan 2, 2020)

Fry178 said:


> the "bigger" units usually just have a bigger battery inside (1000/1300 and 1300/1500), and less outlets.
> compare the specs and if its only the battery, get the cheaper unit and once you need to replace the battery (+5y),
> just order the bigger one.
> 
> ...



"It’s important to understand that both types of UPS system produce true sine wave output more than 99% of the time. It is only during a power failure, when the UPS is producing power from its battery reserves, the output waveform is a concern."

if it is only during a power outage, how much damage is likely to be done in the one minute that it takes to shut down your PC?

As in how bad could this one be for instance - 
CyberPower CP1300EPFCLCD-UK PFC Series, 1300VA/780W, 6 Outlets (4 IEC + 2 UK), AVR, Active PFC compatible






						CyberPower CP1300EPFCLCD-UK PFC Series, 1300VA: Amazon.co.uk: Electronics
					

CyberPower CP1300EPFCLCD-UK PFC Series, 1300VA: Amazon.co.uk: Electronics



					www.amazon.co.uk
				






tabascosauz said:


> Yeah, as long as you don't have performance issues and get roughly the right performance out of your 2070 Super, not much point in running R20 all the time. Luck of the draw. Mine topped out at 4958 and I've yet to break that, even with unchanged settings. But my scores have never dipped below 4900, so perhaps the larger difference for you is the larger chip making for wilder boost or things running in the background.
> 
> Effective clock really depends on what you happen to be doing on a certain day. I've been playing a bit of BF3 this week, trip down memory lane, and it's really CPU limited and limited to like 2 cores. My GPU is barely even working at all, doesn't break 50 degrees. Yet while I only usually see about 4200MHz of effective clock:
> 
> ...



That is my point though - My scores vary by Far more than that, there is often up to a 500 point variance from min to max!
As in lowest score will be 68** and highest will be 73** ?

That looks to be one hell of a range to me, which is Why I wondered if my settings were correct?

Also, the Max effective clock seen today (and every day) was 4299 with 'effective clock' but 4575 with 'perf' ?



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

Just finished a 2-hour run of smallest in P95 -

highest CPU temp was 82c with it often sitting in the 60s, ram ranged from 40 -  43c highest readings
About to start the memory one now


----------



## Fry178 (Jan 2, 2020)

started with a corsair 750 that died on me within 2y (5y warranty) and i never stressed it (max 350 w).
decided to sell the ups (only pwm output) and go for the cyber power PFC-LCD unit with true sine out.
maintenance cost is the same between them, as they use the same battery (around 20-30$ (at least over here), and last about 5y),

since i started using true sine out (2010), all psus since then (about 10) are still running (5y+),
incl the last one from 2015 i just sold.
so you pay a bit more up front, but on long run possibly less on power bill (not much i guess),
and most likely longer lasting HW, that could make up for it over time.


i just like the fact that the psu has less stress to keep steady power going out to the pc,
the ups filters crap out of the signal, works as surge protector, and can help keeping input voltage constant
(make sure to set (any) unit to the narrower range, so voltage outside that range gets boosted/discarded. e.g. 210-230 instead of stock/wider range of 200-240V).
and i never worry about my hw getting fried (+100K insurance for surge) and no chance of bricking board/gpu/ODD from power outage while updating FW.

its like most other stuff.
when you buy a +80K car, you dont fill it with cheap gas ore buy used tires.
to me, a decent rig that is being used for more than surfing/streaming (e.g. sees load), deserves proper power.
at least on the long run i recommend anyone to get one.

hey, i even watched tv on it for a while (dtv box and moni) when power was out all day and i was tired of reading a book XD


----------



## lorry (Jan 2, 2020)

[Jan 2 13:04] Torture Test completed 52 tests in 2 hours, 3 minutes - 0 errors, 0 warnings.

Ram test ran for 2 hours, but this time I adjusted the RPM/temp settings of All the fans (2 x 200mm intake, 140mm exhaust and both CPU fans), so that under stress they were at full speed, mostly to A) see just how loud they were and B) what effect that would have. It Was noisy but not massively so, did help to reduce the temps a decent amount on the ram though (likely the higher airflow from the two large intake fans flowing over the ram).
Result - ram temps never reached 40c and CPU mostly remained in the 60 - 75c range, so that's ok.

Interestingly though, even their Large test does not make anyway near to most of my ram, in fact not even 50% of it





Fry178 said:


> started with a corsair 750 that died on me within 2y (5y warranty) and i never stressed it (max 350 w).
> decided to sell the ups (only pwm output) and go for the cyber power PFC-LCD unit with true sine out.
> maintenance cost is the same between them, as they use the same battery (around 20-30$ (at least over here), and last about 5y),
> 
> ...



looks like This one is my only realistic option then and that's going to take a good few months to realistically get the money together for it






						CyberPower Intelligent 1300VA LCD PFC Series UPS | Ebuyer.com
					

Get a great deal on a CyberPower Intelligent 1300VA LCD PFC Series UPS as well as thousands of products at Ebuyer!




					www.ebuyer.com
				






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


On a separate note I have a watts meter now, only thing is that unless mine is faulty or the backlight is a setting that I haven't found (have messaged the seller but don't hold out too much hope (Chinese seller) ).









						UK Plug Energy Monitor Power Meter Electricity Wattage Watt Kwh Analyzer Socket  | eBay
					

Find many great new & used options and get the best deals for UK Plug Energy Monitor Power Meter Electricity Wattage Watt Kwh Analyzer Socket at the best online prices at eBay! Free delivery for many products!



					www.ebay.co.uk
				




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

Geekbench 5.1 is out as well


----------



## Fry178 (Jan 2, 2020)

yeah those clones usually dont have one, glad i ordered thru amazon and just returned it to get a proper one.


----------



## lorry (Jan 2, 2020)

Fry178 said:


> yeah those clones usually dont have one, glad i ordered thru amazon and just returned it to get a proper one.



Well unless this seller replies I will be returning it as well (paid through PayPal and never had any issues when returning that way).



Fry178 said:


> yeah those clones usually dont have one, glad i ordered thru amazon and just returned it to get a proper one.



yeah, there is this one on Amazon that specifies backlit in the description






						Nevsetpo Power Meter UK Plug Power Monitor Watts Meter Electricity Usage Cost Meter Monitor Plug : Amazon.co.uk: DIY & Tools
					

Shop Nevsetpo Power Meter UK Plug Power Monitor Watts Meter Electricity Usage Cost Meter Monitor Plug. Free delivery on eligible orders of £20 or more.



					www.amazon.co.uk
				




See what happens now


----------



## Fry178 (Jan 2, 2020)

Not sure if you already have an amazon account, but might be a good idea.
Depending on item, it can be cheaper/faster/easier to order stuff thru prime,
and with the monthly membership you just cancel prime afterwards.
I usually do this and save a little during month i dont use it (vs yearlong),
and every now and then they will offer trials from 3-14 days for 1.99-7.99.

Just the fact i got an open box/used liquid cooled 2080 for 620$,
a little more than a new 2070S (aircooled) would have cost and a lot less than normal price (750-800),was worth doing a monthof prime for 13$.
And 2 day shipping is nice as well..


----------



## lorry (Jan 2, 2020)

Fry178 said:


> Not sure if you already have an amazon account, but might be a good idea.
> Depending on item, it can be cheaper/faster/easier to order stuff thru prime,
> and with the monthly membership you just cancel prime afterwards.
> I usually do this and save a little during month i dont use it (vs yearlong),
> ...



Had prime for years, just that money is tight atm and the one on Ebay looked exactly the same but cheaper, I went with them. Most times that works out, this time it didn't.
I Always check for the best price, which Always includes postage (so if something is a bit dearer but free postage say, I go with the overall price) and for PC parts, that includes Amazon, eBay, Scan uk, Box Ebuyer, etc etc.


----------



## Fry178 (Jan 2, 2020)

You know pcpartpicker.com, right?


----------



## lorry (Jan 2, 2020)

Fry178 said:


> You know pcpartpicker.com, right?








						First build in two decades
					

Check out ldwilliams's completed build on PCPartPicker! Ryzen 9 3900X 3.8 GHz 12-Core, GeForce RTX 2070 SUPER 8 GB AORUS, MasterCase H500M ATX Mid Tower, ...




					uk.pcpartpicker.com
				




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


----------------------------
IntelBurnTest v2.54
Created by AgentGOD
----------------------------

Processor: AMD Ryzen 9 3900X 12-Core Processor            
Clock Speed: 3.01 GHz
Active Physical Cores: 24
Total System Memory: 32713 MB

Stress Level: Standard (1024 MB)
Testing started on 02/01/2020 9:12:48 PM
Time (s)        Speed (GFlops)        Result
[21:12:59] 6.713    133.1644            3.393900e-002
[21:13:11] 6.857    130.3562            3.393900e-002
[21:13:22] 6.770    132.0377            3.393900e-002
[21:13:34] 6.830    130.8688            3.393900e-002
[21:13:45] 6.793    131.5922            3.393900e-002
[21:13:57] 7.007    127.5776            3.393900e-002
[21:14:08] 6.909    129.3829            3.393900e-002
[21:14:19] 6.734    132.7389            3.393900e-002
[21:14:31] 6.738    132.6577            3.393900e-002
[21:14:42] 6.844    130.6082            3.393900e-002
Testing ended on 02/01/2020 9:14:42 PM
Test Result: Success.
----------------------------

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


----------------------------
IntelBurnTest v2.54
Created by AgentGOD
----------------------------

Processor: AMD Ryzen 9 3900X 12-Core Processor            
Clock Speed: 3.01 GHz
Active Physical Cores: 24
Total System Memory: 32713 MB

Stress Level: High (2048 MB)
Testing started on 02/01/2020 9:16:29 PM
Time (s)        Speed (GFlops)        Result
[21:16:58] 19.101    138.3490            3.125684e-002
[21:17:27] 19.171    137.8381            3.125684e-002
[21:17:56] 19.340    136.6361            3.125684e-002
[21:18:24] 19.258    137.2172            3.125684e-002
[21:18:53] 19.154    137.9606            3.125684e-002
[21:19:21] 19.203    137.6088            3.125684e-002
[21:19:50] 19.282    137.0483            3.125684e-002
[21:20:19] 19.264    137.1757            3.125684e-002
[21:20:47] 19.223    137.4690            3.125684e-002
[21:21:16] 19.165    137.8835            3.125684e-002
Testing ended on 02/01/2020 9:21:16 PM
Test Result: Success.
----------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IntelBurnTest v2.54
Created by AgentGOD
----------------------------

Processor: AMD Ryzen 9 3900X 12-Core Processor            
Clock Speed: 3.01 GHz
Active Physical Cores: 24
Total System Memory: 32713 MB

Stress Level: Very High (4096 MB)
Testing started on 02/01/2020 9:23:31 PM
Time (s)        Speed (GFlops)        Result
[21:24:45] 54.358    141.7952            3.197914e-002
[21:26:00] 55.283    139.4231            3.197914e-002
[21:27:14] 55.277    139.4376            3.197914e-002
[21:28:28] 55.231    139.5551            3.197914e-002
[21:29:43] 55.269    139.4581            3.197914e-002
[21:30:57] 55.068    139.9675            3.197914e-002
[21:32:11] 55.491    138.8998            3.197914e-002
[21:33:26] 55.287    139.4138            3.197914e-002
[21:34:40] 55.344    139.2693            3.197914e-002
[21:35:54] 55.140    139.7837            3.197914e-002
Testing ended on 02/01/2020 9:35:55 PM
Test Result: Success.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Couldn't do maximum ?

At times the available ram was Down to 2MB! and the virtual memory usage was up to 49,985MB!!!

Hmm, seems I dint run it for long enough maybe. Just seen a report of each run taking 15 minutes plus, I stopped it after about 12 mins

Oh and cpu temp never went above 71c and ran was quite cool, 33.5 - 34.5c






						Definitive guide to configuring the Ryzen 3900X
					

It has taken me this long to write this guide because I don't get free stuff sent to me so I had to wait until I was able to get hands on experience with this CPU and its two chiplet design.  So I am sorry if you have been having a bad experience trying to make sense of what "influencers" who do...




					community.amd.com


----------



## Zach_01 (Jan 3, 2020)

lorry said:


> Thing that Does bug me somewhat though and makes me unsure of my BIOS settings is that in HWinfo I have never seen the 'effective' go above roughly 4300 - do they not show a single core on that?
> The worst chiplet never reaches more than 4150 as well


Efffective clock is not for single core boost/clock. It contains the sleeping states of the cores, so the reported clock has such a low value. Think of it as an average between active and sleeping state.





						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
				




Another topic...
Have some premature (not alot testing) findings while playing around with EDC from UEFI that may interest you.
Remember a few posts back I was giving a (negative) offset to vcore so that overall power draw (PPT) and temp of CPU would drop and thus having (in theory) more headroom for clocks. That was not the case for my CPU as this was decreasing eventually clocks and performance, due to poor silicon quality that cannot sustain max clocks with direct under voltage. This offset is applied across the entire range of the clock (single and all core). Tho... the power effectiveness of the CPU was increased. I had decreased voltage by ~2% and lost clock/performance by ~1%.
This could work better with a higher silicon quality CPU like the 3900X.

So I decided to take another route by decreasing the CPU's current (EDC/Amps) and not voltage directly to control max power draw.
My default max values goes like this:
PPT: 88 Watt
TDC: 60 Amps
EDC: 90 Amps

When running R20 all core, those limits was never reached except PPT, so:
PPT: 87.7 Watt
TDC: ~49 Amps
EDC: ~79 Amps
Max temp: 63C

Into UEFI I set the EDC limit to 76A and run R20:
PPT: 87.8 Watt
TDC: ~49 Amps
EDC: 76 Amps
Max temp: 63C

Into UEFI I set the EDC limit to 73A and run R20:
PPT: 88 Watt
TDC: ~49 Amps
EDC: 73 Amps
Max temp: 63C

This indicates that in order to still having the same PPT and temp, while power current (EDC) has dropped... something else must have gotten up! The only thing that could have gotten up is the clock...
Even though I didnt see a clock increase visually, I did see some increase in R20 scores for the few runs I did. The "drawback" in the EDC adjustment is that only affects max power draw, so only max all core clocks/boost... unlike the voltage offset that affects the entire range of clocks.
I will come back with this, but feel free to do some testing yourself (voltage offset or EDC). I will even test with a combination of the two (negative voltage offset + limited EDC).


----------



## lorry (Jan 3, 2020)

Zach_01 said:


> Efffective clock is not for single core boost/clock. It contains the sleeping states of the cores, so the reported clock has such a low value. Think of it as an average between active and sleeping state.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That does look to be interesting but I feel that I would need to know how far to go in undervolting and/or EDC - for instance do you reduce or increase EDC?

I just ran CB20 and here are my max limits, you can see that I do reach 100% on EDC and close to the limits on the other two




Also the discusion thread in this post is interesting, it talks about FIT, setting voltage limits etc, might be worth a read?






						Definitive guide to configuring the Ryzen 3900X
					

It has taken me this long to write this guide because I don't get free stuff sent to me so I had to wait until I was able to get hands on experience with this CPU and its two chiplet design.  So I am sorry if you have been having a bad experience trying to make sense of what "influencers" who do...




					community.amd.com


----------



## tabascosauz (Jan 3, 2020)

Zach_01 said:


> Efffective clock is not for single core boost/clock. It contains the sleeping states of the cores, so the reported clock has such a low value. Think of it as an average between active and sleeping state.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I had the most success with EDC 80 in combination with the -0.075V offset. Without combining the two, reducing EDC at stock voltage just makes for a poorly performing version of more aggressive PBO settings. Performance is comparable with the offset, at EDC 80 and 90, but the reduction makes for more consistent scoring. I'm pretty happy with how it's doing right now.

@lorry sounds like your P95 is borked somehow or an old version. Large is able to occupy close to 30GB out of 32GB of RAM on mine. Maybe use Custom and copy my Large settings? We both have 32GB kits.


----------



## lorry (Jan 3, 2020)

tabascosauz said:


> I had the most success with EDC 80 in combination with the -0.075V offset. Without combining the two, reducing EDC at stock voltage just makes for a poorly performing version of more aggressive PBO settings. Performance is comparable with the offset, at EDC 80 and 90, but the reduction makes for more consistent scoring. I'm pretty happy with how it's doing right now.
> 
> @lorry sounds like your P95 is borked somehow or an old version. Large is able to occupy close to 30GB out of 32GB of RAM on mine. Maybe use Custom and copy my Large settings? We both have 32GB kits.
> 
> View attachment 141134



Eh? why do you think my P95 is borked? When I talked about Maximum not running properly that was talking about Intel Burn, not P95
is this the latest version of P95 (just to be safe)



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

Don't know if this is of interest to any of you?









						Ryzen Above: Best Memory Settings for AMD's 3000 CPUs, Tested
					

Is Ryzen 3000 optimized for DDR4-3200? What if we want more? We examine everything from frequency to rank count to nail down optimal settings.




					www.tomshardware.com


----------



## tabascosauz (Jan 3, 2020)

lorry said:


> Eh? why do you think my P95 is borked? When I talked about Maximum not running properly that was talking about Intel Burn, not P95
> is this the latest version of P95 (just to be safe)
> 
> View attachment 141135







You mentioned earlier that Large doesn't fill your RAM.



lorry said:


> That does look to be interesting but I feel that I would need to know how far to go in undervolting and/or EDC - for instance do you reduce or increase EDC?
> 
> I just ran CB20 and here are my max limits, you can see that I do reach 100% on EDC and close to the limits on the other two
> 
> ...



We're talking about reducing EDC. EDC is the maximum short-term current that can be delivered. Stock for 65W parts is 90A, stock for 105W is 140A. For all the talk about reducing EDC slightly, I think it's all been for single-chiplet CPUs so far. No harm in trying.

I'm not sure how I feel about that nec_v20 guy's "guide". There's recommendations of disabling SMT and running a 3900X as a 12c/12t, arguing that with fixed freq results they can tweak to achieve lower stable Vcore than with boost (no shit??), and running fixed 1.3v Vcore while not running fixed clocks. The references to FIT are referencing the Stilt thread from before where he claimed 1.325v max voltage when running boost, which seems about right


----------



## lorry (Jan 3, 2020)

tabascosauz said:


> View attachment 141136
> 
> You mentioned earlier that Large doesn't fill your RAM.
> 
> ...



ah! hmm, okay I'll redownload it and see if it was borked



tabascosauz said:


> View attachment 141136
> 
> You mentioned earlier that Large doesn't fill your RAM.
> 
> ...




Okay, latest version downloaded from techowerup, 29.8 build 6, same thing happens, screenshots follow


----------



## tabascosauz (Jan 3, 2020)

lorry said:


> View attachment 141138
> 
> View attachment 141139
> 
> ...



I mean, the version is exactly the same, but I've always gone to the actual Prime95 site for download.

P95 does detect and optimize for your CPU so maybe it's a dual chiplet thing? Which doesn't seem to make any sense, since the FFTs sit in RAM for Large. I notice that in the greyed out torture test settings (you can select each different test and see the values change), the minimum FFT size used for your Large are significantly longer in length. See mine:





What happens if you use my settings to run a Custom test (which allows you to change the values)? RAM load in HWInfo should be way up near 100% in Large, that's what makes it a memory test.


----------



## lorry (Jan 3, 2020)

tabascosauz said:


> I mean, the version is exactly the same, but I've always gone to the actual Prime95 site for download.
> 
> P95 does detect and optimize for your CPU so maybe it's a dual chiplet thing? Which doesn't seem to make any sense, since the FFTs sit in RAM for Large. I notice that in the greyed out torture test settings (you can select each different test and see the values change), the minimum FFT size used for your Large are significantly longer in length. See mine:
> 
> ...



You mean From https://www.mersenne.org/download/ 

That Was where I got it from the first time. TBH I don't feel that changing the settings is going to change anything really. As you say it's likely the dual chiplet that makes the difference, and/or the virtual memory maybe?
Anyway it completed the Intel Burn tests on standard, high, very high (see my comment above where I pasted the results) and I will have another try later on with the maximum. 
I stopped it before it had even done the first run as I thought it might be faulty, but on looking online it seems that each run takes in excess of 15 minutes and I stopped it after about 11, doh!
Oddly though whilst even on Max (when I saw the available ram drop to *2MB !) the temp was 12c lower at 71 compared to a max of 83 on p95 (maybe the Intel Burn can't handle this particular AMD setup of CPU?) and the ram remained in the 30s (33.5 - 34.5c).

I did try a search to see if anyone else had reported this but maybe I used the wrong serach words?*

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

Oh, and @Fry178 got my refund from that seller on eBay, plus, so far anyway, he hasn't sent me any return details, so I could well end up keeping it!
Have ordered a specifically detailed backlit model (the site on Amazon details 3 models, backlit, non backlit and a newer version that shows usage over 7 days on the display all at one)

Hmm, watch this space









						Report: Nvidia's next-gen Ampere cards 50% faster than Turing with half the power draw
					

As reported by the Taipei Times (via Tom's Hardware), Yuanta Securities Investment Consulting Co said in a client note that Nvidia would launch its Ampere-based GPU in...




					www.techspot.com
				




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

----------------------------
IntelBurnTest v2.54
Created by AgentGOD
----------------------------

Processor: AMD Ryzen 9 3900X 12-Core Processor            
Clock Speed: 2.92 GHz
Active Physical Cores: 24
Total System Memory: 32713 MB

Stress Level: Maximum (25070 MB)
Testing started on 03/01/2020 8:37:11 PM
Time (s)        Speed (GFlops)        Result
[20:53:51] 861.881    141.4827            3.195339e-002
[21:12:26] 977.931    124.6931            3.195339e-002
[21:28:15] 820.179    148.6763            3.195339e-002
[21:43:59] 822.284    148.2958            3.195339e-002
[21:59:41] 819.897    148.7275            3.195339e-002
Testing ended on 03/01/2020 9:59:49 PM
Test Result: Stopped by user.


I had to stop it as it would have taken another 90 minutes to complete but the results look good to me all the same
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Temps reached a max of 73c for cpu, with it dropping back down to 52c after each run had finished.
Ram was between 34.5 - 37c

Interestingly the ram usage for this Was 100%, in that there were times when the available ram was 0


----------



## Zach_01 (Jan 3, 2020)

lorry said:


> That does look to be interesting but I feel that I would need to know how far to go in undervolting and/or EDC - for instance do you reduce or increase EDC?
> 
> I just ran CB20 and here are my max limits, you can see that I do reach 100% on EDC and close to the limits on the other two
> 
> View attachment 141133


I pointed out what I did but I'll write again.

These are the limits of the 3600


Zach_01 said:


> My default max values goes like this:
> *PPT: 88 Watt*
> TDC: 60 Amps
> *EDC: 90 Amps*



----------------------------------------
These are the actual numbers the CPU was hitting during R20 without touching anything


Zach_01 said:


> When running R20 all core, those limits was never reached except PPT, so:
> *PPT: 87.7 Watt (99.7%)*
> TDC: ~49 Amps (82.5%)
> *EDC: ~79 Amps (88%)*
> Max temp: 63C



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

I wanted to reduce the power current (EDC), so that PPT would have headroom and see if that would raise clocks. My CPU was previous hitting 79A so I had to set it below that value. I tried it first with 76A and then 73A


Zach_01 said:


> Into UEFI I set the EDC limit to 76A and run R20:
> *PPT: 87.8 Watt (99.7%)*
> TDC: ~49 Amps (82.5%)
> *EDC: 76 Amps *
> ...



It seems that it worked.
Without touching anything when the CPU run R20 the clock was 3975~4000MHz.
After reducing the limit to 73 the CPU run R20 at 3975~4050MHz and the score went up about 50~60points.


----------



## lorry (Jan 3, 2020)

My PPT seems to be the least used, at least in P95 & IB, can't remember offhand for R20. EDC & TDC often run at 100% and 98% respectively, with PPT I think about 96%


----------



## mtcn77 (Jan 3, 2020)

tabascosauz said:


> I had the most success with EDC 80 in combination with the -0.075V offset. Without combining the two, reducing EDC at stock voltage just makes for a poorly performing version of more aggressive PBO settings. Performance is comparable with the offset, at EDC 80 and 90, but the reduction makes for more consistent scoring. I'm pretty happy with how it's doing right now.
> 
> @lorry sounds like your P95 is borked somehow or an old version. Large is able to occupy close to 30GB out of 32GB of RAM on mine. Maybe use Custom and copy my Large settings? We both have 32GB kits.
> 
> View attachment 141134


If you limit EDC, you will likely curtail LLC need and thereby improve FIT-temperature response of your CPU. Driving faster pwm, or double the phase count motherboards should not be beneficial in this regard where the beef is between your cpu cooler and temperature throttle curve.
EDC+voltage offset shouldn't be possible, unless Stilt hasn't raised enough flags and motherboard OEM's are still applying higher than default voltage settings in order to one-up their ever important rivals.

Also, at a decently low EDC throttling point, you should be able to raise TDC up to that of EDC safely for continuous performance - PBO without turbo taper.


----------



## Zach_01 (Jan 3, 2020)

lorry said:


> My PPT seems to be the least used, at least in P95 & IB, can't remember offhand for R20. EDC & TDC often run at 100% and 98% respectively, with PPT I think about 96%


You will see different numbers at different benchmarks, as all of them are loading the CPU slightly different. Its normal.
I would say to try to raise PPT (from 142W), and reduce EDC (from 140A).

Like this...
PPT: 145 (+3)
TDC: Default (0)
EDC: 135 (-5)

First run a CB R20 or any other benchmark to know you starting point.


----------



## tabascosauz (Jan 4, 2020)

mtcn77 said:


> If you limit EDC, you will likely curtail LLC need and thereby improve FIT-temperature response of your CPU. Driving faster pwm, or double the phase count motherboards should not be beneficial in this regard where the beef is between your cpu cooler and temperature throttle curve.
> EDC+voltage offset shouldn't be possible, unless Stilt hasn't raised enough flags and motherboard OEM's are still applying higher than default voltage settings in order to one-up their ever important rivals.
> 
> Also, at a decently low EDC throttling point, you should be able to raise TDC up to that of EDC safely for continuous performance - PBO without turbo taper.



See, that's what I thought, too. But I'm just not seeing the performance increase, not even slightly. Tried seeing if changing other PBO parameters helps. TDC tops out at 52A; no sense in trying to go past stock. That's why I set the offset too, as since I get the same performance, I may as well go and reduce the heat and noise.

Interestingly enough, I occasionally boost past 4400MHz to the 44.3x multiplier on my best two cores when I don't have the offset on, but it doesn't matter, as CB scores don't reflect that. There is a little bit of a ST benefit going to an EDC of 80, ST is up to 507 now, and consistently so, since CB is smart enough to have the load sit on the best two cores for the entire test (~43.8x multiplier on effective clocks).

I'm starting to think that connecting EDC and multi-core score is a bit misguided. And unless the original graph from the EDC-related post with the same exact setup as mine shows consistent averages over at least 20 runs over 20 boots, it's really hard to disprove that a handful of points gain in CB R15 isn't due to regular variances. Hell, I sometimes gain 10-20pts in R20 from tweaking these settings, but instantly lose a guaranteed 60-80pts in R20 from forgetting to close Dropbox. Single-thread gains, sure.

And as to factory overvolting, they most definitely still do that.


----------



## lorry (Jan 4, 2020)

Zach_01 said:


> I pointed out what I did but I'll write again.
> 
> These are the limits of the 3600
> 
> ...




well that seems to have fecked just about everything up ????
Look at my memory clock speeds etc?


----------



## tabascosauz (Jan 4, 2020)

mtcn77 said:


> If you limit EDC, you will likely curtail LLC need and thereby improve FIT-temperature response of your CPU. Driving faster pwm, or double the phase count motherboards should not be beneficial in this regard where the beef is between your cpu cooler and temperature throttle curve.
> EDC+voltage offset shouldn't be possible, unless Stilt hasn't raised enough flags and motherboard OEM's are still applying higher than default voltage settings in order to one-up their ever important rivals.
> 
> Also, at a decently low EDC throttling point, you should be able to raise TDC up to that of EDC safely for continuous performance - PBO without turbo taper.





lorry said:


> well that seems to have fecked just about everything up ????
> Look at my memory clock speeds etc?
> 
> View attachment 141220



Did you only change EDC? Something surely hit the fan, because you're back at JEDEC on RAM, RAM is uncoupled, Vcore goes up to 1.9V which is clearly a bug, and all your TDC/EDC/PPT values appear to be exactly stock.

Clear your CMOS and restore your previous settings, if you've saved them as a BIOS profile?

-----

@mtcn77 see these results at 83A EDC and no offset. I put LLC back on Auto for more droop at load (I had a nasty habit of leaving it on Turbo, a remnant of when I was testing fixed freq).



That's the best I can do. That's with no HWInfo monitoring, internet adapters disabled, no unnecessary background tasks. I had previous beat my former best by 1pt at 4959 on my first run at 83A, then failed to hit within 20pts of that best score until I changed to Auto LLC. Single core always tops out at 507, which is pretty much the best it can do, and it's always running on the best cores. The problem with the single core benchmark is that it favours people who have as minimal a Windows installation as physically possible, as it's clearly audible when the CPU sometimes does other tasks with inactive cores in the middle of the benchmark; the test takes so long that there's definitely going to be background tasks going on that fuck with the score.

To the ST scores, case in point: CPU-Z in safemode, because CPU-Z is pretty much the only bench that runs in Safemode. Reaching 525 single thread is literally impossible in normal Windows, regardless of how much extraneous tasks are disabled. Clearly something, possibly the fact that Windows scheduler in normal Windows always locks the bench to Core 0 to run the task, is causing the drastic difference. But, it's not like I can investigate what core is running CPU-Z in Safemode; HWInfo doesn't work in Safemode.

 

I think I'm going to call it quits here. 83A empirically works better than 80A, as is evident by the best score, but 85A starts losing score again. It still makes a bit of a racket and unncessary heat at these settings due to no offset, so I don't know how long I'll keep putting up with this all in the name of gaining 30pts in Cinebench. Tired of having all the control taken out of my hands by how unpredictable Ryzen is. Just gonna enjoy what I have.

Hats off to you for bringing the EDC tweaking to our attention. It clearly works - the tweaks are different for everybody's chips. I'm just not sure the gains are going to be worth it. From what I see, the SFF crowd loves EDC tweaking, but I've been part of the SFF crowd since it first started to gain traction, and the problem with Ryzen with the small coolers were stuck with is not peak consumption, but how it sounds and behaves the other 95% of the time. Not that EDC tweaking alone even comes close to the thermal and acoustic benefits of undervolting, but hey, at least now I know there are people out there who are getting something more substantial out of it.


----------



## Zach_01 (Jan 4, 2020)

lorry said:


> well that seems to have fecked just about everything up ????
> Look at my memory clock speeds etc?





tabascosauz said:


> *Did you only change EDC?* Something surely hit the fan, because you're back at JEDEC on RAM, RAM is uncoupled, Vcore goes up to 1.9V which is clearly a bug, and all your TDC/EDC/PPT values appear to be exactly stock.
> 
> Clear your CMOS and restore your previous settings, if you've saved them as a BIOS profile?


Did you use the numbers I suggested?
And where did you make the changes? AMD CBS or AMD Overclocking?
Pretty much it cleared/reset it self at boot


----------



## tabascosauz (Jan 4, 2020)

Well, looks like I jumped the gun a little bit. It had a bit left in it, probably because it was long enough after boot that background tasks had long since settled. I have a feeling 4985 is givin' her all she's got, capt'n. Clocks are starting at 41.5x and ending at 41.0x.

 



Zach_01 said:


> Did you use the numbers I suggested?
> And where did you make the changes? AMD CBS or AMD Overclocking?
> Pretty much it cleared/reset it self at boot



I'm not sure if you've noticed this on your X570 board tweaking these PBO settings, but the manual PPT/EDC/TDC settings in my PBO menu are ridiculously difficult to save. Like, they have a mind of their own. I'll save them very clearly at 88/60/83, and I'll reboot back into BIOS to check, and they'll be at 105/60/83, even though I haven't touched that PPT value for a week. Or I'll change 88/60/83 to 88/60/85, and reboot to find that the 85 didn't stick. A couple of times, I didn't even leave the BIOS; I went to the Save and Quit tab and right back to the PBO page, only to find that the values had changed on their own. 

Man, Gigabyte sucks at making BIOSes.


----------



## lorry (Jan 4, 2020)

Zach_01 said:


> Did you use the numbers I suggested?
> And where did you make the changes? AMD CBS or AMD Overclocking?
> Pretty much it cleared/reset it self at boot




I did them in PBO, was that correct?
yes I thought i had used your number, but didnt screenshot them

PPT 145
TDC  95
EDC 135        Oh feck! By the look of my writing when I took down your figures, I _may have set this one at 155 !!

also any idea what the motherboard setting is?

_


----------



## Zach_01 (Jan 4, 2020)

tabascosauz said:


> I'm not sure if you've noticed this on your X570 board tweaking these PBO settings, but the manual PPT/EDC/TDC settings in my PBO menu are ridiculously difficult to save. Like, they have a mind of their own. I'll save them very clearly at 88/60/83, and I'll reboot back into BIOS to check, and they'll be at 105/60/83, even though I haven't touched that PPT value for a week. Or I'll change 88/60/83 to 88/60/85, and reboot to find that the 85 didn't stick. A couple of times, I didn't even leave the BIOS; I went to the Save and Quit tab and right back to the PBO page, only to find that the values had changed on their own.
> 
> Man, Gigabyte sucks at making BIOSes.


Not such issue on my board for PBO settings...



lorry said:


> I did them in PBO, was that correct?
> yes I thought i had used your number, but didnt screenshot them
> 
> PPT 145
> ...


No idea, I did try it once but it make the system to run/respond like a snail...
This page is in AMD Overclocking...

Try this:
Set that "Precision Boost Overdrive" from "Advanced" to "Auto" (actually set all those settings to Auto). You may loose that +200MHz theoritical boost but bare with me...
Go to XFR Enhancement as below and set the values







Leave TDC 0


----------



## lorry (Jan 4, 2020)

Zach_01 said:


> Not such issue on my board for PBO settings...
> 
> 
> No idea, I did try it once but it make the system to run/respond like a snail...
> ...




why is TDC left at 0 though?
And why reset PBO to auto again?
What is being tried and why please?

Also  what is that MB option in my BIOS? Any ideas?


----------



## tabascosauz (Jan 4, 2020)

lorry said:


> why is TDC left at 0 though?
> And why reset PBO to auto again?
> What is being tried and why please?
> 
> ...



He's not talking about the Peripherals>AMD Overclocking menu. There's a separate Precision Boost submenu under Peripherals>AMD CBS, which is the option located directly above AMD Overclocking.

From what I understand, people seem to think that AMD CBS is more geared towards Zen+ use, whereas AMD Overclocking is supposedly for Zen 2. Never hurts to try it out, though. Worst case, just clear CMOS again.


----------



## lorry (Jan 4, 2020)

tabascosauz said:


> He's not talking about the Peripherals>AMD Overclocking menu. There's a separate Precision Boost submenu under Peripherals>AMD CBS, which is the option located directly above AMD Overclocking.
> 
> From what I understand, people seem to think that AMD CBS is more geared towards Zen+ use, whereas AMD Overclocking is supposedly for Zen 2. Never hurts to try it out, though. Worst case, just clear CMOS again.



yes I did know about that but thought that it shouldn't make much of a difference.
Why leave TDC at 0 though? what is the reason for that?

And any thoughts on this Motherboard setting under AMD CBS section?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interesting post here I think?


__
		https://www.reddit.com/r/overclocking/comments/ejd5c9


__
		https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/b8a5ft


----------



## Zach_01 (Jan 4, 2020)

lorry said:


> why is TDC left at 0 though?
> And why reset PBO to auto again?
> What is being tried and why please?
> 
> ...


As I said, I dont know what Motherbord option is in PBO. I did tried it once and made my system run like slug...
TDC (Thermal Design Current) is for thermaly constrained scenarios. Like thermal throttling. So if we dont have extreme thermal issues there is no point to alter it.
0 = default limit

-------------------------------------------
AMD CBS
AMD Overclocking

2 sections that do the same things. Preferably choose AMD CBS for oc and tweak in general, because there is a possibility that if the system needs a clear CMOS and there is no dual BIOS... AMD Overclocking may not clear some settings (heard by BZ). In this case reflash is the only way to get around that.
And what are we trying to do here is tweak and maybe optimize auto PBO so FIT may increase all core boost clocks. The less things interfere (like +200MHz or any other) the better.
ZEN2 is so f*cking annoyingly complex and advanced (pardon me please, but true) that you have to take things one at the time.

So thats why I suggest to have every thing in AMD Overclocking PBO on Auto and do the PPT/EDC setting/tweaking in AMD CBS PBO section.


----------



## lorry (Jan 4, 2020)

Zach_01 said:


> As I said, I dont know what Motherbord option is in PBO. I did tried it once and made my system run like slug...
> TDC (Thermal Design Current) is for thermaly constrained scenarios. Like thermal throttling. So if we dont have extreme thermal issues there is no point to alter it.
> 0 = default limit
> 
> ...




Thanks and, no probs, i swear as much as anyone else lol (Especially at other drivers [did the ambulance car service for 21 years driving 1,200 miles every week so you can imagine some of my situations]).

One point, I Do have dual BIOS on this MB - 2 x 128Mbit flash, support for DualBIOS (one of the reasons i choose this one).


----------



## Zach_01 (Jan 4, 2020)

tabascosauz said:


> Hats off to you for bringing the EDC tweaking to our attention. It clearly works - the tweaks are different for everybody's chips. I'm just not sure the gains are going to be worth it. From what I see, the SFF crowd loves EDC tweaking, but I've been part of the SFF crowd since it first started to gain traction, and the problem with Ryzen with the small coolers were stuck with is not peak consumption, but how it sounds and behaves the other 95% of the time. Not that EDC tweaking alone even comes close to the thermal and acoustic benefits of undervolting, but hey, at least now I know there are people out there who are getting something more substantial out of it.


*I'm not sure to whom you are refering to but the first man that brought EDC tweaking here is @Fry178 a few pages back in this thread! 
Even though its not ground breaking tweaking I like it. And yes things are moving towards auto everything and the OC is dying, but thats Ok with me...*


----------



## lorry (Jan 4, 2020)

@Zach_01 when you said "set PBO from advanced to auto (actually set all those settings to auto)"

exactly which settings should be reset to auto?


----------



## Zach_01 (Jan 4, 2020)

lorry said:


> @Zach_01 when you said "set PBO from advanced to auto (actually set all those settings to auto)"
> 
> exactly which settings should be reset to auto?



This...
_View attachment 141240_

And do it from here...
View attachment 141241

View attachment 141242

View attachment 141243

View attachment 141244


----------



## lorry (Jan 4, 2020)

Zach_01 said:


> This...
> _View attachment 141240_
> 
> And do it from here...
> ...




Ah! I thought that you meant setting other settings back to auto, Other than PBO overdrive

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just waiting for my postman to come and I'll then boot into the BIOS (I have something arriving today), otherwise knowing my luck he will knock on the door just as I'm in the middle of it


----------



## tabascosauz (Jan 4, 2020)

Zach_01 said:


> *I'm not sure to whom you are refering to but the first man that brought EDC tweaking here is @Fry178 a few pages back in this thread!
> Even though its not ground breaking tweaking I like it. And yes things are moving towards auto everything and the OC is dying, but thats Ok with me...*



Man, I don't even know anymore. There's so many posts, and reading all this on mobile is going to make my head explode lol. All I know is that we were all starting to talk about manual PBO settings, then someone suddenly burst in here with the link to the confusing but interesting writeup about reducing EDC, and the random graph with Cinebench R15 scores benched on almost the exact same hardware setup I have. Somewhere on page 19. Fry's got great info to share, definitely. 

@lorry taking a look at the first example of the degraded chip (3700X), he claims to have run it at or near 95c for extended periods of time. Imagine the current leakage at that temperature, lmao. 

Also, a number of these anecdotes off Reddit are all giving off the impression that they're running fixed clocks and pushing 1.3v at these chips under P95 loads. That's a free trip to silicon afterlife if I've ever seen one. I'm sitting at close to 5 months on my 3700X and it's still doing fine, though I had no PBO and the -0.075v offset for a couple of months. As soon as I saw it needed 1.23V for 4.1GHz, I backed off to 4.0GHz 1.195V and wrapped up my fixed freq testing and went back to boost. This isn't my 4790K, where I can just keep throwing volts at it as long as I have the cooling.

Smallest is unmitigated, so 1.3v is as Chernobyl as it sounds. Small now runs a lower multiplier to alleviate heat, but fixed freq doesn't care; what you typed into multiplier is what you get.

If you run fixed clocks, Prime95 literally doesn't care; it will draw as much power as it wants and there are no safeguards in place to stop it, aside from instability. FIT? Pffft. It's fixed clocks; what FIT? 1.3V, whatever the fixed freq, would have had me at 95c within half a second of starting the test. 

Another unknown is LLC. To get 1.3v at full load, you need aggressive LLC for droop voltage anywhere near the Vcore value you set, or be running a much higher Vcore setting for it to droop all the way to 1.3V at full load. Thing is, you can get away with Turbo LLC at lower voltages, but you can't take that kind of LLC higher into uncomfortable Vcore territory without knowing what you're doing. The more aggressive the LLC, the more it will sometimes "spike" to a higher voltage than the specified Vcore. That's just part of the deal; you get higher voltage at droop, but you also get the spikes. 

And most of these guys are saying they ran their chips hard for long periods on end. Yeah........I can beat on my 6.0 L96 that's a literal cockroach in the engine world, hard, 24/7, and I wouldn't expect it to outlive a normal, cared-for daily driver...


----------



## lorry (Jan 4, 2020)

tabascosauz said:


> Man, I don't even know anymore. There's so many posts, and reading all this on mobile is going to make my head explode lol. All I know is that we were all starting to talk about manual PBO settings, then someone suddenly burst in here with the link to the confusing but interesting writeup about reducing EDC, and the random graph with Cinebench R15 scores benched on almost the exact same hardware setup I have. Somewhere on page 19. Fry's got great info to share, definitely.
> 
> @lorry taking a look at the first example of the degraded chip (3700X), he claims to have run it at or near 95c for extended periods of time. Imagine the current leakage at that temperature, lmao.
> 
> ...



oh yeah, wasn't saying that they were right/wrong/of indifferent, just that I found it interesting and that there seems to be no end of ideas as to what works, or more accurately I feel, what seems to work for That person and That setup.

For myself single core speed/performance isn't as interesting as multi core. Not saying that I wouldn't take it if it was available, but that I feel that for my usage, multi core is the more important/interesting, as I think that is where I will most of my usage will be. Most games now look to use two cores or will be, anyway there my monitor is a limiting factor for now. It's only 75hz but I got it as it was a good price and a 32 inch   later on I'll get the money for something better.

And yes, this post does range across a lot of areas - most of my posts anywhere do in fact.  I'm fine with that and well used to it. I rang a daily checkin post on G+ ever since it was in Beta and that often ran to 500 comments a day



Zach_01 said:


> As I said, I dont know what Motherbord option is in PBO. I did tried it once and made my system run like slug...
> TDC (Thermal Design Current) is for thermaly constrained scenarios. Like thermal throttling. So if we dont have extreme thermal issues there is no point to alter it.
> 0 = default limit
> 
> ...



is this right then?


----------



## Zach_01 (Jan 4, 2020)

yep!


----------



## lorry (Jan 4, 2020)

Zach_01 said:


> yep!



ok, i'll do some testing in the various benchmarks and report back then


----------



## Fry178 (Jan 4, 2020)

Didn't get into details as much as some of the ppl here/from other forum posts, but i seem to have needy chip.
Just lowering voltage offset by 0.02, i get random reboots, only figured it out after changing only that setting and seeing those crash reboots, so amd is binning Zen2 pretty hard.

But outside the gpu and don't see me manually oc the cpu, especially since i plan on selling my 3600 in a few months and switch for X3700 and be done with it..


----------



## lorry (Jan 4, 2020)

Okay @Zach_01 and everyone else, after a load of testing that was rushed as always I was trying to do about 6 things at once that all came up, Grrr.

Some winners, some losers and some nothing much changed

Geekbench 5                     single          multi

Previous average
of 5 best scores               1299            13204

average of 5 best
scores Now                      1284             13242


Conclusion - multi core increased, single decreased
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CG20                               single            multi

                                        502                7098

Basically no change, although CG20 for me can have as Much as a 500 point variation!!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CPU-Z                           single            multi

                                     527.2             8234.1


Can't remember the exact previous scores but Know that these are about 10-15 better in single core and around 50 better inj multi core
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Voltages during CB were Cpu sv12TFN 1.43V - 1.49V on single core? (I think it was this way round)

                                                                     1.275V in multi core
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

During P95


During CB20


CB20 full score


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



After messing about with all of that I looked at RM and it would look as if PPT did Not take, as RM still reports it as 142W ?
Yet as you can see from previous pics it Was saved as 145? (Just a thought, should that be 147, as we lowered EDC by 5?)





Also, IF it shows as 142 saved in the BIOS, What Now?


----------



## Zach_01 (Jan 4, 2020)

Yes, it seemed like it didnt take the 145 PPT and stayed on 142 which is no real issue as it’s not hitting that 142 limit.
No it shouldn’t be 147 for PPT. It’s separate from the -5 EDC.
PPT is measured in Watts and EDC in Ampere

Do you have any screenshots with no manual settings for PPT/TDC/EDC? Just for reference...

I see in the HW screenshots that the time running is 2,5+hours long. Did you reset it between P95 and CB R20 runs? Always reset time (and values) by hitting the clock down on the right, right after the benchmark starts. This way by the time bench finishes you will have the numbers only for that run (more representative).

The goal here is to manage to lower current (EDC) while PPT maintain same levels (whatever that may be), and if possible to be raised by very small percentage. That’s why you need to know the initial PPT value (PBO all in Auto) before setting manual PBO for PPT/TDC/EDC.

Reduced EDC while PPT stays the same... imply that something else went up...
2 things can go up. Clocks and Voltage. One of them or both of them. Which one and when it’s for FIT to decide.
That is it’s job. So by this tweaking you manage a slight potential overclock and/or overvoltage (in all core scenarios) within the FIT’s parameters and so... avoiding silicon stress = safe.

Its not ground breaking... but given the complexity of ZEN2 and the “right next to the limit” function that AMD gave to these CPUs, we can call it fine tuning. I like this kind of things just for the idea.

Next for you is to keep reducing EDC until you start loosing performance. When you find that spot retract a few back to highest gains.


----------



## lorry (Jan 4, 2020)

Zach_01 said:


> Yes, it seemed like it didnt take the 145 PPT and stayed on 142 which is no real issue as it’s not hitting that 142 limit.
> No it shouldn’t be 147 for PPT. It’s separate from the -5 EDC.
> PPT is measured in Watts and EDC in Ampere
> 
> ...



By screenshots do you mean bios? or HW?

If HW this one is from Dec 10th and I hadn't touched PPT/TDC/EDC at all then and I don't think that I had PBO set to advanced but cannot be certain. You can see that the ram was still at 3200 as well.



I knew about the reset feature but TBH I have found that if I wait until the perf clocks reach their peak highest speeds, it seemed that I then got better benchmark scores    ?

I am pretty sure that 142,95,140 has remained the same from the first time that I installed RM

Okay, understand the goal now

i did fire up CPU-Z and just after I had reset the bios profile and after it had loaded I clicked on the memory and for a brief second it displayed 1899.* then straight back to 1863 ?

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

Oooh!



This is from the main window of HWinfo, clicking on the CPU.
IF i read this right, where it says 'fused' does that mean like hard wired and cannot be changed, no matter what? If so, thats why my PPT couldn't be increased surely?


----------



## Zach_01 (Jan 5, 2020)

No thats not the case... Mine says fused too but it did change the value
See:


Also see the CPU PBO Scalar. I've change it in PBO settings from auto(=default x1) to x2. This helps alot raising clocks further by raising vcore a little. This raises temps also, so keep an eye to them if you want to try it out.

I would suggest the following:
PPT: 150
TDC: 0
EDC: 130
Scalar: first Auto, then x2

after...
PPT: 150
TDC: 0
EDC: 125
Scalar: first Auto, then x2

Do your best for cooling when using scalar x2. Mine raised 2~3 degrees when the AIO run extreme profile. But this help sustain higher clocks.
If the temps go too high (within thermal limits of course) then FIT sees it and drop clocks back. There is a fine line between all of the settings. I did try scalar x3 and helped further with all core boost but it gave me bsod when running single R20 so I turn it back to x2.
I will come back with screenshots of HW in every setting I've try. (about 10 different). After first time I tried x2, and seeing max temp from 63C to 66C I desided to repaste the AIO block with a new I just got yesterday. ThermalGrizzly Conductonaut (liquid metal). Helped max temp reduction by 4~5C so Im back to 61~62C.


----------



## lorry (Jan 5, 2020)

Zach_01 said:


> No thats not the case... Mine says fused too but it did change the value
> See:
> View attachment 141347
> 
> ...



I'm in no rush - doing a backup and then decided to do the windows backup as well afterwards

thanks


----------



## Zach_01 (Jan 5, 2020)

No rush indeed!
I just inform of my findings so far.

PS.
I hate backups...


----------



## lorry (Jan 5, 2020)

Zach_01 said:


> No rush indeed!
> I just inform of my findings so far.
> 
> PS.
> I hate backups...



your findings are very useful mate
well everyones on here are


----------



## Fry178 (Jan 5, 2020)

So apparently lowering the offset wasn't causing the crash reboot, as i switched back to auto, and it still did it.
Always on low load like surfing/office, never on idle/gaming/high load of any kind (bench/test/software).

most stuff is on auto (power/tdp etc), only tweaked things like on board stuff/ports/boot modes etc,
and all other HW works flawlessly with different board/cpu, and especially because i can play stuff at 1440p/1800p
with about 60-90% load on gpu and 10-50% on cpu.

any guess as to the why this could happen is appreciated.


----------



## lorry (Jan 5, 2020)

Fry178 said:


> So apparently lowering the offset wasn't causing the crash reboot, as i switched back to auto, and it still did it.
> Always on low load like surfing/office, never on idle/gaming/high load of any kind (bench/test/software).
> 
> most stuff is on auto (power/tdp etc), only tweaked things like on board stuff/ports/boot modes etc,
> ...



I'm only guessing, but all i can suggest is to save you current profile, switch back to BIOS optimum settings and then change one thing at a time until you find the bad setting?


----------



## Zach_01 (Jan 5, 2020)

The 3600 is the "bare bottom of the barrel" silicon. All ZEN2 are binned according to model. 3600 has the highest out of the box voltage of them all for a reason. I also tried the negative voltage offset with no success. Only higher quality silicon CPUs seem to benefit from -offset. Thats why I turned to manual PBO fiddling (PPT/TDC/EDC/scalar), and made some progress so far. Mostly for all/medium core boost than single...


----------



## Fry178 (Jan 5, 2020)

@lorry 
doesnt happen often enough, would probably take me month that way 

@Zach_01 
the reduced offset voltage was not the cause. as going back to auto didnt prevent it from happening again.
the previous 3600 was running at least 0.1-0.15v more (iirc even up to 0.2v under full load, compared to the one i have now) 
without problems (on a smaller board, less capable board)..


----------



## Zach_01 (Jan 5, 2020)

I'm not sure I understand... sorry

Did you change CPU and board? From what to what?
One thing that happens often with ZEN2 is the incompatibility of corsair ram with some CPUs on some boards. Its lottery really...


----------



## lorry (Jan 5, 2020)

Zach_01 said:


> I'm not sure I understand... sorry
> 
> Did you change CPU and board? From what to what?
> One thing that happens often with ZEN2 is the incompatibility of corsair ram with some CPUs on some boards. Its lottery really...



Reason I was sweating a bit, as my corsair ram wasn't listed on this MB vendors list!


----------



## Fry178 (Jan 5, 2020)

I initially had the msi gaming, but wanted 3 nvme slots, so i swapped for gigabyte ultra.
Reference was just to state it is not caused by any other hardware, as ram/psu/case/coolers etc worked with a different board and "worse" 3600 absolutely fine.
Ram works fine, passes both memtest versions, and since there are no other issues i doubt thats it.


----------



## Zach_01 (Jan 5, 2020)

lorry said:


> Reason I was sweating a bit, as my corsair ram wasn't listed on this MB vendors list!


Mine is on QVL, but with the amount of issues going on with Corsair+ZEN2, I was lucky. I didnt know that when bought them. Otherwise I would have gone with GSkill. Not that GKills dont cause some, but still, corsair has the crown. Not to be mistaken, I use exclusively corsair ram for the last 15+years, but it appears that this time with ZEN2 something is going on.



Fry178 said:


> I initially had the msi gaming, but wanted 3 nvme slots, so i swapped for gigabyte ultra.
> Reference was just to state it is not caused by any other hardware, as ram/psu/case/coolers etc worked with a different board and "worse" 3600 absolutely fine.
> Ram works fine, passes both memtest versions, and since there are no other issues i doubt thats it.


The boards you talking are X570?
From experience in here I saw many such issues caused by RAM. Most of them corsair, and some of others. Its unrelated to QVL, but I suspect its the combination of RAM+CPU+MB.
In alot of cases users manage to straight it out by disabling XMP and set the specs manually. Others just switching RAM as the MB is more difficult.
Why dont you start a new thread with all the details about hardware and settings and see if you can get help. Many here did.


----------



## lorry (Jan 5, 2020)

Zach_01 said:


> Mine is on QVL, but with the amount of issues going on with Corsair+ZEN2, I was lucky. I didnt know that when bought them. Otherwise I would have gone with GSkill. Not that GKills dont cause some, but still, corsair has the crown. Not to be mistaken, I use exclusively corsair ram for the last 15+years, but it appears that this time with ZEN2 something is going on.



I didn't know any better re QVL's when I saw a good price for some used Corsair Dominator Platinum B-die, only that Corsair was meant to be good.
Not according to BZ though, he says that If they are any other make than B-die is good but the Corsair B-die are the also ran group.
I consider myself even luckier to have them go from 3200 to 3733 and keep the same c.



Zach_01 said:


> Also see the CPU PBO Scalar. I've change it in PBO settings from auto(=default x1) to x2. This helps alot raising clocks further by raising vcore a little. This raises temps also, so keep an eye to them if you want to try it out.
> 
> I would suggest the following:
> PPT: 150
> ...



What if the PPT refuses to budge, like it did last time?
Will that make any difference?


----------



## tabascosauz (Jan 5, 2020)

@Fry178 ugh I hate instabilities like that because unless you already have an idea as to what it might be, it's so hard to troubleshoot. Last time I had something similar was almost four years ago, when i replaced a H81 board with the H97 one for similar symptoms. That wasn't it; later ended up throwing out my Silverstone ST45SF-G for my current SF600. But the ST45SF-G still works for short stints in testing and as an emergency backup, so four years later I'm still none the wiser.

A few things I can think of:

1. B-die can be sensitive to ambient temperature. But as it's not happening under load:

2. 3600/18 is a bit suspicious, as far as it being a bad bin of B-die is concerned. Corsair does have a few high quality B-die SKUs concentrated in the upper echelons of its product stack, but "bad" B-die is scattered everywhere in its products and telling indicator is usually middle of the road timings (3200/16, 3600/18). Vengeance Pro 3200/16 is particularly problematic. Fortunately, if you can get it to boot, usually all it needs is a bit more voltage to hit higher speeds or tighter timings, and B-die loves voltage. 

3. Which Memtest? P95 Large might be another one to try; it generates enough heat on the DIMMs that it might be able to tell you how close you are from the edge of stability on your speeds/timings. 

4. What is your SVI2 voltage range in HWInfo in normal usage? If you don't run fixed clocks, you should have room to undervolt if you're hitting 1.5v at idle. If you're only hitting 1.4-1.425v max, it's already on the low side and shouldn't need reducing. 

5. Check drives' health using Crystaldiskinfo and check Windows /sfc to rule those out of the equation? I had some unexpected corruption a few weeks ago that was causing some erratic behaviour here and there.


----------



## Zach_01 (Jan 5, 2020)

lorry said:


> What if the PPT refuses to budge, like it did last time?
> Will that make any difference?


It could...
Because we are reducing current (EDC) the PPT will want to raise.

Mine was like this (R20)
max PPT 87.5 (limit 88)
max EDC 79 (limit 90)
scalar auto

And now its like this (R20)
max PPT 93 (limit 95)
max EDC 63 (limit 63)
scalar x2

and eff clock during run is ~50MHz higher.
You can try and see if you are capped by PPT...


----------



## lorry (Jan 5, 2020)

Zach_01 said:


> It could...
> Because we are reducing current (EDC) the PPT will want to raise.
> 
> Mine was like this (R20)
> ...



Think you misunderstood / i didn't explain properly.

I meant what IF PPT refuses to be raised again, like last time?
We reduced EDC by 5 and PPT refused to rise


----------



## Zach_01 (Jan 5, 2020)

lorry said:


> Think you misunderstood / i didn't explain properly.
> 
> I meant what IF PPT refuses to be raised again, like last time?
> We reduced EDC by 5 and PPT refused to rise


Yes yes I remember and my answer was based on that. Even tho PPT wasnt changed from 142 to 145 you still had some headroom cause you were only at 139 PPT. Cant remember if it was R20 tho or something else.
Still you can try again. Even with a greater PPT value, like 150, and see. But try 130 EDC(scalar auto and x2) with that.


----------



## lorry (Jan 5, 2020)

Zach_01 said:


> Yes yes I remember and my answer was based on that. Even tho PPT wasnt changed from 142 to 145 you still had some headroom cause you were only at 139 PPT. Cant remember if it was R20 tho or something else.
> Still you can try again. Even with a greater PPT value, like 150, and see. But try 130 EDC(scalar auto and x2) with that.



yeah I read that, 130,that's like a drop of 10 ?


----------



## Zach_01 (Jan 5, 2020)

I'm at -16 EDC right now... from what the CPU used, not the limit. From limit I'm -27.

_



			Mine was like this (R20)
max PPT 87.5 (limit 88)
max EDC 79 (limit 90)
scalar auto


And now its like this (R20)
max PPT 93 (limit 95)
max EDC 63 (limit 63)
scalar x2

Click to expand...

_


----------



## lorry (Jan 5, 2020)

Zach_01 said:


> I'm at -16 EDC right now... from what the CPU used, not the limit. From limit I'm -27.



I know, it just seems like a big drop, but okay


----------



## ShrimpBrime (Jan 5, 2020)

tabascosauz said:


> 4. What is your SVI2 voltage range in HWInfo in normal usage? If you don't run fixed clocks, you should have room to undervolt if you're hitting 1.5v at idle. If you're only hitting 1.4-1.425v max, it's already on the low side and shouldn't need reducing.



I'd like to take a stab at #4 really quick because I've noticed talk everywhere about the 1.5v at idle, I just want to touch on the electrical aspects of the Ryzen processors.

So at idle, that means we have most all of the transistors in a stop state. That means they are open or closed. These transistors not only require a voltage, but also an amp with it.

So at 1.5v idle readings should be of no concern for anyone. The amp draw is very very low.

OK.

So people worry about 1.5v on Ryzen processors, while idle. Well.... that's just how it's designed. It's really drawing a super low amp at a higher voltage.
When voltage decreases under a load, the amp draw increases, the transistors are in an operating state. Along with other peripherals such as the I/O that may never actually have an off state or sleep if you want to use that term instead.

So lets touch on 1.500v from past generations and lets reflect on the difference between then and now, however without going into great detail and pulling wattage tdp voltage and amp specs at X p-states, lets just do it a little more simple just to reflect the 1.50v that people seem to get all worried about.......
AMD chips  --
130nm - 1.50v (at load ok)
90nm - 1.50v (load ok)
65nm  - 1.50v (load ok)
45nm - 1.50v (load ok)
32nm - 1.50v (single/all core ok)
14nm/+ - 1.50v (single/idle core ok)
7nm/(+?) - 1.50v (single/idle core ok)

It seems like a pretty common trend while we have been shrinking the X86 architecture for transistor capacity and NOT designing essentially a different style of transistor.

Which by the way, through the years, idle states with single core boosts is something new to just the past few years, and the same 1.5v has been seen since Gen 1 Ryzen processors.

_________________

Now tweaking for energy savings is silly (In my Opinion) while your efforts vs a stock system are counter productive.

I mean this in means of ok, you lowered Cpu voltage a touch, but run your memory at 1.35v vs the standard 1.20v....Thus counter productive.

Trying to have cake and eat it is difficult. Might as well run at a higher performance set up and have more overall raw speed.

In example, with all my own testing on a 2700X processor, and quite a bit I might add......

4.1ghz, everything else on auto, all core all the time. It's 100mhz over stock boost at roughly 1.410v at load, so I manually set 1.410v. This is the most effecient approach I can angle it manually, by trying to "mimic"  for lack of better words the SensiMi all core boost voltage at load. The nice part was, I didn't have to touch LLC and it works like a charm. I'm still within TDP. perfect.

I don't loose really anything electrically even at a constant voltage like that. The transistors if sitting in an open or closed state are using no amp at all, and the start up voltage is already high enough to keep the processor stable, and there's no lag time waiting for the cpu to engage a start up voltage say 1.5v while idle.

The only draw back is I loose that single core boost clock of 4350mhz. Well, it doesn't really make a great impact on any games I play honestly. I get thrown into an all core boost when using more than one thread. Great, back to where I was 4ghz and 1.41v via the SensiMi technology.

Luckily I was cured of having to manually overclock say 200mhz past stock boosts and even 300mhz stock boosts. I can go into CPB, select OC option #4 and leave everything else on auto. I found the SenseMi technology was able to keep the processor a lot more stable than running a constant manually increased voltage which is great. Beyond this frequency, I have to manually overclock and Use that 1.50v for only 8 cores 0 threads to maintain a stability because the SenseMi technology feels this region of overclock is unsafe and just won't go there with all core loads in a meaningful way unless you can supply the Cooling for the processor. But I can tell you from experience that once you are going past 1.60v, you better have it Sub 0 Dice or LN2 or you won't gain a single mhz over the Many different ways to tweak or overclock these processors.

Essentially most of these chips will be hard to pass max boost clocks, Then you worry at 1.50v and up all core loads.

_______-

Ending in the battle between performance and minuscule power savings.


----------



## lorry (Jan 5, 2020)




----------



## Zach_01 (Jan 5, 2020)

lorry said:


> I know, it just seems like a big drop, but okay


I have tried multi settings. Start reducing EDC by increments of 3 (79 > 73 > 70 > 67 > 64) and the low I get the clocks went up with voltage also. Thats why PPT went up.
Key to this is the temp control. Especially if you run scalar x2 instead of auto. I was starting to gain more when set a scalar x2 but that raised temp ~2C. Changed the paste to liquid metal and drop it like 3~4C =gain more clocks.

I will provide screenshots...



lorry said:


> View attachment 141361


And that is...?


----------



## tabascosauz (Jan 5, 2020)

ShrimpBrime said:


> I'd like to take a stab at #4 really quick because I've noticed talk everywhere about the 1.5v at idle, I just want to touch on the electrical aspects of the Ryzen processors.
> 
> So at idle, that means we have most all of the transistors in a stop state. That means they are open or closed. These transistors not only require a voltage, but also an amp with it.
> 
> ...



No, no. That's not the point here. Because a voltage offset applies to the entire Vcore range, it's a place to start to gauge whether or not you might have room to undervolt. I'm not talking about the drivel that everyone believes about 1.5V being harmful when there's no current running through the thing. 

Fry was dealing with some instabilities with a minor undervolt. Just putting some thoughts out there.

At least on smaller chips, a 1.5V peak can translate to full load at about 1.3V. Depending on chip quality, there might be some room in that for less Vcore. Even with little to no current, undervolting can alleviate temperatures a fair amount. But if, say, it's only ever hitting a max of 1.4v I'd be hard pressed to recommend any sort of undervolting at all.

But with enough cooling or want for performance, there's no reason to undervolt. It's more useful for SFF builders like myself to make life more tolerable. There's no real power savings to be had through undervolting, because the chip doesn't drop below 15W at idle.


----------



## ShrimpBrime (Jan 5, 2020)

Zach_01 said:


> And that is...?


wondered the same hehe.


----------



## lorry (Jan 5, 2020)

Zach_01 said:


> And that is...?



My voltages just now , basically sitting at desktop, but I hit enter before i typed that 



Zach_01 said:


> Key to this is the temp control. Especially if you run scalar x2 instead of auto. I was starting to gain more when set a scalar x2 but that raised temp ~2C. Changed the paste to liquid metal and drop it like 3~4C =gain more clocks.



never used liquid metal, in fact the Noctua was my first thermal paste Anything lol


----------



## ShrimpBrime (Jan 5, 2020)

tabascosauz said:


> No, no. That's not the point here. Because a voltage offset applies to the entire Vcore range, it's a place to start to gauge whether or not you might have room to undervolt. I'm not talking about the drivel that everyone believes about 1.5V being harmful when there's no current running through the thing.
> 
> At least on smaller chips, a 1.5V peak can signify full load at about 1.3V. Even with little to no current, undervolting can alleviate temperatures a fair amount. But if, say, it's only ever hitting a max of 1.4v I'd be hard pressed to recommend any sort of undervolting at all.



I know tabasco. Just wanted to touch base for readers so they can kind of get an understanding that what they see and what they think or know are a couple of different things.

And if we go to temperatures, Anything under 90c isn't going to change much with any tweaking you do. unless the motherboard is set to throttle at a lower temperature.
The Ryzen processors are designed with a high temp alert of 70c. Pretty much when the fan spins full speed when all your settings are auto.....
So basically anything over 70c would have potential to throttle especially if your running a hot VRM.

Sure lower temps are a nice goal. It won't really get you very far in reality though.

Believe me I've tried. Hard enough to achieve -30c at idle and under 20c at full load 4ghz. I was able to very greatly decrease voltage.

Bare witness to the same overclock just at lower temps. I can use a much lower voltage. The overclock, stock, max validation possible...... nothing changed. Only the ability to use a lower voltage.

Did all the power saving testing. The numbers are not really that different at the wall even idle.





And here's the score and the temps dropping back down just after the first screen shot of at load temps. Under .4v idle. Not bad huh?

You won't achieve this on ambient cooling.


----------



## tabascosauz (Jan 5, 2020)

@ShrimpBrime I'm not referring to absolute minimums. When crammed in a small case with 92mm spinners on a compact tower heatsink, things get loud real quick. There are things that setting a fan curve extending the fan response delay won't fix in these situations. Not that I have access to any of the more advanced fan control softwares on this board's BIOS.

A drop from 45-74c to 38-65c isn't an eyebrow-raising improvement for most people, but in this case it is and the effects are very clearly audible. It isn't in pursuit of record-breaking temperatures on TEC or LN2, but it's much more comfortable to live with. And without losing much performance at all, seems like a win to me.

Of course I'm hesitant to tell other people to undervolt. Everyone has a different chip, everyone has different cooling, some people have access to better fan control, and everyone has different ears. But in more cases than you might think, there can be merit to undervolting.

But before we get too far off track, I just wanted to find out what the stock voltage range on Fry's chip looks like to make sure it isn't the culprit behind the instability. If it's already quite low, then the chip's already found its optimal spot.


----------



## lorry (Jan 5, 2020)

I'd happily accept a 9c drop in temps!
Thats a potential increase in speed (is it a 25 or 250 MHz drop for every 10c over 50c?).


----------



## tabascosauz (Jan 5, 2020)

lorry said:


> I'd happily accept a 9c drop in temps!
> Thats a potential increase in speed (is it a 25 or 250 MHz drop for every 10c over 50c?).



I'm not sure about that purported drop in speed; it seems to be something else that's misattributed to temperature. For one, most people can easily overcome the alleged temperature deficit with the right PBO settings. For most people, the loss ov Vcore that causes the 9c drop in temps would cost more performance than they would ever hope to gain from temperature.

A 9c drop on your gigantic NF-A15s would sound very different to a 9c drop on my dual NF-A9s. They are 60% the size, after all, and spin up to 1.6x the speed. That's my point; I wouldn't care at all for undervolting with a new U12A or dual-fan C14S - thermals and acoustics would be excellent even at stock settings.


----------



## lorry (Jan 5, 2020)

tabascosauz said:


> I'm not sure about that purported drop in speed; it seems to be something else that's misattributed to temperature. For one, most people can easily overcome the alleged temperature deficit with the right PBO settings. For most people, the loss ov Vcore that causes the 9c drop in temps would cost more performance than they would ever hope to gain from temperature.
> 
> A 9c drop on your gigantic NF-A15s would sound very different to a 9c drop on my dual NF-A9s. They are 60% the size, after all, and spin up to 1.6x the speed. That's my point; I wouldn't care at all for undervolting with a new U12A or dual-fan C14S - thermals and acoustics would be excellent even at stock settings.



I thought that performance drop to temp increase came from AMD?

The Noctua fans go up to 1400 and i set a fairly aggressive fan curve on them, they dont often drop below 1000. Those big 200mm ones though at 1000 sound like a sound tunnel


----------



## ShrimpBrime (Jan 5, 2020)

tabascosauz said:


> @ShrimpBrime I'm not referring to absolute minimums. When crammed in a small case with 92mm spinners on a compact tower heatsink, things get loud real quick. There are things that setting a fan curve extending the fan response delay won't fix in these situations. Not that I have access to any of the more advanced fan control softwares on this board's BIOS.
> 
> A drop from 45-74c to 38-65c isn't an eyebrow-raising improvement for most people, but in this case it is and the effects are very clearly audible. It isn't in pursuit of record-breaking temperatures on TEC or LN2, but it's much more comfortable to live with. And without losing much performance at all, seems like a win to me.
> 
> ...



The SenseMi has already found the optimal spot on each individual chip. Thats why theres little effect on the outcome.

So lower temps sustain an all core boost for longer durations until the cooler is heat soaked but this type of minor undervoltage we do really only gives justice in the all load duration much more so than saving very little power.


----------



## Fry178 (Jan 5, 2020)

Naa not gonna open a new thread, just thought someone might have experienced similar prob and already know how to fix.

Yes both boards are 570, and the ram worked on the msi as wel,
and its micron, not samsung, so thats not it.
And for past 19y, anytime i had ram probs, it was with non corsair brands,
and swapping for corsair fixed it.

Ram gets 1.35 as per corsair, and passes multiple time memtest86 and similar 86+, prime runs for +1h (usually broken ram doesnt pass 5 to 10 min, wrong timings/voltage etc shows errors after about 20-30min, e.g. I never had an instable (for whatever reason) pass 1h, but so far haven't run longer.
Same ram on msi passed 2.5h.

Temps are not an issue (cpu (70C max) and gpu (60) under water dumping heat outside), even vrms dont go past 50C, case never past 45C, mb stuff up to 50C, chipset past 60C if i run silent profile on its fan..

Cpu that neede 1.45 was the previous one, this does full load under prime (smallest) with 1.26, its good enough and im happy on that part.

All drives are ok, os one is a 3 month old nvme (phision12 and 3d nand), win/crystal disc info/mnufacturer/board tools all show drives are fine.

i remember 2 times where it happened while i was using office on a report,
so i uninstalled it, just in case MS broke something with 1909.

so, btt 
if i want to oc, it needs to improve on sc clock (4.2), with the sub 1.3v mine needs, shouldn't it be able to reach it on all cores (3.85-3.9 right now) , going up to like 1.4ish v?

for now im ok tho (already pulling up to 500w for whole rig).


----------



## lorry (Jan 5, 2020)

Fry178 said:


> Naa not gonna open a new thread, just thought someone might have experienced similar prob and already know how to fix.
> 
> Yes both boards are 570, and the ram worked on the msi as wel,
> and its micron, not samsung, so thats not it.
> ...



500? Bloody hell

Not sure if my new power reader is right now, lol
Only showing about 120W on average, and before anyone says its Got to be screwed my Oneplus charger for my phone draws 8.5W

And on my wireless smart meter the whole home on average only hits 320 - 400


----------



## Fry178 (Jan 5, 2020)

Well thats gaming with a 2080@2ghz


----------



## tabascosauz (Jan 5, 2020)

ShrimpBrime said:


> The SenseMi has already found the optimal spot on each individual chip. Thats why theres little effect on the outcome.
> 
> So lower temps sustain an all core boost for longer durations until the cooler is heat soaked but this type of minor undervoltage we do really only gives justice in the all load duration much more so than saving very little power.



I really want to move my C14S from my HTPC into this rig; it's a really fearsome cooler that even takes the fight to the best of the 120mm single towers. But my stupid board's socket placement wouldn't allow the M1's top panel to go back on after installing the C14S. It would solve all my noise problems, for sure. The frustration with setting a fan curve is that it delays the inevitable with a relatively small cooler; it must ramp up to 100% at some point, and the lower you set the speed at low temps, the further up the temperature scale you delay the 100% speed point, the more drastic of a spike it will be when it eventually and inevitably hits that temperature. Either you get the little speed spikes at idle, or you get a massive spike when playing games or running more demanding stuff.

At least it's better than the old nightmare days with the D9L. The D9L has even less mass and surface area than the U9S. Works well enough for Intel, but this isn't Intel anymore.



lorry said:


> I thought that performance drop to temp increase came from AMD?
> 
> The Noctua fans go up to 1400 and i set a fairly aggressive fan curve on them, they dont often drop below 1000. Those big 200mm ones though at 1000 sound like a sound tunnel



Tell me about it; I replaced one of those big Silverstone Air Penetrator 180mms with a 140mm NF-A14 iPPC. Despite being the higher revving iPPC line, the Noctua was way quieter. So I guess bigger isn't always better.   


@Fry178 Micron Rev. E? That's a great kit, then. Doesn't seem like any of the usual suspects are responsible; if it keeps happening, maybe a reinstall might be the only way out.

1.26v is pretty reasonable, although it depends on what your clocks are at that point. I start to settle at about 39.5x in the 1.225v range. I'm sure you'd be able to hit 4.2 all core, but like I said before, going up to 1.3v fixed makes me really uneasy. Cinebench clocks a bit higher for me at 41.5x or so and 1.337v, but it's that 1.337v Vcore that worries me. I'd be more comfortable running Prime all day long than Cinebench, for the paradoxical reason that Prime is more intensive and clocks lower and thus voltage is lower.


----------



## Zach_01 (Jan 5, 2020)

This is more of experimental "project" to learn and observe behaviour of the CPU, and not actual gain in performance as the results (so far) are less than +2%.

The method of testing
I used CB-R20 only to simplify things and because its quick. The problem with CB scoring is that in general its all over the place and not much consistent. But we will focus more on the clocks.
Every time before actual test I let the system after boot to settle for about 2~3min.

I open R20 and HWiNFO like this.
HWiNFO polling period: 1000ms



I know that the whole R20 run takes about 80~81sec (1:20~1:21) on the 3600. So... I click the Run button of R20 and wait until it start showing the filling squares. After the first 2~3 squares finish and the next 3 appear... at that moment I click on the clock of HWiNFO to reset time and values to current test readings. R20 was run behind HW and not showing. At around 1:17~1:18 I take a screenshot. Right after this the test finishes and I have captured in that screenshot only the test readings.
I did that every single time for the screenshots you will see below.

I remind that vcore and offset are both on AUTO and the default PBO settings/limits of 3600 are
PPT 88
TDC 60
EDC90
PBO scalar x1

Also it might look dangerous to some, but remember that UEFI PBO settings cannot by-pass the protection of the chip. The FIT (silicon FITness manager).
The FIT regulates the clock, voltage, current, power draw, within settings and the silicon stress limit in conjunction with temperature so that limit never exceeded. Only special tools/software can do that and I dont recommend it.

The things to note mostly in screenshots are red-boxed in the first one
CPU Clock, voltage, temps, PPT and EDC (mostly average values)

Here we go...

AIO profile custom (what I use every day)

Default settings: *PBO full auto*


PPT:* 89*, EDC: *73*, scalar *auto*


PPT: *89*, EDC: *70*, scalar *auto*


PPT: *89*, EDC: *67*, scalar *auto*



PPT: *90*, EDC: *65*, scalar *auto*


So far the clock gains are not much (under 10MHz) but showing a direction (up)
From this point things are more interesting because of PBO scalar (clock, vcore and temp wise)

PPT: *93*, EDC:* 64*, scalar* x2*


Temps are starting to raise (because of voltage and clock raise) so I changed the AIO profile to extreme.
(With not that great results I might add)

PPT: *93*, EDC:* 64*, scalar* x2, *AIO *extreme*


Decide to use scalar x3

PPT: *93*, EDC:* 63*, scalar* x3, *AIO *extreme*


...but that only raised temp
At this point I decided to apply a new TIM to AIO block (liquid metal). Previously I used ArcticSilver5

PPT: *93*, EDC:* 63*, scalar* x3, *AIO *custom*, new TIM


PPT: *93*, EDC:* 63*, scalar* x3, *AIO *extreme*, new TIM


Although new TIM, better cooling and scalar x3 helped raising clocks, I drop back to x2 because I had instability issues with a single core run I did in the middle of all this.

PPT: *95*, EDC:* 63*, scalar* x2, *AIO *extreme*, new TIM


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

So, thats it for now....
I didnt provide any benchmark (R20) screenshots for 2 reasons.
1. Its not the actual purpose of this
2. Didnt want to fill the page with more screenshots.

But I can tell you that score results were in proportion of the clock raise.

At some point, before start messing with PBO scalar, I used a negative vcore offset with EDC reduction, without any significant gaining findinds.
I will do it again with PBO scalar x2 and see if anything changes for the better.


----------



## Fry178 (Jan 5, 2020)

iirc,  unless something changed, running PBO at auto, means its off, only PB2 is used.
Wonder if you get different numbers if PBO to enabled, and rest on auto.

edit for errors.


----------



## tabascosauz (Jan 5, 2020)

Fry178 said:


> Iircor unless something changed, running pbo at auto means its off, only ob2 is used.
> Wonder if you get different numbers if pbo to enabled and rest on auto.



Do you get any benefits from EDC reduction? From the voltages it seems zach might have the worst chip here, but he doesn't lose performance from driving EDC down that far. I'm curious as to see if a slightly lower EDC and otherwise Auto PBO settings might drive your CB clocks closer towards mine (41.3x). I couldn't reduce any more past 83A, a -7A decrease from stock, lest I start losing performance.


----------



## ShrimpBrime (Jan 5, 2020)

tabascosauz said:


> I really want to move my C14S from my HTPC into this rig; it's a really fearsome cooler that even takes the fight to the best of the 120mm single towers. But my stupid board's socket placement wouldn't allow the M1's top panel to go back on after installing the C14S. It would solve all my noise problems, for sure. The frustration with setting a fan curve is that it delays the inevitable with a relatively small cooler; it must ramp up to 100% at some point, and the lower you set the speed at low temps, the further up the temperature scale you delay the 100% speed point, the more drastic of a spike it will be when it eventually and inevitably hits that temperature. Either you get the little speed spikes at idle, or you get a massive spike when playing games or running more demanding stuff.
> 
> At least it's better than the old nightmare days with the D9L. The D9L has even less mass and surface area than the U9S. Works well enough for Intel, but this isn't Intel anymore.
> 
> ...



I run my gaming PC open table. I know exactly what noise is when I have a 1.6 amp Delta P# AFB1212SHE it's seriously no joke. But even at low RPMs it can be tolerable. I use this to cool my VRM package are and also helps cool around the socket. There is a major need to manually control that fan. I have a stack of them, used them with Ambient water cooling solutions. 
But I've found with Ryzen series processors, Water cooling is going to turn into a niche market pretty soon.
So with the stock cooler and a powerful fan next to it, that's my entire setup. 

I've also have found Ryzen performance at low frequencies to be pretty tolerable, not quite so much for triple A gaming loads, but pretty much anything that will run on 1.1v or less, you'll never hear the fans spin up.

If I want an in between area between performance and cooling, I run the Cpu at the max P-state of 3.70ghz (maybe a quarter multi higher) at 1.2120v. It maxes out at rated TDP at full loads and super duper cool. No boosting, just straight clocks.

There's a lot of ways to run these chips quiet, it just depends on the needs I suppose and what you can deal with.

I've found open table to be the quietest configuration for air cooling so far. I don't have a bunch of case fans to deal with lol.


----------



## Zach_01 (Jan 6, 2020)

Fry178 said:


> Iircor unless something changed, running pbo at auto means its off, only ob2 is used.
> Wonder if you get different numbers if pbo to enabled and rest on auto.


lircor?
ob2? ...Do you mean PrecisionBoost 2?
Cant understand...

You cant have PBO enable or auto in order to do what I did. You have to set it at manual.
Look at it as optimization. While its not major gain, I did manage to get 50MHz out of stock all core boost.



tabascosauz said:


> Do you get any benefits from EDC reduction? From the voltages it seems zach might have the worst chip here, but he doesn't lose performance from driving EDC down that far. I'm curious as to see if a slightly lower EDC and otherwise Auto PBO settings might drive your CB clocks closer towards mine (41.3x). I couldn't reduce any more past 83A, a -7A decrease from stock, lest I start losing performance.


The 3600 cant match 3700X whatever you do, in any way... Its due to binning and we cant do anything about it, other than try to find best settings and get the most out of it. This is new for all of us, and I just searching the best way to do it.
Did you try to raise PBO scalar when decreasing EDC? Whats your max temp during test before and after EDC reduction?
All things matter, especially temp. The Tj of ZEN2 while may be 95C, the clock reduction is starting way below that. Also the 80C point that is rumored to be the barrier does not exist either. I saw clock raising when drop temp from 65C to 60C when using all those PBO settings.
I'm starting to believe that in order for PBO to work properly the temp must be max 50C. I'm not talking for PrecisionBoost, but PrecisionBoostOverdrive which is a separate function.


----------



## tabascosauz (Jan 6, 2020)

Zach_01 said:


> The 3600 cant match 3700X whatever you do, in any way... Its due to binning and we cant do anything about it, other than try to find best settings and get the most out of it. This is new for all of us, and I just searching the best way to do it.
> Did you try to raise PBO scalar when decreasing EDC? Whats your max temp during test before and after EDC reduction?
> All things matter, especially temp. The Tj of ZEN2 while may be 95C, the clock reduction is starting way below that. Also the 80C point that is rumored to be the barrier does not exist either. I saw clock raising when drop temp from 65C to 60C when using all those PBO settings.
> I'm starting to believe that in order for PBO to work properly the temp must be max 50C. I'm not talking for PrecisionBoost, but PrecisionBoostOverdrive which is a separate function.



That is true, but I wouldn't be so quick to discount what's possible for six-cores, clocks wise not score wise. You do have 2 less cores, but that's not the point. I was sustaining the same multi core clocks as you not long ago, on 1.0.0.3, when PBO wouldn't give me any gains either. I still do, some freak days, without PBO. I've seen a 3600 ST result clock up 535+ in CPU-Z, and a 4.3GHz 1.36v 3700X, so the possibility is there, it's just not common. 

A good example of a 3700X would probably be nojuan's chip, one that can both do 500+ ST and 5000+ MT. 3700X binning is real bad compared to the SKUs above it, which is the exact opposite of what people anticipated prior to launch.


----------



## Zach_01 (Jan 6, 2020)

tabascosauz said:


> That is true, but I wouldn't be so quick to discount what's possible for six-cores, clocks wise not score wise. You do have 2 less cores, but that's not the point. I was sustaining the same multi core clocks as you not long ago, on 1.0.0.3, when PBO wouldn't give me any gains either.


No, of course I'm not talking about cores, but clocks and boosting. When your 3700X was sustaining clocks same as my current (AGESA 1.0.0.3 ABB), mine was even further down. So the difference was the same. Later on boost was fixed by 1003 ABBA for every CPU.

Its binning...
3600 is worst that 3700X
3700X is worst than 3800X
3800X is worst than 3900X
3900X is worst than 3950X
...in terms of clocking and boosting by them selves.

AMD is using as more chiplets as it can be used and segmented them accordingly. This is a fact.


----------



## lorry (Jan 6, 2020)

Okay @Zach_01 first round of EDC changes done, you tell me what's happening  

EDC and PPT changed in BIOS (but again Only EDC actually changes, Looks to me like my PPT Is fixed?)


 

I haven't screenshot R20 results, but they are going up from today's baseline of 7020 with EDC at 130 it then hit 7030, with scaler x2 it was 7049. Still way below my best of 7347 though!

HW cpu 'properties', you can see that PPT wasn't raised


HW figures when at idle


HW during R20 run


Then applied scaler x2




HW when at idle


HW during R20


Hope that all makes sense - was it worth doing for me do you think?
Sorry sh1tty day here, had my neuro appt changed to a hosp further away etc etc.


----------



## ShrimpBrime (Jan 6, 2020)

lorry said:


> Okay @Zach_01 first round of EDC changes done, you tell me what's happening
> 
> EDC and PPT changed in BIOS (but again Only EDC actually changes, Looks to me like my PPT Is fixed?)
> 
> ...



I am curios if you are running CB for a score or using it for testing stability. If the later, why such short tests? Dont think its reaching a max temp.... So assuming for the score? 
Just wondering.....


----------



## lorry (Jan 6, 2020)

ShrimpBrime said:


> I am curios if you are running CB for a score or using it for testing stability. If the later, why such short tests? Dont think its reaching a max temp.... So assuming for the score?
> Just wondering.....



coz @Zach_01  asked me too try it. I'm assuming curiousity  to see how his idea works on a totally different CPU?


I'm doing some geekbench 5 and P95 runs as well, post those in a bit

Oh and also @tabascosauz trying your custom settings for P95 as well, not doing a thing. I'll post pics as well


----------



## ShrimpBrime (Jan 6, 2020)

Ok Ive been trying to follow along and kinda got lost. Was just wondering thanks 

Looks good though, you are learning tons!! Me too cause I dont have a 3000 series, they are a little different.


----------



## Zach_01 (Jan 6, 2020)

ShrimpBrime said:


> I am curios if you are running CB for a score or using it for testing stability. If the later, why such short tests? Dont think its reaching a max temp.... So assuming for the score?
> Just wondering.....


No its not for stability test. At this point we are trying to determine CPU boost behaviour by EDC reduction. So far, by my testing and by the last screenshot I see from @lorry it seems that reacts as expected.
Current (EDC) reduction (capped) gives headroom from PPT raise. Thus meaning auto raise clocks/voltage be the FIT.

@lorry I see in your last screenshot that you are capped by PPT at 142 meaning that CPU wants to further raise clock/voltage. I dont know why its not taking values above 142. Mine easily took greater values from stock 88 PPT. I bet if you could actually set it to PPT 145~150 you would see more clocking


----------



## lorry (Jan 6, 2020)

Zach_01 said:


> No its not for stability test. At this point we are trying to determine CPU boost behaviour by EDC reduction. So far, by my testing and by the last screenshot I see from @lorry it seems that reacts as expected.
> Current (EDC) reduction (capped) gives headroom from PPT raise. Thus meaning auto raise clocks/voltage be the FIT.
> 
> @lorry I see in your last screenshot that you are capped by PPT at 142 meaning that CPU wants to further raise clock/voltage. I dont know why its not taking values above 142. Mine easily took greater values from stock 88 PPT. I bet if you could actually set it to PPT 145~150 you would see more clocking



I cannot change PPT though, as you saw, it's changed in BIOS settings (the 145 was showing there when I went to change them this time), but as you can see from the first HW specs, it isn't being altered in practise.
Now whether that's a peculiarity of the 3900x or the x470 board I cannot determine without another MB.


----------



## Zach_01 (Jan 6, 2020)

You can try changing it from the other menu in AMD Overclocking.

Leave the menu of XFR enhancement like this



And do the other like this...


----------



## lorry (Jan 6, 2020)

Okay, geekbench 5. Interestingly this was showing better scores in general, both in single and multi core? Now showing around 1310 in single and 1330 ish in multi.
Sadly I totally forgot to get any screenshots for that though! It is a general improvement though.

P95 small, figures at the start or the run



and after 20 minutes


smallest at the start


after 20 minutes


@tabascosauz  custom figures


HW figures for custom at the start


and after 20 mins - note that there was still masses of available ram!


and largest at the start


and after 20 mins


hope they are useful @Zach_01

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh, and @Fry178  at general web browsing/social media etc, this rig uses around 110W and during stress testing 220W (not yet had a chance to game and see as yet).

And I verified it by testing it out on my kettle which was 3kw and my mini oven which is 1kw and both were reported with their correct figures. Which then means that the rest of my home uses about 200W on something, Hmmmm!


----------



## Zach_01 (Jan 6, 2020)

Well, for me to understand and to come to any conclusion I have to know your starting point, and see how the CPU runs those same tests with default (auto) PBO settings.
What I can see from those screenshots is that between "start" and "20mins later" your temps are going up, so the CPU decreases clock and voltage, while PPT is going up. This means that its trying to control the dynamics according to temp.
Is there any (easy) way to improve cooling of the system? Not only CPU but system in general. Better ventilation for example...

Temp is one of the reasons that I use R20 for the EDC testing. Because its short and the heat is not soaking.


----------



## lorry (Jan 6, 2020)

Zach_01 said:


> Well, for me to understand and to come to any conclusion I have to know your starting point, and see how the CPU runs those same tests with default (auto) PBO settings.
> What I can see from those screenshots is that between "start" and "20mins later" your temps are going up, so the CPU decreases clock and voltage, while PPT is going up. This means that its trying to control the dynamics according to temp.
> Is there any (easy) way to improve cooling of the system? Not only CPU but system in general. Better ventilation for example...
> 
> Temp is one of the reasons that I use R20 for the EDC testing. Because its short and the heat is not soaking.



About the only way would be to set the fans at 100%, which is somewhat noisy but okay just for a test time period.
I am already using the mesh front rather than the glass so the front 200mm fans get plenty of room air, could remove the side panel I guess, although wouldn't that then redirect some of the intake air to a degree?

I cannot say with Any certainty, as the few screenshots that I have aren't specific enough, but it looks as if the temp has dropped a few degrees (3 roughly) during a R20 run, Now


----------



## Fry178 (Jan 6, 2020)

decent consumption for a 3900.
mine sits at 84w, similar to the 3770K+gtx1080@2ghz i had before, even with the 2080
(i like to consume least amount when its in power savings, as i dont use sleep etc).

You have a nice rig, but cant tell if u have fans on the top of it.

especially with temps being more and more the limiting factor (def on gpu),
i would recommend getting LC for either gpu or cpu (or both, long run).

Even a value AIO (cpu) dumping the heat outside the case, will lower you case/gpu temps enough so it wont throttle (starts at 50C),
or put the gpu under water, as its usually produces more heat than most cpus (not much outside gaming stresses both at the same time),
and both times you will also see about 30C less on all other temps (chip/vrm/pwm/ram/drives).
one reason i will never look at air cooling until i can have a case that houses gpu and cpu in two (physically) seperate compartments/areas
(not really possible because of MB and/or wires in the way).

just as idea. in case you come across one at a good deal and some change to waste 
gonna link the US sites, just look who has the cheapest.

arctic is non asetek design (with pump failures) and good cooling for low price.





						Amazon.com: ARCTIC Liquid Freezer II 240 - Multi Compatible All-in-One CPU Water Cooler, Compatible with Intel & AMD sockets, Fan speed: 200–1800 RPM (Controlled by PWM): Computers & Accessories
					

Buy ARCTIC Liquid Freezer II 240 - Multi Compatible All-in-One CPU Water Cooler, Compatible with Intel & AMD sockets, Fan speed: 200-1800 RPM (Controlled by PWM): Water Cooling Systems - Amazon.com ✓ FREE DELIVERY possible on eligible purchases



					www.amazon.com
				




corsair covers ANY damaged parts if the aio fails/leaks etc.





						Amazon.com: Corsair Hydro H100 x 240 mm Radiator Dual 120 mm PWM Fans Liquid CPU Cooler - Black: Computers & Accessories
					

Buy Corsair Hydro H100 x 240 mm Radiator Dual 120 mm PWM Fans Liquid CPU Cooler - Black: Water Cooling Systems - Amazon.com ✓ FREE DELIVERY possible on eligible purchases



					www.amazon.com
				




or alphacool if u want the ability to add things/flush/refill/top off, as its more like a custom aio.





						Amazon.com: Alphacool 11285 Eisbaer 240 CPU - Black Water Cooling Kits, Systems and AIOs : Electronics
					

Buy Alphacool 11285 Eisbaer 240 CPU - Black Water Cooling Kits, Systems and AIOs: Water Cooling Systems - Amazon.com ✓ FREE DELIVERY possible on eligible purchases



					www.amazon.com


----------



## lorry (Jan 6, 2020)

Fry178 said:


> decent consumption for a 3900.
> mine sits at 84w, similar to the 3770K+gtx1080@2ghz i had before, even with the 2080
> (i like to consume least amount when its in power savings, as i dont use sleep etc).
> 
> ...



It will go as low as 100W when it's a mind to  

I'm looking at an open loop eventually, just the fact that's going to be £400+ LoL
There are no fans on top but I can fit a 360 either top or front - I'm leaning towards the front as that has more leeway with radiator thickness but I've not as yet got down to doing any measuring with regard to pump and reservoir placement as yet, I don't see any point when I am still no way close to buying (who knows what might come out between now and then?).
If I do go the front route I may well move the front 200mm to the top (yes the case can fit them up top) pushing air downwards, it's a thought anyway.

right now my GPU is sitting at 25c and during testing it wasn't above 40c or 45c i think it was, but yes a water cooled GPU would be great I know, again something for the future.

This is my wish list for ekwb parts - included various rads, pumps, etc until I get down to measuring



Oh and also looking at the Noctua industrial fans, as their static pressure figures look insane, but they do ramp up to 45 decibels


----------



## Fry178 (Jan 6, 2020)

since you dont get your rig covered when going custom, i would look into the eisbaer.
much easier to install/deal with, and has cooling that matches my custom loop (passive, with 5L coolant) that had a more powerful pump and even a better block,
even that im using throttled silent fans.
going custom would only "help" if you plan on spending money on a top block,
as ryzen is hot in small space and heat transfer is priority.

ek is good stuff, but you can get the "best" block for a bit more





						Amazon.com: XSPC RayStorm Pro RGB WaterBlock, AMD CPU, Black : Electronics
					

Amazon.com: XSPC RayStorm Pro RGB WaterBlock, AMD CPU, Black : Electronics



					smile.amazon.com
				




i recommend not using plexi (on the pump (but acrylic or other), and dont waste money on coolant.
just get deionized water (not just distilled) , and add dead water treatment to it (5%Copper Sulfate, 2 drops per liter).


			Frozencpu Dead Water - FrozenCPU.com
		


and dont waste your money on noctua/noiseblocker (like i did), as the arctic (are offering identical models for a lot less  (6-8$)
they have P series (pressure, for heatsinks) and F series (airflow/case), and are pretty much silent (0.3 sone about 20 dba)
and even inaudible (0.08 sone), dont make clicking noise when throttled (4-6v depending on unit), and offer same warranty time.

fixed speed units still allow for rpm control with bios








						P14 | Pressure-optimised 140 mm Fan | ARCTIC
					

The P14 Fan is a pressure-optimised 140 mm fan. Very quiet and cost effective solution for powerful cooling.




					www.arctic.ac


----------



## lorry (Jan 6, 2020)

Fry178 said:


> since you dont get your rig covered when going custom, i would look into the eisbaer.
> much easier to install/deal with, and has cooling that matches my custom loop (passive, with 5L coolant) that had a more powerful pump and even a better block,
> even that im using throttled silent fans.
> going custom would only "help" if you plan on spending money on a top block,
> ...



I didn't get what you meant by "since you dont get your rig covered when going custom" ? If you mean leaks I'm practised enough on rebuilding enough bikes and car engines and rads etc. i was also under the impression that open loop beats AIO in the majority of cases? (pun intended).
I want something that will last And that can be added to down the road (GPU). i thought the idea was to use deionized (I used to make gallons of pure glass distilled H2) at the labs decades ago that was deionized as well. As for biocide additive i thought there were plenty of variations that you simply mixed 1:10 ?

The artic P fans have a static pressure of 2.4 mm H2O (@ 1 700 RPM), the Noctua has 7.63 mm H₂O, I'm assuming that higher is better surely?

And if not ekwg which others then re rads, pumps reservoirs etc?

This one I know is good






						Black Ice HWL-R127 Nemesis GTX 360mm Radiator - Black : Amazon.co.uk: Automotive
					

Black Ice HWL-R127 Nemesis GTX 360mm Radiator - Black : Amazon.co.uk: Automotive



					www.amazon.co.uk


----------



## mtcn77 (Jan 6, 2020)

tabascosauz said:


> Did you only change EDC? Something surely hit the fan, because you're back at JEDEC on RAM, RAM is uncoupled, Vcore goes up to 1.9V which is clearly a bug, and all your TDC/EDC/PPT values appear to be exactly stock.
> 
> Clear your CMOS and restore your previous settings, if you've saved them as a BIOS profile?
> 
> ...


tabascosauz, I've been off the grid, though very appreciative and collaborative of your efforts.
What I have come across by previous generations of AMD's current Ryzen Master FIT controls is, the power monitor cuts across at every attempt its algorithm meets its requirements that suggest current temperature slope will cross-sect with Tj Max. It is most shorthand of all these discussions to just watch the current TDP use and monitor that FIT does not try to curb its TDP budget. I have found by looking at near and above operating heat threshold, we can profile the whole temperature behaviour.
I would suggest you disable LLC and let voltage droop. LLC stabilizes performance, but that is not why EDC is concurrently important. We are trying to limit off-current voltage spikes that needlessly heat up the cpu, so that FIT doesn't detect such a discrepancy. EDC has the possibility to reflect that in the cpu frequency profiles. If you reduce EDC, the cpu successfully profiles itself for a vdroop event. Therefore, EDC should best be used singlehandedly to compensate vrm phase stability. If we use it to complement with LLC, we'd constantly be overshooting TDP current targets which would reflect as a lower available overclocked TDP.

You could also take starting voltage as 'LLC' starting point and by changing cpu voltage offset, you could differ the stable overclock target.
You haven't specified your undervolt targets to the best of my knowledge, but if you expect EDC to have such a vdroop that it runs like an undervolted setting, either the motherboard phases need be weak, or current should run so high.


----------



## tabascosauz (Jan 7, 2020)

@lorry yeah I've been looking everywhere and can't seem to find any results for anyone experiencing a similar bug. Sorry mate. I don't know if there's anything else that you can change in the P95 settings. Something tells me it's either the way P95 optimizes for the 3900X/3950X, or something to do with how current AMD firmware interacts with P95? Either way, if you've been playing demanding games, running memtest86 and there haven't been any stability issues, probably just call it a day.

I will say, though, if you aren't in a terribly urgent rush to move to a custom loop, there are better options than the NF-F12. The regular PWM is, although powerful, quite loud at the upper end when up against a restrictive surface. The iPPC F12s are even noisier. Between the F12 PWM and the A12x25 PWM, the newer fan looks weaker on paper but delivers better airflow across the RPM band, and is noticeably "quieter"; compared to the F12, there's less motor hum/whine even at max speed.

I've been waiting for Noctua to release iPPC and Chromax based on the A12x25, but it appears that they want to keep the F12 lineage around for a while longer.

Something else to keep in mind is that the regular version of the A12x25 (and I'm guessing the regular F12 as well, I bought my F12 waaayyyy back when the gasket didn't exist) come with a full coverage square gasket to seal the edges of the fan to the radiator in the event of use for watercooling, a very important step to maintain static pressure. To the best of my knowledge, most if not all the iPPCs come in a barebones OEM-esque box with just the fan. No LNA/ULNA adapters, no splitters, no rubber mounts and no gaskets.

And I'm no expert on other fan brands; I'm sure there are other competitors out there worth a look.


----------



## lorry (Jan 7, 2020)

tabascosauz said:


> @lorry yeah I've been looking everywhere and can't seem to find any results for anyone experiencing a similar bug. Sorry mate. I don't know if there's anything else that you can change in the P95 settings. Something tells me it's either the way P95 optimizes for the 3900X/3950X, or something to do with how current AMD firmware interacts with P95? Either way, if you've been playing demanding games, running memtest86 and there haven't been any stability issues, probably just call it a day.
> 
> I will say, though, if you aren't in a terribly urgent rush to move to a custom loop, there are better options than the NF-F12. The regular PWM is, although powerful, quite loud at the upper end when up against a restrictive surface. The iPPC F12s are even noisier. Between the F12 PWM and the A12x25 PWM, the newer fan looks weaker on paper but delivers better airflow across the RPM band, and is noticeably "quieter"; compared to the F12, there's less motor hum/whine even at max speed.
> 
> ...



I think that it is something to do with P95 itself and how it is coded, as Intel Burn will take me right down to 0MB of available ram left. Either way, it seems perfectly stable enough and nothing lost in the end.

It's not that I am in a rush, it's money LoL. It's just going to take me a while to get enough together. What I will likely do is how I bought this rig originally - decide on the parts and then buy them separately. That will cost me slightly more I know (extra delivery costs) but I am then committed to buying it, so not tempted to spend on something else until it is all together. Also it allows me more time to possibly find a better/more suitable part.

I bought the Noctua NH DI-15S and then swapped out its fan for the Noctua NF-A15 HS-PWM chromax.black.swap & a Noctua NF-F12 PWM chromax.black.swap

if you haven't checked lately, this is the range of chromax fans Now - their chromax range has been expanded and includes rubber mounts, splitters etc






						Fans - Products
					

Noctua's premium fans are internationally renowned for their superb quietness, exceptional performance and thoroughgoing quality.




					noctua.at
				




Is this the one you are talking about?






						NF-A12x15 PWM chromax.black.swap
					

Having received dozens of awards and recommendations from international hardware websites and magazines, the NF-A12x15 has established itself as a default choice when it comes to premium-quality slim 120mm fans. The chromax.black.swap edition combines the NF-A12x15’s signature quiet cooling...




					noctua.at


----------



## tabascosauz (Jan 7, 2020)

lorry said:


> I think that it is something to do with P95 itself and how it is coded, as Intel Burn will take me right down to 0MB of available ram left. Either way, it seems perfectly stable enough and nothing lost in the end.
> 
> It's not that I am in a rush, it's money LoL. It's just going to take me a while to get enough together. What I will likely do is how I bought this rig originally - decide on the parts and then buy them separately. That will cost me slightly more I know (extra delivery costs) but I am then committed to buying it, so not tempted to spend on something else until it is all together. Also it allows me more time to possibly find a better/more suitable part.
> 
> ...



Good things come to those who wait  

I saw you linked a screenshot of the NF-F12 iPPC-3000, that's why I thought you were looking at the iPPCs. The iPPCs are tougher and louder fans, some are water-resistant, and all of them have frames made from a different fibreglass material than the regular line (a total PITA to use with self-tapping case fan screws). The Chromax fans are just black versions of the regular fans, and have swappable coloured corner pieces. Only reason Chromax exists is because most people apparently hate Noctua brown; they're just coloured differently. Same goes for the Chromax versions of the U12S and L9i coolers; if the U12A wasn't so damn expensive, it'd be really hard to recommend the U12S Chromax.

No, the A12x15 is also a new fan but it's a thinner 15mm fan. Performance I'd expect would be closer to the S12A than the A12x25 and F12. All the other 120mms like the A12x25, F12, S12 and P12 are all standard 25mm thickness. Only reason to use the A12x15 is if you only have between 15mm-25mm of clearance. 

The A12x25 had a Chromax prototype shown last year, but nothing yet.


----------



## lorry (Jan 7, 2020)

tabascosauz said:


> Good things come to those who wait
> 
> I saw you linked a screenshot of the NF-F12 iPPC-3000, that's why I thought you were looking at the iPPCs. The iPPCs are tougher and louder fans, some are water-resistant, and all of them have frames made from a different fibreglass material than the regular line (a total PITA to use with self-tapping case fan screws). The Chromax fans are just black versions of the regular fans, and have swappable coloured corner pieces. Only reason Chromax exists is because most people apparently hate Noctua brown; they're just coloured differently. Same goes for the Chromax versions of the U12S and L9i coolers; if the U12A wasn't so damn expensive, it'd be really hard to recommend the U12S Chromax.
> 
> ...




erm, this?  
                       Size 120x120x15 mm









						NF-A12x15 PWM chromax.black.swap
					

Having received dozens of awards and recommendations from international hardware websites and magazines, the NF-A12x15 has established itself as a default choice when it comes to premium-quality slim 120mm fans. The chromax.black.swap edition combines the NF-A12x15’s signature quiet cooling...




					noctua.at


----------



## tabascosauz (Jan 7, 2020)

lorry said:


> erm, this?
> Size 120x120x15 mm
> 
> 
> ...



Yes. This is the A12x*15. *Chromax version available.


This is the A12x*25. *Chromax and iPPC not available.


Most fans on the consumer market are 25mm, which makes the A12x15 a bit of a niche product.


----------



## lorry (Jan 7, 2020)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and The NF-A12x25  does come with a gasket





*Anti-vibration gasket for watercooling radiators*
                                                            The NF-A12x25 includes a silicone gasket that can be used when installing the fan on watercooling radiators or other applications that benefit from a tighter seal with the fan. The gasket helps to damp minute vibrations and to reduce air loss between the fan and the radiator for optimal cooling performance.


----------



## Fry178 (Jan 7, 2020)

corsair offers 5y warranty incl replacing parts that die if it goes bad,
e.g. you get the pc replaced if it explodes tmrw.

when you get anything else, you pay for it, so there would be no difference if custom or different aio.
yes, de-ionized water (type I) is the cleanest, and you want one drop of 5% biozide solution per liter of fluid.
i used it in a loop with a "dirty" (slimy residue/fishy smell) resorator to test it, just flushed solids out,
then filled with (only) distilled water and added the biozide.
after 1y nothing in the loop whatsoever, so with deionized water, its gonna be fine for a while.


I just realized that the cost (money/time) nowadays the decent aio dont get worse perf than a custom loop that cost more.
unless utter silence on pump is needed (which really isnt the case, there are just better solutions to decouple them from case, pump still making noise),
because they are separate (from  the block), i dont see any difference between my eisbaer and a custom loop that (can) cost almost 3 times as much.

the arctic is a good unit if its just to use water/better than asetek design (high pump failures, very low flow),
but the additional money on something like the eisbaer is worth it if you want options for later (another rad/block/pump).
e.g:
the 2080 i have comes with an (asetek) cooler that is identical (block/pump) with those corsair and the like (CPU aio),
its not just loud, but annoying as hell (pump has high freq whine), especially since no other noise.
so ill swap the card for one with water block, add another 120 rad, and a D5 pump/res later.
since all are "reg" LC parts, i have the same option as on a custom loop, incl no need to tear down everything when expanding.


yes, they have less pressure, but they do that at less than half dba (and beats the NF P12 as cooler fan)
and i cant find any noctua/noiseblocker that can match an arctic below 12 dba.

i prefer to have less noisy fans running at almost full speed, less ramping up/down with cpu load shifting a lot,
and with gpu and cpu both under water, temps for each are about 30-50*C less (depending on load),
which means there is no need for high rpm/air flow in the first place.
but sure, going up if you can stand the louder fans is fine, but i can even do push&pull (2x fans)
for less than the other brands doing only one.

at least for me, with 6-8$/per arctic fan, i just dont see it making sense to spend 2-3 times for "10%" gains (for silent fans).

maybe look at the bionics, i like them as they are powerful but silent, and the blade material doesnt attract ANY dust.
ran two for about 1y, looked like new, when i had to dust others after 2 month).


			blacknoise.com - Noiseblocker NB eLoop 120mm
		



im a  silent "whore" and haven't used a seal/gasket in the past 5y on any fan below 20 dba.
proper cases usually dont need it (less resonating than those cheap flimsy cases).

edited for typo and adding info


----------



## lorry (Jan 7, 2020)

@Fry178 you lost me there somewhat mate, which are you advising / suggesting please?

@tabascosauz  remember I'm still new to all of this so i looked at what might give the best performance and the ippc fans seemed to have that, only reason i looked at them.
Still very unsure what to go for TBH, an AIO or open loop, if open - hardware labs for the radiator ?


----------



## tabascosauz (Jan 7, 2020)

lorry said:


> @Fry178 you lost me there somewhat mate, which are you advising / suggesting please?
> 
> @tabascosauz  remember I'm still new to all of this so i looked at what might give the best performance and the ippc fans seemed to have that, only reason i looked at them.
> Still very unsure what to go for TBH, an AIO or open loop, if open - hardware labs for the radiator ?



If you have PWM controlled iPPC-2000s, they're not that bad, but my iPPC experience is with the NF-A14, which is quieter than the F12. Otherwise, the iPPCs aren't something you *need* for consumer stuff, because the noise generated at the iPPCs' higher max RPM would be unbearable if you actually ran them at that speed. And only at those high speeds do they have an airflow advantage. I got the iPPC-2000 NF-A14 because the regular A14 was almost as expensive, and because a regular brown A14 would be a weird look through the front of the TJ08.

The A12x25 has the gasket, but I don't think the F12 does. If you do buy an A12x25, there's really no reason not to use it if it's already included and isolates the fan to reduce noise......just don't expect a magical drop in temps.

The iPPC3000 F12 pushes about as much air as the iPPC2000 A14 but is many, many times louder. The iPPC2000 A14 at full speed is already a jet engine, but it at least pushes more air per rpm.

You could start with an expandable AIO like the alphacool eisbaer.

 ----

@mtcn77 yeah I put LLC back on Auto to hit that 4985 best score and haven't changed it since. I haven't benched it much since, but it's usually around 4950, which is good enough.


----------



## Fry178 (Jan 7, 2020)

lol, TMI i guess  
i just like to give "options"...

after "wasting" money for 10y on noiseblocker/noctua fans, (and some still made "noise" when they were throttled), i realized i can have same quality/warranty from arctic
(using their coolers/fans since 2003) for usually half/a third of the price, or they offer coolers that others dont even have (1/2/3 fan gpu coolers).

as long as the space is there, push&pull with some P 12/P 14 on the rads (0.3 sone version) should perform as good as the noctuas,
at much lower volume, and with arctic selling 5 pc packs, they are still cheaper.
as long as you can get them for a good price, the bionics are more powerful, and only a tick bit louder.

either way, use the P type fans for rad/covered case vents, the F series stuff is for flow (case fans).
no need to go with pwm units, unless they are more powerful than equivalent fixed-rpm.
i just had better luck getting ANY board to control those, vs the pwm fans i tried.


unless you want a custom loop to spend time "fiddling" with your rig, thats ok.
otherwise you can get almost identical perf out of an eisbaer aio (but do not get the extreme),
and on the long run you can swap the block/pump for better parts (like on a custom loop),
but you're not throwing out the rest (rad/tubing etc) just because its an aio.

heck, as long as you get fitting parts, you can add whatever stuff you like,
but out of the box it takes in to install and be able to use it, no worries about wrong/missing parts,
or spending time with measuring/routing tubing etc.


i recommend the 280 (get the cheapest one), and upgrade other stuff (fans/pump etc) when you get the funds for it.

- Eisbaer 240/280








						Alphacool Eisbaer LT240 CPU - black
					

With the Alphacool Eisbaer LT, you get a high-performance compact water cooling system that’s barely inferior to its bigger brother, the Eisbaer AIO.   Just like the Eisbaer, the Eisbaer LT distinguishes itself from the usual AIO mix in...




					www.aquatuning.co.uk
				











						Alphacool Eisbaer 240 CPU - black
					

With the “Eisbaer”, Alphacool is fundamentally revolutionizing the AIO cooler market. Where traditional AIO CPU-coolers are disposable products which are neither upgradeable nor refillable, the Alphacool “Eisbaer” is modularly built and...




					www.aquatuning.co.uk
				











						Alphacool Eisbaer 280 CPU - black
					

With the “Eisbaer”, Alphacool is fundamentally revolutionizing the AIO cooler market. Where traditional AIO CPU-coolers are disposable products which are neither upgradeable nor refillable, the Alphacool “Eisbaer” is modularly built and...




					www.aquatuning.co.uk
				





- D5 pump + acrylic top, or Eheim pump








						D5 pumps
					

D5 pumps




					www.aquatuning.co.uk
				




- acrylic/plexi/glass res (dont get a bay), maybe one that mounts to the pump, if u want to save space








						Tower tank
					

Tower tank




					www.aquatuning.co.uk
				











						60mm - L
					

60mm - L




					www.aquatuning.co.uk
				




- XSPC raystorm pro as block








						XSPC RayStorm Pro RGB WaterBlock (AM4) White
					

The RayStorm Pro is the highest performance and best quality waterblock XSPC have ever made. The waterblock top and new high performance base are CNC machined from pure copper, while the bracket is made from cnc'd aluminium with an...




					www.aquatuning.co.uk


----------



## Zach_01 (Jan 7, 2020)

I dont know if this falls into the scope of this discussion but for (case*)fans lately I use Enermax T.B. Silence PWM(4-pin) 120x120x25mm
I tried to find a better fan from those, at same size and rpm in terms of performance (airflow) and I couldn't. And the noise is totally bearable in max rpm and up to 1200rpm are really silent. The only drawback (not to me) is consumption at full speed (4.8W)

500~1500rpm
26~71 cfm
45~121 m3/h
0.483~1.676 mmH2O









						Fan - Category - Products - ENERMAX Technology Corporation
					

ENERMAX SquA RGB fan series is one of the best-selling case fans, supports  ARGB sync with motherboard software; has 1 pack and 3 pack variants.




					www.enermax.com
				








						ENERMAX - Product
					






					www.enermax.com
				




*_ I dont have a case but still I need fans here and there..._


----------



## Fry178 (Jan 7, 2020)

yeah, good fans.
did like them until other noise (gpu) was gone and i realized they were clicking when throttled,
and i didnt really need the airflow, so went back to Arctic/NB.


----------



## Zach_01 (Jan 7, 2020)

...clicking when throttled?


----------



## Fry178 (Jan 7, 2020)

yeah, once you throttle the fans for low temp conditions (min rpm), the motors produce a ticking/clicking like sound,
like a thin wire or something is (barely) touching the blades while it turns.

and usually arctic do great with low startup voltage (nb/noctua as well).


----------



## lorry (Jan 7, 2020)

Fry178 said:


> lol, TMI i guess
> i just like to give "options"...
> 
> after "wasting" money for 10y on noiseblocker/noctua fans, (and some still made "noise" when they were throttled), i realized i can have same quality/warranty from arctic
> ...



It;s more a case of not as yet decided on open loop or AIO even.
From everything that I've read, OL offers more flexibility in fitting to individual setups and (in general) better quality components
One thing i do know is that I am not using any colouring, as again from I've read, that just leads to sediment build up

You say 'almost as identical performance' , which to me always really means inferior  ?

I have also read, bigger rad, more water, more fans = better performance?



Fry178 said:


> acrylic/plexi/glass res (dont get a bay), maybe one that mounts to the pump, if u want to save space



Whats a 'bay' ?


----------



## Zach_01 (Jan 7, 2020)

Fry178 said:


> yeah, once you throttle the fans for low temp conditions (min rpm), the motors produce a ticking/clicking like sound,
> like a thin wire or something is (barely) touching the blades while it turns.
> 
> and usually arctic do great with low startup voltage (nb/noctua as well).


I have 3 of them running right now typical at 750~850rpm and 1000~1200rpm summer time.
I just took down all of them to minimum rpm (~530) and stick my ear 1inch away to each one 1 by 1.
No wierd ticking or clicking... and 1 of them is like 3~4 years old


----------



## lorry (Jan 7, 2020)

Zach_01 said:


> I have 3 of them running right now typical at 750~850rpm and 1000~1200rpm summer time.
> I just took down all of them to minimum rpm (~530) and stick my ear 1inch away to each one 1 by 1.
> No wierd ticking or clicking... and 1 of them is like 3~4 years old



I'm guessing that could be down to individual fans And each person's hearing and noise tolerances.

I'm fairly lucky in that I have been able throughout my life to block out noise. Sure some things do get to me but after decades of work in youth clubs and out on the streets, hospitals, etc, i can ignore a lot of things. 
However, I also know that there are many that simply cannot tolerate what I can.


----------



## Zach_01 (Jan 7, 2020)

lorry said:


> I'm guessing that could be down to individual fans And each person's hearing and noise tolerances.
> 
> I'm fairly lucky in that I have been able throughout my life to block out noise. Sure some things do get to me but after decades of work in youth clubs and out on the streets, hospitals, etc, i can ignore a lot of things.
> However, I also know that there are many that simply cannot tolerate what I can.


100% with you on that...
But its not that these fans are making any noise at low rpm and I personally can take it... Like 30min ago at ~500rpm I was almost hitting my ear to the blades and nothing was coming from them except tiny tiny humming noise. @Fry178 is talking about clicks and ticks... not the case. I repeat, I have 3 of them running right now and another 2 lying around here somewhere... 5 of them overall and never here any clicks or ticks, at any rpm (500~1500)
Now I'm 70~80cm away with the fans 850rpm and I bearly hear that something is working. And that includes the 2x140mm of the AIO at 900rpm. I am almost 43 years old but with good hearing. I also doing medical acoustic tests once every year.


----------



## lorry (Jan 7, 2020)

Just discovered that we cannot upload sound files to here, that's a shame.
I have a sound level app on my phone and just used it - shows that from a distance of about 80cm away the noise from the PC is 30 decibels, which considering there is a 140mm exhaust, 140mm cpu and 120mm fans, 2 x 200mm intake and 3 fans on the GPU, I consider that to be not too bad

@Zach_01  your idea seems to be validated, at least as far as benchmarks go. You can now tell me after looking at the screenshots if the voltages and temps etc are okay please?

One interesting point, even though I set PPT to 150, on a reboot back into the BIOS the figure of 145 was still present even though the profile had been saved, maybe 145 is This motherboards limit? 
On dropping to 125 for EDC and on auto in R20 I got 7210 for multi and 510 for single core (that being my best single score by 6 and the multi core was about an average good score).
On trying scaler of x2, my scores jumped to 7410 (best by about 100!), the single score was Now 514 (beating my previous best by 10!).

CPU-Z benchmarks were 8325.0 and single 548.1, both being high scores for me.

Geekbench 5 and 5.1 both seemed to favour the single thread slightly more, giving me some of my best scores, whilst multi was just below my best. 1330 single core and 13177 multi.

Interestingly sitting at desktop I saw a low temperature of 39c! Never seen it in the 30s before! Average of 42c with a high of 76c, which is a bit up (I had slightly adjusted the fan curve so that they spin slightly faster at an ever so slightly temp).

Anyway, the pics -

R20 with EDC at 125 and scaler set to auto

Start




Finish




R20 with EDC at 125 and scaler set to x2

Start



Finish



Figures during a single core run




Last but not least, my best R20 scores!



________________________________________

Im gonna try some P95 small and smallest to see what the temps are like


----------



## Fry178 (Jan 7, 2020)

@lorry
i said "almost", because others (incl ppl like me  ) would then say "well, not ABSOLUTE identical).

until 2y ago i would have stated the same (loop over aio), but the fact i had the chance to compare different setups at different price levels and configs,
incl a couple of aio, i realized an aio can be as good (cooling/noise), while being cheaper and easier/quicker to install/maintain.
my first loop in 2005 was custom (ther was no other option) with modded aquarium pump, as i had mounted the rad/fans and 3qt res
in a storage container that was 6 ft away (so i dont hear the fans), and used industrial quick connects so i could take everything to LANs  

now, i can get same/better perf out a rad mounted inside my case (easier to deal with), tubing is half the diameter,
and i dont need gallons of water just to do a flush/refill of the loop, and i costs half/third of the loop.

the real problem with most AIO (no matter if cpu or gpu) is the fact they are all based on the same horrible asetek (pump) design,
that leads to pump failure, add to that not every company was/is good on QC for their parts/workmanship (leaks),
and you will have ppl blaming aios for being shitty, when in reality, its not the "aio" design/setup thats bad,
like no one would blame all cars for being bad, just because one brand is crap.

proof for that are the (low cost) arctic (2019 model), or the eisbaer/eiswolf stuff (mid range), and the EK predator
(discontinued, but looked like they used the same rad/pump/tubing/disconnects as the eisbaer, so i decided not to spend more, just to get the same).
not only do they use better pumps/blocks (in-house designed), but the last two also have copper rads (some ppl dont even have copper rads in their custom loop),
and use regular parts (fittings/tubing etc), so i can do stuff a normal aio wont let me (refill/flush/expand), which extends its life past 3-5y of a regular aio (for most ppl).


so with the eisbaer i can do just that. use it like an aio for now, installed in 20 min and maintenance free,
then expand/upgrade/replace parts as i go (gpu/cpu block, pump),
as long as i pay attention to the different (metal) materials used...

bay reservoir:
(too many ppl reporting problems with them, no matter brand or material used (that is see thru),
so i decided to stay away from them. even that i like the idea of the pump mounted to/in it).





						Amazon.com: EKWB EK-DBAY Spin Reservoir (R3.0) : Electronics
					

Buy EKWB EK-DBAY Spin Reservoir (R3.0): Water Cooling Systems - Amazon.com ✓ FREE DELIVERY possible on eligible purchases



					smile.amazon.com
				






@Zach_01
they might have improved lately, but when i used them 3y ago they did (or i might call clicking what you call humming).
i didnt go thru taking whole rig apart (multiple chambers + LC) and swap out eight 10 $ fans
for 25$ noiseblocker, cause they were only "humming"  
(i used the UC-TB series, so that might be different)  

then again, i AM picky on noise, for the fact that i dont see why i should live with ANY noise from a pc,
just because im surfing the web.
yet have no problem with my air purifier emitting air-flow noise", as it also depends on frequency emitted.

e.g. the 8 dba fans i use from arctic are still too loud on full rpm (1100) and i throttle them to about half for low load.
this way, even without ANY other noise in the room (from rest of the house/outside) you can tell my rig is running,
fans inaudible even when you put your ear about 5 in away from my case


----------



## tabascosauz (Jan 7, 2020)

@lorry bravo! Now that's that's more like what a 3900X is capable of. Looks like those single core tests are finally running at 4.6GHz.

My BIOS sometimes doesn't save PPT/EDC values properly. Sometimes gotta keep trying until it sticks.


----------



## lorry (Jan 7, 2020)

Just stopped a P95 smallest i think it was - peak of 78,not brilliant i know and it was throttled to 4GHz all cores as a result. 
Generally though it sat at 73 which again isnt brilliant but i guess theres a limit to what any air cooling can achieve. 

Guess I'll have to with the eisbaer, as its at least half the price of any loop i was thinking of. I can then continue saving afterwards towards either an x570 MB or a loop. 

BTW i stopped the P95 as there was no point in roasting the CPU any more, even with Every fan running at 100% i couldn't lower it below 73. No point in degrading the CPU just for the hell of it.


----------



## tabascosauz (Jan 7, 2020)

lorry said:


> Just stopped a P95 smallest i think it was - peak of 78,not brilliant i know and it was throttled to 4GHz all cores as a result.
> Generally though it sat at 73 which again isnt brilliant but i guess theres a limit to what any air cooling can achieve.
> 
> Guess I'll have to with the eisbaer, as its at least half the price of any loop i was thinking of. I can then continue saving afterwards towards either an x570 MB or a loop.
> ...



I dunno man, 78 sounds pretty brilliant to me. P95 Smallest *is* supposed to be an inferno, after all hahah. I'm at about 77-78 up to an hour's testing on a much smaller cooler. In a test so intensive and long, running the fans full blast won't really make a difference, as there's too much heat coming off the chip, same goes for running the test with the side panel off. 

You'll regularly see Intel guys run into the high 80s and low 90s with OCed stock chips because they aren't soldered.

Once you know where you're at on the absolute max temps you can put out, you won't need to run it anymore. Same goes for Cinebench, since you know that the performance is definitely all there on your 3900X.


----------



## lorry (Jan 7, 2020)

tabascosauz said:


> I dunno man, 78 sounds pretty brilliant to me. P95 Smallest *is* supposed to be an inferno, after all hahah. I'm at about 77-78 up to an hour's testing on a much smaller cooler. In a test so intensive and long, running the fans full blast won't really make a difference, as there's too much heat coming off the chip, same goes for running the test with the side panel off.
> 
> You'll regularly see Intel guys run into the high 80s and low 90s with OCed stock chips because they aren't soldered.
> 
> Once you know where you're at on the absolute max temps you can put out, you won't need to run it anymore. Same goes for Cinebench, since you know that the performance is definitely all there on your 3900X.



After seeing the low of 39c I was kind of Hoping (expecting?) better. But man does this cpu jump all over the place! Just been watching it, close to 12GB of memory in use (browser with a Ton of windows open, email, hangouts, notepad, file explorer etc) and it'll jump from 43 to 53 for no reason that I can see.

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

From the case specs -

Liquid Cooling Support
Top
120mm, 140mm, 240mm, 280mm, 360mm (maximum thickness clearance 43mm)
Front
120mm, 140mm, 200mm, 240mm, 280mm, 360mm (70mm clearance w/radiator lid &M.port removed)


----------



## Zach_01 (Jan 7, 2020)

lorry said:


> After seeing the low of 39c I was kind of Hoping (expecting?) better. But man does this cpu jump all over the place! Just been watching it, close to 12GB of memory in use (browser with a Ton of windows open, email, hangouts, notepad, file explorer etc) and it'll jump from 43 to 53 for no reason that I can see.
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> ...


That jumping temp with low middle loads (or background services) is common to all ZEN CPU and its worst with ZEN2. Its typical behaviour. I know this could be annoying for the cooler fan to jump in rpm.
Once you switch to water (AIO or custom) this issue goes away if you set the rad fans curve to water temp. The water is acting as "suspension" between the CPU temp and the fan rpm.
For now with the air tower you can set temperature offset/hysterisis for smoothing out the fun curve and not having it ramp up-down to often and with little load. This way the fan will spinup only with sustained loads and not for rapid ones.

Nice results on the benches! I dont know youts going on with the PPT setting not increasing. If you could raise it it would benefit a little more, but also that will raise max temps.



Fry178 said:


> @Zach_01
> they might have improved lately, but when i used them 3y ago they did (or i might call clicking what you call humming).
> i didnt go thru taking whole rig apart (multiple chambers + LC) and swap out eight 10 $ fans
> for 25$ noiseblocker, cause they were only "humming"
> ...


I use UC-TB12P, are the same?
I see your point though!
I live next to fairly crowded streed so during the day a hear some noise from outside. At late night with no external sound I hear the PC with minimal noise. My fans are set to drop to 700~750 min for those 3 Enermax and about 850 for the AIO rad fans (2x140). So I hear something but its totally perfect for me.


----------



## lorry (Jan 7, 2020)

Zach_01 said:


> For now with the air tower you can set temperature offset/hysterisis for smoothing out the fun curve and not having it ramp up-down to often and with little load. This way the fan will spinup only with sustained loads and not for rapid ones.



How please?

This is what I have ATM, likely crap I know, but... I tried speed fan and it just doesn't recognise anything - drives, fans etc, so not sure what else to try?
I can't seem to get them to be any real kind of curve at all

CPU fan



Front fan 1


Front fan 2



Exhaust fan


----------



## Fry178 (Jan 7, 2020)

for low load: why not limit the cpu "clocks" thru power state in the power savings profile?
im running it at 0/50% (min/max) which limit it to 2.2 GHz, and win/use doesn't fell more sluggish/less snappy then on others (amd bal 30/100 or high 99/100).
but reduces temps by about 10-15C.


----------



## Zach_01 (Jan 7, 2020)

lorry said:


> How please?
> 
> This is what I have ATM, likely crap I know, but... I tried speed fan and it just doesn't recognise anything - drives, fans etc, so not sure what else to try?
> I can't seem to get them to be any real kind of curve at all


Where is your fans connected? I guess for you to see rpm must be directly to the board.
Into UEFI smartfan5 is the a mode to change? Like PWM or anything else?

The offset I was talking about is at the bottom of those screenshots...
“Δ Temperature interval” set it to 5.

Δ = Delta


----------



## lorry (Jan 7, 2020)

Fry178 said:


> for low load: why not limit the cpu "clocks" thru power state in the power savings profile?
> im running it at 0/50% (min/max) which limit it to 2.2 GHz, and win/use doesn't fell more sluggish/less snappy then on others (amd bal 30/100 or high 99/100).
> but reduces temps by about 10-15C.



Could do but for every day use the temps seem to sit 45 - 50c anyway, so not losing anything speed wise,


Whilst you are here, do you know if the quick decouplers used on the Alphacool Eisbaer Extreme liquid CPU cooler 280 are available as parts?
They look a million times better that the ones on the* Eisbaer*



Zach_01 said:


> Where is your fans connected? I guess for you to see rpm must be directly to the board.
> Into UEFI smartfan5 is the a mode to change? Like PWM or anything else?
> 
> The offset I was talking about is at the bottom of those screenshots...
> ...



yes I have all of them connected directly into the MB headers
There is an easy option page - quiet, standard, performance and full speed
I've now set the temperature interval to 5
Dead easy to save your own profile, load it and then apply it as well

I also have them all to vary their speed according to the VRM Mos temp, as that one was the hottest on the board usually, apart from the cpu of course


----------



## Fry178 (Jan 7, 2020)

the lower temps the better. nowadays hw degrades because of volt/temps not much else.
also helps lower power consumption.  
for R5 3600 stock & 2080, im now at +12w over 3700 stock and 1080, and that was on a platinum psu.


----------



## lorry (Jan 7, 2020)

Fry178 said:


> the lower temps the better. nowadays hw degrades because of volt/temps not much else.
> also helps lower power consumption.
> for R5 3600 stock & 2080, im now at +12w over 3700 stock and 1080, and that was on a platinum psu.



I have a titanium PSU
Let me learn how to walk before i run 
I'm learning tweaking, now water cooking, now powering down cores etc etc, lol

@Fry178  that combined pump/reservoir is a bit of a lump though isn't it. Do they do anything else/better? 

It seems im already registered at alphacool, but dont have the password stored. They were meant to have send me a reset link an hour ago and no email so far. 

Also, I Need to reread through my post on creating those power plan shortcuts again, so that i can make it dead easy to switch between them with a simple couple of clicks.


----------



## Zach_01 (Jan 7, 2020)

lorry said:


> yes I have all of them connected directly into the MB headers
> There is an easy option page - quiet, standard, performance and full speed
> I've now set the temperature interval to 5
> Dead easy to save your own profile, load it and then apply it as well
> ...


Yes I know... I also use SIV and it’s nice.
But inside BIOS/UEFI smartfan5 section what are the settings for the fans. I’m at work now so I can’t show pics but there is a setting for each fan between PWM and something else that I can’t recall right now.
Are the fans 3 or 4-pin?


----------



## lorry (Jan 7, 2020)

Zach_01 said:


> Yes I know... I also use SIV and it’s nice.
> But inside BIOS/UEFI smartfan5 section what are the settings for the fans. I’m at work now so I can’t show pics but there is a setting for each fan between PWM and something else that I can’t recall right now.
> Are the fans 3 or 4-pin?



Think they are 4 pin, but im upstairs now so cant check. No wait i remember that it says in the MB book that all the fan headers on the board are 4 pin, i looked at that tonight. 

Ill have to a check in the BIOS in the morning when i boot it up to see what smart fan 5 is set at.


----------



## Zach_01 (Jan 7, 2020)

The board’s headers are 99,9% 4-pin but you can still plug a 3-pin.
When you manage to see it, if the fans are 4-pin the set is best at PWM. If the fans are 3-pin then the other is best. This is for better control of rpm/curve.


----------



## mtcn77 (Jan 8, 2020)

PWM is not necessary and furthermore, rocky in operation. 3-pin voltage modulation is preferential.


----------



## Zach_01 (Jan 8, 2020)

mtcn77 said:


> PWM is not necessary and furthermore, rocky in operation. 3-pin voltage modulation is preferential.


I will not disagree or agree with that, but can you explain why please?
Share the knowledge.... what do you mean rocky in operation?


----------



## Fry178 (Jan 8, 2020)

The problem is that about 10-20% start leaking somewhere (depending model/material etc),
and even if it isnt all of them, i didnt want to deal with my hardware getting an unwanted shower.
so unless you really really want one, i would go with pump mounted unit or separate if you want more coolant.
but it will not change perf between something like 100ml and having 500ml, except until loop is saturated.
i would prefer a large pump mounted one.

Pwm is pulsing the signal (on/off) but adjusting voltage is better and usually smoother.
What most dont get is that 4 or 3 oin does not determine if pwm or v regulated (fans)


----------



## lorry (Jan 8, 2020)

Zach_01 said:


> The board’s headers are 99,9% 4-pin but you can still plug a 3-pin.
> When you manage to see it, if the fans are 4-pin the set is best at PWM. If the fans are 3-pin then the other is best. This is for better control of rpm/curve.



I remember now, they are all 4 pin as I bought a short Noctua splitter cable when I added the second fan and that was 4 pin. Double checked the fans boxes and they are all PWMas well. Don't think that has made much any difference as the fan speeds changed with the temperature before and they are still doing that now



Fry178 said:


> The problem is that about 10-20% start leaking somewhere (depending model/material etc),
> and even if it isnt all of them, i didnt want to deal with my hardware getting an unwanted shower.
> so unless you really really want one, i would go with pump mounted unit or separate if you want more coolant.
> but it will not change perf between something like 100ml and having 500ml, except until loop is saturated.
> ...




"except until loop is saturated"
Surely that's the case when you are gaming then for any length of time. I know that is only holding off the inevitable but as you say the lower temps would be there for a longer time period?


Also - not sure what this is then as it was set to PWM in BIOS




yet looks as if it is still fixed RPM in SIV ?


----------



## Zach_01 (Jan 8, 2020)

lorry said:


> I remember now, they are all 4 pin as I bought a short Noctua splitter cable when I added the second fan and that was 4 pin. Double checked the fans boxes and they are all PWMas well. Don't think that has made much any difference as the fan speeds changed with the temperature before and they are still doing that now
> Also - not sure what this is then as it was set to PWM in BIOS
> 
> View attachment 141615
> ...


Had to enter BIOS to see what I was having there.
Turns out I have them on auto control mode...



And SIV looking like this. See the rpm table on the right...


----------



## lorry (Jan 8, 2020)

Zach_01 said:


> Had to enter BIOS to see what I was having there.
> Turns out I have them on auto control mode...
> 
> View attachment 141622
> ...




yeah, mine Was on auto as well, Now set to PWM. It feels that since setting it to PWM and then calibrating within SIV that they don't sound quite so obtrusive, see how it goes I guess.


----------



## Zach_01 (Jan 8, 2020)

lorry said:


> yeah, mine Was on auto as well, Now set to PWM. It feels that since setting it to PWM and then calibrating within SIV that they don't sound quite so obtrusive, see how it goes I guess.


Ok, see how is this go... but setting the fans to VRM temp would already by more steady rpm than the CPU temp that is always all over the place. From the 3 fans I have (beside AIO's), the 2 are on the VRM temp and 1 on PCH since I have it next to PCH heatsink. All are set with 0 delta because VRM and PCH temps are pretty much steady and/or slow moving.

I saw in your smart fan BIOS that you have a reading on the EC_TEMP1 sensor. Do you have one connected there? Was that with the board or you buy it separately? My board also has 2 headers for ext sensors (EC_TEMP1/2) but no sensor was in the package with the board. I tried to find 1 or 2to buy, but I wasnt successful. Do you know anything about that?


----------



## lorry (Jan 8, 2020)

Zach_01 said:


> Ok, see how is this go... but setting the fans to VRM temp would already by more steady rpm than the CPU temp that is always all over the place. From the 3 fans I have (beside AIO's), the 2 are on the VRM temp and 1 on PCH since I have it next to PCH heatsink. All are set with 0 delta because VRM and PCH temps are pretty much steady and/or slow moving.
> 
> I saw in your smart fan BIOS that you have a reading on the EC_TEMP1 sensor. Do you have one connected there? Was that with the board or you buy it separately? My board also has 2 headers for ext sensors (EC_TEMP1/2) but no sensor was in the package with the board. I tried to find 1 or 2to buy, but I wasnt successful. Do you know anything about that?



There are two EC_TEMP headers on this board and it came with two probes. Contact Gigabyte support directly in your country and you should be able to buy them through them. I did with a 4 to 3 pin adapters for back when I was planning to use a controller (cost me £5 with postage). Alternatively have a look on a decent - found a load on overclockers






						▷ Buy Temperature Sensors for… online | OVERCLOCKERS UK
					

Temperature Sensors for Liquid Cooling Systems @ OcUK ✓ Best Range ✓ Great Service ✓ Top Price - OVERCLOCKERS UK




					www.overclockers.co.uk
				




If you decide to go through Gigabyte, the part number (for my board but I'm sure it's a generic part) is 12RH1-001002-015



This is the 4-3 pin adapter that I got as an extra -



BTW I have the CPU fans connected up to the CPU temp, it is only the others that I have linked with the VRM MOS


----------



## Zach_01 (Jan 8, 2020)

Thanks for the tips! I will look into it...
Ok I see about the fans. I still trying though to figure out why your fans dont show the rpm table on SIV.


----------



## lorry (Jan 8, 2020)

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

Until I can take the top and side panel off this afternoon and take a couple of pics and measure up myself, I'm not sure what the dimensions that can be used up top.
I know that they say that at the front there is support for 120mm, 140mm, 200mm, 240mm, 280mm, 360mm (70mm clearance w/radiator lid &M.port removed),
But at the top - 120mm, 140mm, 240mm, 280mm, 360mm (maximum thickness clearance 43mm)

The* Alphacool Eisbaer 280 CPU - black is 30mm thick and fans 25mm, so 55mm in total

The  Alphacool Eisbaer LT 280  and 360 CPU - black is 25mm thick with 25mm fans so 50mm in total

If The Cooler master figures are correct then the only way that I could go would be to have the fans above in a pull configuration. Would that be okay?\
(I might of course be able to put some thin fans inside for a sort of push/pull setup ??)*



Zach_01 said:


> Thanks for the tips! I will look into it...
> Ok I see about the fans. I still trying though to figure out why your fans dont show the rpm table on SIV.



Eh? They do. Look to the right


----------



## tabascosauz (Jan 8, 2020)

Zach_01 said:


> I will not disagree or agree with that, but can you explain why please?
> Share the knowledge.... what do you mean rocky in operation?



Often times boards are not actually compatible with the fans for PWM control, despite both being PWM capable. I found out the hard way with my two A12x25s, which populate the sysfan header through a Noctua splitter. I used to leave it on Auto, which lets the board choose voltage or PWM control, and that worked fine.

Something to do with how different boards and different fans don't send the same control data over the same pins.

Then at some point I switched to PWM, and one of the fans would vary between dead and kinda working. My board isn't capable of controlling the A12x25s through PWM. I put it back on voltage control, and they work perfectly, as they should.

I even opened a RMA before someone on here mentioned to put them back on voltage. The seemingly suspect fan would only spin up at boot then stop.

When you use a splitter, the board is only reading data off one fan. But it sends out the resulting speed adjustments to both fans.


----------



## Zach_01 (Jan 8, 2020)

lorry said:


> Eh? They do. Look to the right


Man... something is wrong with my eyes, or my brain altogether!



tabascosauz said:


> Often times boards are not actually compatible with the fans for PWM control, despite both being PWM capable. I found out the hard way with my two A12x25s, which populate the sysfan header through a Noctua splitter. I used to leave it on Auto, which lets the board choose voltage or PWM control, and that worked fine.
> 
> Something to do with how different boards and different fans don't send the same control data over the same pins.
> 
> ...


Thanks...


----------



## lorry (Jan 8, 2020)

tabascosauz said:


> Often times boards are not actually compatible with the fans for PWM control, despite both being PWM capable. I found out the hard way with my two A12x25s, which populate the sysfan header through a Noctua splitter. I used to leave it on Auto, which lets the board choose voltage or PWM control, and that worked fine.
> 
> Something to do with how different boards and different fans don't send the same control data over the same pins.
> 
> ...



All of my fans are controlled by the motherboard - their speeds all vary when I change and apply that change in SIV and I see them go up and down as the temp moves (well the CPU fans do, the other fans dont change that much obviously, as the VRM MOS doesn't alter to that much)

I am not sure now - I Was planning on using a splitter for the front two fans but I think that I ended up putting them on sep headers as there was enough headers. Sys fan 2 shows a RPM reading, which Must mean that there is a fan attached to sys 1 & 2, but sys 3 just displays a '?'



Zach_01 said:


> Man... something is wrong with my eyes, or my brain altogether!





@Zach_01  try emailing their Esupport directly, they did take a day or so to reply but were fine. You have to register first of course






						GIGABYTE - eSupport
					






					esupport.gigabyte.com


----------



## tabascosauz (Jan 8, 2020)

lorry said:


> All of my fans are controlled by the motherboard - their speeds all vary when I change and apply that change in SIV and I see them go up and down as the temp moves (well the CPU fans do, the other fans dont change that much obviously, as the VRM MOS doesn't alter to that much)
> 
> I am not sure now - I Was planning on using a splitter for the front two fans but I think that I ended up putting them on sep headers as there was enough headers. Sys fan 2 shows a RPM reading, which Must mean that there is a fan attached to sys 1 & 2, but sys 3 just displays a '?'



Oh, no idea, I haven't used any utilities including System Information Viewer since my Z97MX-Gaming 5 days. I just meant the BIOS fan control gives you control options for each header, and it seems best to leave it on Auto as the board knows best, apparently. Though as far as I can tell, the only advantage PWM has over voltage control is efficiency and a lower minimum speed, and the lower minimum speed is biting me in the ass right now because the clicking behaviour @Fry178 described is exactly what's going on in my H97N-WIFI backup rig for years; the signal's too low for the F12 and A14-2000 to spin at low temperatures. And I cant change it because my video output in BIOS has seemingly died and the C14S blocks the CMOS header unless I take the mobo tray out of the case. Fun.

You're not the only one @Zach_01 I've been so short on sleep I'm starting to become dyslexic


----------



## lorry (Jan 8, 2020)

tabascosauz said:


> Oh, no idea, I haven't used any utilities including System Information Viewer since my Z97MX-Gaming 5 days. I just meant the BIOS fan control gives you control options for each header, and it seems best to leave it on Auto as the board knows best, apparently. Though as far as I can tell, the only advantage PWM has over voltage control is efficiency and a lower minimum speed, and the lower minimum speed is biting me in the ass right now because the clicking behaviour @Fry178 described is exactly what's going on in my H97N-WIFI backup rig for years; the signal's too low for the F12 and A14-2000 to spin at low temperatures. And I cant change it because my video output in BIOS has seemingly died and the C14S blocks the CMOS header unless I take the mobo tray out of the case. Fun.
> 
> You're not the only one @Zach_01 I've been so short on sleep I'm starting to become dyslexic



lack of sleep? IF I get two hours continous I feel like I have won the lottery!

I have Chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (*CIDP*) , COPD (Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease), IBS and then four buggered up discs in the sciatic area of my spine and two in my neck.
Amongst other things I'm on morphine patches 24/7, oral morphine, tramadol, Gabapentin, You name it, I seem to take it. Have five pages of repeat prescriptions.
That's why I am sometimes slow to reply or what likely takes you guys an hour or so to do will take me four or five.

To say that it sucks at times is an understatement and to makes things worse, the consultant for my neuropathy is a berk. How I haven't belted him I don't know.
The appt for Last August was cancelled, then made for late Jan, that was cancelled and then another made for Oct! (which would have made it 18 months since I last saw him), Now Finally seeing him in a couple of hours. So I'll be back this afternoon when I'll take a couple of pics of the top of the case etc.


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

If any of you can give your thoughts re fan placement (see comment above for specs) placement I'd appreciate it, as it looks like I _Might_ be able to afford that AIO this week!

Okay, measuring done and it looks like I can easily fit a 360 with a push configuration.

The gap after  removing the rad cover is 405 x 150 mm, so it can fit either 3 x 120 or 2 x 140 mm fans with ease and there is a 43mm clearance to the top of the MB

 

The fans can be fitted to the underneath of the rad cover (whatever ya call it), as there is 43mm clearance there plus a few mm extra with the raised lip of the rad cover and the rad on top. The space there is 405 x 180 mm height is 45 mm so a 30mm rad would fit just fine.



Yes I know it is already dusty in there, that will be an Ongoing situation  as long as this guy is around. i bought one of those puter blowers for That very reason. it's 1 horsepower blower and is plenty strong enough. He is 13 now, diabetic and has diabetic cataracts, he is also The Most hairiest dog that his vet has Ever seen! he moults 25/8 I kid thee not!, you can tug bloodt great clumps of fur from him as often as you like!



Anyway, to give you an idea, the mesh front was vacuumed a day ago, this is how it is now




Oh and @Zach_01 this is where one of those temp headers are- right in the bloody way of the post code! (another reason I went for this board). I have to lean at a stupid angle to be able to read it correctly




This is what I am looking at getting - thoughts please? it is £109 plus delivery









						Alphacool Eisbaer 360 CPU - Black
					

With the “Eisbaer”, Alphacool is fundamentally revolutionizing the AIO cooler market. Where traditional AIO CPU-coolers are disposable products which are neither upgradeable nor refillable, the Alphacool “Eisbaer” is modularly built and...




					www.aquatuning.co.uk
				




Tagging in @tabascosauz and @Fry178 just because I can be a PITA at times


----------



## Fry178 (Jan 9, 2020)

@tabascosauz
Aaaah, reset bios? 
remove power plug, remove cmos BATTERY for 10s, put battery back in,
reconnect power cord.. 

@lorry 
If at all.
My last custom loop had about 4,5l coolant and the resorator is more than 2ft tall all metal incl heatsinknlike fins, and it took 30 min onnlow load before temps started to rise past starting temp (when pc was turned on).
with ryzen water temps arent the problem, mine never goes past 40*C,
cpu still goes up to 70*C, because of the "small" heatsink they have. 
This is the main reason why almost all coolers perform similar, 
the only difference is how silent/loud the fans are (no matter cooling type),
and what temps you will get on gpu/case etc.

If you plan on adding the gpu, i would recommend the 360 LT,
280s would allow for lower rpm fans and they make use of a wider rad (vs 240),
and if you really need the gpu added, just get a small 120 rad as add-on that can go to the rear of the case.
But usually using the aio to dump the heat outside the case, is the biggest improvement. Use the fans as push, easer to remove when cleaning fans/rad.

Thought about an airfilter?
20in box fan with a piece of screen filter (cut to size roll of filter for the range hood, if u want odor control).
Have the fan pull the air thru the filter (prevents fan getting dirty),
i recommend make a frame/box that allows for the filter to have some distance to the fan.






						Amazon.com: PollenTec Box Fan Air Purifier Filter for Cleaner Air and a Cooling Breeze Washable, Reusable, Compatible with Lasko Models B20200 2301 3733 B20401 Frame size 20.5 x 20.5 Made in USA: Kitchen & Dining
					

Amazon.com: PollenTec Box Fan Air Purifier Filter for Cleaner Air and a Cooling Breeze Washable, Reusable, Compatible with Lasko Models B20200 2301 3733 B20401 Frame size 20.5 x 20.5 Made in USA: Kitchen & Dining



					smile.amazon.com


----------



## tabascosauz (Jan 9, 2020)

@Fry178 ha! if only it were so easy. C14S pretty much smothers the entire board. I have the A14 below the heatsink right now, not on top, which blocks access to the CMOS battery, and the fan can't come off because there's no space to unclip the fan on the top (bottom) side. Orientation is also flipped in the TJ-08, no space to reach the top edge of the board, and CMOS header is on the top edge. The mobo tray is going to have to come out of the case at some point  but then again, I've never really had this happen on the board before, maybe it's on its last legs


----------



## Fry178 (Jan 9, 2020)

RIP then


----------



## Zach_01 (Jan 9, 2020)

Fry178 said:


> ...with ryzen water temps arent the problem, mine never goes past 40*C,
> cpu still goes up to 70*C, because of the "small" heatsink they have.
> This is the main reason why almost all coolers perform similar,
> the only difference is how silent/loud the fans are (no matter cooling type),
> and what temps you will get on gpu/case etc.


Isnt 40C high on water?
Mine works between 24-25C idle and 27-28C max water temp, with CPU around 58-60C max temp. Tho it’s 280mm AIO and fans 700-1400rpm.



lorry said:


> Oh and @Zach_01 this is where one of those temp headers are- right in the bloody way of the post code! (another reason I went for this board). I have to lean at a stupid angle to be able to read it correctly
> 
> View attachment 141656


Yeah, mine doesnt have post code display, just 4 debug leds.

The price of that Eisbaer 360 is pretty nice I think... Here too... it’s 120€.


----------



## lorry (Jan 9, 2020)

Fry178 said:


> @lorry
> If at all.
> My last custom loop had about 4,5l coolant and the resorator is more than 2ft tall all metal incl heatsinknlike fins, and it took 30 min onnlow load before temps started to rise past starting temp (when pc was turned on).
> with ryzen water temps arent the problem, mine never goes past 40*C,
> ...




There is already a double mesh setup at the front as it is and surely adding another Very mesh to the front will choke off the air intake entirely?
Being totally realistic Harvey isn't going to be around for that much longer, he was 13 last Oct, he has had diabetes now for 4 years, he has arthritis, he is going blind. 12 is considered a good age for a Labrador so even without all the added medical conditions he is not expected to be around for that much longer, plus making anything these days isn't really too great an idea.




I will go with the standard 360 as that has the greater surface area compared to the 280, ‭43,200‬  compared to ‭39,200‬ and standard compared to the LT is 5mm thicker.

My biggest problem, no matter what I go with, will be the fitting. I will either somehow need to cut a large hole in the rad cover of the case, so that it can be fitted in one stage in its entirety, or take the fans off and fit those to the underneath of the fan cover and then the rad to the top.
Either way I will need to cut a hole to allow the tubing / pump through





Zach_01 said:


> Yeah, mine doesnt have post code display, just 4 debug leds.
> 
> The price of that Eisbaer 360 is pretty nice I think... Here too... it’s 120€.



Wasn't so much about the post code, more about the temp probe connector and it's damn bad positioning

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

Ok, have figured out a way to do this, due to the 43mm depth restriction.
What I do have in that case is Height at the top of the case - 50mm in height and over 150 width

What I have thought of is this - cut out the main section of the radiator shelf to allow the 360 (or even 280, but  I am going for the 360 unless someone can persuade me, as it has more surface area) to drop in complete.
I have ordered some mild steel black angle (20mm x 20mm) to span the gap, screw or bolt that into place with a 20mm spacer in place and then attach the radiator and fans to that.
That will then mean that less than 35mm of the unit will enter down into the case, giving me 8mm clearance still, which will allow the ATX 12Vconnector cables to remain routed as they are now.
This will mean that the top of the radiator will be exactly level with the side venting on the top panel, so ventilation would not be compromised

Sorry for the crap picture, never been any good with paint, heh. Yellow is the section to cut out, to allow the rad unit to be dropped in, red would be the steel angle spanning that the radiator attaches to



This shows just How much space there is Above the radiator shelf



Thoughts @Zach_01 @tabascosauz @Fry178  ?



Zach_01 said:


> Mine works between 24-25C idle and 27-28C max water temp, with CPU around 58-60C max temp. Tho it’s 280mm AIO and fans 700-1400rpm.



Remember though yours does have liquid metal not thermal paste, so that helps somewhat

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ooh, just saw this -
The _*Eisbaer Aurora AIO*_ is next on the list. This is a higher-end AIO cooler with full copper radiators in 240mm or 360mm sizes. Currently, Alphacool also has 280mm and 420mm versions planned for Q2 or Q3 2020. Pricing starts at €124.99 for the 240mm version and goes up to €144.99 for the 360mm version. _*Aurora LUX RGB fans*_ are also coming, with the key selling point being addressable RGB, but other specs include 800 to 2000 RPM, 35.6dB max noise level and 2mm H2O static pressure. 









						CES 2020: Alphacool expands its liquid cooling lineup - KitGuru
					

Our CES coverage continues, this time with Leo checking out the Alphacool suite, which was packed wi




					www.kitguru.net


----------



## Fry178 (Jan 9, 2020)

@Zach_01
sorry, remembered temps before i switched to water on the gpu.
realized it actually never goes past 3x ish, as my ram leds are switching color if it goes past 35*C.


@lorry
sorry, not for the pc, but for your room.
will also help with your COPD, as a decent filter (HEPA, merv 13 and up) will filter down to mold/virus level,
and reduce dust (not  just pet hair) on virtually everything (in the room).
over here box fan and filter (furnace/hvac size) can be had for about 40-50 US$,
and i would recommend it to gt one even if not right now.


since you plan on upgrading/expanding parts, dont waste your money on their "premium" stuff.
one reason why i also do not recommend the extreme/black edition stuff.
its nice, but throwing money at alphacool, as they still dont use a D5 as pump, nor is the block the best one,
no matter if i look at just alphacool or the whole LC market.

the eisbaer comes with copper fins, all you need, and a full copper rad wont make much of a difference
heat transfer (cpu to cooler) is more important on ryzen than anything (and why i recommend the ray-storm block)

i wouldnt cut away from the case, just mount the rad inside, and run the fans on top,
pulling outside, as long as its easy to get to (for cleaning maintenance later on).

(oh and see that you cover the areas around the case fans (at least the rear one),
so they dont draw any hot air back in.
one reason i started to use neoprene foam again, even that i dont need it for silencing anymore (no hdds etc),
so i can cover any holes/openings on the case etc, that im not using ..

no need to buy pc specific stuff, just the cheapest you can get. like this:





						NATGAI Sponge Neoprene with Adhesive Foam Rubber Sheet 1/8” Thick X 12” Wide X 48” Long, Cut to Multiple Dimensions and Lengths - DIY, Gaskets, Cosplay, Costume, Crafts - - Amazon.com
					

NATGAI Sponge Neoprene with Adhesive Foam Rubber Sheet 1/8” Thick X 12” Wide X 48” Long, Cut to Multiple Dimensions and Lengths - DIY, Gaskets, Cosplay, Costume, Crafts - - Amazon.com



					smile.amazon.com


----------



## lorry (Jan 9, 2020)

Fry178 said:


> sorry, not for the pc, but for your room.



Ah! Already have one with a HEPA filter, well two actually. One upstairs and one down. But luckily my COPD isn't That bad, I'd stopped smoking and begun vaping two years before I was diagnosed, so I'd placed a halt on any further damage done there.



Fry178 said:


> since you plan on upgrading/expanding parts, dont waste your money on their "premium" stuff.
> one reason why i also do not recommend the extreme/black edition stuff.
> its nice, but throwing money at alphacool, as they still dont use a D5 as pump, nor is the block the best one,
> no matter if i look at just alphacool or the whole LC market.
> ...



I quite like the look of that new one though and the price difference isn't too great. I prefer their newer quick release over the older bulkier ones for certain and depending on what is inside that block might be the deciding factor (depends of course of what fans are also included, If they even are?)

Might it not be better then to get their radiator and then a different block/block pump combo?

I thought that the radiator shelf might not have been ventilated enough? I also thought that the fans were at their most effective when placed directly onto the radiator, not with a honeycombed shelf of metal in between?

Removing that shelf is a matter of 8 screws, so dead easy there, then it just depends if remving the fans and radiator are required for a deep clean or not.


----------



## Fry178 (Jan 9, 2020)

If you plan on swapping pump/block, dont waste the money on the "better" aios,
but if you dont plan on doing that, they are a tick better.

e.g. a vpp755 pump (premium lineup) is still not something i would consider to keep/carry over, compared to a D5.
its like a good head unit/psu etc, you only replace if they break, wouldnt do that with the vpp.
or that you can get fans (arctic) that have less than half the noise, while providing a bit more static pressure than the ones coming with the aio.

in short, anything better than the cheapest unit they offer (in size you want), is good for now, and can be modded/upgraded later,
if you want to keep it they way it is "out of the box", getting the "upgraded/premium" one would be ok.
(i dont like spending money on something "better", if you plan on replacing it anyway).


----------



## lorry (Jan 9, 2020)

Fry178 said:


> If you plan on swapping pump/block, dont waste the money on the "better" aios,
> but if you dont plan on doing that, they are a tick better.
> 
> e.g. a vpp755 pump (premium lineup) is still not something i would consider to keep/carry over, compared to a D5.
> ...



So why knock back my original idea of building from scratch? Because If I am going to spend then I see no point in buying something to find out a while later that it isn't quite up to scratch and upgrades are needed?
Say
Alphacool NexXxoS ST30 Full Copper 360mm radiator V.2
XSPC RayStorm RGB Pro AMD CPU Water Block Black 
whatever D5 pump combo and then the tubing and fittings
?


----------



## Zach_01 (Jan 9, 2020)

I like AIOs but just because I dont want to mess with fittings and this kind of assembly in general. If you dont mind that then go for the custom, I say.



lorry said:


> There is already a double mesh setup at the front as it is and surely adding another Very mesh to the front will choke off the air intake entirely?
> Being totally realistic Harvey isn't going to be around for that much longer, he was 13 last Oct, he has had diabetes now for 4 years, he has arthritis, he is going blind. 12 is considered a good age for a Labrador so even without all the added medical conditions he is not expected to be around for that much longer, plus making anything these days isn't really too great an idea.
> 
> View attachment 141725
> ...


If I had the tools, I would cut off that cell/mesh grill without hesitation... for maximizing airflow =low fan rpm and noise. And since that would be exhaust, you dont care about dust...

As for liquid metal, because this kind of TIM has high transfer heat rate it keeps the water on a higher temp level. Not too much tho if the rad can dissipate the increased heat transfer rate...


----------



## lorry (Jan 9, 2020)

Zach_01 said:


> If I had the tools, I would cut off that cell/mesh grill without hesitation... for maximizing airflow =low fan rpm and noise. And since that would be exhaust, you dont care about dust...




I doubt that this case would be overly sellable, as it's already had the PSU shroud cut at to get the GPU to fit vertical anyway.
Doing it that way would be easier for cleaning as well, as it would only require 8 screws removed and then the entire rad could be lifted out with the fans attached.
To me it reads like this. A decent AIO will give respectable performance, an open loop allows you to pick exactly what you want, the best of the best or whatever your wallet can stand.
Plus, I Do like to tinker


----------



## Fry178 (Jan 9, 2020)

not mocking your plan.
your money, your decision.


BUT, to me it doesnt makes sense to go custom right now:
- on your first water cooler
- will leave you without the pc for at least one day (believe me)
- even the best block/rad/pump combo will maybe gain 10-20% over the aio
(but even the aio will make a day and night difference over air cooling, especially looking at the gpu  temps)
- will cost a lot more "right away", without a day and night difference (vs aio).
you gonna spend at least 250 on a decent loop (i had 255 BP for shopping cart without shipping etc.).


i would go with the 240 LT.  has the same pump as the "normal" 240, and can be had for 85 BP,
its a bit more than the components might cost, but you can start right away, maybe 1 h when taking time
on how you want it installed etc.

the rad coming with the alpha cool is good enough, so no need to spend more on a different one.
the pump is good, even if you add another 120 rad (rear of case and include the gpu in the loop.

240 LT "now", then upgrade to an additional reservoir next (if you dont plan on mounting one directly to the D5),
then add the pump and cpu block (as those are on piece on the aio). another 120 rad for the rear (maybe a nice ultra copper "everything"
that you could feed the hot water first.
down the road a gpu block if you want


----------



## lorry (Jan 9, 2020)

Fry178 said:


> not mocking your plan.
> your money, your decision.
> 
> 
> ...




I'm not doing 240 anything, nor 280, it'll be 360 or nothing



Fry178 said:


> as they still dont use a D5 as pump, nor is the block the best one,





Fry178 said:


> has the same pump as the "normal" 240



which mate please?
As it sounds to me like one minute you are saying the pump is ok, and the next that its not??

what about their Alphacool Eisbaer (Solo) - 2600rpm - black  ?









						Alphacool Eisbaer (Solo) - 2600rpm - black
					

Along with the different prefilled “Eisbaer” coolers that are ready to use out of the box, the core of the “Eisbaer” is also available as a stand-alone option. With it, you can set up your system and choose which parts you want for it...




					www.aquatuning.co.uk
				




I just dont see the point in going for less than a 360.
I may decide on their 360 AIO, i dont know. 
The problem with that is if i decide to do custom in the end then nothing from the AIO would be used, it would be 'wasted' money. Yes i could use it on something else later on but what im not sure.


----------



## tabascosauz (Jan 9, 2020)

lorry said:


> I'm not doing 240 anything, nor 280, it'll be 360 or nothing
> 
> which mate please?
> As it sounds to me like one minute you are saying the pump is ok, and the next that its not??
> ...



I ain't done a custom loop before, I'm just watching what you do  

The 2600rpm uses a DC-LT pump. Noise doesn't seem to be too much a problem, but power is. Flow rate seems to be massively decreased from the Laing DDC. Also don't know if the advertised "ceramic bearing" actually does anything for reliability.

Between the DDC and D5, both of which have been pretty popular go-to for years, the DDC flow rate is lower but it is also a more compact product than the D5.


----------



## lorry (Jan 9, 2020)

tabascosauz said:


> I ain't done a custom loop before, I'm just watching what you do
> 
> The 2600rpm uses a DC-LT pump. Noise doesn't seem to be too much a problem, but power is. Flow rate seems to be massively decreased from the Laing DDC. Also don't know if the advertised "ceramic bearing" actually does anything for reliability.
> 
> Between the DDC and D5, both of which have been pretty popular go-to for years, the DDC flow rate is lower but it is also a much more compact product than the D5.



Thing is this, the AIO i could possibly get next week, whereas a custom id have to buy piece by piece, same as i did for the rig. I may Have to, as the custom will take me several months to get the money together and this cpu aint getting any cooler. 

I guess i could get the AIO for now, save up the money for the parts for the custom, and then use the rad from the AIO to add in for the GPU.


----------



## Fry178 (Jan 10, 2020)

the pumps on all eisbaer (except extreme) are the same. only difference is that one has a reservoir on top of the block/pump combo,
so its easier to do flush/refill etc.

the pumps are ok when it comes to quality, but not when compared to power/quality of a D5,
but that costs almost as much as the whole aio, so not really comparable.

flow/power is not an issue. the asetek aios have far weaker pumps and no difference in temp,
the smaller hose diameter (vs custom) is probably helping, and i haven't seen any difference in cooling between low and full speed (eisbaer solo)
(because the bottleneck for ryzen is heat transfer, not the rest of the loop).


get the aio, and if you decide to tinker with it, you can keep the rad/hoses/fans,
heck even the connectors (hose to pump) are standard 1/4G and will fit any pump,
so you really need only a pump/res combo.

and even if you get a D5 and really nice res, should still stay below 250 in total.
thats why i say get the aio (and have proper cooling and lower case/gpu temps now),
and swap parts later.

a gpu block would only make sense if you have stock/FE layout, and plan on keeping the gpu until it dies,
as most blocks are either brand specific (EVGA block for EVGA cards) or only work with Nvidias stock pcb,
and others might have components in the way.

Next time you upgrade the gpu just get something that has an aio already with it,
doesnt have to be connected to the cpu loop (easier if something stops working, you would only need to install an aircooler on the cpu).

edit:
i sold my corsair aio a while back (wanted custom loop), but by chance sold my gpu as well,
so i wasn't able to spend more than 150 on cpu cooler. but with what i saved on the eisbaer (vs custom),
i was able to get a LC 2080, which now stays around 40-50C for most games.

even the best components and the loop costing +250, would have not given me the same temps i have now
(with cpu AND gpu exhausting and dumping the heat outside.


----------



## lorry (Jan 10, 2020)

Fry178 said:


> the pumps on all eisbaer (except extreme) are the same. only difference is that one has a reservoir on top of the block/pump combo,
> so its easier to do flush/refill etc.
> 
> the pumps are ok when it comes to quality, but not when compared to power/quality of a D5,
> ...



I'm unlikely to swap the GPU for quite some time as any improvement on it would be £500+ unless AMD do something remarkable, so it is likely that for at least the next year (likely longer), the 2070 super will remain.

It therefore makes sense to me to look to getting the AIO first, then save for a D5 and then get a water block for the GPU, as the D5 and reservoir will be able to handle both GPU and CPU (something that I don't see the pump in the AIO handling That well).

Planned that way I go up in spec in stages, AIO, AIO with better pump, AIO + better pump + GPU waterblock. Each stage will likely be around the £150 mark.



Now, a couple of questions - 

I see that the pump connector is a 3 pin, 




I only have 4 pin headers on this MB, so would I need something like this?









						Phobya adaptor 3Pin (socket) to 4Pin PWM (plug) 30cm - black
					

This is an adaptor which has a 3-Pin fan connector and a 4-Pin PWM fan connector. It can be used to connect a PWM fan to a fan controller or Mainboard. This signal does not pass on a rpm signal, but most fan controllers can adjust the...




					www.aquatuning.co.uk
				





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

@Zach_01 
The Fan/Pump Control mode min BIOS (MIT) I now think is more for the pump than the fans, so i think that on my next boot I will switch it back to auto and let the MB determine the optimal control mode.


----------



## Zach_01 (Jan 10, 2020)

Sure, why not... I just suggested to "play" with those settings cause you said that the fans was acting kind of wierd and not responding well to custom curves.

3/4pin subject:
That sheet is from the AIO you want? It has adopter? or it just saying adopter the 2 into 1 fan connector?


----------



## lorry (Jan 10, 2020)

Zach_01 said:


> Sure, why not... I just suggested to "play" with those settings cause you said that the fans was acting kind of wierd and not responding to custom curves.
> 
> 3/4pin subject:
> That sheet is from the AIO you want? It has adopter? or it just saying adopter the 2 into 1 fan connector?



Yeah I was only just mentioning it as I had now figured out what the BIOS manual was saying about it

Yes that picture is from the manual of the AIO and the adaptor looks to be only a standard Y splitter

What sucks is that If that adaptor IS needed then the Only place I can effectively get the AIO from is aquatuning, because they are the Only site in the UK that I can find that Phobya adaptor cable.

That sucks because they charge £12 or £25 shipping (DHL or UPS) which of course adds to the price.


----------



## Fry178 (Jan 10, 2020)

i dont recommend getting a block for the gpu, unless you gonna do some heavy oc.
anything from any brand, no matter if EK/Alpha cool, or AIB partners like EVGA/MSI etc,
will cost about 150 US$ and up, plus hoses and fittings, depending on coverage (vrm/ram) even 200.
outside that, the block will only fit THAT generation, nothing else, so future gpu upgrade will need a new block.

any gpu that comes with it, will usually only be about 100$ more,
it will also be a separate loop (if anything happens to the cpu loop, u can swap that easily for air cooler till its fixed),
and temps will not affect each other (cpu<>gpu), and you dont have to worry about swapping gpus.
selling it might be easier too, lots of ppl i know have swapped for LC cards lately, all using AIO that came with it.
also easier if you have trouble with it, as it would be covered by warranty (of the card),
which isnt common on things "you" installed.
thats also the time i usually sign up for amazon prime (for a month), and look for open box.
if there is any problem with the card, i can return it within 30 days (so far 1 out of 10 had issues, not 100% sure if it was the card).
thats how i ended up with a 2080 (vs 2070S), as i got an open box for 620$ instead of the usual 7-800.
the only downside is those pumps arent silent, but since your fans (rad/case) arent completely silent,
it wont be an issue for you.

no worries about the aio.
the splitter is for the fans, so they run of a single port with same rpm, and it comes with it,
and it fits the 4 pin ports as well.
the pump fan is a regular 3 pin as well, pump is voltage regulated. set with fan profile in bios it works as expected,
no matter if i use silent/normal/manual.


----------



## lorry (Jan 10, 2020)

Fry178 said:


> the pump fan is a regular 3 pin as well, pump is voltage regulated. set with fan profile in bios it works as expected,
> no matter if i use silent/normal/manual.




But as I said @Fry178 , I have No 3 pin headers on this MB

=========================================================================================

On a different note, i tried out that puter blower just now -  a big difference in looks and Noise levels I think

Before and after pics




Only took 5 minutes as well. To give you an idea of just how powerful this is - I tried it out on the keyboard and as I swept it across the keys, they were being depressed by the blast of air!


----------



## Fry178 (Jan 10, 2020)

All 4pin will accept and work with 3 pins.

Good to hear that helped


----------



## lorry (Jan 10, 2020)

@Fry178 what about those headers though?
I only have 4 pin headers in this board, do I need an adapter or what?


----------



## Fry178 (Jan 10, 2020)

No, just match the pins so it fits that small lip/tab the headers and plugs have.


----------



## lorry (Jan 10, 2020)

Fry178 said:


> No, just match the pins so it fits that small lip/tab the headers and plugs have.



i know that the 4th pin is the pwm speed control, so would the board then regulate the speed through the voltage applied then?


----------



## Fry178 (Jan 10, 2020)

Yup.
Thats really why you have the option in bios to switch.
Auto should work fine, try the voltage setting first.
Unless you see "big" rpm fluctuations on the pump.
Im not using the fans, but they look like arctic/bequiet/noiseblocker, so should work in auto just fine.
Depending on noise, apply a fan curve that peaks at 50C.


----------



## lorry (Jan 10, 2020)

Fry178 said:


> Yup.
> Thats really why you have the option in bios to switch.
> Auto should work fine, try the voltage setting first.
> Unless you see "big" rpm fluctuations on the pump.
> ...



Just looked,  The Eisbaer uses the Pure Wings 2 fans

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Might invest in some better fans though before it's fitted, not decided as yet.









						Mysterious AMD Radeon GPU appears in OpenVR benchmark leaderboard - VideoCardz.com
					

“AMD Radeon(TM) Graphics” faster than GeForce RTX 2080 Ti Something interesting has just shown up in OpenVR benchmark results database. The leaderboard access is limited, as it requires a separate purchase. However, “muchcharles” (a member of AMD Sub-reddit) discovered a new entry in the...




					videocardz.com
				




DDR5 up to 85% faster!, but likely until 2022









						DDR5 has arrived! Micron’s next-gen DIMMs are 85% faster than DDR4
					

DDR5 memory is here!




					www.pcgamesn.com
				




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

Question time -

This AIO uses Pure Wings 2 fans -
Air Flow @ 100% PWM / 12V (CFM / m3/h)  51.4 / 87
Air Pressure @ 100% PWM / 12V (mm H2O) 1.25

I know there are fans that have better numbers. Just talking efficiency here now, are there better fans that could be got for it, if so, which?

(Remember, I'm totally new to rads etc, so I don't know if there is a point where you can no longer effectively improve the heat loss with a fin density of 15 FPI)


----------



## lorry (Jan 11, 2020)

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

Question time - @Zach_01 @tabascosauz @Fry178

This AIO uses Pure Wings 2 fans -
Air Pressure 1.25 mmH2O
Air Flow   87 m3/h

I know there are fans that have better numbers. Just talking efficiency here now, not cost - are there better fans that could be got for it, if so, which?

(Remember, I'm totally new to rads etc, so I don't know if there is a point where you can no longer effectively improve the heat loss with a fin density of 15 FPI)

I see that the Noiseblocker NB-eLoop B12-3 Bionic fan 1900rpm ( 120x120x25mm )  has the following specs -
Pressure: 1,997 mmH2O
Air flow rate: 121.2 m3 / h

 the Noiseblocker NB-eLoop B12-2 Bionic fan 1300rpm ( 120x120x25mm )  has the following specs -
Pressure:  1.042mmH2O
Air flow rate: 86.9 m3 / h

the Noiseblocker NB-eLoop X B12-PS ARGB, PWM - 120mm, black Fan* -*
Pressure: <1.475 mmH2O
Air flow rate:  <98.7 m3/hr



But which looks better? If any? And why?

I know that the FPI for the rad is 15, but I do Not know the optimum figures for a fan for it - can any of you help there?


----------



## Fry178 (Jan 11, 2020)

I was running all previous LC stuff with normal case fans, either cause the brand didnt have pressure optimized fans at the time (NB/BN), or because i wanted quieter fans.

Right now, my 3600 is at 32C on idle (arctic P12 (0.08 not the 0.3 sone) fans at 600rpm and 70C when at full load and fans at 1100rpm (max), ambient temp is 22C.

So you should be fine with the bequiet fans, even when you use silent fan profile.
I would rather get additional fans (normal P12) and either add them to the rad (push/pull), or better, to put them on any fan openening you have left on the case.


----------



## lorry (Jan 11, 2020)

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

Bloody hell !

*Struggling to find a waterblock that fits your hardware? No problem! We can produce very efficient water blocks that are perfectly matched to your hardware. *


How it works



First check *here* to see if we already have a cooler for your graphics card.
Fill out this document and wait for our reply and confirmation.
Send us your hardware including customer declaration
It will take up to 10 – 20 working days for us to measure your hardware.
We will send the hardware back to you in the same condition you sent it to us
In return, you will receive the new cooler for FREE. Please note that we reserve the right not to produce single cooler variants. You can, however, decide between the cooler variants that are produced. 









						Alphacool
					






					www.alphacool.com


----------



## Fry178 (Jan 11, 2020)

Problem is, they have blocks for almost every card 
Its mainly for "custom" cards (like virtually everything above basic cards with improved heatsink/cooler/power design).


----------



## lorry (Jan 11, 2020)

Fry178 said:


> I was running all previous LC stuff with normal case fans, either cause the brand didnt have pressure optimized fans at the time (NB/BN), or because i wanted quieter fans.
> 
> Right now, my 3600 is at 32C on idle (arctic P12 (0.08 not the 0.3 sone) fans at 600rpm and 70C when at full load and fans at 1100rpm (max), ambient temp is 22C.
> 
> ...



yet it was you that suggested the black noise NB-eLoop® Series ???

I doubt there is enough top room to add a set above as I am likely going to have to raise the rad 1cm or so above the fan shelf as it is (only 43mm clearance), they would likely be choked though as its a glass top with side vents





Fry178 said:


> Problem is, they have blocks for almost every card
> Its mainly for "custom" cards (like virtually everything above basic cards with improved heatsink/cooler/power design).



I checked they don't specifically have my card 





						AORUS GeForce® RTX 2070 SUPER™ 8G (rev. 1.0/1.1) Key Features | Graphics Card - GIGABYTE U.K.
					

Discover AORUS premium graphics cards, ft. WINDFORCE cooling, RGB lighting, PCB protection, and VR friendly features for the best gaming and VR experience!




					www.gigabyte.com
				






mine is the OC 1905mhz

and, i dunno quite how @Zach_01  did it, but take a look at the idle lows on this !

lows of 35c!



And why do 'fine' when for a few quid more there is the potential to keep a lower overall temperature with better fans? 
Then maybe look into getting some 15mm fans, as they i think will be the only ones that might fit

Oh and where could i find out how many W each fan header can take? Is there a general rule of thumb or something?


----------



## Fry178 (Jan 11, 2020)

I do recommend the noiseblocker, but the arctics are as good, for half/third of the price.
Only if you want higher performance, the NB bionics would do that, while still being quiet, and wouldn't require regular cleaning, as the blades have nanotech preventing dust to stick to them.

I prefer quiet over a couple of degrees less, as I'm already below throttling temps, and even below max longterm temp, so i rather enjoy an inaudible rig.
Sure, if you can get them for a good price, but im done paying +20$ on noctua/NB, wenn arctic gives me same temps (below 1000rpm fans) for 7$/piece (5 pack).

Usually depends in the board.
But with NB/Noctua/Arctic they usually  run 0.1 to 0.5A, not something even a "no name" board couldn't handle.
Usually with pumps its different, just check which of you ports support pumps.


----------



## lorry (Jan 11, 2020)

Fry178 said:


> I do recommend the noiseblocker, but the arctics are as good for half/third of the price. Only if you want higher performance, the NB bionics would do that, while still being quiet.
> 
> I prefer quiet over a couple of degrees less, as I'm already below throttling temps, and even below max longterm temp, so i rather enjoy an inaudible rig.
> Sure, if you can get them for a good price, but im done paying +20$ on noctua/NB, wenn arctic gives me same temps (below 1000rpm fans) for 7$/piece (5 pack).


So, can i now starr to learn what i asked please? 
Talking effectiveness only what is the point of dimishing returns? 
Would either of those two be better than the silent wings? If so which, or both? 
I know that with rad fans its about their static pressure but when does enough become too much? Or does it? The silent wings 2 has 1.25, the b12 3 2.o and their ARGB one 1.5 say. 
So is 1.5 still good ot is it too much? If not is 2.0 too much and if so, why?


----------



## tabascosauz (Jan 11, 2020)

lorry said:


> So, can i now starr to learn what i asked please?
> Talking effectiveness only what is the point of dimishing returns?
> Would either of those two be better than the silent wings? If so which, or both?
> I know that with rad fans its about their static pressure but when does enough become too much? Or does it? The silent wings 2 has 1.25, the b12 3 2.o and their ARGB one 1.5 say.
> So is 1.5 still good ot is it too much? If not is 2.0 too much and if so, why?



Like CFM, static pressure is an "up to" statistic. That's at 1900rpm. Your ears don't want you to be constantly running your fans at 1900rpm.

The quieter ones will be fine. Preferably, these manufacturers would all provide CFM/static pressure graphs to show exactly how the fans perform at every point in their RPM band.

My main concern is the fan's construction; Be Quiet hasn't been a great purveyor of fan bearings with the original Silent Wings being a rifle bearing fan, and the 2 being HDB which is popular but really just a souped up sleeve bearing.

My bad, that was the Pure Wings I was thinking about. General point still stands.


----------



## lorry (Jan 11, 2020)

tabascosauz said:


> Like CFM, static pressure is an "up to" statistic. That's at 1900rpm. Your ears don't want you to be constantly running your fans at 1900rpm.
> 
> The quieter ones will be fine. Preferably, these manufacturers would all provide CFM/static pressure graphs to show exactly how the fans perform at every point in their RPM band.
> 
> My main concern is the fan's construction; Be Quiet hasn't been a great purveyor of fan bearings with the original Silent Wings being a rifle bearing fan, and the 2 being HDB which is popular but really just a souped up sleeve bearing.


The quieter ones are less pressure than the silent wings though? 
1.04 compared to 1.24


----------



## mtcn77 (Jan 11, 2020)

If you want a quiet case, have the radiator at the top. Hot air drives less pressure. Also, radiator interface works better when there is more temperature & air flux @ low pressure.


----------



## Zach_01 (Jan 12, 2020)

lorry said:


> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Question time - @Zach_01 @tabascosauz @Fry178
> 
> ...


By the numbers... not good fans those PureWings2... low airflow, low pressure.
I dont know if there is an optimal flow/pressure per fin density. I just knew that for rads in general, static pressure is more important than airflow, and that 1.25mmH2O is really low. That B12-3 is stronger but there are better than this. Cost and noise(db) of the 3 models you posted?

I not suggesting but just showing:

Expensive and noisy but 3mmH2O





						LL120 RGB 120mm Dual Light Loop White RGB LED PWM Fan — Single Pack
					

The CORSAIR LL120 RGB LED 120mm PWM White Smart Fan boasts 16 individually addressable RGB LEDs spread across two separate light loops in a striking white housing, creating vibrant lighting and visual effects.




					www.corsair.com
				




Much less expensive, noisy and 4mmH2O





						ML120 120mm PWM Premium Magnetic Levitation Fan — Twin Pack
					

CORSAIR ML120 delivers unrivaled performance and silence by utilizing magnetic levitation technology and custom rotor design. The innovative design provides both high static pressure and high air flow.




					www.corsair.com
				




Remember that @Fry178 doesnt like noise, doesnt care much about temp as long as its not throttling (<95C) and has a CPU that draws 35% less power than 3900X...

I couldnt find the specs of my 2xCorsair 140x140x25 but the rpm range is 500~2200. Of course I dont have them running at 2200 as above 1600~1700rpm there isnt much difference.

I have 2 custom curves.
1 up to 1200 for 24/7 every day usage and gaming.
1 up to ~1600 for testing.
And this is for now (winter with 21~23C ambient)

Remember also that anything larger can work as smaller if you want but not the other way arround...


----------



## Fry178 (Jan 12, 2020)

Until now i never had any problems running rads with (airflow) "case" fans, and that includes 125w amd/intel cpus,
that are definitely hotter than my ryzen.
only after arctic introduced the P series did i read up a bit more.
then again, when you have air, that is compressible (unlike water), i still question how much difference there is (outside max rpm).

the only reason for the Bionics would be the material (no dust collected)


			blacknoise.com - Noiseblocker NB eLoop 120mm
		


for arctic there is one doing 2.75 mm, while still quiet, has pwm and PST port, to plug in another fan.








						BioniX P120 | Pressure-optimised 120 mm Gaming Fan | ARCTIC
					

The BioniX P120 is a pressure-optimised 120mm Gaming Case Fan. With the patented PWM PST Technology is is controllable in a wide range of 200 to 2.100 RPM.




					www.arctic.ac
				



i would get those, unless you dont mind the noise, then the ML series

you also need to consider you dont have the cooler re-breathing its own hot air,
and with a decent fan pulling air thru the case you will see lower temps just because of that.
so even if the fans are the perfect ones for pressure/flow etc, it shouldnt be to bad.


----------



## lorry (Jan 12, 2020)

mtcn77 said:


> If you want a quiet case, have the radiator at the top. Hot air drives less pressure. Also, radiator interface works better when there is more temperature & air flux @ low pressure.



Although more work as in actual fitting (possibly) that would like be the easiest option, as a front fitting would also mean relocating the two front 200mm fans



Fry178 said:


> Until now i never had any problems running rads with (airflow) "case" fans, and that includes 125w amd/intel cpus,
> that are definitely hotter than my ryzen.
> only after arctic introduced the P series did i read up a bit more.
> then again, when you have air, that is compressible (unlike water), i still question how much difference there is (outside max rpm).
> ...



They also do a  B-12-4 which has
Pressure: 2.74 mmH2O
Air flow rate:  150.3 m3/hr 





looking at that data the Artic would be a Lot quieter, 0.45 compared to 2.54
Air Flow: 67.56 CFM  / 114.79 m3/h (@ 2.100 RPM)
Static Pressure: 2.75 mm H2O (@ 2.100 RPM)
Noise Level: 0.45 Sone (@ 2.100 RPM)


Also considering the Phobya radiator gasket 5mm for 120mm fans to help seal any potential gaps, they are cheap enough. They have two versions though, 5mm and 10mm - which?

Or even their  Phobya Shroud & decoupling 120mm (7mm thickness) this is rubber, whereas the previous two are foam?


----------



## Fry178 (Jan 12, 2020)

and wouldnt help with case/gpu temps,
as your still blowing the hot air inside the case, instead of exhausting it (top mount).
and having those 2 big fans on front will help with airflow (rad fans need to "pull" less to get the air in).

(part why im thinking about getting a case with bottom&side mount for rad/fans, so i have intake fans on front&bottom,
cpu rad mounted to the side (next to front panel), and the top with exhaust fans, but no rad).
(JUST FYI. no you dont need to swap cases 





that hot air "rises" is correct, but anytime you have forced cooling (as in fans running and producing airflow),
its more or less irrelevant.


----------



## lorry (Jan 12, 2020)

Zach_01 said:


> I have 2 custom curves.
> 1 up to 1200 for 24/7 every day usage and gaming.
> 1 up to ~1600 for testing.
> And this is for now (winter with 21~23C ambient)



What do you save them in and How, in SIV ?

(Gonna go with the artic I think in the end, 2.75 is pretty good and This site [aquatuning] only do the ML120 pro at £22)



Fry178 said:


> and wouldnt help with case/gpu temps,
> as your still blowing the hot air inside the case, instead of exhausting it (top mount).
> and having those 2 big fans on front will help with airflow (rad fans need to "pull" less to get the air in).
> 
> ...




I do now realise that although this is a very nice looking case, it isn't really optimised for watercooling.

Is that a liamlee case? Did look at those but at the time there wasn't many around, but that of course has now changed

Think I'm going to go with the artic fans, they are cheap enough for their stats.


----------



## Fry178 (Jan 12, 2020)

your board allows for manual profile?
set it to that and turn up the rpm to max, reduce until you can stand the fan noise.
set a curve and use the rpm number you found as max for up to 50/60 C, the have it run at max (possible)
speed the fan can do when the cpu reaches 70 C.
this way you can have it run quiet on low load, but still provide cooling when gaming etc,
e.g. when other noise might be louder (speakers etc).


----------



## lorry (Jan 12, 2020)

Fry178 said:


> your board allows for manual profile?
> set it to that and turn up the rpm to max, reduce until you can stand the fan noise.
> set a curve and use the rpm number you found as max for up to 50/60 C, the have it run at max (possible)
> speed the fan can do when the cpu reaches 70 C.
> ...



Yeah it does in their SIV app. 
Ill do that when i get the AIO (next week) 

I considered a liam lee case but it now looks as if he now has a Lot more cases


----------



## Fry178 (Jan 12, 2020)

no, its a thermaltake, and one of the best midi cases for cooling.
one major reason outside fan/rad mount layout, is that Tt's are fully modular and allow for basically everything to be taken apart (no rivets),
on some cases even the front panel can be moved (side/top).
scroll to bottom part of page...


https://www.thermaltake.com/view-31-tempered-glass-rgb-edition.html

if my tax refund is bigger than expected  :
https://www.thermaltake.com/level-20-xt.html
or this








						Core X5 Tempered Glass Edition
					

E-ATX cube chassis with two tempered glass windows and two preinstalled 120mm fans




					www.thermaltake.com
				



i mean, its even stack-able to have more space


----------



## Zach_01 (Jan 12, 2020)

lorry said:


> What do you save them in and How, in SIV ?
> (Gonna go with the artic I think in the end, 2.75 is pretty good and This site [aquatuning] only do the ML120 pro at £22)


Unfortunately in SIV you cant have multi curves for each fan.
I have corsair AIO and has its own software. The fans are connected (4-pinned) to the block/pump and the block to PSU directly with SATA connector. Then there is a cable from the block to usb2.0 board header. Then you can make as many curves you want from software and tie the curve to whatever temp you like (like siv). I have it on water temp (H110i temp).







lorry said:


> I do now realise that although this is a very nice looking case, it isn't really optimised for watercooling.
> Is that a liamlee case? Did look at those but at the time there wasn't many around, but that of course has now changed


I was looking for cases here in local market the other day, just for "fun", and really I liked a lot the Thermaltake Core X71 Tempered Glass Edition. You can fit a load of fans and rads in there... up to 15 fan 120mm or 13 fans 140mm...!!! Its not great looking but I'm not for the look anyway. Here now costs about 155€ but 6 months ago was like 130€.

Look at that thing... check the page all the way down









						Core X71 Tempered Glass Edition
					

Full-tower case with a tempered glass window, two preinstalled Riing fans and a riser GPU support bracket. The PCI-e riser cable is optional.




					www.thermaltake.com
				




*Core X71 Fan Supporting List*


Fan Compatibility List​​120mm​140mm​200mm​Front​3​
3​
2​Top​3​
3​
2​Rear​1​
1​​Bottom​2​
2​​Side (both)​3x2​
2​​


----------



## Fry178 (Jan 12, 2020)

yeah, monster case.



i  dont really use multiple profiles anymore (after i sold my corsair 240), as my board supports manual fan curve in bios.
i most cases, i say, cpu temp should determine fan rpm.
this will also prevent higher fan speed, caused by gpu heat going thru cpu rad (unless LC as well).

and even with only one, a proper curve can allow for temporary (cpu temperature) spikes, without constantly revving fans up/down.
lower load will produce lower amount of heat, and you can scale rpm fan matching temps (and indirectly load).
you want the fans to top out on rpm, just before cpu will reach its max safe temp (for continuous use).

e.g. my rad and intake fans are set, so rpm is just below audible level up  35*C (which i dont pass surfing/streaming etc),
then i go up to audible level till about 45*C, and full speed when cpu passes 50*C (only happens under full load/gaming).
i never hear it, as any high load producing high temps will be gaming (and speakers/HP in use), or encoding etc,
which i usually do in the "background" while watching stuff or listening to music.
thats my rig/use, your mileage may vary..


----------



## lorry (Jan 12, 2020)

Zach_01 said:


> Unfortunately in SIV you cant have multi curves for each fan.



not each fan but you can have multiple overall profiles, which if you only change the radiator fans and keep the rest the same, that would effectively be the same thing surely?



Zach_01 said:


> . Here now costs about 155€ but 6 months ago was like 130€.



still is £130 here with the  31 being only £101 over here



Zach_01 said:


> I liked a lot the Thermaltake Core X71 Tempered Glass Edition



That's not a case!
It's a home!

yes i know that I'm going to have to completely redo all the fan curves that I have set in SIV, that can be done after it is installed

so the rubber gaskets a better idea than the foam ones?

@Zach_01  yeah I have the Corsair software for my Corsair Dark Core RGB SE

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

Just saw De8aur video from CES - EK are doing a new AIO D-120/240/360 for 85/105/125 euros plus tax


----------



## Fry178 (Jan 12, 2020)

no need for any gasket stuff, as your fans will be louder than any vibration you will "hear"
because of the fans mounted to the rad/case.
even on the last 4 rigs i did with throttled fans (at low load).

EK is a good brand, but they cant do magic. anytime they will be noticeable better
(like the predator series), your looking at about twice the cost.
and enough ppl out there with stuff not matching price (as in leaks, because of seals/broken pump and block tops),
so far from a brand where i would buy stuff "unseen".


----------



## lorry (Jan 12, 2020)

Fry178 said:


> no need for any gasket stuff, as your fans will be louder than any vibration you will "hear"
> because of the fans mounted to the rad/case.
> even on the last 4 rigs i did with throttled fans (at low load).
> 
> ...




Not even the Phobya radiator gasket 5mm for 120mm fans (foam, compresses to less than 2mm) ?
They say, no idea how true it is but seems to makes sense, that is helps seal the fan with the radiator, eliminating leaks ?

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

Erm a low of 21c WTF?
Don't ask me how as I just happened to look at it just now


----------



## Fry178 (Jan 12, 2020)

A proper made rad (straight frame) and a proper fan frame wont have any noticeable gap.
I had used it in the past so when fans run on low rpm the motor vibration would transfer thru the rad to the case and resonate (thin case and/or alu instead of steel), less for sealing. 
But after getting decent and more sturdy cases in the past 5y, that wasnt needed anymore. 
Anf if, a silicone based would be best (seals AND reduces transfer to rad).

I guarantee you have multiple times more impact on flow/temps by removing any filter/mesh/case grill that would be before/between/after rad/fan combo.
Main reason i brought a dremel clone


----------



## lorry (Jan 12, 2020)

Fry178 said:


> A proper made rad (straight frame) and a proper fan frame wont have any noticeable gap.
> I had used it in the past so when fans run on low rpm the motor vibration would transfer thru the rad to the case and resonate (thin case and/or alu instead of steel), less for sealing.
> But after getting decent and more sturdy cases in the past 5y, that wasnt needed anymore.
> Anf if, a silicone based would be best (seals AND reduces transfer to rad).
> ...



One I'm seeing now Is silicone (quite cheap as well, hence thinking of getting 3)

The Only thing After the rad will be the same mesh as is on the front (see previous pics for that, or ill repost when back on pc (doing a system clone ATM so i can have a portable windows that is bootable from the USB drive!) 

You say you removed any mesh/case/filter yet then advised Not to cut out the middle of that fan/rad shelf ???

this is the size of the mesh


----------



## Fry178 (Jan 12, 2020)

Sorry, no.
No need for gaskets, i would rather have one between rad/fan and where its mounted to the case, this way preventing pump vibrations to be transfered.

On any exhausting fan opening i always remove the magnetic mesh,
as well as any mesh/grill that belongs to the case.
If it extends till the frame/fan mount area, just leave 1cm or so all around.

E.g. For a 120 mm fan opening, cut away 100 to 110 mm of the "center" area. 
Unless of course you have a grill with holes bigger than a finger


----------



## Mastakilla (Jan 13, 2020)

As this seems like a very well informed and up-to-date thread, I was wondering if someone could perhaps summarize the best way to get the most out of a Ryzen 3000 + x570 build *without *an all core OC (as I understand an all-core OC only brings advantages in case your most important workload is a constant all-core-load, like rendering, at the cost of a lot more power usage). 

I know tweaking the memory is probably one of the more important things to do (already started on that), but besides that things become less clear to me.

I've read many things, like PBO often decreasing performance, which then might be (or get) solved by AGESA 1.0.0.4 or higher (but didn't find confirmation on that).
I've also read that sometimes lowering the voltage a little can help a bit (I suppose this is what you do to "tweak" EDC?)

But is there an up-to-date understandable guide for this perhaps? Or does it require reading all 29 pages here? 

Fyi, I have:
MSI MEG Unify X570
AMD X3900
2x 16GB PC3600 (Hynix D-die)


----------



## lorry (Jan 13, 2020)

Mastakilla said:


> As this seems like a very well informed and up-to-date thread, I was wondering if someone could perhaps summarize the best way to get the most out of a Ryzen 3000 + x570 build *without *an all core OC (as I understand an all-core OC only brings advantages in case your most important workload is a constant all-core-load, like rendering, at the cost of a lot more power usage).
> 
> I know tweaking the memory is probably one of the more important things to do (already started on that), but besides that things become less clear to me.
> 
> ...



Just so you know, in your profile there is a section where you can complete your own rigs specs, saves you typing it all out each time.

And @Zach_01 @tabascosauz and @Fry178 have all been helping me in here a fair bit


----------



## tabascosauz (Jan 13, 2020)

Mastakilla said:


> As this seems like a very well informed and up-to-date thread, I was wondering if someone could perhaps summarize the best way to get the most out of a Ryzen 3000 + x570 build *without *an all core OC (as I understand an all-core OC only brings advantages in case your most important workload is a constant all-core-load, like rendering, at the cost of a lot more power usage).
> 
> I know tweaking the memory is probably one of the more important things to do (already started on that), but besides that things become less clear to me.
> 
> ...



Welcome to TPU

Nice to see another user with Hynix DJR. CAS 16 3600 is a good place to be with DJR if you want the performance without sinking endless hours into overclocking beyond 3600. Should be doable with your average D-die kit at the default XMP voltage, 1.35v. On the tRCD and tRP, DJR and CJR will be looser than B-die, and that's fine. Just go off what Ryzen DRAM calculator tells you, fill in your hardware details ("Ryzen 2 gen", CJR, V1, whatever rank your DIMMs are, 3600, BCLK 100, 2 DIMMs, X570) and parrot into your BIOS what the calculator tells you. See where that gets you, consistency on DJR seems pretty decent so far.

You're just going to have to figure out what PBO settings work for you. Everyone's case is different. As long as you have 1.0.0.4, latest chipset drivers, and whatever you prefer between 1usmus and Ryzen Balanced, the PBO menu is for you to experiment with. 

Undervolting too, everyone's chip is different. Your board may be overvolting your chip to the moon, or your chip might already be in its happy place. You just have to see for yourself. Take it slow, in the smallest voltage adjustment increments possible, and use Dynamic Voltage or Voltage Offset (whatever it's called) adjustments instead of fixed "dumb" voltage. EDC adjustment and undervolting should be mutually exclusive, though. But YMMV

Running fixed freq ("all-core overclock") is useful for testing in the lower speeds, 3.6-4.2GHz, to find out the minimum voltage limits of your chip. Any higher than 4.2GHz, with voltage at or around 1.3V or higher, will be a one-way trip to the silicon afterlife. But, evidently, there are plenty of owners on Reddit and elsewhere who want that, so YMMV.


----------



## Fry178 (Jan 13, 2020)

@Mastakilla 
use the latets bios/drivers and windows build (1909) and amd ryzen plan,
and auto settings for everything except ram. use the xmp/amp profile they come with first (make sure to manually set dram V to 1.35),
and verify its stable with memtest.

i would run 10 for a while before messing  with stuff, just so you can make sure everything is fine,
and you dont have things making the rug unstable that arent related to lets say settings/tweaks etc.

proper cooling is an important part, so i recommend at least a 240/280 AIO,
unless you have extreme amount of airflow (case) and cpu cooler that sits close to exhaust fans
that would dump the heat right away.


----------



## Mastakilla (Jan 13, 2020)

Thanks all for the useful feedback!

That it is different for everyone, might explain that it is so hard to find a decent / up-to-date guide on this. I was hoping that, as the BIOS became more stable, things might have become more consistent, but I guess not (yet)... I guess I'll need to play around a bit...

RAM is already tweaked a bit:
Got it stable @ 1800 (16-19-19-32) and nearly stable @ 1867 (16-19-19-32), both at 1.35v. I'll probably go with the first or even a bit less tight to ensure stability.

I'm not using it yet as my daily system, as I don't have the final GPU yet (passive AMD Radeon HD4350 atm ). Also, when replacing the GPU with something decent, I'll probably add a lot more heat to the case and I'm not sure how Hynix D-die responds to that...

I also don't have an AIO (Noctua NH-D15) or a very airflow minded case either (Fractal Design Define R6), but the latest Prime95 stays reasonable @ 86°C max. I've read that AIOs don't do much better and I also don't really trust them to be much more silent with the pump noise (I used to have a custom loop 10+ years ago on my A64 3200+ using a LL D5 pump @ setting 2 and even then the pump noise annoyed me  )


----------



## Zach_01 (Jan 13, 2020)

Mastakilla said:


> As this seems like a very well informed and up-to-date thread, I was wondering if someone could perhaps summarize the best way to get the most out of a Ryzen 3000 + x570 build *without *an all core OC (as I understand an all-core OC only brings advantages in case your most important workload is a constant all-core-load, like rendering, at the cost of a lot more power usage).
> 
> I know tweaking the memory is probably one of the more important things to do (already started on that), but besides that things become less clear to me.
> 
> ...


I'm no ZEN expert but just a user that has exprerimented with my humble R5 3600. I thought about making a thread with not exactly a guide but more like all info about what I learned after almost 5 months with the system but its not easy to gather and write down every info about it.

You have one of the greatest ZEN2 CPUs. I'm also, like most users here, against static OC of ZEN2 simply because AMD made these chips advanced enough to give the most performance out of the box and for all load situations and scenarios. A lot of users have not understand yet the key operating and performance aspects or distinctiveness of ZEN2 and trying to compare it with previous gens or Intel rivals. Big mistake...
Given all that, the headroom for improving what you get out of the box is in most cases marginal. But still there is headroom left, more like a fine-tune if you want to call it that.
One of the major key fact and aspect of these CPUs to maximize performance, is the operating temperature. While the max allowed (within specs) operating temp is <95C (starts to throttle rated clocks) users can keep gaining some more boost by cooling them down to like 50C for max load. This temp of course is not achievable with conventional means, so every user must find satisfaction to a midle point. Where the cost of cooling is justified by what they gain. Not every user's mindset has the same sweetspot for this. Let alone its not known to every user... and if we throw into the equation the (acceptable to any user) noise levels, things get more complicated.
At ~94C the CPU will have X all core boost. At 50C all core load the CPU will increase clock and voltage about maybe 200MHz. Lets say 4.4MHz/1C reduction. If your CPU operates at 85C and you manage to cool it to 70C you will gain like 65MHz all core boost without doing anything else. There are more tweaks to be done to increase clock further, like undervoltage(not always successful) and/or EDC reduction, but temp is key to this (for EDC) also.

Before start thinking about increasing cooling there are other things to be done.
1. Letest AGESA (BIOS/UEFI version) for your board.
2. Win10 v1909
3. Latest chipset drivers (November) directly from AMD (not MSI).
...optional:
4. 1usmus's custom PowerPlan v1.1 (for win v1909) for Ryzen (ZEN2) CPUs.

First read this:








						1usmus Custom Power Plan for Ryzen 3000 Zen 2 Processors
					

In this article by our resident Ryzen tweaking guru "1usmus" we present a customized power plan for AMD's new Ryzen 3000 processors. The new power plan ensures workloads run on the best cores, which not only increases boost clocks, but also stops threads from bouncing between cores too often.




					www.techpowerup.com
				




Then this:








						1usmus Power Plan for AMD Ryzen - New Developments
					

Two weeks ago, we released the 1usmus Power Plan for AMD Ryzen processors, which received a ton of attention. Both Microsoft and AMD got involved, releasing fixes on their own. Today, we're taking a look at the improvements these patches bring, and also got a new version of the power plan for...




					www.techpowerup.com
				




And you may want to keep reading this thread too...








						3900X poo ST Cinebench results
					

I have just started getting around to checking my performance with my 3900X.  My results are as follow:  ST: 497 MT: 7340  PBO settings are the default that came with my Taichi X570.  I believe it is set to "Enabled" and all the values are 0.  It so far has given me my best multi-thread value...




					www.techpowerup.com


----------



## Fry178 (Jan 14, 2020)

@Mastakilla 
not looking at fan noise, aio's from corsair/arctic/alpha cool have no audible pump noise,
and the arctic/alpha cool have pwm on pump and fans, so even less noise when system isnt under load.

my rig is inaudible (fans), and i can only hear the pump (arctic/alpha) if im right at the air intake of the case.
they also use their own pump design (big difference to others using asetek and their high fail rate),
exception would be corsair, since they offer 5y warranty including parts of your rig that get damaged if it fails.


----------



## Zach_01 (Jan 14, 2020)

I can confirm that my Corsair's H110i 280mm pump (dont know the type) that has 2 selectable speeds is really quiet. Low speed 2350rpm is completely inaudible and high speed 2830rpm does some noise but I hear it only late at night with all other fans on low 700~800rpm. And I dont have a case...!! A case cuts some noise...
So AIOs are not as noisy as some users think. And the larger (280~360mm) the better and quieter. Of course if you are willing to pay the premium for it against a tower cooler. Personally I will never go back to tower air coolers unless something far innovating comes out.


----------



## Fry178 (Jan 14, 2020)

I would, if it was possible to have separate chambers around cpu/gpu that would allow for air to go straight in and out.
But since that is much more complex and possibly involves the same cost, ill stick with water.
Outside the fact it still transfers heat better than air.


----------



## lorry (Jan 14, 2020)

That's the AIO ordered etc. I decided that to begin with I will just use the Kryonaught thermal paste, otherwise I will not have a baseline for comparison if I just went straight to liquid metal.
It will be better for the first time install as I won't know in advance where any potential pitfalls are when using liquid metal (as in awkward positioning of the rad, pump etc).



Zach_01 said:


> I can confirm that my Corsair's H110i 280mm pump (dont know the type) that has 2 selectable speeds is really quiet. Low speed 2350rpm is completely inaudible and high speed 2830rpm does some noise but I hear it only late at night with all other fans on low 700~800rpm. And I dont have a case...!! A case cuts some noise...
> So AIOs are not as noisy as some users think. And the larger (280~360mm) the better and quieter. Of course if you are willing to pay the premium for it against a tower cooler. Personally I will never go back to tower air coolers unless something far innovating comes out.



i did see a video from Linus i think it was where he showed a new non-water cooler. I can't remember now many details now but it was a new material/design/concept that is being developed. I think that they already have a version out this year, pre-order ATM

$120 - IceGiant ProSiphon Elite









						IceGiant Cooling
					

IceGiantCooling



					www.icegiantcooling.com
				















Fry178 said:


> I would, if it was possible to have separate chambers around cpu/gpu that would allow for air to go straight in and out.
> But since that is much more complex and possibly involves the same cost, ill stick with water.
> Outside the fact it still transfers heat better than air.



Well for a start you would need a GPU extension ribbon cable at the very least, and they are generally £30 - £50


----------



## Fry178 (Jan 14, 2020)

Not so much as it is to enclose the gpu, without being in the way of the MB, even if its just for install.


----------



## lorry (Jan 14, 2020)

Fry178 said:


> Not so much as it is to enclose the gpu, without being in the way of the MB, even if its just for install.



I was thinking something along the lines of those cases that have the PSU in a separate section, something akin to that.


----------



## Fry178 (Jan 14, 2020)

yeah, but to not feed hot air into the psu, it would need separate area,
and you would end up with 3 or even 4 sections, but the required openings to install and use hw/wiring etc., would pretty much counter the gains.

i think to really make use of that and a case that can do that, we would need to have the MB split into smaller boards
that could be indifferent locations, which would require even more wiring (between the different boards).

and any custom "panel" (to use as a divider) i came up with, faces similar issues.
not even talking about the fact there is no case that has a (big) exhaust opening at/below pcie slots to get the gpu heat out.


----------



## Mastakilla (Jan 14, 2020)

Thanks again for all advice! What temps are getting with your AIO in silent mode when running Prime95?
When I run Prime95 v29.8 build6 in blend mode, it stays around 60-74°C 95% of the time, but for some tests (I guess AVX) it reached up to 86°C.


----------



## lorry (Jan 14, 2020)

Fry178 said:


> yeah, but to not feed hot air into the psu, it would need seperate area,
> and you and up with 3 or even 4 sections, but the required openings to install/use hw/wiring etc
> would pretty much counter the gains.
> i think to really make use of that and a case that can do that, we would need to have the MB split into smaller boards
> ...



it's pretty much a non starter unless you have some decent equipment and can mod/build a case from scratch I'd say


----------



## mtcn77 (Jan 14, 2020)

Zach_01 said:


> You have one of the greatest ZEN2 CPUs. I'm also, like most users here, against static OC of ZEN2 simply because AMD made these chips advanced enough to give the most performance out of the box and for all load situations and scenarios. _A lot of users have not understand yet the key operating and performance aspects or distinctiveness of ZEN2 and trying to compare it with previous gens or Intel rivals. _*Big mistake...*
> Given all that, the headroom for improving what you get out of the box is in most cases marginal. But still there is headroom left, more like a fine-tune if you want to call it that.
> One of the major key fact and aspect of these CPUs to maximize performance, is the operating temperature. *While the max allowed (within specs) operating temp is <95C* (starts to throttle rated clocks) users can keep gaining some more boost by cooling them down to like 50C for max load. This temp of course is not achievable with conventional means, so every user must find satisfaction to a midle point. Where the cost of cooling is justified by what they gain. Not every user's mindset has the same sweetspot for this. Let alone its not known to every user... and if we throw into the equation the (acceptable to any user) noise levels, things get more complicated.
> At ~94C the CPU will have X all core boost. At 50C all core load the CPU will increase clock and voltage about maybe 200MHz. Lets say 4.4MHz/1C reduction. If your CPU operates at 85C and you manage to cool it to 70C you will gain like 65MHz all core boost without doing anything else. There are more tweaks to be done to increase clock further, like undervoltage(not always successful) and/or EDC reduction, but temp is key to this (for EDC) also.





tabascosauz said:


> Undervolting too, everyone's chip is different. *Your board may be overvolting your chip to the moon*, or your chip might already be in its happy place. You just have to see for yourself. Take it slow, in the smallest voltage adjustment increments possible, and use Dynamic Voltage or Voltage Offset (whatever it's called) adjustments instead of fixed "dumb" voltage. EDC adjustment and undervolting should be mutually exclusive, though. But YMMV





Mastakilla said:


> I've read many things, like PBO often decreasing performance, which then might be (or get) solved by AGESA 1.0.0.4 or higher (but didn't find confirmation on that).
> I've also read that sometimes lowering the voltage a little can help a bit (I suppose this is what you do to "tweak" EDC?)


I am certain to savour this thread. Much trending connotations here. As of right now, it is my opinion that we are waiting for AMD to step in to *standardize* the voltage supply of motherboard makers to a higher extent - something to the tune of full FIVR found on 4000's Intel Haswell chips. Right now, the cpu is interacting with the voltage supply, however we aren't certain it is the bog standard AMD profile to be sure it is the optimal gradient. It could be oversupplying at some and natively delivering in some other range. What we need is to forget scalar, edc, ppt, offset and llc and just enjoy the motherboard cpu interface doing everything right at stock from the get go, plug & play. I know it can be done which is why I am ready for it.
Temperaturewise, GamersNexus states that AMD documents specify the temperature for PBO cutoff point is 61.8°C, so if you really need that 142w ppt - the chiller is required.


----------



## Fry178 (Jan 14, 2020)

Not really possible, unless you're manufacturing identical cpus.
The variations and tiny differences in Silicon are the reason why i had my first 3600 running with 1.3-1.44 (normal/auto in bios), when the one im running now doesnt go past 1.25 under load.

i dont really see this making sense for amd right now, investing even more money to do something like intel, and probably having higher price on product..


----------



## mtcn77 (Jan 14, 2020)

Fry178 said:


> Not really possible, unless you're manufacturing identical cpus.
> The variations and tiny differences in Silicon are the reason why i had my first 3600 running with 1.3-1.44 (normal/auto in bios), when the one im running now doesnt go past 1.25 under load.
> 
> i dont really see this making sense for amd right now, investing even more money to do something like intel, and probably having higher price on product..


I am not opting for the hardware path, that ship has sailed quite a long time ago. The microcode trains the ram tertiaries quite the same way, it would just specify on auto which path has the lowest SD from mean. Quite a simple algorithm.
The underlying reason is, PBO is limited for further development unless we open up stock settings too.

It is ever so simpler if the vrm is analog. The cpu already knows what is supplied to its demands. The microcode has just to keep a backlog how many corrections have filtered through upon a set period, or which setting flips the vrm voltage supply the most amount of times(smallest SD outline).


----------



## Zach_01 (Jan 14, 2020)

Mastakilla said:


> Thanks again for all advice! What temps are getting with your AIO in silent mode when running Prime95?
> When I run Prime95 v29.8 build6 in blend mode, it stays around 60-74°C 95% of the time, but for some tests (I guess AVX) it reached up to 86°C.


If you are talking to me, then around 58C for small (does not reach any limit) and 62C for smallest FFTs (reach EDC limit) but I have reduced EDC limit and PBO scalar X2. This gives it best boosting on benchmarks scores and pretty much every non single threaded scenario. From 2~3 threads up to full load.

When CB-R20, it reaches 60~61C on the 80sec it runs for it to complete.

*Idon't have case and the ambient is around 22C...*



mtcn77 said:


> I am certain to savour this thread. Much trending connotations here. As of right now, it is my opinion that we are waiting for AMD to step in to *standardize* the voltage supply of motherboard makers to a higher extent - something to the tune of full FIVR found on 4000's Intel Haswell chips. Right now, the cpu is interacting with the voltage supply, however we aren't certain it is the bog standard AMD profile to be sure it is the optimal gradient. It could be oversupplying at some and natively delivering in some other range. What we need is to forget scalar, edc, ppt, offset and llc and just enjoy the motherboard cpu interface doing everything right at stock from the get go, plug & play. I know it can be done which is why I am ready for it.
> Temperaturewise, GamersNexus states that AMD documents *specify the temperature for PBO cutoff point is 61.8°C **, so if you really need that 142w ppt - the chiller is required.


Well we like to play around with the CPUs... Not really for something ground breaking... Its physically impossible for these (ZEN2) CPUs. More like tweaking it a little and maybe fine tune it if possible. I personally enjoy that procedure... others too I think.
But not something like a static OC. Couldn't care less for that and I'm against it.

**FYI.. going from 62C to 58C with all core R20 runs (maximizing cooling) I saw clock/voltage increase and a proportional increase in scores, while EDC limit reduced (capped) and Scalar X2. PPT is up exceed stock limit of 88W (for my 3600). Even with normal cooling (not max) there are gains, but not without EDC reduction.
@lorry doing the same, also saw the same kind of increases capping EDC and hitting that 142W PPT limit. And he is not even below 62C...
Of course, for full utilization of PBO unconventional cooling method is required as I already state, but we are trying to do the best with what we have, and we enjoy it...*


----------



## Fry178 (Jan 15, 2020)

@lorry 
so just to show the pump is pretty decent on the eisbaer:
i was running it in bios with silent/normal/full profile , resulting in about 12xx/16xx/22xx rpm at idle/low load.

after making sure it starts with rpm below it, im now using a manual profile with 1000-1100 rpm at idle,
scaling up to 2600 rpm if cpu goes past 55*C.
even with the reduced rpm, i still get the same 32*C on idle, and my room is about 1/2 degree warmer right now.
 so you should be good even with the 3900, and with the gpu added you night need to go with a steeper curve,
but even under full load the pump is still pretty much silent compared to your fan noise.


----------



## lorry (Jan 15, 2020)

Fry178 said:


> @lorry
> so just to show the pump is pretty decent on the eisbaer:
> i was running it in bios with silent/normal/full profile , resulting in about 12xx/16xx/22xx rpm at idle/low load.
> 
> ...



What is silent/normal/full profile?  is that some setting *Just* for your MB?

You've lost me with manual curve etc?


----------



## tabascosauz (Jan 15, 2020)

lorry said:


> What is silent/normal/full profile?  is that some setting *Just* for your MB?
> 
> You've lost me with manual curve etc?



In the BIOS fan control there's a drop down menu for each header. You can pick from silent (lower speed and delays the ramp up), normal, full speed (exactly what it sounds like), and manual (allows you to adjust the points on the curve to your liking to make a curve of your liking).

Manual is worth tinkering with, if you've never tried it.


----------



## lorry (Jan 15, 2020)

tabascosauz said:


> In the BIOS fan control there's a drop down menu for each header. You can pick from silent (lower speed and delays the ramp up), normal, full speed (exactly what it sounds like), and manual (allows you to adjust the points on the curve to your liking to make a curve of your liking).
> 
> Manual is worth tinkering with, if you've never tried it.



Oh yeah, I'd forgotten about that
Thanks

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

Complete change of plans LoL

I have bought a used Thermaltake view 71 case. It is only 6 months old as well for half the list price  
"For sale is my Thermaltake View 71 case. I've owned it since June and is still in excellent condition (the plastic film is still on the right side panel). It comes with everything that is included from new including two blue LED fans and the vertical GPU adaptor. Reason for sale is because I'm rebuilding my PC and going mini-ITX. "

Checked Alphacools' site and whilst they do a 420 (459 x 144 x 30) for not much more (£10) Thermaltake only specify 420 as the length and I can't seem to find anything more specific than that, which is a bit frustrating but as a 360 can be fitted on the side if I wanted, not too much of a problem in reality.




Will of course mean a complete swap over but I feel that it will be worth it in the end.
The only potential problem to solve looks to be the vertical GPU mount. Theirs does the usual of placing it close to the side window which isn't ideal at all. The Coolermaster vertical mount that I have is placed instead of the 7 PCI slots and then places the GPU a good 8 - 10 cm from the glass and the temps are fine in the H500M so sure they will be in the view 71. The only thing is that I _*may*_ need to cut away the  pieces of metal that are between the PCI slats. Not hard but another layer of something needed to be done. The other reason of course is that the riser ribbon is made for the Coolermaster mount and has the fixings for that. Sure it'll be an easy enough 'fix' to do.

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


I also found a Very interesting maker of various PC shrouds and covers. They make them out of plexi-glass and are in Portugal






						Coldzero International | eBay Stores
					

We specialize in the creation of computer modding parts. We'll be adding more products, so be sure to check back again soon for more awesome parts.



					www.ebay.co.uk
				




Oh this is their long shroud for the view 71


----------



## Fry178 (Jan 15, 2020)

unless for the looks, no,need.
with the aio taking the cpu heat outside the case (lowering case temps significantly),
the psu wont get hot anymore, but without a shroud be able to remove some heat around the area,
and help with airflow.
One reason i run my psu with the fan facing up, to draw more air thru the case (instead of the psu vent at bottom of the case).


----------



## lorry (Jan 15, 2020)

Fry178 said:


> unless for the looks, no,need.
> with the aio taking the cpu heat outside the case (lowering case temps significantly),
> the psu wont get hot anymore, but without a shroud be able to remove some heat around the area,
> and help with airflow.



The also do fan covers, GPU backplates, SSD covers, GPU anti sag, etc, so not Just for the aesthetics

oh and @Fry178 , not one word about the case then? tsk tsk


----------



## Fry178 (Jan 15, 2020)

nope. only will say something when its crap, haha.   
nice case, but i did too many rigs/cases that im not interested in dealing with a small/compact case anymore,
or i would have gotten this:






						Amazon.com: Thermaltake Core X1 Mini ITX Stackable Tt LCS Certified Cube Computer Chassis CA-1D6-00S1WN-00: Computers & Accessories
					

Buy Thermaltake Core X1 Mini ITX Stackable Tt LCS Certified Cube Computer Chassis CA-1D6-00S1WN-00: Everything Else - Amazon.com ✓ FREE DELIVERY possible on eligible purchases



					smile.amazon.com


----------



## lorry (Jan 15, 2020)

Fry178 said:


> nope. only will say something when its crap, haha.
> nice case, but i did too many rigs/cases that im not interested in dealing with a small/compact case anymore,
> or i would have gotten this:
> 
> ...



small? compact?


Width 27.4 cm
Depth 57.7 cm
Height 59.2 cm


----------



## Zach_01 (Jan 15, 2020)

Yeah... it’s looks misleading is...

What‘s GPU anti sag?


----------



## lorry (Jan 15, 2020)

Zach_01 said:


> Yeah... it’s looks misleading is...
> 
> What‘s GPU anti sag?



oh one of those anti sag brackets that seem to be the rage now. some do stands, some like coolermaster have a bracket on the back wall, others do it like this


----------



## Zach_01 (Jan 15, 2020)

Oh right... for weight support. Did not have idea this existed


----------



## lorry (Jan 15, 2020)

Zach_01 said:


> Oh right... for weight support. Did not have idea this existed



Many many different idea now, from brackets that bolt on at the front of the GPU, at the back, fixed to a rail on the back wall, free standing, with RGB as well, lol


----------



## Fry178 (Jan 16, 2020)

@lorry 
Lol, i meant space inside.
Ive always liked the idea of a very compact  unit,
but still not at the point where i plan to keep things for longer.
Sometimes i dont change stuff for a year or two, then i might swap multiple parts within weeks/month..
And now with 3 nvme slots, i need at least atx size case


----------



## lorry (Jan 16, 2020)

Well I have narrowed the fans down to 3 between Noctua and Artic and I'm leaning towards the Noctua because A) it's a Noctua and B) it has the slighter higher mm H20 at a lower top fan speed


Arctic BioniX P120 - Pressure-optimised 120 mm Gaming Fan with PWM PST - White

£9.98 2.75 mmH2O  0.45 Sone






						Arctic BioniX P120 - Pressure-optimised 120 mm Gaming Fan with PWM PST - White: Amazon.co.uk: Computers & Accessories
					

Buy



					www.amazon.co.uk
				




Noctua NF-P12 redux-1700 PWM, 4-Pin, High Performance Cooling Fan with 1700RPM (120mm, Grey)

£12.90 2.83 mm H2O  25 dBa






						Noctua NF-P12 redux-1700 PWM, High Performance Cooling Fan, 4-Pin, 1700 RPM (120mm, Grey) : Amazon.co.uk: Computers & Accessories
					

Buy



					www.amazon.co.uk
				




Arctic BioniX P120 PWM PST Case / CPU Fan Black/Grey 120mm, Black/Grey, Arctic Bionix P120 PWM PST, 5 Blade, Static Pressure Fan, 2100rpm,

£9.98 2.75 mm H2) 0.45 Sone









						Arctic BioniX P120 PWM PST Case / CPU Fan Black/Grey
					

Buy from Scan - 120mm, Black/Grey, Arctic Bionix P120 PWM PST, 5 Blade, Static Pressure Fan, 2100rpm, 67.56CFM, Fluid Dynamic Bearing




					www.scan.co.uk
				





Sone   dBa

0.3   22.5 ~ 24.5
0.4   23.5 ~ 25
0.5   25 ~ 26

they are all pretty much the same noise wise, in fact the Noctua is slightly quieter

Oh and going to have to wait a week or two for the AIO, as that Aquatuning tried to scam me by taking money for non existent stock levels.
I have the refund sorted, just waiting for PayPal to get it back to me, but sadly the AIO money is needed elsewhere for a couple of weeks


----------



## Fry178 (Jan 16, 2020)

I wouldn't spend money on the fans right away, use the stock fans and check performance. 
I changed pump control from gpu to the board, and had to tweak pump curve for that (as boards dont read the gpu temp), so that when i dont have higher load on the cpu that the gpu still has proper cooling,
and saw no matter what fan speed i run the eisbar, temps drop the same way (load to no load), as bottleneck isnt rad/airflow.
Since you might run the fans at full speed, i would see if its enough to cool the chip..


----------



## lorry (Jan 16, 2020)

Fry178 said:


> I wouldn't spend money on the fans right away, use the stock fans and check performance.
> I changed pump control from gpu to the board, and had to tweak pump curve for that (as boards dont read the gpu temp), so that when i dont have higher load on the cpu that the gpu still has proper cooling,
> and saw no matter what fan speed i run the eisbar, temps drop the same way (load to no load), as bottleneck isnt rad/airflow.
> Since you might run the fans at full speed, i would see if its enough to cool the chip..



Why might I run them at full speed? Apart from seeing the lowest it can go I mean.


----------



## Fry178 (Jan 16, 2020)

Cause they are pretty quiet, so you might just need to lower rpm for below 40C so that its not making sound at low load.
I had swamped the gpu ras fan right away, but couldn't get it to run with the pwm mode, and after going back to stock fan, realized its absolute silent.


----------



## lorry (Jan 16, 2020)

Fry178 said:


> Cause they are pretty quiet, so you might just need to lower rpm for below 40C so that its not making sound at low load.



That should be a simple matter of adjusting the fan settings in SIV then


----------



## Fry178 (Jan 16, 2020)

Lets say i would try them first.
You can always swap them for different ones.
One reason i like the manual mode, where i set lowest rpm till like 40C, and then have a steep and linear increase to full rpm by the time it hits 50C.


----------



## lorry (Jan 16, 2020)

Fry178 said:


> Lets say i would try them first.
> You can always swap them for different ones.
> One reason i like the manual mode, where i set lowest rpm till like 40C, and then have a steep and linear increase to full rpm by the time it hits 50C.



Which is exactly what can be done in SIV (Gigabyte app) 
All 3 fans are PWM as well


----------



## Fry178 (Jan 16, 2020)

Bios should have same options. 
I prefer to get as close as possible to silicon when it comes to control/settings.


----------



## lorry (Jan 16, 2020)

Fry178 said:


> Bios should have same options.
> I prefer to get as close as possible to silicon when it comes to control/settings.



But that then means you Have to restart to change anything 
So far SIV is handling things fine, my lowest temp is 39c according to HWinfo


----------



## Fry178 (Jan 16, 2020)

Until u have the right setup  after that no need to run additional stuff.


----------



## lorry (Jan 16, 2020)

I'm not sure just How much link up there is between SIV & smart fan 5 in the bios, the others likely know though


----------



## Fry178 (Jan 16, 2020)

?
I can control all fan ports, independently and as long as the room is quiet, you can usually dial in the rpm without booting to win.
Just drag the the highest point to reach 100% at 50C, move the 2nd highest one to lets say 40C and lower rpm until you cant hear it anymore.
All other points can be on same level, all the way to the left (0*C), or maybe another 10% less for below 30C.
Ill get some pics later.
cpu rad fans (splitter)/pump/case fan

i say, max out by temps you usually reach when gaming (low/med load) and the lowest point so its not audible.


----------



## lorry (Jan 17, 2020)

Fry178 said:


> ?
> I can control all fan ports, independently and as long as the room is quiet, you can usually dial in the rpm without booting to win.
> Just drag the the highest point to reach 100% at 50C, move the 2nd highest one to lets say 40C and lower rpm until you cant hear it anymore.
> All other points can be on same level, all the way to the left (0*C), or maybe another 10% less for below 30C.
> ...



Yes you can do the same in SIV, not sure if you can do this in the BIOS control but in SIV you can tie each fan header into whichever temp monitoring point that you. So for instance, you could have all fans tied to the CPU temperature, or spit them up as you want.

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

This might interest all of you, don't know if you have updated or not, but the latest HWinfo 6.21-4050 now shows you the cores residency states as well


----------



## Chomiq (Jan 17, 2020)

Just make sure you adjust the interval setting for the fan curve so that it doesn't ramp up and down too often.


----------



## lorry (Jan 17, 2020)

Chomiq said:


> Just make sure you adjust the interval setting for the fan curve so that it doesn't ramp up and down too often.



Already set to it's highest setting in BIOS


----------



## Zach_01 (Jan 17, 2020)

Yes you can set in BIOS smartfan5 each fan to whatever temp you like, but I prefer SIV. It’s more convenient..
I wonder what residency means... I’ll check the author’s page...


----------



## lorry (Jan 17, 2020)

Zach_01 said:


> Yes you can set in BIOS smartfan5 each fan to whatever temp you like, but I prefer SIV. It’s more convenient..
> I wonder what residency means... I’ll check the author’s page...












						Everything You Need to Know About the CPU Power in 2022
					

Learn more about CPU power management and the c-states with examples and details from our 2022 everything you need to know guide.




					www.hardwaresecrets.com


----------



## Fry178 (Jan 17, 2020)

Yeah, can do everything in bios.
I dont like to run additional software, for what the bios can already do..
Plus, once i got setup right (fan curve),
i dont need access anymore. 
Doesn't have to be run on highest level, i run mine on 0, as with quiet fans i dont hear them ramping up/down.


----------



## lorry (Jan 21, 2020)

@Fry178  don't know if you are aware of this, but it might be something that may interest you
*Noctua NA-FC1 4-Pin PWM Fan Controller   * 







						Noctua NA-FC1, 4-Pin PWM Fan Controller (Black) - Noctua
					

Buy Noctua NA-FC1, 4-Pin PWM Fan Controller (Black) at Amazon.



					www.amazon.co.uk
				




You can either set it up as a complete manual control, or as a hybrid of manual and MB.
In the second mode, you connect it up to your MB and then your fans to it.
You can then say set it at 100% and it will allow all of the MB's speed setting to pass to the fans, but set it at say 50% and it will only allow half of the MB setting to pass to the fans, which should allow you even finer control of your fans if you wanted. Quite cheap as well £16 here, so maybe what $30 ?


----------



## Fry178 (Jan 21, 2020)

thanks, but MB is already able to go below startup/threshold of min fan rpm i need to make them run,
and as long as its not able to read the gpu, not really an improvement for me


----------



## lorry (Jan 21, 2020)

ok


----------



## Fry178 (Jan 21, 2020)

but hey, if you find one that can do that...


----------



## lorry (Jan 21, 2020)

Fry178 said:


> but hey, if you find one that can do that...



maybe have a look into what addons there are available for HWinfo ?









						Add-ons | HWiNFO
					

Extensions available to enhance HWiNFO32/64 experience in many different ways. HWiNFOMonitor, HWiNFO Sidebar Gadget, RivaTuner, Rainmeter, Samurize, LCDHost...




					www.hwinfo.com


----------



## Fry178 (Jan 21, 2020)

sorry, was more of a joke.
progs that can see gpu sensor info usually arent able to control fans,
the ones that can, dont see the gpu info, even paid ones.


----------



## lorry (Jan 21, 2020)

Fry178 said:


> sorry, was more of a joke.
> progs that can see gpu sensor info usually arent able to control fans,
> the ones that can, dont see the gpu info, even paid ones.



I can set my own curve, or use the auto one using Aorus Engine, that is tied to the GPU temp


----------



## Fry178 (Jan 21, 2020)

i dont really need "fan" but pump (rpm) control,  and running a FTW ICX version, is the real prob (+10 sensors).
e.g. fan #1 info reported in SW, is from the smaller vrm/vram fan (actual fan #2), and not the rad (actual fan #1
the problem is that no software sees the other fans, and the vrm fan is controlled thru the card, not MB port (that i could use for pump control)

never had probs controlling any air cooled cards thru afterburner...


----------



## lorry (Jan 21, 2020)

Fry178 said:


> i dont really need "fan" but pump (rpm) control,  and running a FTW ICX version, is the real prob (+10 sensors).
> e.g. fan #1 info reported in SW, is from the smaller vrm/vram fan (actual fan #2), and not the rad (actual fan #1
> the problem is that no software sees the other fans, and the vrm fan is controlled thru the card, not MB port (that i could use for pump control)
> 
> never had probs controlling any air cooled cards thru afterburner...



Has to be an easy enough solution, you Cannot be the Only person ever to have come across this surely?


----------



## Fry178 (Jan 21, 2020)

others dont care about the pump whine (case fans are louder/they dont think its noisy)
and everyone else either swapped back to air cooler or a block integrated into a loop (which doesnt use the noisy asetek pump).

so far i got it that its not overly annoying on idle/low load and gets proper rpm under load that the card doesnt get past 60C,
and really will only impact benches, as temps need to be below 54C (nv starts to throttle boost clocks) to keep the highest clock the chip can reach.


----------



## lorry (Jan 21, 2020)

Fry178 said:


> others dont care about the pump whine (case fans are louder/they dont think its noisy)
> and everyone else either swapped back to air cooler or a block integrated into a loop (which doesnt use the noisy asetek pump).
> 
> so far i got it that its not overly annoying on idle/low load and gets proper rpm under load that the card doesnt get past 60C,
> and really will only impact benches, as temps need to be below 54C (nv starts to throttle boost clocks) to keep the highest clock the chip can reach.



swap the noisy pump out?


----------



## Fry178 (Jan 21, 2020)

there are no real options. unless i swap for a block (would also require another rad),
or get something like the eiswolf, all cards with aio LC and all aftermarket gpu aio's (beside ek/alphacool)
are based on the same asetek pump, possible loss of warranty as well.
and the added cost would drop me down to a 2070(S), not something i want either.


----------



## lorry (Jan 22, 2020)

Interesting lil bit of useless information, enabling Hyper-V (virtual machine) appears to lower my clocks speed.
I was looking into various cloning and backup software and came across Macrium Reflect 7. It can use virtual machine so that you can test that your cloned drives work with having to reboot and change the boot order. Quite handy I thought, saves time rebooting etc, and the rest of the software looks to get good reviews. During its setup it has an option to use virtual machine.
I decided to try it out in advance, so installed Hyper-V, very easy, just a simple tick box within 'Turn Windows features on/off'
After rebooting and Hyper-V installed and working, I took a look at HWinfo to see if it had used much memory, only to find that my clock speed had been reduced to around 99. I rebooted quite a few times, and the clock speed was between 98.9 - 99.2, Never the 100 as previously.

There is a small exe file that someone has created to toggle it enabled or disable but I've not as yet tried it out.





__





						Hyper-V Switch – unclassified software development
					

A simple GUI to enable or disable Hyper-V without uninstallation, allowing the use of other virtualisation solutions.




					unclassified.software


----------



## Fry178 (Jan 22, 2020)

why install hyper V?
software usually only need the stuff enabled in bios (SVM/IOMMU etc).


----------



## lorry (Jan 22, 2020)

Didn't you read what I said @Fry178 ? 
Macrium Reflect 7  uses it


----------



## tabascosauz (Jan 22, 2020)

I think I've had C-state residency reporting on my XPS 13 9370 for a few HWInfo versions now. It's kinda nice to have that data on hand for a i7-8550U (Kaby-R), since I've been undervolting and underclocking extensively in Throttlestop to get my temps under control in that ultrabook (used to hit 96c+ regularly). For desktop though, I dunno. If you've seen the sensors available to HWInfo for Intel chips as old as Haswell, it'll quickly become apparent how cagey AMD has been regarding firmware-level transparency, especially given how advanced Matisse is as a platform on every front. 

I guess the Ryzen 4000 mobile chips are imminent, so author probably wanted to roll out the monitoring capabilities to be ready for their launch. What better to test on than the already released Matisse desktop chips.


----------



## lorry (Jan 22, 2020)

tabascosauz said:


> I think I've had C-state residency reporting on my XPS 13 9370 for a few HWInfo versions now. It's kinda nice to have that data on hand for a i7-8550U (Kaby-R), since I've been undervolting and underclocking extensively in Throttlestop to get my temps under control in that ultrabook (used to hit 96c+ regularly). For desktop though, I dunno. If you've seen the sensors available to HWInfo for Intel chips as old as Haswell, it'll quickly become apparent how cagey AMD has been regarding firmware-level transparency, especially given how advanced Matisse is as a platform on every front.
> 
> I guess the Ryzen 4000 mobile chips are imminent, so author probably wanted to roll out the monitoring capabilities to be ready for their launch. What better to test on than the already released Matisse desktop chips.



Maybe it needed those being reported for something else to be shown?
That's a stab in the dark at best there by me BTW


----------



## lorry (Jan 23, 2020)

oh


"I've been thinking of retiring."


----------



## tabascosauz (Jan 23, 2020)

lorry said:


> "I've been thinking of retiring."



Yeah, I've been listening to the stream. It's...really strange to see him like this.

I haven't been the most devout follower of LTT since 2014/15; for a couple of years, I took a break from PC stuff and I thought most of LTT content throughout the years was generally pretty surface-level stuff. Been watching a bit more recently. 

Unfortunately, I know too well a lot of what he's describing and what it feels like. It's not pretty, and not something that people really listen to (as much as they want to paint themselves as open and accepting of anything in this time). It sounds like Linus might need time, and more than just a little bit of it, to give himself the care and support he needs and deserves.


----------



## lorry (Jan 23, 2020)

tabascosauz said:


> Yeah, I've been listening to the stream. It's...really strange to see him like this.
> 
> I haven't been the most devout follower of LTT since 2014/15; for a couple of years, I took a break from PC stuff and I thought most of LTT content throughout the years was generally pretty surface-level stuff. Been watching a bit more recently.
> 
> Unfortunately, I know too well a lot of what he's describing and what it feels like. It's not pretty, and not something that people really listen to (as much as they want to paint themselves as open and accepting of anything in this time). It sounds like Linus might need time, and more than just a little bit of it, to give himself the care and support he needs and deserves.



I've only heard the start of this so I need to have a good listen of it  :sad:

erm

" In reality, it's actually an RTX 2060 that has a lot more performance in professional applications like Blender, SolidWorks, 3DSMax, Maya, CATIA, Siemens NX, and more. If you're looking for one of the best budget workstation video cards, this may be the new winner. "

"We discovered something that slipped past NVIDIA and EVGA alike: The RTX 2060 KO performs 26% to 47% better than a normal 2060 in some applications. "














tabascosauz said:


> Yeah, I've been listening to the stream. It's...really strange to see him like this.
> 
> I haven't been the most devout follower of LTT since 2014/15; for a couple of years, I took a break from PC stuff and I thought most of LTT content throughout the years was generally pretty surface-level stuff. Been watching a bit more recently.
> 
> Unfortunately, I know too well a lot of what he's describing and what it feels like. It's not pretty, and not something that people really listen to (as much as they want to paint themselves as open and accepting of anything in this time). It sounds like Linus might need time, and more than just a little bit of it, to give himself the care and support he needs and deserves.



I have done various amounts of work in mental health areas with teenagers throughout my life. I also have several friends with mental health issues, bi-polar, Asperger's, that sort of thing.
To me he sounds close to what is generally known as a 'breakdown' for whatever reason or reasons.

Basically he needs help, but until he Wants help, that won't make a blind bit of difference.

Hnady lil folder









						Enable God Mode in Windows for Instant Access to 200+ Tools
					

GodMode is a special folder in Windows that gives you access to every program task in one simple folder. Here is how to enable GodMode in Windows.




					www.lifewire.com


----------



## lorry (Jan 28, 2020)

Well I've got the case and if looks cavernous to me! The Alphacool 360 arrives tomorrow.
Need to check a few things, like the PSU shroud from the Coolermaster H500M _Might_ get reused in it as the View 71 doesn't have one, and rather than the hassle of measuring up, bending aluminium etc I will see if the present one could be utilised instead. I will also need to look into how the View 71 PCI card slots are configured, as I would like to reuse the Coolermaster vertical GPU mount if at all possible - basically need to see if the mounting holes are the same And if they are strong enough on their own once the middle bar is removed, as the CM case just has empty space once the covers are removed.

This is the View 71 stripped down



The Coolermaster H500M


----------



## Fry178 (Jan 29, 2020)

Looks cool, and lots of space (lately im more into cube cases, for bigger than midi builds)
Good luck with the build.


Swapping for a different case myself so i can mount the rad on the side.
want to see how much it helps with temps when using an air cooled gpu (the 2080 was defective and returned)...


----------



## lorry (Jan 29, 2020)

I don't know of many cases that allow for side mounted rads, Lian Li of course, and they are milking the O11 for all that they can  (and why not). This new case does although it then somewhat impacts what you can realistically easily fit in the case I think, as you are limited in what, if any, fans you can have in the front. 

I like the concept of cube cases but feel that they bring more design problems to the table than they solve, if we are talking the same thing.


----------



## Fry178 (Jan 29, 2020)

And one more that i could find (outside some Tt cubes with double the footprint),
is the S300.


			https://smile.amazon.com/gp/product/B0835RYQ8P/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_title_o04_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1
		


Can use three 140 front, rad with two 120 on the side, two 140 on top,
120/140 on rear, depending on gpu cooler (air/water), and probably will put two 120s on the bottom grills 

The cubes are really nice when you work on the rig a lot, swapping parts and/or tweaking layout/airflow etc, or space for LC and such.


----------



## lorry (Jan 29, 2020)

Out of interest which is considered better, and why please, for soft tubing for water cooling, 13/10 or 16/10?


----------



## Fry178 (Jan 29, 2020)

depends usually on things like do you need to go "thru" the case (most of the time limited openings),
how many rads/blocks/pumps are you using, and related to flow/pressure.

but what numbers do you relate to? mm or fraction? material thickness or tubing overall?
usually tubing states the inner/outer diameter of it ..


----------



## lorry (Jan 30, 2020)

Just been doing some quick research.
The Alphacool AIO came  it's Tiny isn't it! I was expecting the block And the rad to be a lot bigger, even though I know their dimensions heh.

On a different note, I am picking up an EK Water Blocks Quantum Kinetic TBE 200 D5 PWM D-RGB Pump Reservoir - Plexi at a ridiculously cheap price!  A mate has a spare one, just needs a part as that bit was damaged in transit, but he has even sourced that cheap as well, heh.

Means that with the Alphacool radiator that's here already, all I will need are fittings, tubing and a block, hence my posting about tubing size on a new thread









						Soft tubing size
					

I'm looking to learn more about open loop water cooling with soft tubing.  I have the chance of getting a D5 pump combo, have an alphacool 360 T30 rad and wondered which is better suited, 13/10 or 16/10, and why please.  The case is a View 71 and AMD 3900x. I know that the thicker walls are...




					www.techpowerup.com
				





This is that pumps Amazon link





						WAVE - EK Quantum Kinetic TBE 200 D5 PWM D-RGB | Plexi : Amazon.co.uk: Computers & Accessories
					

Buy WAVE - EK Quantum Kinetic TBE 200 D5 PWM D-RGB | Plexi at Amazon UK. Free delivery and return on eligible orders.



					www.amazon.co.uk


----------



## Fry178 (Jan 30, 2020)

i went with the largest tubing on my last loop, as i wanted higher flow/less pressure, but i didnt have a radiator to worry about, so..
not sure what would be best with your rads/pump etc, might wanna start a different thread.

in preparation for (possibly) switching back to air cooled card, i swapped the case which mounts the cpu rad on the side,
allowing better airflow (case/gpu)..


----------



## lorry (Jan 30, 2020)

Fry178 said:


> i went with the largest tubing on my last loop, as i wanted higher flow/less pressure, but i didnt have a radiator to worry about, so..
> not sure what would be best with your rads/pump etc, might wanna start a different thread.
> 
> in preparation for (possibly) switching back to air cooled card, i swapped the case which mounts the cpu rad on the side,
> allowing better airflow (case/gpu)..




? I have started another thread, I said









						Soft tubing size
					

I'm looking to learn more about open loop water cooling with soft tubing.  I have the chance of getting a D5 pump combo, have an alphacool 360 T30 rad and wondered which is better suited, 13/10 or 16/10, and why please.  The case is a View 71 and AMD 3900x. I know that the thicker walls are...




					www.techpowerup.com
				





Why are you going back to an air cooled GPU? Thought water cooled gave better temps?


----------



## Fry178 (Jan 30, 2020)

Lol, sorry, only glanced over your post, had just finished the transplant.

The one I had was broken, and i still wasnt happy with pump noise anyway.
Found a Super, for basically 40$ more than i paid for the LC 2080.


One of the the setups i never had, was top/rear only case fans (no rad etc), rad still exhausting/dumping heat outside the case, possibly additional air intake on bottom, and 140s on all case openings.

This is virtually the best possible setup temp wise, to run an air cooled gpu.
And with pwm fans, can now get higher max air flow, still able to throttle fans down to "inaudible".
For now, the gtx570 with 40% min fan rpm is getting in the way of fine tuning case fans


----------



## lorry (Jan 30, 2020)

Just out of interest @Fry178  does it state anywhere the size of the fittings on the rad of the Alphacool rad?

It says here that the tubing in the Alphacool 360 is 11/8, so presumably the fittings on their rad are G1/4 to 11/8  ?









						Alphacool
					

Eisbaer - Technische Daten




					www.alphacool.com
				



"Diameter: 11/8 mm"

So would these fit and be the fittings that are needed (if I was going for 16/10)







						Alphacool 17389 HF 16/10 compression fitting G1/4 - deep black sixpack Water cooling Fittings : Amazon.co.uk: Computers & Accessories
					

Buy



					www.amazon.co.uk


----------



## Fry178 (Jan 30, 2020)

thread is G 1/4, like all LC stuff is using, but their using some weird hose diameter,
that is 1 mm off (IIRC) compared  to whats the "norm" ?!
anyway, the tubing is 11/8mm.

i would get something a little larger in diam/possibly a bit thicker walls as well.

guy modded it for a test bench, maybe good for some ideas..

eisbar modded


----------



## lorry (Jan 30, 2020)

cool! thanks for the link!


----------



## Fry178 (Jan 30, 2020)

no prob.
hope im getting the new gpu today, will do some benching and test for temps under load,
but should be less good then with water.


----------



## lorry (Jan 30, 2020)

Fry178 said:


> no prob.
> hope im getting the new gpu today, will do some benching and test for temps under load.



Great!  Good luck!
let us know how you get on?



Fry178 said:


> thread is G 1/4, like all LC stuff is using, but their using some weird hose diameter,
> that is 1 mm off (IIRC) compared  to whats the "norm" ?!
> anyway, the tubing is 11/8mm.
> 
> ...




I have actually bought 2 of those quick disconnect fitting! 
LOL

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

Oh, I ordered These instead!
Where would they fit any of you Please?

Alphacool 17225 HF quick release connector kit with bulkhead G1/4 inner thread - Deep Black Water cooling Fittings                                                                                                                        

"New Quick Release Coupling Sets have been off the safety for new in mind. For this reason, these connectors have "no click 'Double Edge Safety Razor but come with a art Union Nut screwed on. The connectors can be so not accidentally unlock any more. By installing this kit is the only flow very low to even have excellent bow response. When unlocking dense complete from both sides of the clutch. There is a 1/4 inch thread on both sides. Thus, Ports can be in all sizes. Technical Data: Dimensions (L x W): 63.9 x 26,1 mm Material: Brass Black Thread: 2x 1/4 diameter Schottge winch: 16 mm Schott thread length: 15 mm "






						Alphacool 17225 HF quick release connector kit with bulkhead G1/4 inner thread - Deep Black Water cooling Fittings : Amazon.co.uk: Computers & Accessories
					

Buy



					www.amazon.co.uk


----------



## Fry178 (Jan 30, 2020)

its to have external hose (LC wise) passing thru case (usually top rear, or pci bracket)
that can still be disconnected. they unscrew..

i used it with my first loop (external box for everything but block),
and later on my external resorator, so i could disconnect it and be able to handle the case like its air cooled.

edit
lol, we famous.
quick google search about them (wanted to get a pick with the connectors mounted to case),
shows our pics from tpu


----------



## lorry (Jan 30, 2020)

Fry178 said:


> its to have external hose (LC wise) passing thru case (usually top rear, or pci bracket)
> that can still be disconnected. they unscrew..
> 
> i used it with my first loop (external box for everything but block),
> and later on my external resorator, so i could disconnect it and be able to handle the case like its air cooled.



A route that I _may_ go with, in time, but def not for right now. Even though this case has 3 outlet ports on the rear.
Not sure why 3 though? Thoughts?



Fry178 said:


> edit
> lol, we famous.
> quick google search about them (wanted to get a pick with the connectors mounted to case),
> shows our pics from tpu
> ...



LMAO !!





Oh, here you go @Fry178  just for you $20,



			https://www.99go.com/item/36944837986


----------



## Fry178 (Jan 30, 2020)

Lol, cool idea. Shows i lack the tools/metal works to have proper ideas..

main reason i went external, i wanted to have the inside of case "empty", and not hear pump/fans (so i had 6ft of tubing from the pc to external container), and the quick connect to pack everything up and take it to a lan 
On the last build it was because i wanted passive rad, and the resorator (passive rad/res combo) is almost 3ft tall...


----------



## lorry (Jan 30, 2020)

Fry178 said:


> Lol, cool idea. Shows i lack the tools/metal works to have proper ideas..
> 
> main reason i went external, i wanted to have the inside of case "empty", and not hear pump/fans (so i had 6ft of tubing from the pc to external container), and the quick connect to pack everything up and take it to a lan
> On the last build it was because i wanted passive rad, and the resorator (passive rad/res combo) is almost 3ft tall...
> View attachment 143636



Is that Your build?


----------



## Fry178 (Jan 30, 2020)

Naa, just a generic pic showing the resorator..
It was nice to have a loop with 1.8 gl of coolant.
I could have lost 2L before i would have had an issue  
Easiest for refill/flush as well: just fill the res with 3qt, run pump for 10s,
fill up 2 more times, done..


----------



## lorry (Jan 30, 2020)

Do like those outside rads that Alphacool have, but at close to £400 that's about all I will be doing for a while, liking them heh


----------



## Fry178 (Jan 30, 2020)

pffft, just use the bulk head quick connectors to go thru the case (holes on top rear, 3rd one for fan cables),
and you only need "stand" that can hold the rad/fans. pump/res can stay inside the case.


----------



## lorry (Jan 30, 2020)

oh I know, just looks way neater and something you wouldn't mind having on your desktop, lol


----------



## Fry178 (Jan 30, 2020)

also something similar to this looks pretty cool (rad on outside top of case)..




__





						EX2-1055 Computer Liquid Cooling System, Rev1.5
					

EX2-1055 is an ambient liquid cooling system designed with features for computer cooling. This model contains a triple x 120mm fan aluminum radiator, providi



					koolance.com


----------



## lorry (Jan 30, 2020)

Looks great but is that a Printer port it is connecting to ???


----------



## Fry178 (Jan 30, 2020)

lol,  serial port, i guess for controls/update?


----------



## lorry (Jan 30, 2020)

Modern tech then right? 
Cant remember the last time I saw one on Any PC mind.


----------



## Fry178 (Jan 31, 2020)

Logitech and others use/used them for wired remote controller on speakers..


----------



## lorry (Jan 31, 2020)

News to me but then I don't recall anyone using one tbf. 

Think I've figured out a way to be able to use all the front ports options. 
I would be losing 2 USB 3 & 1 USB 3.1 but think I can utilise the 2 PCI vertical slots in the back of the case. Most of the cable headers I think will be hidden behind the vertical GPU and what isn't can be tied down.

got one here for £160 LOL









						Koolance EX2-1055 - liquid cooling system  | eBay
					

Condition is Almost New. Turned on once for testing and ran for 5hrs. EX2-1055 is an ambient liquid cooling system designed with features for computer cooling. This model contains a triple x 120mm fan aluminum radiator, providing roughly 900W of cooling with a 25°C ambient delta.



					www.ebay.co.uk


----------



## Fry178 (Jan 31, 2020)

at that price i rather build a loop with a used resorator, or build a plexi table with pc/cooling inside


----------



## lorry (Jan 31, 2020)

Heh guess it depends on the quality of the components (ally, copper etc) and good their pump is

update to Dram calc

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

Got a couple of questions on connecting up the Alphacool guys - think I know the answer but want to be sure all the same if possible.

The fans setting up is simple, use a 3-way 4-pin connector to join up all three fans, then connect that up to a 4 pin fan header on MB.

The pump though I think I have it right, but want to make sure obviously.
The pump is a 3-pin


But every fan/pump header on this MB is a 4-pin


I take it that I just line up the #1 pins on Alphacool connection and MB header?

Then do I set the the smart fan 5 settings in the BIOS to voltage for the 'Fab/Pump Control Mode' to voltage, or leave it set at Auto ?

(Does this affect Only the two headers labelled sys_fan 5_pump/ sys_fan 6_pump, or all the fan headers? I think it is Just those headers but not sure???)



Thanks


----------



## Fry178 (Jan 31, 2020)

Yeah, line up the tab from port with the 3 pin connector. 
Yes, only changes control for those ports.
Usually voltage, but what does pump manual say?


----------



## lorry (Jan 31, 2020)

It doesn't say a thing, apart from in the details where it states "voltage 7 - 13.5 V DC"


----------



## Fry178 (Jan 31, 2020)

Thats usually voltage reg, as pwm is fixed 12v as its just switching on/off to regulate rpm.


----------



## lorry (Jan 31, 2020)

Fry178 said:


> Thats usually voltage reg, as pwm is fixed 12v as its just switching on/off to regulate rpm.



It can't be PWM, as it is only a 3-pin connection, so Has to be voltage regulated.
Thing is do I leave it set at auto (lets the bios auto detect the type of fan/pump installed and sets the optimum control mode) or set it as voltage?


----------



## Fry178 (Jan 31, 2020)

Amount of pins is no guarantee how its controlled. I can pulse the signal with 3 pins.
I prefer putting it in the mode it should be in.
only if you see rpm fluctuating i would try auto, to see if makes a difference.


----------



## lorry (Jan 31, 2020)

Fry178 said:


> Amount of pins is no guarantee how its controlled. I can pulse the signal with 3 pins.
> I prefer putting it in the mode it should be in.
> only if you see rpm fluctuating i would try auto, to see if its different.



You had one didn't you?
What did you have it set as?


----------



## Fry178 (Jan 31, 2020)

Lol, most likely nothing wrong with it, but im picky, and on the msi i used before, the rpms werent as "steady" as i expected and setting it to auto worked a bit smoother.
Then again it might have been bios version, as the one on the GB i use now was one newer from the start.


----------



## lorry (Jan 31, 2020)

Ah!
Well I'll try both and see what seems to be the best. Have asked a guy on a thread I posted about a new air cooler from an old company Zalman .
He has done exactly what I am going to do, swap the Be silent fans out for Noctua - he says 'be prepared for idle temps just above ambient and highest of around 50c. Now That I could live with, lol.


----------



## Fry178 (Jan 31, 2020)

Did you get them already?  Your "wasting" money.
The arctics are very close in perf, while they cost a third, and as long as noctua "only" offers 6y, they beat them in warranty (10y on the pwm).
As long as you don't care to have am inaudible rig, giving a little bit more rpm on the arctics will make up for it at low load.
As long as you are below throttling temp, wont make much difference on the clocks (unlike the gpu where every degree counts).
It's like the ti. You get 10-20% more performance for almost 50% more cost than the 2080(S).
If you have the money, sure.
I was using noctua/noiseblocker for 10y, but it gets to the point where im nor willing to spend double to triple on a fan thats maybe 10% better than an arctic.
Then i rather buy the bulk pack and install push/pull, even if it means fans on the outside of the case


----------



## lorry (Jan 31, 2020)

OK, Not The best design, but a template for a simple PSU shroud, copied it from my cooler master H500M


----------



## Fry178 (Jan 31, 2020)

Since you like to fiddle with stuff: get some foam padded paper board (about 5mm thick) in black, use a fine blade saw (like for balsa) or ruler and (fresh blade) carpet knife to cut it, hot glue or tape from inside.


----------



## lorry (Jan 31, 2020)

to what end?

The Arctic BioniX 120mm Grey P120 PWM Gaming Fan


Airflow                                                    67.56 CFM                                            Air Pressure                                                    2.75 mm H²O                                            Sound Level (dBA)                                                    25 dBA                                            


isn't quite as good as


the Noctua NF-P12 REDUX PWM 


Airflow                                                    70.7 CFM                                            Air Pressure                                                    2.83 mm H²O                                            Sound Level (dBA)                                                    25.1 dBA


----------



## Fry178 (Feb 1, 2020)

Arctic pwm i linked is 6.99 (as 5 pack).
Noctuas? 13$ and 20$, for not even 10% better perf..
Like i said, if you have the funds, cool.
I don't mind spending a bit more to get "better" stuff, just dont see it justified on fans, especially at virtually the same performance, and when its not just 1.






						Arctic P12 Value Pack - Pressure-optimised 120 mm Case Fan, Fan Speed: 1800 RPM: Amazon.co.uk: Computers & Accessories
					

Buy



					www.amazon.co.uk
				









						Arctic P12 PWM PST Value Pack - Pressure-optimised 120 mm Fan with PWM PST - Black/Black, Fan Speed: 200-1800 RPM: Amazon.co.uk: Computers & Accessories
					

Buy



					www.amazon.co.uk


----------



## lorry (Feb 1, 2020)

The one I should have gone for in terms of performance is the industrial Noctua,with a 3.4 mm H2O and only a 4db increase in noise (29 dB).


----------



## Fry178 (Feb 1, 2020)

Not gonna make any difference. The limits are on the block.
Even with the one you have.
Main reason why recommended saving a few bucks with the arctics..


----------



## lorry (Feb 1, 2020)

The limits are on everything though and until they are reached you can still improve.
If say there is still headroom left in the block then better fans can remove extra heat. But that will depend on the block, the radiator efficiency, flow rates, etc etc
Surely?


----------



## Fry178 (Feb 1, 2020)

nope. my eisbar did not improve over the H100i (with v2 rad),
even with improved flow/pressure and better block, more rpm/pressure on the fans,
and more airflow in the case (five 140 mm now)
under load temps are almost the same, and after removing load,
temps drop down from 75*C to idle temp by 1*C/sec, so i know the rad/pump isnt the problem.


----------



## lorry (Feb 1, 2020)

Then another limit Must be being reached, you cannot improve the performance of some of the parts and not see an improvement overall unless a limit has been reached, physics says that.
Now whether that is say the heat transfer of water or something else I cannot say


----------



## heky (Feb 1, 2020)

@lorry 

The problem with cooling a 3900x (or 3950x) is that the 7nm process means very high density in a relatively small package. So its hard to dissipate the heat of the silicon itself. I am using a EKWB Phoenix 360 to cool mine and i still can not get temps lover than low 70s under full load.


----------



## mtcn77 (Feb 1, 2020)

heky said:


> @lorry
> 
> The problem with cooling a 3900x (or 3950x) is that the 7nm process means very high density in a relatively small package. So its hard to dissipate the heat of the silicon itself. I am using a EKWB Phoenix 360 to cool mine and i still can not get temps lover than low 70s under full load.


What is the pttl setting at? How much does it show? If it is allowed to run at 95, does it turbo effectively up until so?
It is at the 'ai tweaker>pbo' page, not on 'advanced>amd cbs>nbio common options>xfr enhancement>accepted'.


----------



## lorry (Feb 1, 2020)

heky said:


> @lorry
> 
> The problem with cooling a 3900x (or 3950x) is that the 7nm process means very high density in a relatively small package. So its hard to dissipate the heat of the silicon itself. I am using a EKWB Phoenix 360 to cool mine and i still can not get temps lover than low 70s under full load.



That still isn't bad, considering that for most real situations it will never likely reach that 70c  ?



mtcn77 said:


> What is the pttl setting at? How much does it show? If it is allowed to run at 95, does it turbo effectively up until so?
> It is at the 'ai tweaker>pbo' page, not on 'advanced>amd cbs>nbio common options>xfr enhancement>accepted'.



AMD have stated that for every 10c above 50 the cpu will lose a certain amount of speed, so to get the best day to day performance from them you need to use as efficient a cooling system as you can


----------



## Zach_01 (Feb 1, 2020)

The right answer to these high density dies is to try to maximize heat transfer from CPU IHS to block or cooler plate.
TIM material is the key factor.

I’m close to 1 month now of using liquid metal and I’ve seen a nice improvement from the first boot after applying  it.
Of course liquid metal need kind of special handle and treatment, and does not apply to all materials (destroys Alu). And for copper needs several treatment (Clean and reapply every 2 months) for at least 6 months.


----------



## mtcn77 (Feb 1, 2020)

Nickel plating is so easy, imo. Just add some pieces, run the electrolytic current through. If I were adamant to use liquid metal, I think that would be the simplest call along the way.


----------



## Zach_01 (Feb 1, 2020)

mtcn77 said:


> Nickel plating is so easy, imo. Just add some pieces, run the electrolytic current through. If I were adamant to use liquid metal, I think that would be the simplest call along the way.


Well, I prefer the re-apply method (even if it’s costing) until copper is saturated with gallium and no longer absorb it (and dry out the TIM).


----------



## mtcn77 (Feb 1, 2020)

Zach_01 said:


> Well, I prefer the re-apply method (even if it’s costing) until copper is saturated with gallium and no longer absorb it (and dry out the TIM).


It is new for me. Plus, I didn't anticipate it was possible. GamersNexus mentioned copper corroding on gallium, however it just forms an oxide layer, then?


----------



## Zach_01 (Feb 1, 2020)

It’s alu corrosive. Copper “just” absorbs gallium until is saturated by it, forming a new alloy. And the remain, out of copper TIM (mostly indium), dries out and hardens like metal also.
I’ve seen applications left for 0.5 and 1.5 years and the case of 1.5 years was pretty bad. Needed hard lapping to straight it again.

If you see copper plate after liquid metal appliance it’s like it’s stained with the TIM. No corrosion tho. If you clean the remaining TIM and re-apply it after 2 months, for at least 3 times it should not dry out for a long time after. But I wouldn’t leave it for more than 6 months even after.

Personally I’m willing to perform such a procedure for the heat transfer rate it offers.


----------



## lorry (Feb 1, 2020)

I Will be doing this as well (after all, bought the damn stuff now, LOL). But I think trying it on my First water cooled build is slightly Too much


----------



## Fry178 (Feb 1, 2020)

I never had probs leaving LM on for longer (6-12 month), just not that much fun when you have tubing just long enough to have stuff installed).
Easier on the aio i know use, might  do it a few more times, but hope im selling the cpu in next few month anyway.

Just make sure to use less then pin-needle head sized amount, and that it has a smooth glossy/shiny chrome like look (surface) when finished applying it,
and not the matte look of (cold/bad) solder point.


----------



## biffzinker (Feb 1, 2020)

You guys could go the graphite pad route instead of LM. I'm still using the Innovation Cooling IC Thermal Pad I posted about over in the thread "show off your tech purchase."








						What's your latest tech purchase?
					

It's not a bad thing at all, doing really well I think!! :D   Have you tested the previous CPU with a few tests to see if there's much of an increase? ;)




					www.techpowerup.com
				




The only minor issues I ran into was use something like tweezers to move the pad into the heatspreader don't touch it. Started to curl after removed from the plastic clamshell package, and it's slippery. Had a heck of time getting it to stay put while mounting the heatsink.


----------



## Zach_01 (Feb 1, 2020)

lorry said:


> I Will be doing this as well (after all, bought the damn stuff now, LOL). But I think trying it on my First water cooled build is slightly Too much


Well, yes... and this way you would have a reference point also to compare with LM TIM.



Fry178 said:


> I never had probs leaving LM on for longer (6-12 month), just not that much fun when you have tubing just long enough to have stuff installed).


Was that with “naked” copper coolers/blocks?



biffzinker said:


> You guys could go the graphite pad route instead of LM. I'm still using the Innovation Cooling IC Thermal Pad I posted about over in the thread "show off your tech purchase."
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Remember Linus review one of these graphite pads and wasn’t very impressive in performance... Not like LM at least.
And the key selling point of this is the re-application without the need of a new one?


----------



## lorry (Feb 1, 2020)

biffzinker said:


> You guys could go the graphite pad route instead of LM. I'm still using the Innovation Cooling IC Thermal Pad I posted about over in the thread "show off your tech purchase."
> 
> 
> 
> ...



what are the thermals like when you use them?

And, it was suggested putting a drop of distilled water on the cpu just to temporarily hold it in place somewhat, ever heard that?


----------



## Fry178 (Feb 1, 2020)

Yeah, copper on the block and 3770k with HS.

Those pads are a PITA and i replaced it with  LM after 2 days,
as i had similar performance with silver/diamond based TP.
Especially when dealing with a rig that isnt layed flat (HS parallel to ground),
i have no problem installing any TP/LM.
Not happening with the pad.


----------



## sneekypeet (Feb 1, 2020)

Not to dig up old news, but I would never buy anything IC related, point blank. The owner showed his true colors here, and is not a company I am willing to support, nor should any of you


----------



## lorry (Feb 1, 2020)

There is also the Thermal Grizzly carbonaut pad remember, but thats really only for low end use  I think?








						Thermal Grizzly Carbonaut Thermal Pad - 38 × 38 × 0.2 mm
					

Innovative and efficient thermal pad, Reusable & extremely durable, Good thermal conductivity of 62.5 W / (m · K), 0.2 mm thickness - 38 × 38 mm, For Intel Socket 2066 and AM4 Socket CPU's




					www.overclockers.co.uk
				




and this one ?









						Coollaboratory Liquid MetalPad - 3 x CPU Thermal Pads
					

The innovation in the cooling of processors from High-End PC systems, notebooks and game consoles with a heat conduction pad!




					www.overclockers.co.uk


----------



## biffzinker (Feb 1, 2020)

sneekypeet said:


> Not to dig up old news, but I would never buy anything IC related, point blank. The owner showed his true colors here, and is not a company I am willing to support, nor should any of you


I thought it was another company responsible. The name seemed familiar but I didn't realize it was that company.


----------



## sneekypeet (Feb 1, 2020)

biffzinker said:


> I thought it was another company responsible. The name seemed familiar but I didn't realize it was that company.



https://www.innovationcooling.com/products/ic-diamond/ 

I may have come off a bit strong there too. Was not meant to chastise, more of a public service announcement.


----------



## lorry (Feb 1, 2020)

IF all these things are meant to be SO much better, How come hardly anyone uses them then?

case of snake oil perchance?


----------



## Fry178 (Feb 1, 2020)

LM is the cheapest of them all, and lots of fakes being sold on amazon that aren't from the brand that is printed on the box (e.g. kryonaut),
that i dont care about who and/or what is behind it, as i rather have a proper working product.
It does improve temps by at least a couple of degrees (C), does "depend" on things like cpu/type of cooler etc involved,
but i've always seen a noticeable gain over good TP like arctics and the like, no matter the cooling used.

edit it to make it simpler to read.


----------



## lorry (Feb 1, 2020)

Fry178 said:


> LM is the cheapest of them all, and lots of fakes being sold on amazon hat aren't from the printed name (e.g. kryonaut), that i dont care about who and/or what is behind it, as i rather have a proper working product.
> It does improve temps by at least a couple of degrees (C), does depend on things like cpu/type of cooler etc involved, but always seen a noticeable gain over good TP like arctics and the like.



which liquid metal though? this IC one or the coolerlab one?

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

A thought, why haven't Intel and AMD come with torque settings for CPU coolers?
That would take all the guesswork and worry about over tensioning coolers, and give optimum sealing between cpu and cooler?


----------



## Fry178 (Feb 1, 2020)

Coollab one.
I haven't had a LC not having screws that limit the amount you can tighten them, usually done with the length of the screw thread.


----------



## lorry (Feb 1, 2020)

Knowing if a screw is threaded 4 mm or 5 mm in is a heck of a lot harder to gauge that having a torque wrench spin because you have reached the correct torque poundage though


----------



## Fry178 (Feb 1, 2020)

You screw them in until it wont go any further.
As long as you dont force it, all thats needed.


----------



## biffzinker (Feb 1, 2020)

sneekypeet said:


> https://www.innovationcooling.com/products/ic-diamond/
> 
> I may have come off a bit strong there too. Was not meant to chastise, more of a public service announcement.


It's okay, I didn't take in a manner that would offend me. Had I picked up on my suspicion of that company's name on the product I was purchasing from a third party. I would of looked somewhere else for a graphite pad I was interested in trying out.



Fry178 said:


> You screw them in until it wont go any further.


On AMD's stock coolers there is a compression spring that prevents over tightening the four screws into the backplate.


----------



## lorry (Feb 2, 2020)

Solved the pump question!
I was correct  




Hey @Zach_01 or anyone else of course   when I finally make the case swap and get things water cooled and then hopefully lower temps, a couple of questions.
Do you feel there is much more to be got out of this memory, or is it near enough at its limit?
I'm sure that you guys know way better than myself but with the hopefully better cpu temps that will result from water cooling, any idea how much of a performance gain there might be?


----------



## PolRoger (Feb 11, 2020)

Zach_01 said:


> I can see the CPU is hitting almost all stock PBO limits of PPT:142/TDC:95/EDC:140 and that is because of your sub-70°C temp. Not often to see this. Because of relatively low temps the silicon manager is pushing CPU to the registered limits. Low temps give more headroom for all the limits but they stop at their factory sets.
> Have you consider releasing them? It will give you potential more clock. And this is still within the stock silicon parameters.
> 
> May I suggest a few settings to try?
> ...



#1 
PPT: 147W
TDC:100A
EDC: 145A
PBOscalar: Auto






#3
PPT: 145W
TDC:100A
EDC: 130A (feel free to reduce it more)
PBOscalar: X2 (Auto is X1, X2 mean longer and sustained clock and voltage. May increase temp a few degrees = 3~4C)


----------



## lorry (Feb 11, 2020)

certainly beats my best so far, but then I am still on air atm


----------



## Zach_01 (Feb 11, 2020)

lorry said:


> Solved the pump question!
> I was correct
> 
> View attachment 143813
> ...


Man how do I miss that one? Sorry!
For the RAM question I personally cant really say what is going to happen. RAM it self cant be affected by water cooling but given the fact that the CPU mem controller will be cooled also anything is possible. You will have to try again with all the RAM settings to either increase speed further or tighten timings. I prefer speed...
For CPU, well you can see @PolRoger CPU... nothing to say more...

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

@PolRoger, how do you see it by now? It has more to give as it is, if you further uncap PPT from 145W. Give it 150W try it, see results.
Then try this:

#4
PPT: 150W
TDC:100A
EDC: 125A
PBOscalar: X2

PS:
From screenshots I cant really see anything else usefull than max values of PPT/TDC/EDC because you didnt follow what I said to isolate capture screen strictly to bench time.


----------



## Fry178 (Feb 11, 2020)

outside matching If speed, amds usually like timings (over speed).
or did that change with ryzen?


----------



## mtcn77 (Feb 11, 2020)

PolRoger said:


> #1
> PPT: 147W
> TDC:100A
> EDC: 145A
> ...


The thermal transfer has improved(146w>148w) when edc has been restricted, though performance has suffered... Any change you make more of these with wider edc-ppt gaps? 3900X has run much hotter in the latter run. It could be a thermal throttling issue. Also, you haven't included the coretemp monitor charts for the first run. What's obvious is the chips have not maintained a perfect boost.

What else, ryzen 3000 ihs is dished inwards and there are heat load issues.
I haven't seen much debate on this discussion in this forum, so laying it out there.








						Dotting For Better Ryzen 3000 Thermals? | Level One Techs
					

As a follow-up to this – why might the spread method not be desirable?  If your CPU has a concave ihs (or your cooler for that matter) it is possible to spread the Tim too thin.  On stock wraith prism coolers it is pretty thick and the bottom of the cooler isn’t super even.  On the h115i pro I...




					forum.level1techs.com


----------



## lorry (Feb 11, 2020)

mtcn77 said:


> What else, ryzen 3000 ihs is dished inwards and there are heat load issues.
> I haven't seen much debate on this discussion in this forum, so laying it out there.



That very thing is talked about and displayed in GN video on lapping a 3000 with bearded hardware, admittedly a 3970 but they say that they are all the same


----------



## Zach_01 (Feb 11, 2020)

mtcn77 said:


> The thermal transfer has improved(146w>148w) when edc has been restricted, though performance has suffered... Any change you make more of these with wider edc-ppt gaps? 3900X has run much hotter in the latter run. It could be a thermal throttling issue. Also, you haven't included the coretemp monitor charts for the first run. What's obvious is the chips have not maintained a perfect boost.
> 
> What else, ryzen 3000 ihs is dished inwards and there are heat load issues.
> I haven't seen much debate on this discussion in this forum, so laying it out there.
> ...


We don’t care about thermal transfer increase out of PBO settings, and we are not doing any of this stuff to improve thermal transfer. This is a different matter.
What we like is more performance, and if this comes with a small increase in temp while the chip is within and under internal controller it’s ok. And I see that performance has increased from previous run.
The CPU run hotter in latter run because he set PBO scalar X2 from the default X1. This preserves voltage and clock in a more sustainable way.
Temp raise is necessary evil, one to control only with better cooling, and whatever that includes. Better cooling, surface lapping... etc...

Please read all information here before posting and don’t just state what is on your head. Don’t ruin this thread... And try to use normal language. Leave journalese aside...


----------



## mtcn77 (Feb 11, 2020)

Zach_01 said:


> Please read all information here before posting and don’t just state what is on your head.


??
Just pointing out the obvious and you may be missing out on my part to play here.
You won't get very far in case of higher duty, if it serves to hit temperature limits before the benchmark is offline. Which is the case, as you can see, looking at clocks. Restricting ranges has only served to lift up the thermal window despite higher temperatures have developed. This will continue until the new thermal equilibrium has been established at the peak temperature limit in a lower pbo setting.
GN made it clear the chip does not reliably boost up sequentially from one run to the next, so temperature loading is a no go. The necessary evil here is either to downgrade pbo ranges, or improving thermals.

One other thing I discovered today, that graphite works great with ryzen 3000; however it is not simple as that. The junction dish will cause uneven contact patch which is not something compression sensitive conductors can take care off by themselves. YMMV, essentially.








						Thermal paste & pad comparison (MX4, Graphite thermal pads from IC and Panasonic) | BudgetLightForum.com
					






					budgetlightforum.com


----------



## biffzinker (Feb 11, 2020)

mtcn77 said:


> One other thing I discovered today, that graphite works great with ryzen 3000; however it is not simple as that.


I'm using the IC graphite pad with a Ryzen 5 3600. How does tight in the graph relate to a third party's heatsink mounting mechanism that is screw down? Would over tightening the two screws help at all?


----------



## Zach_01 (Feb 11, 2020)

I’ve done extensive benchmarking with different PBO settings and I can confirm that the CPU, with EDC reduction and PPT release, sustainably preserves higher clocks in the exact same way with stock settings. Even with a slight increase in temperature. Of course you can’t keep decreasing EDC nor increasing PBOscalar. There is a point that this stops returning positive results. We haven’t find it yet for this CPU. Until PPT stops increasing by itself you keep going. After this only way to improve performance is with further cooling.


----------



## mtcn77 (Feb 11, 2020)

biffzinker said:


> I'm using the IC graphite pad with a Ryzen 5 3600. How does tight in the graph relate to a third party's heatsink mounting mechanism that is screw down? Would over tightening the two screws help at all?


Great question. I think it goes hand in hand with diy ihs lap project. They are great products, just not for the faint of heart. One has to go fully custom. Just wanted to point it out. I think this is a good showcase out of the products on display. It goes hand in hand with the on going discussion, too. They have their detractors, but are we overclocking or not - ic diamond even leaves scuff marks on the die itself. How more determined could you be to try such a compound...

Panasonic here is the 'graphite'. I haven't noticed it in the legend and have missed mentioning it myself, so there it is!


----------



## PolRoger (Feb 12, 2020)

Two more CB R20 runs... 

I tried to snap the PBO HWiNFO screen shot while Cinebench was running.

Default PBO via Ryzen Master with memory set in BIOS @ DOCP 3200C14 and LLC set to max droop:











Per CCX (static OC) with 1.35v vcore via Ryzen Master with memory set in BIOS @ DOCP 3200C14 and LLC set to max droop:


----------



## lorry (Feb 13, 2020)

@PolRoger would you be willing to show me some screenshots from HWInfo running after a 3~4 min session and say at 1~2 hour at all please?
Trying to compare your figures with mine, to see if mine are in the same ballpark really.

say idle/low loads, like browsing, when you are on PBO only for those times.


----------



## PolRoger (Feb 14, 2020)

lorry said:


> @PolRoger would you be willing to show me some screenshots from HWInfo running after a 3~4 min session and say at 1~2 hour at all please?
> Trying to compare your figures with mine, to see if mine are in the same ballpark really.
> 
> say idle/low loads, like browsing, when you are on PBO only for those times.



Default PBO with DOCP... (3200C14) and LLC set to max droop.

Shortly after a cold start:






After ~1-1/4 hour... Web browsing and light usage plus some idle time... Also ran a CB R20 and fiddled with some Realbench benchmarks toward the end.











Edit: Rebooted and re-ran complete RealBench benchmark with same PBO/DOCP settings but changed LLC from #5 (max droop) to #4... Auto is #3...  While #1 is (max LLC).


----------



## lorry (Feb 14, 2020)

Thanks !


----------



## Zach_01 (Feb 14, 2020)

@PolRoger, thanks for the screenshots. Can you share with us the specific settings you have/had for CPU during those pics, on BIOS and windows?
And not just PBO, but voltages, SOC settings, CPPC and P-States, RyzenMaster(if any), Windows power plan... and any other you think that might affect CPU clock/voltage behaviour.

We just trying to better understand ZEN2. Thanks, we appreciate your info input!


----------



## Fry178 (Feb 14, 2020)

Not sure how much that will help.
Not one chip will match the next on clocks and voltage needed to do those.
E.g. The first 3600 ran at 1.4x, the 2nd one i bought runs the same clocks at 1.2x
Using the numbers from one, would not work on the other. 

Seem reason i find it funny when ppl "calibrate" their tv with the settings from a review (red +3/blue +1 etc), when those will only work on that particular tv, as variations in screen/hw will need different settings for each.


----------



## Zach_01 (Feb 14, 2020)

Yes we are aware of the silicon quality variations, and also and important the board variation, the temp variation.... well you get the point.
And if we try to replicate conditions but results are different, it wont be a surprise...

Thanks for the heads up tho!


----------



## mtcn77 (Feb 14, 2020)

PolRoger said:


> Default PBO with DOCP... (3200C14) and LLC set to max droop.
> 
> Edit: Rebooted and re-ran complete RealBench benchmark with same PBO/DOCP settings but changed LLC from #5 (max droop) to #4... Auto is #3...  While #1 is (max LLC).


Great information. We have various options, it seems.

One, cpb and no llc.
We can enable core performance boost and set LLC low to leverage clock stretching in order to maximise task power efficiency.

Two, no cpb, manual vid and high llc. I recommend you check this guide out, in case we haven't: Overclockers.co.uk is the best.
We could set llc high and disable core performance boost. Since clock stretching won't work, it is imperative we set the voltage appropriately, or otherwise it will crash into bluescreen. Since there won't be any other low state, we had best enable cc6 in the bios. It is a new convention with much faster sleep state.


----------



## PolRoger (Feb 14, 2020)

Zach_01 said:


> @PolRoger, thanks for the screenshots. Can you share with us the specific settings you have/had for CPU during those pics, on BIOS and windows?
> And not just PBO, but voltages, SOC settings, CPPC and P-States, RyzenMaster(if any), Windows power plan... and any other you think that might affect CPU clock/voltage behaviour.
> 
> We just trying to better understand ZEN2. Thanks, we appreciate your info input!



From my post #878 

In BIOS everything was default/auto except for enabling DOCP for my GSkill FlareX 2x8GB 3200C14 memory kit and changing LLC from "auto" to either #5 or #4 which should have increased vdroop under load.

-Windows v1909
-most recent AMD chipset drivers 2.01.15. 2138
-most recent ASRock BIOS... AGESA 1.0.0.4B (v2.70) but I've also run the previous BIOS (v2.10) AGESA 1.0.0.3 ABBA and the current release BETA BIOS (v2.73).
-1usmus Power Plan v1.1







mtcn77 said:


> Great information. We have various options, it seems.
> 
> One, cpb and no llc.
> We can enable core performance boost and set LLC low to leverage clock stretching in order to maximise task power efficiency.
> ...



Clock stretching is an interesting development with the Ryzen 3000 series.

I may have to test default PBO/DOCP with some benchmarks and the different LLC settings on this motherboard to see if performance is affected between full droop and full LLC enabled settings?

I had been thinking that PBO performance  would be the same regardless of LLC... So I was just running with droop.


----------



## mtcn77 (Feb 14, 2020)

PolRoger said:


> I had had been thinking that PBO performance would be the same regardless of LLC... So I was just running with droop.


Not PBO; CPB. It is the pb2/xfr bios switch. If you turn it off, apparently it serves to run your cpu totally manually. I'd say it is pretty straight forward. However, I stated my objections.
You need some form of power gating not to run at full load when idling. Therefore, I think, if you are going to go the PBO route, you had better leave llc at base bottom to extend EDC & clock stretching do its thing and go for it when CPB-free manually tuning at the cc6 backdrop.



PolRoger said:


> I may have to test default PBO/DOCP


I'd hold on that idea. You are doing great, DOCP will mess things... add %1 here, 2% there - these parts like to keep the motherboard clock the same.


----------



## Zach_01 (Feb 15, 2020)

PBO scalar (X1 default/auto) can greatly affect voltage and clock during various loads, and not just at max load. Setting it more than X2 though current of CPU increase quickly and thus the temp too. So minimizes the clock gains, unless you have a super cooling water loop or even a chiller. You can bring down again temp without extra cooling by decreasing current (EDC) but only marginal (for X3 and beyond).
X2 I found is the one with some gain return when conventional cooling is used.


----------



## Fry178 (Feb 15, 2020)

outside chiller/Ln2, this won't happen.

I did another run with the room not heated for 12h, running bench right after boot,
and even my 3600 already produces more heat than even the eisbär can transfer fast enough.
I ran a occ bench with max load/temp on cpu, and Temps increased the same way, even with the rad/water around 40*C lower, compared to fully saturated Temps.
Stopped the bench, and Temps dropped down to idle (32C) within seconds.

So even the most extreme block/rad/loop on the planet, will not make any difference.

Only if the block gets actively cooled below ambient, will temp associated limits go away.


----------



## Zach_01 (Feb 15, 2020)

Why your water is up to 40°C? Do you not cool it, or the heat from the 3600 is so much that rad cant co-op?

I'v never seen water temp above 30°C on the H110i 280mm. Actually its between ~25°C (idle) and 28°C (load), with CPU around 30°C (idle) and 60~62°C (load).
Even if I turn down fan rpm to 500 water never goes past 32°C.

Ambient and air feed to rad is ~23°C


----------



## PolRoger (Feb 15, 2020)

mtcn77 said:


> Not PBO; CPB. It is the pb2/xfr bios switch. If you turn it off, apparently it serves to run your cpu totally manually. I'd say it is pretty straight forward. However, I stated my objections.
> You need some form of power gating not to run at full load when idling. Therefore, I think, if you are going to go the PBO route, you had better leave llc at base bottom to extend EDC & clock stretching do its thing and go for it when CPB-free manually tuning at the cc6 backdrop.
> 
> I'd hold on that idea. You are doing great, DOCP will mess things... add %1 here, 2% there - these parts like to keep the motherboard clock the same.



I guess I'll need to do some research about AMD cpu tech... 

I thought that Core Performance Boost and Precision Boost Overdrive would work hand in hand or is CPB just for Ryzen and Ryzen+ series while PBO is for Ryzen 2?

I also thought that DOCP was kind of like AMD's version of Intel's XMP designed for optimizing/stabilizing higher memory speeds and timings for a specified memory kit.


----------



## mtcn77 (Feb 15, 2020)

PolRoger said:


> thought that Core Performance Boost and Precision Boost Overdrive would work hand in hand or is CPB just for Ryzen and Ryzen+ series while PBO is for Ryzen 2?


That is a handsome guess. However, we have AMD guidelines: PBO is for threadripper series, not ryzen...


PolRoger said:


> I also thought that DOCP was kind of like AMD's version of Intel's XMP designed for optimizing/stabilizing higher memory speeds and timings for a specified memory kit.


That is also a great guess, albeit for reasons pertaining to AMD, while they _should_ have named it 'AMP' in the first place, they stuck with that misnomer that familiarizes us with mobo oc.


----------



## PolRoger (Feb 15, 2020)

mtcn77 said:


> That is a handsome guess. However, we have AMD guidelines: PBO is for threadripper series, not ryzen...
> 
> That is also a great guess, albeit for reasons pertaining to AMD, while they _should_ have named it 'AMP' in the first place, they stuck with that misnomer that familiarizes us with mobo oc.



Heck... I'm finding out that I'm just an AMD "Noob"... or rather a "Padawan" who has much to learn. 

I changed CPB in the Advanced section of BIOS from default/auto to disabled and ran a CB R20... Performance sure dropped because my 3900X was "capped" at default/3800Mhz!


----------



## mtcn77 (Feb 15, 2020)

PolRoger said:


> I changed CPB in the Advanced section of BIOS from default/auto to disabled and ran a CB R20... Performance sure dropped because my 3900X was "capped" at default/3800Mhz!


_- "He's beginning to believe!"
Pol, use the force. _Channel your energies, they will guide you in your oc.
(Here, you need to enter into manual bios orbit.)
Let go of your automatic vid and multiplier. Your feelings will guide you.
Generally, 3900X is a variant of 3600. Try 41x 1.25v high, 1.325v low voltage. Ignore high unless using msi, afaik.


----------



## Fry178 (Feb 15, 2020)

@Zach_01
changed it to "lower", so its easier to understand (i didnt mean water temp).

@mtcn77
PBO is TR only? lol

im out


----------



## Zach_01 (Feb 15, 2020)

Fry178 said:


> @Zach_01
> changed it to "lower", so its easier to understand (i didnt mean water temp).





Fry178 said:


> I ran a occ bench with max load/temp on cpu, and Temps increased the same way, even with the rad/water around 40*C lower, compared to fully saturated Temps.
> Stopped the bench, and Temps dropped down to idle (32C) within seconds.


Still does not give me any other clue than that water is 40°C. Or did you wanted to say below 40? If yes, then still at 38°C I find it too warmed up for water on a 3600 (less than 90W), when I always see below 30°C.



Fry178 said:


> @mtcn77
> PBO is TR only? lol
> 
> im out


Of course AM4 ZEN2 CPUs have it, but maybe he ment to say that they shouldn't because of thermal behaviour. And if that was the point then I will have to disagree.


----------



## mtcn77 (Feb 15, 2020)

Fry178 said:


> @mtcn77
> PBO is TR only? lol
> 
> im out





Zach_01 said:


> Of course AM4 ZEN2 CPUs have it, but maybe he ment to say that they shouldn't because of thermal behaviour. And if that was the point then I will have to disagree.


It is there folks.


Spoiler: Look at the AMD footnotes:



Precision Boost Overdrive (PBO) is a powerful new feature of the 2nd Gen AMD Ryzen™ Threadripper™ CPUs.¹





Spoiler: AMD featureset





__
		https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/b8a5ft
TL;DR Official AMD-Supported Feature Matrix

All Ryzen/Threadripper 2000 Series: Precision Boost 2, XFR2

Threadripper 2000 Series: Above+PBO


----------



## lorry (Feb 15, 2020)

http://imgur.com/kSuGPXl




http://imgur.com/gnGsVNa


----------



## Fry178 (Feb 15, 2020)

@Zach_01 
my mistake. should say 10 C lower water/rad temp, compared to the room heated. 
I was posting from work, in between customers, guess I got a bit confused


----------



## Zach_01 (Feb 15, 2020)

mtcn77 said:


> It is there folks.


You couldnt be more wrong...
What you are saying is from 2018 where Threadripper 2000 first intoduced PBO function. At that time PBO was exclusive to TR.
Now with 3000 all CPUs (AM4, TRX) have it. Wellcome to 2019-2020 CPU tech!


----------



## mtcn77 (Feb 15, 2020)

Zach_01 said:


> You couldnt be more wrong...


Your zeal to prove me wrong does not change its origin. Enjoy riling yourself.


----------



## Zach_01 (Feb 15, 2020)

mtcn77 said:


> Your zeal to prove me wrong does not change its origin. Enjoy riling yourself.


Change origin of what exactly? What you posted back there, yes its from AMD, but it is from 2018 and talks about TR 2000 series.
Its obsolete article and does not apply to any 3000 series SKU, whether is AM4 or TRX.





						Sign In to AMD Community - AMD Community
					

Join AMD Community, a forum for members to discuss the hottest AMD topics or stop by to read the latest blogs & news about all things AMD. Check it out!




					community.amd.com
				



We are in a 3000 series thread with topic on that, we are talking about 3000 series CPUs and you are stated something untrue about them.


mtcn77 said:


> That is a handsome guess. However, we have *AMD guidelines: PBO is for threadripper series, not ryzen...*


Its my fault that you said that when its not true? Should I, or anyone else, let it be?
Well I'm afraid not. When I see false statement (written as a fact) I will prove it wrong for the sakes of others that might not be aware of it.

I'm not enjoying proving you wrong, nor you can rile me up. You assume too much.


----------



## mtcn77 (Feb 15, 2020)

Zach_01 said:


> I'm not enjoying proving you wrong, nor you can rile me up. You assume too much.


I would highly regard that if it were to be true, AMD would have carried along the hypetrain with a little bit more presence. Yes, it is there,_ but does it do anything?_ I'm not here to mince words, sometimes you have to call the voice of reason and I hold an esteemed viewpoint as a fact checker. I would expect the same prudence from yourself to disregard the empty promises.


----------



## Zach_01 (Feb 15, 2020)

mtcn77 said:


> I would highly regard that if it were to be true, AMD would have carried along the hypetrain with a little bit more presence. *Yes, it is there, but does it do anything? *I'm not here to mince words, sometimes you have to call the voice of reason and I hold an esteemed viewpoint as a fact checker. I would expect the same prudence from yourself to disregard the empty promises.


So, we are back at this:


Zach_01 said:


> *Of course AM4 ZEN2 CPUs have it, but maybe he ment to say that they shouldn't...*


And that is clearly a personal opinion. To have an opinion is respected, and me or anyone else who does not agree with it, can respectfully disagree.
That is a different matter.
But an opinion you tried to state as a fact, like an AMD statement, covered under old and obsolete articles and states, is a whole other one...


----------



## mtcn77 (Feb 15, 2020)

Zach_01 said:


> So, we are back at this:
> 
> And that is clearly a personal opinion. To have an opinion is respected, and me or anyone else who does not agree with it, can respectfully disagree.
> That is a different matter.
> But an opinion you tried to state as a fact, like an AMD statement, covered under old and obsolete articles and states, is a whole other one...


With all respect, do you think our assumed foregone conclusions makes any difference outside of our frames of rationality? It is, or it isn't. The difference is not for us to decide.
I would highly debate neither is for AMD marketting to decide, so thus we are at a fray. Why make any rationalizations when AMD blurts out the obvious elephant in the room. At this point you are picking between AMD's assigned market associations which is another form of spin doctoring, imo. Don't fall for it.
PS: had it been obsolete, it would be missing from the amd central.

I don't have to fight tooth and nail, no pun intended, to point out pbo is only for ctdp customisation in accordance with motherboard overspecification and not related to mainstream pcs, but have your side of the argument. I'll leave it to rest by pointing out just how much threadripper would use unless  AMD prevented a meltdown like how Arctic runs asterixes on the bios bug that can cause intel 7980x use up to 270w unless boot restrained.


----------



## Zach_01 (Feb 15, 2020)

Well done. You've manage to drive the discussion to elsewhere from what I orinaly saying...
I'm out...


----------



## mtcn77 (Feb 15, 2020)

Zach_01 said:


> Well done. You've manage to drive the discussion to elsewhere from what I orinaly saying...
> I'm out...


I might have difficulty of expression and perception. Don't hold it personal, but _it was my argument to make. _Whatever you say, don't neglect that I always keep a personal narrative, so I pull all arguments towards my end goal. Which is pretty simple, pbo by itself doesn't mean anything unless we find it an explanation to spend man hours. AMD isn't in a lofty idealist position to add fuel to the flames. They have to meet the field right then and there and they have to deliver on this persistently. Intel can bear these royal cluster fails. The hard line is AMD can't.


----------



## Zach_01 (Feb 15, 2020)

No worries... i definately dont take it personally.


----------



## oxrufiioxo (Feb 15, 2020)

Speaking of PBO pretty interesting video although it probably only applies to dual CCX chips.


----------



## Fry178 (Feb 15, 2020)

@mtcn77 
posting a wall of text, without a single argument supporting what you claimed (TR only)? 
Ok...

unwatched this anyway


----------



## mtcn77 (Feb 15, 2020)

Fry178 said:


> @mtcn77
> posting a wall of text, without a single argument supporting what you claimed (TR only)?
> Ok...
> 
> unwatched this anyway


It would be a dissertation from the product placement strategy that tr brings.
You wouldn't wish me bring up the thread where I was promoting high operating temperature in mitigating ryzen heat load? It would only serve you to see the chips heat up by two folds by operating at 95°C in comparison to 65°C. Which is coincidentally the default case tr operates under normal circumstances.


Spoiler: Thread I cautioned you about:






> 65°C it draws 80Watts and sits at 4150MHz all cores
> @94°C+ almost 170watts, throttling rules and it sits at 3900MHz all cores.





How often does it seem it would overheat with two dies than one is my question.
Don't forget I tried to sound a warning about overheating below maximum operating temperatures. It is contrary-wise to common intuition which is why we have chips both cold and throttled rather for the complete opposite of useful scale at max boost.
TR has 2x more chips and twice more capacity to overheat. You do the math whether leaving ctdp low prior to launch at pbo privation is a wise thing to do.
Why Intel CPU's run at 95°C and why AMD's should, also


----------



## Zach_01 (Feb 15, 2020)

oxrufiioxo said:


> Speaking of PBO pretty interesting video although it probably only applies to dual CCX chips.


Oh it does not I assure you...   

Any way, he used scalar X10 and that is extremely agressive with voltages, hence the ridiculus power draw and temp. I tried it (limits 230) with X10, X5, X4 and lower is much better, with higher clock (on P95).


----------



## mtcn77 (Feb 16, 2020)

Let's leave it to Arctic to demonstrate us just what would happen without such a bios switch. Same as before with Intel automatic overclockery;
** c’t magazin has shown in issue 17/2017 on page 96 that Intel i9 CPUs on socket 2066 may draw up to 270 Watts since wrongly programmed BIOS by mainboard manufacturers fail to limit the TDP of the CPU to the specified 140 Watts. This may lead to thermal throttling of the CPU.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Feb 16, 2020)

Zach_01 said:


> Oh it does not I assure you...
> 
> Any way, he used scalar X10 and that is extremely agressive with voltages, hence the ridiculus power draw and temp. I tried it (limits 230) with X10, X5, X4 and lower is much better, with higher clock (on P95).


setting PBO on for me set TDE EDC PPT to(auto which equates to) 255 and while crunching i got all cores to 4.025 all cores sustained boost at 100% load

following Buildzoids Theory I maually setup PBO to TDC168 EDC 168 PPT 168  im now at 4.135 all core boost at the same load and its stable , been on a day so far as it is.


worthy of note i have a manual temp limit of 80 set and it works well.


----------



## Zach_01 (Feb 16, 2020)

theoneandonlymrk said:


> setting PBO on for me set TDE EDC PPT to(auto which equates to) 255 and while crunching i got all cores to 4.025 all cores sustained boost at 100% load
> 
> following Buildzoids Theory I maually setup PBO to TDC168 EDC 168 PPT 168  im now at 4.135 all core boost at the same load and its stable , been on a day so far as it is.
> 
> ...


I did follow my self this theory, and I restarted the system over 30 times the last night from testing different settings.
While in P95 the clock went from 3650 to 3950, the CB-R20 score gone down the drain. My temp never passed 72C(P95) or 64C(R20) with the default limit.
This kind of PBO usage is extremely aggresive (for voltage and current =power draw) and does not apply to all kinds of workloads. One must do some testing on the interested workload, otherwise performance could be crippled...
PBO needs a more refined and fine tune approach.


----------



## mtcn77 (Feb 16, 2020)

Zach_01 said:


> PBO needs a more refined and fine tune approach.


Maybe it is only for power gated hardware, no? We are stuffing words in AMD's mouth at this point...


----------



## Zach_01 (Feb 16, 2020)

Im not stuffing anything to anyone's mouth. This is all me...


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Feb 16, 2020)

Zach_01 said:


> I did follow my self this theory, and I restarted the system over 30 times the last night from testing different settings.
> While in P95 the clock went from 3650 to 3950, the CB-R20 score gone down the drain. My temp never passed 72C(P95) or 64C(R20) with the default limit.
> This kind of PBO usage is extremely aggresive (for voltage and current =power draw) and does not apply to all kinds of workloads. One must do some testing on the interested workload, otherwise performance could be crippled...
> PBO needs a more refined and fine tune approach.


try with a manual temp limit, it will not exceed it , I went with a safe 80


----------



## Zach_01 (Feb 16, 2020)

theoneandonlymrk said:


> try with a manual temp limit, it will not exceed it , I went with a safe 80


My temp never passed 72C I said...


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Feb 16, 2020)

Zach_01 said:


> My temp never passed 72C I said...


That's not my point , your also adjusting the temp it will boost upto it kept mine boosting more longer.


----------



## moproblems99 (Mar 4, 2020)

I figured I would stop posting in my thread and just post in here to try and consolidate.

I have been doing some testing over the last few says and I have almost got my 3900x into the 7500s on CB20.  So far, I think the two most important changes I have made are setting my LLC to 5 to keep the voltage lower (and temp and power) and then limiting my EDC to 150A.  I am not exactly sure why limiting EDC is effective unless it is limiting my current draw and reducing temps which is keeping boosts up.  7469 is the best I have made it to with all-core boost running between 4110mhz and 4140mhz.  I think I could tweak EDC a little more for some room but if you limit EDC too much then you can't boost well and you are also unable to hit TDC targets either.  I have been playing with the scalar but I can't actually see it having much of an impact at the moment.

Still testing so will update as it happens.


----------



## lorry (Apr 27, 2020)

Finally got it watercooled! Took forEver it feels like. Went with the Optimus block as you know, skipped the Alphacool AIO (it's sitting here unused, lol, I'll use the rad at Least when I do the GPU most likely)
Went with  Alphacool NexXxoS XT45 Full Copper 420mm Radiator V.2, 3 Noctua 140 industrial 2000, EKWB EK-Quantum Kinetic TBE 2r0 D5 PWM D-RGB Pump Reservoir - Plexi
Highest CPU temp is around 79C under a full load (Aida64, Prime95 etc) Water temp sits at around 24/25. I ended up using their block mounting in the end, If they had made their bolts 5mm longer you could use a Noctua backplate with ease, no idea why they don't though, cost?

Oh yeah, almost forgot, ambient is usually around 23C



http://imgur.com/2xrNtqg


----------



## Fry178 (Apr 27, 2020)

@moproblems99
not sure, but i think i saw recommendation to limit EDC to about 140.
tho cant remember what chip (3700/3800?), as i rebuild 2 rigs, build a new one, and swapped parts on all incl mine in the past 2 weeks,
and read up on lots of stuff.

@lorry
nice to see it finally coming together

@All
finally changed proc for 3700x, but im getting same low SC/ST clocks i had with the 3600.
CB20 ST basically runs at 3.6ghz all the way, except for about a dozen  bursts that boost to 4.35.
ST gets 508, MT4830, so not too bad.
stock bios except tweaks and optimization for hw/1usmus plan, xfr/pbo off, ram 3600@16/19/19/36/1T@1.35v
anyone knows how i see no boosting past 3.6 on ST stuff?


----------

