# Bad performance issue - I7 10700F - RTX3070 8GB



## Herken (Feb 19, 2021)

Hello,

i'm trying to understand why my result is so slow for my configuration. 3D Mark Time Spy only 8200 CPU test (normally 12000 for this CPU) and RTX3070 only 13274.

In the beginning of my test, i had only 7500 in CPU test but i changed the frequency of my RAM to 2900mhz instead 2400 mhz default value.

If i try to active the XMP profile (1 or 2) the computer doesn't work. If i choose the 3200 MHZ, it's the same. 

Can you help me to found the origin of this issue please? 
My full config :
I7 10700F
Gigabyte RTX 3070 8G
Asus Rog Strix Z490-F Gaming
Kingston HyperX Predator - DDR4 - module - 16 GB - DIMM 288-pin - 3200 MHz / PC4-25600
PSU EA750G Pro 750w

Thank you so much !

Hello,

i did the stress test from CPUZ and i don't kown if it's normal but the Vcore decrease during the test (VID), is it normal?


----------



## Herken (Feb 20, 2021)

Hello, just a little information, actually i have only 1 RAM of 16GB because there isn't stock actually. Is it possible that's the cause? Thank you!


----------



## P4-630 (Feb 20, 2021)

Herken said:


> Hello, just a little information, actually i have only 1 RAM of 16GB because there isn't stock actually. Is it possible that's the cause? Thank you!



Yeah you need dual channel which is at least 2 matching sticks of RAM for better performance. (best is 2 or 4 sticks of RAM which came from 1 package)


----------



## thebluebumblebee (Feb 20, 2021)

Welcome to TPU!  
What CPU cooler are you using and in what case?


----------



## Herken (Feb 20, 2021)

Hello I changed my cooler by a 120 mm with 2 fans. 1 by side. Normally it's the best air solution. I don't have the exact name I'm out of my house!

Is it possible cinebench poor result was linked to single channel ?

Thank you


----------



## WHDS (Feb 20, 2021)

Herken said:


> Hello I changed my cooler by a 120 mm with 2 fans. 1 by side. Normally it's the best air solution. I don't have the exact name I'm out of my house!
> 
> Is it possible cinebench poor result was linked to single channel ?
> 
> Thank you


yes


----------



## ThrashZone (Feb 20, 2021)

Hi,
Default clocks plus single channel memory yeah cpu-z only shows 4800mhz 
Really need more readings after the test with hwinfo64 max/ min readings with core temps/ frequencies too

HWiNFO - Download


----------



## X4K4 (Feb 20, 2021)

you overheat mate


----------



## P4-630 (Feb 20, 2021)

Yes it seems you need better CPU cooling as well.
Also dual channel memory will give your system a boost.


----------



## Herken (Feb 20, 2021)

P4-630 said:


> Yes it seems you need better CPU cooling as well.
> Also dual channel memory will give your system a boost.


The temperature is in a good range between 35 -65 70 max. I think it's good for good results right ?


----------



## WHDS (Feb 20, 2021)

Herken said:


> The temperature is in a good range between 35 -65 70 max. I think it's good for good results right ?


In the first picture its 100C, which is too hot


----------



## P4-630 (Feb 20, 2021)

Herken said:


> The temperature is in a good range between 35 -65 70 max. I think it's good for good results right ?



OK I looked over it to quickly, I saw the highest temps in XTU test, that's probably normal then, never used that test.
I see some core in the other screenshots upto 80 degrees though, but should be ok for benchmarking.

What are your CPU temps when gaming?


----------



## Herken (Feb 20, 2021)

P4-630 said:


> OK I looked over it to quickly, I saw the highest temps in XTU test, that's probably normal then, never used that test.
> I see some core in the other screenshots upto 80 degrees though, but should be ok for benchmarking.
> 
> What are your CPU temps when gaming?


About 65


----------



## P4-630 (Feb 20, 2021)

Herken said:


> About 65


During gaming that's fine.

Just get a set of memory sticks to get dual channel memory for better overall performance.


----------



## Herken (Feb 20, 2021)

Ok I will keep you informe when I have the second one


----------



## ThrashZone (Feb 20, 2021)

Herken said:


> Ok I will keep you informe when I have the second one


Hi,
Yeah benchmarks just look at the existing oc leader boards for another 10700 here's the r23 board








						Post your Cinebench R23 Score
					

Download Cinebench R23  Benchmarks FFXV Benchmark   Cinebench R23 "Multi" Scores are clickable, leading to the original post.  NameCPUCoreClockSingleMultiCooling mirrormaxEPYC 7742 (x2)128C/256T@ 3160 MHz 100981 cbAir nepuEPYC 770264C/128T@ 2499 MHz 48844 cbAir Bret WeeksRyzen Threadripper...




					www.techpowerup.com


----------



## Herken (Feb 20, 2021)

P4-630 said:


> OK I looked over it to quickly, I saw the highest temps in XTU test, that's probably normal then, never used that test.
> I see some core in the other screenshots upto 80 degrees though, but should be ok for benchmarking.
> 
> What are your CPU temps when gaming?


This result to xtu is before I changed the cooler sorry I forgotten to tell it


----------



## thebluebumblebee (Feb 20, 2021)

Have you "overclocked" your CPU?  Most likely, the other scores that you are running up against are OC'd systems.








						Intel Core i7-10700 Review - Way to Overclock without the K
					

In our Intel Core i7-10700 review, we're taking a look at one of Intel's most affordable 8-core/16-thread processors. Its low TDP of 65 W makes it power-efficient, but also limits performance. We unlocked that limit and gained up to 30% real-life performance without ever risking an unstable system.




					www.techpowerup.com


----------



## Herken (Feb 20, 2021)

thebluebumblebee said:


> Have you "overclocked" your CPU?  Most likely, the other scores that you are running up against are OC'd systems.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I have the i7 10700 F "locked" system , what's is the real difference for me for a normal use ?


----------



## phanbuey (Feb 20, 2021)

Herken said:


> I have the i7 10700 F "locked" system , what's is the real difference for me for a normal use ?



0 difference, one has a GPU one doesnt otherwise same chip/setup.


----------



## unclewebb (Feb 20, 2021)

The Core i7-10700F has a 65W TDP limit. If you leave this CPU at its default settings, it will definitely underperform. The good news is that can easily be fixed by increasing the turbo power limits in the BIOS.

To simulate a 10700F, I used msconfig to reduce my 10 core CPU down to a 8 core - 16 thread CPU, same as the 10700F. I also used ThrottleStop to lock it to 4600 MHz which is the all core turbo speed of a 10700F. With the default 65W TDP limit, the 10700F is going to have to slow down significantly so it does not exceed 65W. With unlocked power limits, you can run the 10700F at its full rated speed indefinitely.

How will this affect performance? Have a look at this Cinebench R23 score and compare it to what you are getting.





When you leave the 10700F at its default 65W power limit, you are leaving a LOT of performance on the table. As long as you have decent cooling, you can run the 10700F all day at a steady 4600 MHz with zero throttling. ThrottleStop shows that you need to set the power limits to at least 135W to achieve this. Best to set both of the turbo power limits sky high so they never interfere with maximum performance. I set these limits to the max, 4095W.







Herken said:


> the Vcore decrease during the test (VID), is it normal?


Your CPU is power limit throttling. When a CPU slows down, the VID voltage is also decreased. Increase the turbo power limits and this will not happen. No more throttling.


----------



## Herken (Feb 20, 2021)

Hello, can you check this video i made now? https://drive.google.com/file/d/1PfUYAUld3O9gqlHj-9ggWv-DVDOwkBdK/view?usp=sharing

It's so strange, it's laggy when youtube video need to be rezized... i never had that with my old configuration (I7 6700K).

Can you confirm there is a problem ? Normally with I7 10700 i will never see this kind of lag? Right?



unclewebb said:


> The Core i7-10700F has a 65W TDP limit. If you leave this CPU at its default settings, it will definitely underperform. The good news is that can easily be fixed by increasing the turbo power limits in the BIOS.
> 
> To simulate a 10700F, I used msconfig to reduce my 10 core CPU down to a 8 core - 16 thread CPU, same as the 10700F. I also used ThrottleStop to lock it to 4600 MHz which is the all core turbo speed of a 10700F. With the default 65W TDP limit, the 10700F is going to have to slow down significantly so it does not exceed 65W. With unlocked power limits, you can run the 10700F at its full rated speed indefinitely.
> 
> ...


I will check that now. Have i this option in my Asus Rog Strix Z490-F? I will check but there is a lot of option lol


----------



## unclewebb (Feb 20, 2021)

My Asus board has the power limits set in Ai Tweaker.
I use default values when booting up and then I use ThrottleStop to adjust them higher. Set both of these power limits to 4095W.
Long Duration Package Power Limit and Short Duration Package Power Limit to the moon.





Once you get this fixed, run Cinebench R23 again and your scores should be up over 12,000.


----------



## Herken (Feb 20, 2021)

unclewebb said:


> My Asus board has the power limits set in Ai Tweaker.
> I use default values when booting up and then I use ThrottleStop to adjust them higher. Set both of these power limits to 4095W.
> Long Duration Package Power Limit and Short Duration Package Power Limit to the moon.
> 
> ...


Here you can see what i have but i can't change all options


----------



## unclewebb (Feb 20, 2021)

Where it says AUTO, type in a number.
4095

The Short Duration is already set to 224. If you also set the Long Duration to 224, this is enough to let this CPU stretch its legs. Anything over 200 for both is good enough.


----------



## ThrashZone (Feb 20, 2021)

Hi,
Couple more settings in bios
CPU Core/Cache Current Limit Max. [255.75]
Long Duration Package Power Limit [4095]
Package Power Time Window [448]
Short Duration Package Power Limit [4095]


----------



## Herken (Feb 20, 2021)

Done! Can you tell me what have I to put for IA Ac load line and ia dc load line because I changed it auto value but now I can't choose it thank you guy after that I will test benchmark!


----------



## unclewebb (Feb 20, 2021)

Herken said:


> I changed it auto value


If you are not sure what to put, type in AUTO.


----------



## Herken (Feb 20, 2021)

I launched the test but the tdp go down again at 60 w. Normal? Waiting for the result


----------



## ThrashZone (Feb 20, 2021)

Hi,
Do load line elsewhere llc-4 is default so unless yoiu have issues leave it alone
If you have issues use llc-5 what it does is lessens vid min-max spread or allows a lot of vdroop to occur which it's a bad thing.


----------



## Herken (Feb 20, 2021)

Llc-4? Where is this option please ?


----------



## unclewebb (Feb 20, 2021)

Not normal. It is possible that your BIOS does not set the turbo power limits correctly on the non K CPUs. It might force it to 65W.

Download ThrottleStop and post a screenshot of the TPL window. It will show you your power limits and you can also adjust them.









						ThrottleStop (9.5) Download
					

ThrottleStop is a small application designed to monitor for and correct the three main types of CPU throttling that are being used on many lapto




					www.techpowerup.com
				




Your heatsink and fan can probably not handle what this CPU is capable of.


----------



## Herken (Feb 20, 2021)

Here the result of cinebench and the screenshot
I have not idea what i have to change


----------



## unclewebb (Feb 20, 2021)

Press the TPL button and take a screenshot of that. 
Your turbo power limits are in that window.


----------



## Herken (Feb 20, 2021)

oups


----------



## unclewebb (Feb 20, 2021)

ThrottleStop shows that your turbo power limits are still set to default values. 65W and 129W. Change 65 to 4095 and change 129 to 4095.
Also clear the Clamp option. It is not necessary.

When you press Apply or OK, the turbo limits that your CPU is set to will show up at the top.

Open Limit Reasons while testing to check for any power limit throttling.


----------



## ThrashZone (Feb 20, 2021)

Herken said:


> Llc-4? Where is this option please ?


Hi,
It's down the extreme tweaker list called external digi+ power control 
LLC stands for load line calibration like I said default is llc 4 even though it says auto.


----------



## Herken (Feb 20, 2021)

I changed and taking the test. Power up to 166w! Temp to 83 degres. Seems better! Have I to start this ap again every day or is it saved ? I will share you the result at the end.

Can I destroy my cpu with this change ?

Thank you very much for your time.




Seems very better....


----------



## unclewebb (Feb 20, 2021)

You will have to start ThrottleStop each time. For the huge increase in performance, it is definitely worth it.

Here is the Task Scheduler guide so you can add ThrottleStop to your Windows startup sequence.






						TechnologyGuide
					

Thank you for visiting the TechnologyGuide network. Unfortunately, these forums are no longer active. We extend a heartfelt thank you to the entire community for their steadfast support—it is really you, our readers, that drove




					forum.notebookreview.com
				




You can probably reduce your CPU voltage by at least -50 mV. This will help reduce power consumption and heat.

If you want to reduce your voltage in the BIOS, here is an example of a -75 mV undervolt.





Your CPU is a good quality, SP 105, so it can probably handle this and still be 100% reliable. Do lots of testing if you decide to play with voltages.
I prefer using ThrottleStop to manage the voltage. If you decide to use ThrottleStop to manage voltages, you will need to go into the BIOS and enable SVID support.



Herken said:


> Seems very better....


It is!


----------



## Herken (Feb 20, 2021)

Hi,
now it's ok ! Can you tell me why have i to do that to have the real performance of this cpu? Because i choose the F and not the K? I'm happy to have a good result now but why is it decreased? 
Thank you for the link! I will test others benchmark and game to check if it's better too.


----------



## unclewebb (Feb 20, 2021)

This CPU has a 65W TDP rating. It needs way more than that to run at its full potential. Be happy that it is so easy to do this.


----------



## ThrashZone (Feb 20, 2021)

Hi,
Intel nonsense simply said


----------



## Herken (Feb 20, 2021)

unclewebb said:


> This CPU has a 65W TDP rating. It needs way more than that to run at its full potential. Be happy that it is so easy to do this.


Yes thank you for the trick and i seen you are the author of Throthlestop, nice job !


----------



## ThrashZone (Feb 20, 2021)

Hi,
Not sure this was mentioned but this also should be enabled
Wording tells the story = Remove all limits" should of added Intel limits lol
ASUS MultiCore Enhancement [Remove all limits]

The rabbit hole

```
MCE
https://rog.asus.com/forum/showthread.php?106375-MCE-explanations-and-others

I'm seeing quite a lot of misunderstanding the workings of MCE so Im partly writing this to address it.
It is not the taboo that it has been made up to become. There are 3 options for it, namely Auto,
enabled and disabled.

Enabled merely maxes out Power and current limits so that users dont have to manually do these themselves.

Disabled sets these limits to intels defaults. Even when you customize ratios, these limits are still in
place unless manually adjusted.

Auto means that the board has liberty to determine what limits are reasonable, competitive, reliable and
logical. Factors such as thermal, performance, Segment, competitors out of box perf, stability are taken
into account. Logical meaning that when you customize a ratio, all limits are raised to the max with the
logical assumption that you want to run that frequency and not clip from power.
Therefore it is totally redundant to disable MCE and then max out power and current limits, since enabling
MCE does the exact same thing and no more. Really, just leave MCE at auto if you plan on overclocking, it
does you no harm.

TVB

Now for the current emphasis on totally stock perf of the is by the review sites, all the attention is on
TDP but thats just a gnat compared to the camel swallowed. NO site actually talked about and examined the
latest feature of the i9, Thermal Velocity Boost TVB. By default Intel enables this but I see that only
Asus boards enable this at defaults. The other boards I tested have this disabled even at defaults.

What this does is it reduces voltage guardbands depending on core temp. Traditionally, the voltage request
by the proc is always based on worst case scenario TJMAX, meaning the voltage the proc thinks it needs for
the frequency when temp is 100c. It is well-known that the cooler the chip runs, the lesser the voltage
needed. Therefore TVB is opportunistically reducing power and temps. The behavior is quite linear and I
observed the following on several samples.

TVB takes effect from 40~50x on 99k and 40 to 49x on 97k and 40 to 47x on 96k, simply 40x to single core
boost ratio. The V/temp curve runs from 0c to 100c. For example 150mv delta between 100c and 0c for 50x,
meaning every 1C drop from 100c VID requested will reduce by 1.5mv. The reduction is smaller as you go down
to 49x, the smaller the ratio the smaller the reduction, and below 40x you get no reduction. This is good
for most people running stock. You can try this yourself by noting the VID idle, and then unplug your water
pump and let the core temp rise slowly, noting down the correlated temp/VID, and see what i'm talking about.


During OC, when you try to run adaptive mode voltage with this mechanism, you will need to change your
perspective in how you set the after target adaptive voltages since you need to assume thats the
voltage you get when 100c and do the reduction to your lowest (usually ambient) temp and gauge what voltage
is needed to be set. So if you set 1.35v for example, when you idle at 30c you will get maybe 1.25v instead. 
This can be confusing for many people, therefore we disable TVB once you customize a ratio. This is not to say 
you cannot exploit this mechanism to work for you during OC but you really need to find out your idle Vmin (lowest stable voltage). 
You can find this option in CPU internal power management in the bios and you can force it to enable during OC.
For those who want to check or try this on other boards, simply download r/w everything http://rweverything.
com/ and add CPU MSR 0x150

Access this register and set bit 63 to 1 and [39:32] to 18h:

https://ibb.co/gUyvUf

Bit 3 shows you if TVB is enabled or disabled (0=disabled). If TVB is disabled, simply flip the bit and use
command 19 to write.

https://ibb.co/jCEDFL

https://ibb.co/muKDFL


Then you can see what the default stock behavior is really like. This will truly affect temperature,
power consumption, boost frequencies when TDP is default, etc so those who want to dig deeper into Ãt stock
performance
really needs to get this correct.

The other thing that also affects ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã‹Å“stock performance is the ACDC loadline programmed into the
processor. Boards should let CPU know the actual loadline the board is currently set to by writing the
correct loadline. This doesnÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢t mean that the board has to be honest about it, and with the
generous guardband Intel are used to providing (not as generous any more perhaps Ãƒter well you
know they need to factor in stability after 10 years of heavy use for example), it is not uncommon for boards
to lie to the processor so as to get it to undervolt. You cannot really tell how much the board has lied to
the proc but at the same frequency/load, just by probing the inductor on different boards with a multimeter,
you can see that at least more than one board is lying to the proc. Obviously TVB setting should be similar during 
the test or else you get very skewed results as explained above.

Finally, VRM temp should not be the only factor when evaluating a VRM, much less a whole board. For OC, my
opinion is that transient response is very important. Contrary to popular belief, you do not need expensive
equipment to test transient response. You can use Cache OC or AVX offset to test this.

If you played with Cache OC, you see that it is very intolerant of any undershoots. Straightaway you would
hardlock or BSOD. You can even test it at default. Since it shares the same rail as core, set core ratio to
something really low like 40x. Set min and max cache ratio to 43x and set a manual voltage like 1.15v. Run a
heavy load like prime 95 non AVX. Dynamically slowly reduce the voltage 5mv at a time. You will find the
VMIN this way. Once you find the VMIN under continuous load, stop prime95. If it doesn't hang, run it again,
back and forth between running and stopping. Even try booting straight from bios with that VMIN. You will
see that this VMIN requires a guardband for transient load changes, meaning you will need 5mv+++ more. You
will observe bigger guardbands needed at higher cache. Obviously the better the transient response, the
guardband requirement is smaller.

There is also AVX offset, or ratio change mechanism in general that you can observe transient response.
First, find the VMIN under continuous heavy load like prime95 non AVX 26.6 on say 47x cpu ratio or something
with a manual mode voltage with AVX offset at 0.
Next set AVX offset to any value, such as 1 or 2. Run the same frequency/load at it's VMIN. It will not last
too long.

Avx offset or other ratio change mechanisms has always had this issue whereby voltage guardband needed is
bigger
Heres why, the ratio change takes place by getting the core plls to go to sleep and then waking up to new
pll frequency.
The transient is very bad and violent when u run high loads cos it will go from really high load to almost
no load and back to high load very quickly.

Now you may think you did not even run AVX. For AVX offset, a lot of background stuff may run a few AVX
instructions, such as dot net framework.
Sometimes u can see avx offset occur when u dont deliberately run avx, its usually very
fast and you only see the small pockets.
Therefore the ratio change occurs quickly and vmin is raised due to the guardband requirement increasing.

The way to mitigate this is to use a steep LLC and higher vid. The transient will be better.

You can trigger this guardband by doing other stuff that changes ratio, such as when running prime 95,
keep setting down short duration power limit and upping it with XTU continuously.
The ratio will keep changing and finally hang when your guardband is just enough.
Or just keep changing ratio up and down.

Therefore use AVX offset bearing the extra guardband in mind. This is totally the behavior of Intels proc.
Again, obviously you can gauge the ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã‹Å“responsivenessÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢ of a board by measuring
the GB needed. For example you can logically conclude that a board that requires 150mv GB is less ƒagile
than a board that requires 80mv guardband.


Adaptive Voltage

Lets start from the basics, how the CPU's Dynamic Freq volt scaling works.
#1 the mobo's bios tells the processor the current loadline characteristics via AC DC loadline values.
#2 the cpu, based on its own native VF curve and the info in #1, requests for a voltage from the controller.

#3 the voltage that eventually reaches the cpu is this voltage minus the droop from loadline

easier to understand from an example:

10900k running at 4.9ghz currently and drawing 150A. bios programmed AC DC LL to 0.50MOhm.
the cpu's native vf point at 4.9ghz is 1.30v.
the cpu anticipates 75mv droop. (V=I*R,,, 150*0.5) the cpu requests for 1.30v + 75mv = 1.375v from
controller
the current VRM loadline the user sets is level 3 which is about 1.1MOhm.
the actual voltage that the cpu eventually gets after the vdroop from the mobo is
1.375v- (150*1.1)mv = 1.21v

##Note: The above is an illustration without TVB voltage optimization enabled. if it is enabled,
then it adds another variable into the equation @ #2 (volt requested for -volt optimization from
temperature -> we leave this as zero so that it is more understandable in the above example)

After understanding this, we can better explain Adaptive voltage, which is not too complicated but
requires you to bear in mind the rules it follows.

1) When cpu frequency is smaller than or equal to the highest default boost freq, for eg 5.3 on 10900k
(lets call this p0 freq):
whatever you set as an adaptive voltage is ignored by the cpu since it only references its own native vf
curve at freq <=p0freq

2) And even if you are at a freq higher than p0 freq, if you set a value that is smaller than its native
p0 freq vid, this gets ignored too.

example:
10900k with a native vid of 1.5v at 53x. you run synch all cores 52x and try to set 1.45v adaptive. this is
futile becos cpu ignores it due to 1)
then you go up to 54x and try to set 1.475v, this is futile as well as the cpu again ignores it due to 2).
then you set voltage to 1.52v, then the cpu finally starts honoring this request because 1) and 2) are false.

=> so in short, adaptive voltage ONLY takes effect if freq >p0freq & value > native p0vid. And even so the
eventual voltage you get is the result after going thru #1,#2,#3

so what to do for freq <=p0 freq, how to get volt u want in this range? well, short of offsets / vf pt
offsets, you can manipulate the variables in #1 and #3 to get the v you want, ie manipulate AC DC LL
values and/OR VRM Loadline values. for my preference, i would stick to a good VRM loadline that is good
for transient, example Level 4, fix it in this position and trim AC DC LL values.

The svid behavior option just contains static AC DC LL presets, apart from "Trained" which is part of the
AI algo, that sets a predicted AC DC LL value taking into account freq, cpu/cooler characteristics/vrm ll
value.



S/w VID readings

S/w vid readings may not always reflect the actual vid requested from the controller, in fact, unless DC
Loadline is written to 0.01, it wont.
what it reflects is actually the voltage cpu anticipates to get, calculated from DC LL value.
so for example, when you see VID reading of 1.35v and DC Loadline value is 0.5MOhm, what is actually
requested from the controller is:
(for simplicity im gonna leave out the fixed 200mv offset requested by cpu for >=8cores)
1.35v+0.5*current at the moment:
for example:
1.35v + (0.5*180A) mv= 1.44v

So why dont we set DC LL to 0.01 and AC LL to whatever we need (since the actual vdroop compensation cpu
requests for boils down to AC LL Value)?
Well you can but when AC and DC LL values differ, the current and power calculations done by the cpu gets
skewed.



New VF Pt offsets on Z490:

the vf curve refers to the stock vid of the proc at various freq and the vf pt offset allows you to fine
tune per each point. All these pertain to adaptive voltage mode instead of manual mode, since manual mode
uses a fixed voltage setting across all freq. Bear in mind the nuance that it has to be monotonic and
setting a higher freq with a lower resultant volt will only get volt as low as the point before it.
As an example, you see from bios menu or s/w that vf pt 53x is 1.334v vid
vf point 7 , the pt before that is 1.314v
say you target 1.25v VID for 53x, setting negative offset of -0.084 for vf point 8(53x) will only result
in at actual 1.314v since vf point 7 is 1.314v and u cannot set pt 8 lower than pt 7. at this time, you
then decide to set vf pt 7 to negative -0.069Ã¢â‚¬Â¬, and this sets vf pt 7 down and also allows vf pt 8
to come down to 1.25v.
the software tool i posted forces you to adhere to this rule so its useful for runtime testing in os and
allows you to free yourself from doing the math.

this is to illustrate the rule it adheres to, but an illogical approach because i dont think one should
target a voltage for a freq but target a freq and get the necessary volt for it.
so in actual use case, you would just be trimming and trimming each point, double checking stability
throughout the trimming process.


Edit: 11/19

Update of new Feature: Overclocking TVB:

OverClocking TVB is an extension of the TVB feature allowing you to customize frequencies according to
temperature.
This, in my opinion, is a useful feature that milks the last bit you have got at light loads without
requiring additional voltage. In a nutshell, it takes that 5~8C extra margin you’ve got, and converts it
into additional frequency.
It is only supported on 10900K/non K variants atm, and maybe 10850K. IF unsupported, the information will
display N/A
Everything TVB related is now grouped into the Thermal Velocity Boost menu:

At the top, it reads back the current configuration of the OCTVB.
For this to work properly, CStates must be enabled for proc to be active core aware! If you synch all cores,
make sure you manually enable Cstates.
Active Cores refer to the row of settings applicable when that number of cores are active. Ratio Setting
refers to the associated core ratio for that active core count. Temp A refers to Temperature A for that
active core count above which the ratio would drop by it’s associated Ratio offset. This offset is the
Negative Ratio Offset A pictured above. Temp B refers to Temperature B for that active core count above
which the ratio would drop by a further 1x.
Let’s take a simple example below:

Right now Cpu runs at 50C and only core is currently active. Ratio is therefore 55x.
User does something, the active core gets hotter and becomes 72C, and still only 1 core active. Ratio now
becomes 55-1=54x because 72c is > Temp A 68C and the negative offet is 1. If negative offset is 2 for eg,
then it will become 55-2=53x.
And then, the user loads it further and now temperature is 82C. Ratio now is 55-1(from TempA) -1(from TempB)
=53x because temp is > tempB of 78C and a further 1x is deducted. Temp B negative offset cannot be
configured and is a fixed 1x.
Then the user does something different and now 3 cores are active. The applicable row becomes the third
row in the picture above. CPU runs at 60C right now and so none of TempA/B has been exceeded, therefore
ratio is the original 53x. then proc gets to 77C, TempA is breached, it’s associated offset is 3x so proc
drops to 50X. Again it runs hotter still, gets to 87C. TempB is breached, proc drops a further 1x and ratio
is now 49x. And the story continues…

Hopefully, this example is enough to explain.

The control is under Overclocking TVB, customize it using “Enabled”
When enabled, you get to customize the params for each row (each active core count) The Ratio,
you configure it the main menu like you always do, whether you go with synch all cores
(if you go with synch all cores pls manually enable cstates so that the proc can tell number of active cores)

or by core usage it doesn’t affect this.

It can be very time consuming to customize it yourself, so we have made 2 predicted presets for you, the
+1boost profile and +2boost profile

Just use it ON TOP of your current/maximized oc setting.
It will do an additional 1x/2x on top of your current setting and set auto-calculated temperature boundaries
based on the associated frequency. This does not add voltage because it still uses the voltage before
adding the boost and merely tries to scrap some performance from moments when there is thermal headroom.
So for example, I would load Ai optimized, then enable to +1boost. I find it stable, feel a bit adventurous,
then I change it to +2boost and try.
Or my current OC is 54X @ 1.4v, I keep this and I just go into OCTVB to enable +1 boost. (if you go with
synch all cores pls manually enable cstates so that the proc can tell number of active cores, or just use
by core usage and set every core count to same value)
```


----------



## unclewebb (Feb 20, 2021)

ThrashZone said:


> ASUS MultiCore Enhancement


The non K CPUs do not support MultiCore Enhancement. Not sure if this option is available in his BIOS or if it worked.
If this worked, he would not need to use ThrottleStop to run at full speed.


----------



## Herken (Feb 20, 2021)

ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> Not sure this was mentioned but this also should be enabled
> Wording tells the story = Remove all limits" should of added Intel limits lol
> ASUS MultiCore Enhancement [Remove all limits]
> ...


I will check thank you for information



unclewebb said:


> The non K CPUs do not support MultiCore Enhancement. Not sure if this option is available in his BIOS or if it worked.
> If this worked, he would not need to use ThrottleStop to run at full speed.
> 
> View attachment 189249


I will check if i have this option and if it's working.

I activated the option but after 30 second TDP is to 65 w



ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> Default clocks plus single channel memory yeah cpu-z only shows 4800mhz
> Really need more readings after the test with hwinfo64 max/ min readings with core temps/ frequencies too
> 
> HWiNFO - Download


Sorry i missed your message. Here the capture


----------



## ThrashZone (Feb 20, 2021)

Hi,
Sorry I forgot to say use Sensors only option when opening hwinfo it shows better info.


----------



## Herken (Feb 20, 2021)

ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> Sorry I forgot to say use Sensors only option when opening hwinfo it shows better info.


No problem! 

Memory information timing

Actually in Warzone i have only 90-110 fps in ultra (1920x1200) and when i check some video on youtube with the same configuration is like 140 - 170 fps, i checked the TDP during a game and it's never going up 80 W, i'm not sure that the dual channel will solve these difference...


----------



## unclewebb (Feb 21, 2021)

If your CPU can maintain the full 46.00 multiplier during Cinebench then it is running how it should be running. Your 12204 Cinebench score is appropriate for an 8 core Comet Lake CPU running at 4600 MHz. If you had faster dual channel memory, you would get another bump up to 12,500 or beyond. Not that bad for a CPU that was recently selling for $229.

Try lowering the voltage in the BIOS. You will be pleasantly surprised by the results. You should see a big drop in power consumption and temps.


----------



## ThrashZone (Feb 21, 2021)

Hi,
You haven't enabled xmp profile for 3200 ?


----------



## Herken (Feb 21, 2021)

unclewebb said:


> If your CPU can maintain the full 46.00 multiplier during Cinebench then it is running how it should be running. Your 12204 Cinebench score is appropriate for an 8 core Comet Lake CPU running at 4600 MHz. If you had faster dual channel memory, you would get another bump up to 12,500 or beyond. Not that bad for a CPU that was recently selling for $229.
> 
> Try lowering the voltage in the BIOS. You will be pleasantly surprised by the results. You should see a big drop in power consumption and temps.


I will change as you said -50 mV right?



ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> You haven't enabled xmp profile for 3200 ?


It's not working, if i choose a XMP profile the mother board failed booting



Herken said:


> I will change as you said -50 mV right?
> 
> 
> It's not working, if i choose a XMP profile the mother board failed booting


Maybe have i to put all latency manually?


----------



## ThrashZone (Feb 21, 2021)

Hi,
Sure you have it in the single channel slot ?


----------



## Herken (Feb 21, 2021)

ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> Sure you have it in the single channel slot ?
> View attachment 189255


I plug the only one in the first position. Seems to be bad!



Herken said:


> I plug the only one in the first position. Seems to be bad!


I changed the position to the second... and XMP is activated without any issue.. I'm dump 

I tested Warzone and now i have 110 140 fps  thank you for all !


----------



## ThrashZone (Feb 21, 2021)

Hi,
Yeah some boards single channel might work in any slot but not asus
The online manual is nice thing to have around to skim through so download it off asus website for your board
Single channel memory overclocking world record are made that way


----------



## Herken (Feb 21, 2021)

ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> Yeah some boards single channel might work in any slot but not asus
> The online manual is nice thing to have around to skim through so download it off asus website for your board
> Single channel memory overclocking world record are made that way


Yes now i known for the futur


----------



## unclewebb (Feb 21, 2021)

@Herken - Do games play smoother at the higher power limit? Any problems? Did you try using a -50 mV undervolt yet?

Why not run 3D Mark again to see if there is any improvement. It is always good to see a comparison of how your computer performs with a 65W power limit compared to no power limits. Many review sites do not understand the difference. They only test at default specs. TPU has run a few tests like this on the locked CPUs. Big difference when the power limits are opened up.


----------



## ThrashZone (Feb 21, 2021)

Herken said:


> Yes now i known for the futur


Hi,
Did you ever say which cooler you're using ?


----------



## Herken (Feb 21, 2021)

ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> Did you ever say which cooler you're using ?


I use the cooler master hyper 212 rgb black edition, i added a second fan to this cooler



unclewebb said:


> @Herken - Do games play smoother at the higher power limit? Any problems? Did you try using a -50 mV undervolt yet?
> 
> Why not run 3D Mark again to see if there is any improvement. It is always good to see a comparison of how your computer performs with a 65W power limit compared to no power limits. Many review sites do not understand the difference. They only test at default specs. TPU has run a few tests like this on the locked CPUs. Big difference when the power limits are opened up.


Hi, i tested in game and in 3d mark but i have the same result / score. I changed the vcore as you asked but i don't check for now the temperarue during a stress test to check if it's changed ! I need to do that

My last result to 3D Mark


----------



## unclewebb (Feb 21, 2021)

You are only going to see improvements in tests where your CPU was power limit throttling before. Your original 3D Mark test only seemed to show a little bit of CPU throttling at the end of the test. To get your 3D Mark scores higher, you need dual channel memory.


----------



## ThrashZone (Feb 21, 2021)

Hi,
There is actually two scores cpu and gpu 
So neither score increased ?


----------



## Herken (Feb 21, 2021)

unclewebb said:


> You are only going to see improvements in tests where your CPU was power limit throttling before. Your original 3D Mark test only seemed to show a little bit of CPU throttling at the end of the test. To get your 3D Mark scores higher, you need dual channel memory.


Yes i think so. i checked the TDP during a game session and it's never go up 75 80 w. I will go full test again after i receive the second ram stick (end of this month, maybe  )



ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> There is actually two scores cpu and gpu
> So neither score increased ?


I confused 2 screenshot here the original one. Yes better performance now. If you check here the 10700K have 11392 with TDP to 125w
RTX 3070 normally 14000 score in Timespy, probably the single/dual channel difference. XMP doesn't change anything to it.


----------



## ThrashZone (Feb 21, 2021)

Hi,
Yeah you gained close to 1k points on the cpu


----------



## Herken (Feb 21, 2021)

ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> Yeah you gained close to 1k points on the cpu


Yes ! And in Cinebech i move from 8794 to 12204!


----------



## ThrashZone (Feb 21, 2021)

Hi,
Time spy is mostly a gpu bench so cpu gains don't show a lot of total score pop 

Did you check bios to see if the option exists ?


----------



## unclewebb (Feb 21, 2021)

Herken said:


> Cinebench i move from 8794 to 12204


The first screenshot you posted shows a Cinebench score of 8525. That is a 43% increase in performance for free. Not bad at all.


----------



## Herken (Feb 22, 2021)

unclewebb said:


> The first screenshot you posted shows a Cinebench score of 8525. That is a 43% increase in performance for free. Not bad at all.


Yes I'm ok with you, the big difference is in app who use the maximum of power of the cpu


----------

