# HP Pavilion & i5-10300H optimisation and TDP issues



## pomidorex (Apr 18, 2021)

Hello guys,
I have a new HP Pavilion Gaming 16-a0040nw laptop set and I'm trying to make settings at their best.
According to the datasheet, the TDP is 45W and the CPU is capable of max 4,5GHz. I've managed to unlock undervolting. The TS settings are as listed:


Spoiler: TS+Options












Spoiler: TS+FIVR













Spoiler: TS+TPL








With those settings, my Cinebench 30-minutes-benchmark Multicore test average result is between 5720 and 5790 points.
What is bothering me is that during the tests the red PL1 and RING EDP OTHER is hitting frequently, but not causing a huge throttle. Voltage cuts from 1.05V to 1.00-1.02V, making PKG Power level at 45W, which is CPU's actual TDP.
When running Prime95 with those settings, once I managed to hit PKG Power at circa 60W, but after half minute it was brutally cut down to 45W.
The temperature during Cinebench is not exceeding 80 deg. Celsius, which I consider a nice temp result.
Talking about undervolting, a -125mV Core cache setting caused some first errors, so I consider -120mV as a sweet spot for my certain chip. However, I can never achieve a 45x multiplier on my CPU, which I would be expecting from specification (4,5GHz max). It never goes above 42x.
To sum up, do you guys have any hints to keep that hardware possibilities maxed up with keeping stability? Do I have to stay happy with stable 43-45W TDP (happily no dropping to e.g. 30W when stress testing) or could I keep trying?
The Cinebench 30 minutes TS log is attached, as fair as a short Prime95 TS log showing the throttle.
Regards


----------



## unclewebb (Apr 18, 2021)

pomidorex said:


> CPU is capable of max 4,5GHz


If you look in the FIVR window at the Turbo Ratio Limits section, you will see that your CPU has a maximum multiplier of 42 when all 4 cores are active. The 45 multiplier is only available when 1 core is active. When running Cinebench, all 4 cores are active so you will never see a multiplier higher than 42 during that test. 

To see your highest multiplier, try running the TS Bench and set it to 1 Thread. There will always be Windows background tasks constantly waking up additional cores so you will never see the full 45.00 multiplier during this test or any test. If you have a very lean computer without a lot of background tasks running, you might get pretty close to 45. Here is an example of a lean computer. 






Your HP laptop is likely enforcing a long term 45W power limit. This is common. When a manufacturer decides to do this, you cannot use ThrottleStop to get beyond this limit. There are multiple sets of turbo power limits and the lowest limit always wins. If a manufacturer decides that they do not want you going over 45W then they can enforce this limit and there is nothing you can do about it. 

When power limit throttling starts, the CPU will slow down as much as necessary so the CPU does not exceed 45W. The log file shows that. If you are running a more demanding application like Prime95, the CPU will need to slow down more to keep within the 45W power budget. 

Some users with 8th and 9th Gen CPUs had some success by setting the core offset voltage to a much bigger number compared to the cache offset. Leave the cache at -120 mV and start bumping the core up in steps of -25 mV. Watch to see if this improves your Cinebench scores. If you lose stability, lower the cache offset to -110 mV. This trick used to lower the CPU voltage a little when the CPU was running AVX instructions. This reduced power consumption and allowed the CPU to run a little faster without triggering power limit throttling. Here are some examples.






						Cinebench Test.zip
					






					drive.google.com
				




Intel might have fixed this bug in the 10th Gen. You might not see any improvement. The earlier CPUs used to like somewhere around -125 mV for the cache and up to -225 mV offset for the core.


----------



## Kugumin (Apr 19, 2021)

unclewebb said:


> Intel might have fixed this bug in the 10th Gen


They did not yet. I've managed to go down from 1.04V to 1.025V with that trick in CB23


----------



## pomidorex (Apr 19, 2021)

unclewebb said:


> Some users with 8th and 9th Gen CPUs had some success by setting the core offset voltage to a much bigger number compared to the cache offset. Leave the cache at -120 mV and start bumping the core up in steps of -25 mV. Watch to see if this improves your Cinebench scores. If you lose stability, lower the cache offset to -110 mV. This trick used to lower the CPU voltage a little when the CPU was running AVX instructions. This reduced power consumption and allowed the CPU to run a little faster without triggering power limit throttling.


Hello @unclewebb. Nice to hear from you.
I gave it a try and lowered the values as you said. Going with -25 mV steps on the core did a little improvement to Cinebench benchmarks (up to 5805 points on -110/-620 mV on Cache/Core). That was going to reach outstanding values, because there was no issue (nor PL1, nor BSOD) until -120/-570, when the BSOD occured.
According to your tip, then I've changed the cache voltage offset to -110 mV and then I continued to bump the core offset.
There were stable results of ca. 5780-5800 points and no PL1 (even on TS 8T/960M benchmark), and there suddenly PL1 during 10-minute tests occured and they're frequent now.
Am I doing something wrong?


----------



## unclewebb (Apr 19, 2021)

Most people only see an improvement when the core cache difference is approximately 100 mV. If the cache is at an offset of -110 mV then most users see no further improvement when the core is at -210 mV. If you set the core to -500 mV or -600 mV, most of that is ignored. When you go up in steps of -25 mV, unless you see an improvement at each step, there is no point in going further. There is always going to be some random variation so you have to make sure that your results are improving.

What is power consumption at when PL1 throttling starts? Your computer is always going to have a hard limit of 45W. Is it worse now?


----------



## pomidorex (Apr 19, 2021)

unclewebb said:


> Most people only see an improvement when the core cache difference is approximately 100 mV. If the cache is at an offset of -110 mV then most users see no further improvement when the core is at -210 mV. If you set the core to -500 mV or -600 mV, most of that is ignored.


So I thought, because those numbers seemed unreal.
Now I'm differing between -120 mV cache and -245/-270 mV core and I'm not having a single throttle. The Cinebench tests on those voltages, which ended between 5760-5780 points, the PKG Power is up to 44.5 W and, as I said, no throttle now.



unclewebb said:


> What is power consumption at when PL1 throttling starts? Your computer is always going to have a hard limit of 45W. Is it worse now?


When performing step-by-step undervolting and the first today's PL1 occurred, it looked like this:


Spoiler: PL1 on -110/-820





```
DATE       TIME    MULTI   C0%   CKMOD  BAT_mW  TEMP   NVIDIA GPU     VID   POWER

2021-04-19  16:45:22  42.00  100.0  100.0       0   74     300    53   1.0426   45.0
2021-04-19  16:45:23  42.00  100.0  100.0       0   74     300    53   1.0428   45.0
2021-04-19  16:45:24  42.00  100.0  100.0       0   74     300    53   1.0480   45.1
2021-04-19  16:45:25  42.00  100.0  100.0       0   74     300    53   1.0430   45.3
2021-04-19  16:45:26  42.00  100.0  100.0       0   74     300    53   1.0430   45.2
2021-04-19  16:45:27  42.00  100.0  100.0       0   74     300    53   1.0424   45.1
2021-04-19  16:45:28  41.94  100.0  100.0       0   74     300    53   1.0475   45.0
2021-04-19  16:45:29  41.51  100.0  100.0       0   74     300    53   1.0199   43.8
2021-04-19  16:45:30  41.95  100.0  100.0       0   74     300    53   1.0427   44.9
2021-04-19  16:45:31  41.90  100.0  100.0       0   74     300    53   1.0474   44.9
2021-04-19  16:45:32  41.91  100.0  100.0       0   74     300    53   1.0424   45.0
2021-04-19  16:45:33  41.95  100.0  100.0       0   75     300    53   1.0430   45.0
2021-04-19  16:45:34  41.91  100.0  100.0       0   74     300    53   1.0204   44.9
2021-04-19  16:45:35  41.91  100.0  100.0       0   72     300    53   1.0199   45.0
2021-04-19  16:45:36  41.91  100.0  100.0       0   74     300    53   1.0203   44.8
2021-04-19  16:45:37  41.93  100.0  100.0       0   73     300    53   1.0463   44.8
2021-04-19  16:45:38  41.93  100.0  100.0       0   74     300    53   1.0485   44.9
2021-04-19  16:45:39  41.93  100.0  100.0       0   75     300    53   1.0259   45.0
2021-04-19  16:45:40  41.89  100.0  100.0       0   74     300    53   1.0208   45.2
2021-04-19  16:45:41  41.96  100.0  100.0       0   72     300    53   1.0201   44.9   PL1
2021-04-19  16:45:42  41.88  100.0  100.0       0   73     300    53   1.0204   45.0   PL1
2021-04-19  16:45:43  41.83  100.0  100.0       0   72     300    53   1.0201   44.9   PL1
2021-04-19  16:45:44  41.87  100.0  100.0       0   73     300    53   1.0221   44.9   PL1
2021-04-19  16:45:45  41.89  100.0  100.0       0   73     300    53   1.0474   44.9   PL1
2021-04-19  16:45:46  41.91  100.0  100.0       0   74     300    53   1.0428   44.9   PL1
2021-04-19  16:45:47  41.90  100.0  100.0       0   73     300    53   1.0475   45.0   PL1
2021-04-19  16:45:48  41.86  100.0  100.0       0   75     300    53   1.0479   44.9   PL1
2021-04-19  16:45:49  41.87  100.0  100.0       0   74     300    53   1.0433   45.0
2021-04-19  16:45:50  41.85  100.0  100.0       0   75     300    53   1.0430   44.9
2021-04-19  16:45:51  41.83  100.0  100.0       0   75     300    53   1.0477   44.8
2021-04-19  16:45:52  41.89  100.0  100.0       0   75     300    53   1.0435   45.0
2021-04-19  16:45:53  41.85  100.0  100.0       0   74     300    53   1.0424   44.8
2021-04-19  16:45:54  41.92  100.0  100.0       0   74     300    53   1.0425   45.0
2021-04-19  16:45:55  41.91  100.0  100.0       0   74     300    53   1.0475   45.0
2021-04-19  16:45:56  41.90  100.0  100.0       0   74     300    53   1.0435   44.9
2021-04-19  16:45:57  41.90  100.0  100.0       0   74     300    53   1.0480   44.9
2021-04-19  16:45:58  41.88  100.0  100.0       0   74     300    53   1.0428   45.0
2021-04-19  16:45:59  41.89  100.0  100.0       0   74     300    53   1.0475   44.9
2021-04-19  16:46:00  41.90  100.0  100.0       0   73     300    53   1.0490   44.8   PL1
2021-04-19  16:46:01  41.91  100.0  100.0       0   74     300    53   1.0474   45.0
2021-04-19  16:46:02  41.92  100.0  100.0       0   74     300    53   1.0474   45.0
2021-04-19  16:46:03  41.89   98.9  100.0       0   74     300    53   1.0480   44.5
```



For me it looks like PL1 as an alarm occurred, but the throttle was unnoticeable for the statistics (i see stable ca. 45 W values).
There was one event when only one PL1 bit was recorded and then the wattage dropped for a while.


Spoiler: PL1 drop





```
DATE       TIME    MULTI   C0%   CKMOD  BAT_mW  TEMP   NVIDIA GPU     VID   POWER
2021-04-19  17:17:30  42.00  100.0  100.0       0   75     300    54   1.0428   45.1
2021-04-19  17:17:31  42.00  100.0  100.0       0   75     300    54   1.0474   45.2
2021-04-19  17:17:32  42.00  100.0  100.0       0   75     300    54   1.0479   45.2
2021-04-19  17:17:33  42.00  100.0  100.0       0   75     300    54   1.0427   45.2
2021-04-19  17:17:34  42.00  100.0  100.0       0   75     300    54   1.0424   45.2
2021-04-19  17:17:35  42.00  100.0  100.0       0   75     300    54   1.0430   45.2
2021-04-19  17:17:36  42.00  100.0  100.0       0   75     300    54   1.0430   45.1
2021-04-19  17:17:37  41.95  100.0  100.0       0   75     300    54   1.0479   45.1
2021-04-19  17:17:38  41.81  100.0  100.0       0   75     300    54   1.0481   44.6
2021-04-19  17:17:39  41.68  100.0  100.0       0   76     300    54   1.0428   44.0
2021-04-19  17:17:40  41.96  100.0  100.0       0   75     300    54   1.0435   45.0
2021-04-19  17:17:41  41.97  100.0  100.0       0   76     300    54   1.0437   45.0
2021-04-19  17:17:42  41.96  100.0  100.0       0   75     300    54   1.0430   44.9
2021-04-19  17:17:43  41.95  100.0  100.0       0   76     300    54   1.0439   44.9
2021-04-19  17:17:44  41.92  100.0  100.0       0   75     300    54   1.0428   44.9
2021-04-19  17:17:45  41.92  100.0  100.0       0   75     300    54   1.0474   45.0
2021-04-19  17:17:46  41.90  100.0  100.0       0   75     300    54   1.0199   45.0
2021-04-19  17:17:47  41.90  100.0  100.0       0   74     300    54   1.0199   44.9
2021-04-19  17:17:48  41.92  100.0  100.0       0   75     300    54   1.0206   44.9
2021-04-19  17:17:49  41.71  100.0  100.0       0   75     300    54   1.0474   44.3
2021-04-19  17:17:50  41.88  100.0  100.0       0   75     300    54   1.0474   44.9
2021-04-19  17:17:51  41.91  100.0  100.0       0   75     300    54   1.0474   45.0
2021-04-19  17:17:52  41.89  100.0  100.0       0   76     300    54   1.0479   45.0
2021-04-19  17:17:53  41.88  100.0  100.0       0   75     300    54   1.0474   44.9
2021-04-19  17:17:54  41.93  100.0  100.0       0   75     300    54   1.0428   45.0
2021-04-19  17:17:55  41.91  100.0  100.0       0   75     300    54   1.0474   44.9
2021-04-19  17:17:56  41.94  100.0  100.0       0   75     300    54   1.0430   45.0
2021-04-19  17:17:57  41.97  100.0  100.0       0   75     300    54   1.0430   45.0
2021-04-19  17:17:58  41.93  100.0  100.0       0   75     300    54   1.0479   45.0
2021-04-19  17:17:59  41.93  100.0  100.0       0   75     300    54   1.0199   45.0
2021-04-19  17:18:00  42.00  100.0  100.0       0   75     300    54   1.0476   45.0
2021-04-19  17:18:01  41.98  100.0  100.0       0   75     300    54   1.0430   45.0
2021-04-19  17:18:02  41.71  100.0  100.0       0   73     300    54   0.9740   44.3   PL1
2021-04-19  17:18:03  41.92  100.0  100.0       0   75     300    54   1.0425   44.3
2021-04-19  17:18:04  42.36   61.2  100.0       0   68     300    54   1.0487   31.7
2021-04-19  17:18:05  42.17   84.9  100.0       0   75     300    54   1.0452   38.1
2021-04-19  17:18:06  42.00   96.0  100.0       0   72     300    54   1.0557   42.1
2021-04-19  17:18:07  42.00   97.7  100.0       0   74     300    54   1.0479   44.8
2021-04-19  17:18:08  42.00  100.0  100.0       0   74     300    54   1.0424   45.4
2021-04-19  17:18:09  42.00  100.0  100.0       0   74     300    54   1.0442   44.6
2021-04-19  17:18:10  42.00  100.0  100.0       0   74     300    54   1.0492   44.4
2021-04-19  17:18:11  42.00  100.0  100.0       0   74     300    54   1.0476   44.9
2021-04-19  17:18:12  42.00  100.0  100.0       0   74     300    54   1.0435   44.2
2021-04-19  17:18:13  42.00  100.0  100.0       0   74     300    54   1.0430   44.0
2021-04-19  17:18:14  42.00  100.0  100.0       0   74     300    54   1.0485   44.8
2021-04-19  17:18:15  42.00  100.0  100.0       0   75     300    54   1.0430   44.9
2021-04-19  17:18:16  42.00  100.0  100.0       0   74     300    54   1.0477   45.2
```




My conclusion is that I should stay at -120.1 mV Cache offset and somewhere between -200 and -245 mV Core offset.
Is there any other option in ThrottleStop - which is a great product IMO - that I should consider turning on to make my laptop run at its best balance?
If it makes any difference - I use it only as a desktop replacement (full-time plugged in) and it has a GTX 1650Ti card for some casual gaming.

EDIT:
Because soon after my post my system has crashed (BSOD; that's a bad luck), I've set the cache at -110 mV and core at -220 mV and then ran a Cinebench 30-minute stress test.
As I see from the logs (as attached), there were a few PL1 events, but not resulting in any huge wattage drop.
I think that PC can not get over it, and I have to get use to little throttle from time to time.


----------



## pomidorex (Apr 30, 2021)

[timid bump]

I'm after a few days with this undervolting setup:


Spoiler








Everything seems OK. Maybe the Cinebench test does not result in 5790-5800 points, but it does have a stable ~5750 points result and the CPU does not throttle. Even under maximal load it stays under 45W and does not trigger any PL alarms.
During the tests the temps with fans on stay up to 75 degC, voltage about 1.02-1.03V and on idle (obviously with some apps in the background like OneDrive or antivirus), no fans, it's about 45-47 degC and 0.55V which I consider very cool.
I found that few apps may cause BSOD on my setup, those were MSI Afterburner (the tuneup made with that app generates more FPS but I'm not sure if it's worth it) or NVIDIA Inspector (and its Multi Display Power Saver). Without them, with Throttlestop only, it seems to be OK.
I wonder if you have any other tips for my hardware.
Regards


----------



## unclewebb (Apr 30, 2021)

pomidorex said:


> I wonder if you have any other tips for my hardware.


Your settings look good. You have taken the time to adjust your voltages to what your CPU can run reliably at. That is the best way to set voltages. 

At 45W your CPU is running at 81°C so everything looks good. If your computer is running decently, no need to tweak any further. If you are happy with your voltages you can check the OK - Save voltages immediately radio button.


----------



## nikola87 (May 1, 2021)

pomidorex said:


> my Cinebench 30-minutes-benchmark Multicore test average result is between 5720 and 5790 points.


Hi, I have your same cpu but with RTX 2060 and my cpu also running at 55W, but how do you get those scores on Cinebench between 5720 and 5790? The maximum I have reached (once) was 5504 then I have always obtained lower scores, sometimes even below 5000, do you know why?


----------



## unclewebb (May 1, 2021)

nikola87 said:


> The maximum I have reached


Does your CPU run at its maximum speed for the entire test or is it power limit or thermal throttling during the test? Open Limit Reasons and watch ThrottleStop for any throttling.

If you do not see any problems then have a look to see what your idle C0% shows. This measures how much of your CPU performance is being wasted performing background tasks. The lower you can get the C0% when idle, the better. This means there will be more CPU cycles available for benchmark and gaming performance.

Here is what an idle computer looks like. Most people with bad benchmark results are either throttling or have too much stuff running in the background.


----------



## nikola87 (May 1, 2021)

unclewebb said:


> Does your CPU run at its maximum speed for the entire test or is it power limit or thermal throttling during the test? Open Limit Reasons and watch ThrottleStop for any throttling.
> 
> If you do not see any problems then have a look to see what your idle C0% shows. This measures how much of your CPU performance is being wasted performing background tasks. The lower you can get the C0% when idle, the better. This means there will be more CPU cycles available for benchmark and gaming performance.
> 
> Here is what an idle computer looks like. Most people with bad benchmark results are either throttling or have too much stuff running in the background.



Yes my cpu always works at maximum and I have no power limit problems..
but I followed your suggestion by terminating some more useless processes thus reducing the C0%, and after I did the test again.. wow! now it has achieved a score never seen before (even though I thought I was getting more),but this is really cool!
As always, thank you for your valuable and really useful advice


----------



## Kugumin (May 1, 2021)

nikola87 said:


> Yes my cpu always works at maximum and I have no power limit problems..
> but I followed your suggestion by terminating some more useless processes thus reducing the C0%, and after I did the test again.. wow! now it has achieved a score never seen before (even though I thought I was getting more),but this is really cool!
> As always, thank you for your valuable and really useful advice


This what I can get with stock 45W PL1


Spoiler: 45W PL1








Without PL1 or with just setting it higher to like 60W I can reach probably the max of CPU can do and it's like 5840 points. But usually it's ~5800

But all thanks to that UV 


Spoiler: UV settings









Also yes, you can tweak power plan and reduce useless power usage, so like CPU can go as low as 0.2W and just few times I've seen 0.1W... 10300H is a great thing, it does a lot, but at cost that you tweak it


----------



## unclewebb (May 1, 2021)

nikola87 said:


> thus reducing the C0%, and after I did the test again.. wow!


The ThrottleStop C0% data is an accurate look at what the CPU is really doing. Anytime you install anything, you should keep a close eye on this data to determine if the app you just installed is a bloated mess or not. Some apps install so much crap that they keep your CPU busy 24/7, even when you are not using the app. Good to see that this data helped you tune some more performance out of your CPU.


----------



## kronkdark (Aug 27, 2021)

Kugumin said:


> This what I can get with stock 45W PL1
> 
> 
> Spoiler: 45W PL1
> ...



How can i tweak power plan for less power usage ?


----------

