# 1usmus Custom Power Plan for Ryzen 3000 Zen 2 Processors



## 1usmus (Nov 3, 2019)

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.

*Show full review*


----------



## eidairaman1 (Nov 4, 2019)

We all know the W10 scheduler is trash.


----------



## GoldenX (Nov 4, 2019)

Must. Test. On. Zen1!


----------



## 1usmus (Nov 4, 2019)

GoldenX said:


> Must. Test. On. Zen1!



The power profile uses CPPC2, most likely users of previous generations will not see the changes.



eidairaman1 said:


> We all know the W10 scheduler is trash.



100%


----------



## PerfectWave (Nov 4, 2019)

does it works also for ryzen2?


----------



## axaro1 (Nov 4, 2019)

1usmus said:


> The power profile uses CPPC2, most likely users of previous generations will not see the changes.
> 
> 
> 
> 100%


Can I try it with my Ryzen 5 1600, is it gonna be an issue?


----------



## Giux-900 (Nov 4, 2019)

great


----------



## TheLostSwede (Nov 4, 2019)

Sorry to say, but this seems to do nothing in combination with AGESA 1.0.0.4B on my Gigabyte board.
Or rather, I should say, I see no difference between this and the normal AMD Ryzen power plan on my 3800X.
CPU core utilization is jumping all over the place with either power plan and I don't see any higher boost speeds.


----------



## 1usmus (Nov 4, 2019)

TheLostSwede said:


> Sorry to say, but this seems to do nothing with AGESA 1.0.0.4B.
> Or rather, I should I see no difference between this and the normal AMD Ryzen power plan on my 3800X.



Not all systems have a problem, so pay attention to comfort in games.
Do you already have 4500 MHz?


----------



## TheLostSwede (Nov 4, 2019)

1usmus said:


> Not all systems have a problem, so pay attention to comfort in games.
> Do you already have 4500 MHz?


Yeah and then some at times (not in CB though), obviously depends on what's going on. It seems the boost clock speeds are slightly lower with the current F10a UEFI compared to a couple of previous F7 releases though.
Clarified my post above a bit.
Not a complaint, just feedback.


----------



## 1usmus (Nov 4, 2019)

TheLostSwede said:


> Yeah and then some at times, obviously depends on what's going on. It seems the boost clock speeds are slightly lower with the current F10a UEFI compared to a couple of previous F7 releases though.
> Clarified my post above a bit.
> Not a complaint, just feedback.



try to disabled PBO , 4550 its reality


----------



## Duvar (Nov 4, 2019)

Thx 1usmus for your efforts.

With my X470 Hero WIFI i couldnt find Power Supply Idle Control and what exactly is PPC Adjustment?
I have some Screenshots, can you check them out pls?
Can i now install your power plan, or do i need to change something else?


----------



## AeonMW2 (Nov 4, 2019)

but what about cinebench score? can not find scores in the article. frequency is cool and all of that, but is there any perfomance uplift?


----------



## IceShroom (Nov 4, 2019)

PerfectWave said:


> does it works also for ryzen2?


No
To work on a CPU, the CPU needs to be exist. There is nothing called Ryzen 2.


----------



## TheLostSwede (Nov 4, 2019)

Ran CB15, got 210 with either power profile enabled.



1usmus said:


> try to disabled PBO , 4550 its reality


Not had a problem hitting those kind of speeds anyhow. Was hitting 4,600 at one point and that's supposedly only the second fastest core in my CPU.
This was with an older UEFI release though.
Now 4,525 or 4,550 is about as high as I see, but the boost Voltages are also slightly lower on AGESA 1.0.0.4B on this board.


----------



## 1usmus (Nov 4, 2019)

AeonMW2 said:


> but what about cinebench score? can not find scores in the article. frequency is cool and all of that, but is there any perfomance uplift?



201-205 vs 213


----------



## Stag (Nov 4, 2019)

Currently boosting over 4550 with 3800x light load.Give program a whirl any how.
Thanks


----------



## PerfectWave (Nov 4, 2019)

IceShroom said:


> No
> To work on a CPU, the CPU needs to be exist. There is nothing called Ryzen 2.


CLAP CLAP CLAP


----------



## 1usmus (Nov 4, 2019)

Duvar said:


> Thx 1usmus for your efforts.
> 
> With my X470 Hero WIFI i couldnt find Power Supply Idle Control and what exactly is PPC Adjustment?
> I have some Screenshots, can you check them out pls?
> Can i now install your power plan, or do i need to change something else?



PPC for example, many manufacturers of motherboards hide, but if you didn’t find them, don’t worry, the main settings that interest all users are present


----------



## EarthDog (Nov 4, 2019)

I'm curious... with using the latest agesa which runs my cpu normally (boosts right, etc), what does this do over and above that? If installing this solves the same problem the updated agesa does, what is the point?


----------



## 1usmus (Nov 4, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> I'm curious... with using the latest agesa which runs my cpu normally (boosts right, etc), what does this do over and above that?



+25-50Mhz
The result in games, not only in frequency


----------



## EarthDog (Nov 4, 2019)

Not seeing it either (agesa 4b)... 
(EDIT: Will test properly later)

I also dont see what tangible gains 25-50mhz has in games...nor did your testing show any game results... just cinebench. Did I miss it?


----------



## RocketCorgy (Nov 4, 2019)

1usmus said:


> +25-50Mhz
> The result in games, not only in frequency



Think he's asking if the excessive light load boosting that Amd fixed by reducing Windows-CPU communication to 15ms would be undone by your new power plan.
Would it? I'm quite concerned too, don't want max boost when I open a window because my fans go crazy.


----------



## Sideeffects (Nov 4, 2019)

With my 3700x it seems to help a little.  Testing with SuperPi it stays on my fastest CCX and uses my two fastest cores on that CCX.   I gained about 25-50Mhz boost pushing it up to 4425Mhz.  I tried a quick test in ROTTR and it also seems to have a small boost of 25-50Mhz.  I am currently using ABBA.

I disabled PBO like you advised which I normally run on manual because the 3700x has quite low limits.  Will I lose all benifits if I re-enable manual PBO?

Thanks for your work and for the easy install method.

Edit - I scored 511pts in CB20 single Core which is about 5pts higher!


----------



## Duvar (Nov 4, 2019)

My CB SC Score did not change, because 4.2GHz before, 4.2GHz after^^
I think 3600 users have to activate PBO + Auto OC but Scalar maybe to 1? But 1usmus said we should deactivate PBO hmmm....

Another question is, that i set CPU @ stock with an - offset of 0.087V, will that have negative effects to the powerplan, or will the effect be lower compared to stock voltage?


----------



## Tomorrow (Nov 4, 2019)

You might want to add the option to display the power plans with the script after yours is imported. Since this setting is on the old control panel some people might not find it right away:
%windir%\System32\control.exe powercfg.cpl

Also it's possible to enable the power plan with the script. Perhaps ask for confirmation from the user?
powercfg /S 95deb0c7-ed9f-4c7c-8251-bda630a27498

Currently using 3800X on X570 Master with BIOS F7B (1.0.0.3 ABBA). Will test the effect in the coming days. Thanks for sharing 1usmus.


----------



## 1usmus (Nov 4, 2019)

RocketCorgy said:


> Think he's asking if the excessive light load boosting that Amd fixed by reducing Windows-CPU communication to 15ms would be undone by your new power plan.
> Would it? I'm quite concerned too, don't want max boost when I open a window because my fans go crazy.



1 ms response, but I changed the settings that cause the processor to go to P0 in idle. Minor tasks and short-term peaks provoke him less.


----------



## iO (Nov 4, 2019)

3600 w/ 1003abba, does help to tame R15 a bit




but at the same time kills the much improved scheduling of R20


----------



## 1usmus (Nov 4, 2019)

iO said:


> 3600 w/ 1003abba, does help to tame R15 a bit
> 
> View attachment 135641
> 
> ...




what are your temperatures?
PBO in what mode?


----------



## xxquaaxx (Nov 4, 2019)

Great  Job !usmus .My temps went down and my cores now at max speed 4.4 ghz amd 3700x I have noticed as well better preformence scores in benchmarks .I will test some games  and I will provide feedback


----------



## iO (Nov 4, 2019)

1usmus said:


> what are your temperatures?
> PBO in what mode?


PBO disabled and temps dropped maybe ~2C to 54C


----------



## 1usmus (Nov 4, 2019)

iO said:


> PBO disabled and temps dropped maybe ~2C to 54C



1) PBO enabled  (default)

or

2) Try to write a log using HWINFO.RM has problems reading registers. While reading, information may be overwritten there and you may see incorrect data.


----------



## datboosttho (Nov 4, 2019)

What is going on with your MCLK and FCLK?


----------



## Gambit2K (Nov 4, 2019)

If anyone could point out where I can find the "Power Supply Idle Control = Low Current Idle " options is in the Asus 1.0.0.3ABBA it would be appreciated.


----------



## Argus (Nov 4, 2019)

AMD CBS menu


----------



## Gambit2K (Nov 4, 2019)

Argus said:


> AMD CBS menu



Not seeing it, also atleast one of the other settings was not under the CBS menu.


----------



## hzy4 (Nov 4, 2019)

Doesnt have the "CPPC","CPPC Preffered Cores" settings on Asus X570 TUF, after enabling everything suggested I did not see:
- higher boost clocks, maximum was 4ghz all core (with PBO its 4,15ghz)
- higher CB scores
In CB R20 single thread test, the boosting cores varied between core0 and core1, so I guess its working.


----------



## bug (Nov 4, 2019)

IceShroom said:


> No
> To work on a CPU, the CPU needs to be exist. There is nothing called Ryzen 2.


Ah, old school software, like they did back in the 70s...


----------



## FlanK3r (Nov 4, 2019)

Thank you for great work for us Usmus!


----------



## willace (Nov 4, 2019)

Does this work on Laptop?

Like Ryzen 3500U


----------



## Tomorrow (Nov 4, 2019)

Testing 3800X in CB20 i got 5067 MT and 527 ST. 

MT is roughly the same it was before but ST did increase from 524. I did not bother disabling PBO right now and changing any BIOS settings. I see Gigabyte has released F10a for my board with 1.0.0.4B so i need to install that first.


----------



## EarthDog (Nov 4, 2019)

Tomorrow said:


> Testing 3800X in CB20 i got 5067 MT and 527 ST.
> 
> MT is roughly the same it was before but ST did increase from 524. I did not bother disabling PBO right now and changing any BIOS settings. I see Gigabyte has released F10a for my board with 1.0.0.4B so i need to install that first.


So, 524 and 527 are not roughly the same... (even though it is not even 1% increase and within run variance)... what does roughly the same mean for the MT testing?


----------



## gandorfin (Nov 4, 2019)

Gigabyte X570 Aours Elite f10a bios (1.0.0.4b) seems to be missing some of those options

CPPC
AMD Cool'n'Quiet
PPC Adjustment
are they just not implemented or I'm blind?


----------



## Axaion (Nov 4, 2019)

Yeah, asus has like.. half of these settings lol, 10/10 bios team


----------



## xkm1948 (Nov 4, 2019)

AMD need to pay this guy, or better yet HIRE this guy. Single handily fixing AMD’s performance problem with Zen2 boosting.


----------



## tyrael64 (Nov 4, 2019)

gandorfin said:


> Gigabyte X570 Aours Elite f10a bios (1.0.0.4b) seems to be missing some of those options
> 
> CPPC
> AMD Cool'n'Quiet
> ...




I'm in the same situation. Aorus master x570, f10a
Now it use the fast cores on ccx0 but the faster core is on ccx1 and never use it..


----------



## OctavianPrime (Nov 4, 2019)

one question, i have laptop fx505dy with 3550H cpu and rx560x gpu. should this powerplan work on this cpu?


----------



## Deathy (Nov 4, 2019)

@OctavianPrime That is an APU based on Ryzen+, so it will not make a difference because CPPC2 is not implemented on those.  But it likely will also not harm anything, so you might give it a try.

I have a 3700x at home and might try this out when I get back and have some time. Thanks @1usmus !


----------



## HwGeek (Nov 4, 2019)

no. it's only for _Matisse_  Zen 2.0.


----------



## Tomorrow (Nov 4, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> So, 524 and 527 are not roughly the same... (even though it is not even 1% increase and within run variance)... what does roughly the same mean for the MT testing?


My previous MT scores were in the 5060-5075 range. So it is roughly the same. But like i said im not running 1.0.0.4B yet and i have not disabled PBO either.

*EDIT:* So i closed all background programs and got 5093 MT. Not bad.


----------



## HwGeek (Nov 4, 2019)

Who is going to bech CS Go ? ;-)


----------



## Duvar (Nov 4, 2019)

Guys do we need (1.0.0.4b) for this to work?


----------



## Anthr4X (Nov 4, 2019)

Maybe I'm missing something here, but for the record, I observe no difference/improvement in Cinebench R15 and Cinebench R20 (multi and single) between this and the default High performance power plan. But I also can't find the CPPC (I did find Preferred Cores), AMD Cool'n'Quiet and PPC Adjustment options in my bios. Disabled PBO.

My setup:

Ryzen 7 3700X
Corsair H110i GT 280mm
Gigabyte Aorus X570 Elite (BIOS F10a, AGESA 1.0.0.4В)
Windows 10 64-bit 1903
AMD Chipset Driver 1.9.27.1033
//edit: Or is it only the way it schedules and assigns cores that changes with the power plan? No synthetic benchmark improvements?


----------



## R-T-B (Nov 4, 2019)

eidairaman1 said:


> We all know the W10 scheduler is trash.



More correctly, the windows scheduler is trash.


----------



## TechCat (Nov 4, 2019)

Lets remember this shows most improvement over 8 cores muti-chiplet CPUs  Both this and 1004B increase efficiency whie lowering temps and will be improved going foward  MS Windows is the culprit here and has dropped the ball and had plenty of time, has the resources so has no excuse


----------



## xxquaaxx (Nov 4, 2019)

Happy user


----------



## AndreiD (Nov 4, 2019)

R5 3600, performance is mostly the same but I did notice a small improvement in AIDA64 latency for some reason, guess the thread isn't hopped around by the W10 scheduler?     
Pretty happy with this overall, before I had PSS & C-States disabled in BIOS and I was using the Ryzen High Performance plan to eliminate some random micro-stutter in games. Haven't tried any games yet with 1usmus' power plan, but so far so good.


----------



## Weshya (Nov 4, 2019)

Just created an account to thank 1usmus for this wonderful fix and recommended ZEN2 BIOS settings. After switching to the recommended BIOS settings on my Tomahawk MAX B450 (version 3.4 Agesa 1.0.0.4B) and applying the power plan, I was able to notice max boost clock (4.2) across 4 cores out of 6 , on my Ryzen 3600, and for a more sustained time. Finally i get the performance that i was initially promised by AMD.

P.S : Maybe we should create a petition, to claim 1usmus's immediate hiring in AMD


----------



## everythingj (Nov 4, 2019)

two questions:

does this plan need to be run 1.0.0.3 or 1.0.0.4? Or do either work?

and also, if i'm on a 3900x and was already seeing 4550 sporadically on 4 cores, is that about all that can be expected? i tried applying this hoping it would have those cores hit 4600 but it's not having any effect (on 1.0.0.4)

ironically on 1.0.0.3 i had one core that could hit 4600 but the 1.0.0.4 update has let more cores boost higher so i've kept it applied


----------



## Ubersonic (Nov 4, 2019)

I'm really confused here, I have the 3900X and my "stock" clocks (with the bundled Wraith cooler) are way better than those in review, does that mean my results with this new power plan would be too? And why are my clocks/scores better? :S

*EDIT*

Ahh, just noticed in the review, the comparison is made vs the bog standard Windows Balanced power scheme, not the Ryzen Balanced optimised power scheme installed by the chip-set drivers.


----------



## EarthDog (Nov 4, 2019)

I'm still wondering how much this really improves things past pbo and stock (with ryzen pp)...I'm not convinced the effort is worth the result from what we've seen.


----------



## silkstone (Nov 4, 2019)

I'm still only getting a maximum 1-core boost to 4.1 and all core boost to 3.9 on my R5 3600


----------



## Stag (Nov 5, 2019)

3800x up 25Mhz in all core tests.Single core boost same as before 4550+.

THANKS


----------



## Xzibit (Nov 5, 2019)

This is going to confuse a lot because not all Motherboard vendors enable these options and they might be tied to certain features depending on vendor.


----------



## Cidious (Nov 5, 2019)

Thanks 1usmus for your dedication to the community!

Personally I'd have to say that differences are hard to spot on the 3800X on my system but peak boosts are a bit more evident across cores. 

I think I got a few more single core points on R20 but within margin of error and the threads still bouncing around. Although they bounced around on the same core.

Used advised bios settings and PBO enabled and disabled. No difference.

In gaming cores won't run 4500+

but small peak speeds raised slightly across cores that before maybe 1 core boosted 4550 on max peaks and 1 to 4525 and the rest all below 4500. Now I get a few more cores hitting those 4550 speeds only with peaks. But I feel it doesn't make a difference in real performance. Aida Latency is the same. I ran LatencyMon to check about system Latency, couldn't spot much difference there either.

Temps are the same. No decrease in power usage also.

I might have to include that I'm already on Windows 10 19H2 1909 for quite a while. Agesa 1.0.0.4 B and I felt ABBA boosted better for me.

Overall more cores seem to hit their Max boost clocks but nothing shocking. Remind you, I'm on a 3800X. 





I'll do some more testing of course. Later this week I'll also rip out the H80i V2 AIO and replace it for a 360 rad to unleash the full potential of the processor and see if that is what's holding it back. Or maybe I just have poor silicon.


UPDATE:
Checking and testing a bit more I find that CPU-Z single core test did improve by more than 10 points. So there is definitely something going on here and not for the worse. System feels smooth and responsive. I'll give it a few more days of testing.


----------



## DeathtoGnomes (Nov 5, 2019)

@1usmus I Dont have a ryzen rig but I use custom power plans, I Thought maybe you could incorporate this into your research and maybe add some options to this awesome work you did. 



Here is the link to the article: Chose Power Plan context menu


----------



## mahoney (Nov 5, 2019)

Anthr4X said:


> Maybe I'm missing something here, but for the record, I observe no difference/improvement in Cinebench R15 and Cinebench R20 (multi and single) between this and the default High performance power plan. But I also can't find the CPPC (I did find Preferred Cores), AMD Cool'n'Quiet and PPC Adjustment options in my bios. Disabled PBO.
> 
> My setup:
> 
> ...


Same with my friends rig. Thought we were doing something wrong but it's the same performance as before (Latest agesa f10a - Gigabyte Aorus pro, 3700x)


----------



## rchiwawa (Nov 5, 2019)

Using a 3900x and an Asus Crosshair VII motherboard I am seeing a 75MHz increase in my all core clock speed while running a folding@home on the 22 of 24 threads.  Seems like a winner to me.

_EDIT:  This is for the same coolant temp under said load_


----------



## quadibloc (Nov 5, 2019)

The article didn't make clear if this was doing something risky and unsupported to the AMD hardware, or it was _only_ a fix to stupid behavior of Windows 10 that did not involve risking pushing the CPU beyond its limits. While parts of the article seemed to hint at the latter, it also stated that the power plans for AMD processors, instead of being written by Microsoft, were supplied by AMD. I think this means that the custom power plan simply works around bad algorithms that were written by Microsoft. In any case, I learned not to use the "High Performance" plan.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Nov 5, 2019)

quadibloc said:


> The article didn't make clear if this was doing something risky and unsupported to the AMD hardware, or it was _only_ a fix to stupid behavior of Windows 10 that did not involve risking pushing the CPU beyond its limits. While parts of the article seemed to hint at the latter, it also stated that the power plans for AMD processors, instead of being written by Microsoft, were supplied by AMD. I think this means that the custom power plan simply works around bad algorithms that were written by Microsoft. In any case, I learned not to use the "High Performance" plan.



Yes Windows 10 sucks.


----------



## moproblems99 (Nov 5, 2019)

I still need to get 1.0.0.4 flashed but I already get over 4.6 on my 3900x on five cores 4.6 on a sixth.  Not sure of the averages but I'll do some brief before and Afters.


----------



## wkdzel (Nov 5, 2019)

3700X on an MSI X570-A Pro.

I have a baseline on PassMark from 2019-09-05 to compare with (AGESA 1.0.0.3ABB)

Comparing to the latest BIOS I have access to today (AGESA 1.0.0.4B) plus the 1usmus power plan I find that my single core performance tends to be just a few points higher and it does, in fact, tend to keep heavy single threaded workloads on the best core (monitored using Ryzen Master) however it does seem to have transient moments where it tries to move it to a different core and then goes right back to the best core. However all the other tests tend to trend 1-2% lower that my baseline however that is independent from the power plan (I also checked the default AMD power plan) so apparently I lost a bit of performance from 1003abb to 1004b. I benched with both PBO set to disabled and set to Automatic and I saw a slightly better performance with PBO set to automatic but the difference was within 1% so, could just be a fluke. I rant the tests multiple times and it did tend to average higher with PBO on auto but it's a bit too close to call. Honestly I doubt you'd feel the difference in game but I can confirm that with 1usmus's power profile it WANTS to keep the heaviest load on your best core, despite the fact that it will occasionally try to move it for a second and then puts it right back on the best core. (C03 is my best core and it occasionally tried to move it to C01, then right back to C03, every time) where as the default AMD power plan tends to toss the single core test all over the place.

I hope this input helps, thanks for the work!


----------



## wolf (Nov 5, 2019)

I need to Flash 1.0.0.4 B stable bios and try this out, My gigabyte X570 I (ITX) doesn't want to let PBO work properly at all (wont exceed standard 88w limit) so my best clocks have been in default mode, if this increases efficiency I should see marginally higher clocks within that envelope.


----------



## Bwaze (Nov 5, 2019)

1.0.0.4B didn't do anything over 1.0.0.3ABBA on my Gigabyte Aorus X570 Elite and 3900X, it lowered the max. boost a bit (from 4.650 to 4.575), but all the results stayed the same (within 1%) - processor doesn't do any work at max boost anyhow. 

Tried 1usmus bios settings an power plan, no difference. Tried to push PBO overclocking, minimal increase in scores but massive amount of extra heat. 

A bit underwhelming for a supposed massive bios overhaul...


----------



## Sashleycat (Nov 5, 2019)

Hi, I am really interested in this, especially since I do use a lot of 1T software alongside the heavily threaded ones and the Windows 10 scheduler seems intent on putting the load on the weakest cores in the system. Unfortunately, I tried to use this power plan and it didn't affect anything. CPUz Single-thread uses two threads apparently, and one isn't even on the same CCX. The xEdit software for Fallout 4 uses just on thread on one core, and even with the power plan it still uses the weakest core, sometimes losing 100 MHz of performance which is quite significant.

I am on 1.0.0.3 ABBA and my motherboard is Asrock X570M Pro4, my CPU is Ryzen 7 3700X. Everything is at stock.

However, I couldn't find the:

CPPC 
CPPC Preferred Cores 
Options in the bios. They are simply not there, unless I missed them. So maybe that is why it is not working for me. Any advice would be appreciated. Thanks


----------



## Cidious (Nov 5, 2019)

wkdzel said:


> 3700X on an MSI X570-A Pro.
> 
> I have a baseline on PassMark from 2019-09-05 to compare with (AGESA 1.0.0.3ABB)
> 
> ...


I can confirm these findings to be similar with my 3800X it's still hopping between threads but for me it's on the same core at least but different speeds. A bit funny. Performance wise nothing stunning to report. 



Bwaze said:


> 1.0.0.4B didn't do anything over 1.0.0.3ABBA on my Gigabyte Aorus X570 Elite and 3900X, it lowered the max. boost a bit (from 4.650 to 4.575), but all the results stayed the same (within 1%) - processor doesn't do any work at max boost anyhow.
> 
> Tried 1usmus bios settings an power plan, no difference. Tried to push PBO overclocking, minimal increase in scores but massive amount of extra heat.
> 
> A bit underwhelming for a supposed massive bios overhaul...



Yes Agesa 1.0.0.4 B is very underwhelming for what was promised by AMD and MSI. 100+ 'improvements'... I got less performance out of it. Only useful thing was the offset options.


----------



## zlobby (Nov 5, 2019)

Weshya said:


> P.S : Maybe we should create a petition, to claim 1usmus's immediate hiring in AMD


We better not. Once under contract, he will be required to play by their rules. His mandate often will be to drag his feet on purpose. He also won't be able to share much info as he'd be under NDA...

The community benefits more if he is a Free Willy.


----------



## NC37 (Nov 5, 2019)

axaro1 said:


> Can I try it with my Ryzen 5 1600, is it gonna be an issue?



Tried it on my 1700. Scores 438 single core in CPUID before, scores 434 after. Ryzen Balanced from AMD scores 438 as well so, there is a very slight performance loss on first gen Ryzen with this powerplan.


----------



## HwGeek (Nov 5, 2019)

zlobby said:


> We better not. Once under contract, he will be required to play by their rules. His mandate often will be to drag his feet on purpose. He also won't be able to share much info as he'd be under NDA...
> 
> The community benefits more if he is a Free Willy.


I hope that at-least he gets free samples of the new product to play with and make more mods ;-).


----------



## SirMacke (Nov 5, 2019)

Asus Crosshair 6 Hero + 3700X
I cannot find Power Supply Idle Control anywhere.
Tested anyway, no improvement in R15/R20 and no change in them Mhz

Edit: It boosts lower now than ever. Oh well.


----------



## Cresp0pt (Nov 5, 2019)

Hello, i cant find the cppc option on my msi b450 tomahawk and i have a 3600? Any help?


----------



## Cidious (Nov 5, 2019)

After a while using the computer you do get to see nice boost clocks on almost all cores but those are not the sustained single core numbers, Just peak boosts. 

I'll stick with the profile. It's not harming my system in any way. And it feels smooth to use. Temps are good and and performance is up to par as with 1.0.0.3 ABBA. I would recommend using this when you run 1.0.0.4 B. They promised golden mountains with 1.0.0.4 B but it's lacking and it wasn't that great at all. At least not on my MSI B450M Mortar MAX. might be different for other boards.

Thanks 1usmus. It's free progress. I hope AMD will at least look into it and maybe even pick it up to improve your ideas even further.


----------



## ORLY (Nov 5, 2019)

Will it work properly on v1809 (LTSC) and 1.0.0.3abba?


----------



## Crackong (Nov 5, 2019)

Thanks for the effort.
Sad to report that Asus Crosshair VIII Impact does not have the following settings:

Power Supply Idle Control
Cool n'quiet
PPC Adjustment 

And does not benefit from your fantastic power plan.


----------



## Divide Overflow (Nov 5, 2019)

Thanks for your efforts, 1usmus.
Unfortunately, I don't notice any difference from the Balanced power plan for AMD Ryzen. 
3900x on X570 Aorus Master with 1.0.0.4B bios.
Like others, I was unable to locate many of the required bios settings.


----------



## EarthDog (Nov 5, 2019)

Still wondering how successful this really is if users have...

1. The latest BIOS
2. The latest Windows OS version
3. Power plan set to AMD's.

It seems like for those who have at least a couple of the items listed, this doesn't do squat.


----------



## VashdaNarata (Nov 5, 2019)

Sashleycat said:


> Hi, I am really interested in this, especially since I do use a lot of 1T software alongside the heavily threaded ones and the Windows 10 scheduler seems intent on putting the load on the weakest cores in the system. Unfortunately, I tried to use this power plan and it didn't affect anything. CPUz Single-thread uses two threads apparently, and one isn't even on the same CCX. The xEdit software for Fallout 4 uses just on thread on one core, and even with the power plan it still uses the weakest core, sometimes losing 100 MHz of performance which is quite significant.
> 
> I am on 1.0.0.3 ABBA and my motherboard is Asrock X570M Pro4, my CPU is Ryzen 7 3700X. Everything is at stock.
> 
> ...



This is assuming the bios are the same for the x470 taichi (i know the x570 taichi has them in the same place as well)

For those settings, go to Advanced\AMD CBS\NBIO Common Options\SMU Common Options


----------



## nangu (Nov 5, 2019)

Divide Overflow said:


> Thanks for your efforts, 1usmus.
> Unfortunately, I don't notice any difference from the Balanced power plan for AMD Ryzen.
> 3900x on X570 Aorus Master with 1.0.0.4B bios.
> Like others, I was unable to locate many of the required bios settings.



You can locate most of the required bios settings under the CBS and Additional CPU settings on the Master. The ones which are not included are Cool & Quiet and one of the two CPCC options.

Anyway, it didn't do much on my system, I only see a 25Mhz peak increase on two cores, but sustained is the same as with the Ryzen High Performance plan. CPUz and Cinebench R15/R20 ST and MT scores are well inside the error margin.

I think the 1usmus power plan will be benefitial for those systems which the Windows scheduler is not favouring the best cores. I never had that problem with any AGESA version, so that's may be why I don't see any improvement.

Also, I noticed the 1.0.0.4 Bios is not jumping frequencies all over the place. Instead the frequency stays more consistent so leveraging in a more planar curve in time. It may give us more smooth and consistent framerates in games, but I didn't test it extensively.


----------



## hzy4 (Nov 5, 2019)

Asus X570 TUF with BIOS AGESA 1.0.0.4 has added more settings like the CPPC, unfortunately still no spread spectrum setting.


----------



## Dyatlov A (Nov 5, 2019)

Windows 7 compatible?


----------



## 1usmus (Nov 5, 2019)

Dyatlov A said:


> Windows 7 compatible?


 

you can try, there is no threat to the computer


----------



## Weshya (Nov 5, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> Still wondering how successful this really is if users have...
> 
> 1. The latest BIOS
> 2. The latest Windows OS version
> ...



I had the latest BIOS 3.40 (AGESA 1.0.0.4B) on my Tomahawk MAX B450 , latest chipset drivers installed (+amd's power plan), and Windows 1909 installed. The difference on the behavior of my Ryzen 3600 was like day and night after applying 1usmus power plan and recommended BIOS settings. Finally the fastest cores are utilized at a much higher and sustained clock frequency than before. So in my case,  the combination of right BIOS settings + 1usmus powerplan finally paid off .


----------



## wolf (Nov 6, 2019)

Installed 1.0.0.4B BIOS and the power plan, seems to boost gaming clocks by 25-50 mhz on average, I'll take it.

Annoyingly with the BIOS updates, I always lose my profiles, I assume they can be backed up to HDD, if so I gotta start doing that rather that going through every screen again, especially RAM timings...

Also every time I do a new BIOS some games reset to default, tripped me out thinking I was getting MUCH lower FPS after doing this last night but DOOM had reverted to OPEN GL 4.5... eww


----------



## BitsInBytes (Nov 6, 2019)

*Many of you are putting WAY to much focus into R15 or R20 for your testing and validation*​
I created an account literally just to say that; I think the biggest gains can only be seen while using your PC (I think, the way boost was intended).

I have the same PC as 1usmus, down to the motherboard even but in R20 my 3900x I was seeing max boost clock of the same old 4400 mhz and almost reverted the change.  I had the new bios, correct settings, installed power plan...yet in R20 my single score sucked. But I decided to keep the power plan and run HWINFO in the background while doing things like using chrome, doing work, gaming, etc - and there is a HUGE difference in performance that R20 did not reveal. Before this power plan, most of my cores only sometimes got above 4200 mhz with just a few lucky ones doing 4400mhz.

*However, now with the power profile while "just using" my PC I am seeing all my cores reaching at least up to 4500 mhz every minute with over half of my cores able to hit 4575 mhz constantly (assuming something needs the CPU and my system is not idle)!!!*

Across all cores (not including rendering) I can see an all core speed of 4400 mhz! So I loaded up a memory laitencey test in AIDA64...and it detected a running speed of 4575 vs the normal 4200-4400 and my latency dropped from 68 down to 66! In gaming my FPS is improved, just using my system everything is snappier and I love seeing my CPU boosting constantly.

So for those with the new bios version, with right right settings, etc - *Try just using your PC while watching core speeds and I think you will be surprised and happy!

**EDIT***

If things are not working for you, disable PBO / auto overclocking. At least for me I have discovered if I attempt to enable PBO or use the auto overclocking features like the +500 mhz per core, I am back to square one. Not sure I understand why this is happening so I need to leave PBO settings in my motherboard to [Auto]. It does not seem to matter which setting I change, the second I enable any overdrive feature, adjust EDC (or others) or overclocking I am back to 4400 mhz top and my performance drops across the board.


----------



## Weshya (Nov 6, 2019)

Weshya said:


> The difference on the behavior of my Ryzen 3600 was like day and night after applying 1usmus power plan and recommended BIOS settings.





BitsInBytes said:


> *Many of you are putting WAY to much focus into R15 or R20 for your testing and validation*​
> I created an account literally just to say that; I think the biggest gains can only be seen while using your PC (I think, the way boost was intended).
> 
> I have the same PC as 1usmus, down to the motherboard even but in R20 my 3900x I was seeing max boost clock of the same old 4400 mhz and almost reverted the change.  I had the new bios, correct settings, installed power plan...yet in R20 my single score sucked. But I decided to keep the power plan and run HWINFO in the background while doing things like using chrome, doing work, gaming, etc - and there is a HUGE difference in performance that R20 did not reveal. Before this power plan, most of my cores only sometimes got above 4200 mhz with just a few lucky ones doing 4400mhz.
> ...


 + 1

That's exactly the behavior i noticed with my humble Ryzen 3600. More core boosting at their max, more frequently while using my PC (HWiNFO in the background)


----------



## willgart (Nov 6, 2019)

I'm not lucky 
3700X on an Asus Tuf Gaming x570, just updated with the 1.0.0.4b bios. (stock cooler for now)
and I can reach only 4250mhz maybe 25mhz more during R20 single core tests
and the frequency chart still have up / down movement, maybe less when all the recommended setup activated. but still there.




because I dont see the temperature raising so much, I dont think that the problem is related to the default cooler, or is it?

with manual overclocking, I can have 4200 to 4225 to all cores (sometimes R20 crashes), no change, its what I had before.
and my temperature go up to 93deg in this case.
I plan to get a dark rock pro 4 to stay cool and quiet all the time.


----------



## BitsInBytes (Nov 6, 2019)

Could very well be temp limited, I know ryzen 3000 boost is extremely temp dependent. I am running a water cooling system so unless I am rendering, all core load is only 45-55C. Rendering is about 70-75C.


----------



## Cidious (Nov 6, 2019)

BitsInBytes said:


> *Many of you are putting WAY to much focus into R15 or R20 for your testing and validation*​
> I created an account literally just to say that; I think the biggest gains can only be seen while using your PC (I think, the way boost was intended).
> 
> I have the same PC as 1usmus, down to the motherboard even but in R20 my 3900x I was seeing max boost clock of the same old 4400 mhz and almost reverted the change.  I had the new bios, correct settings, installed power plan...yet in R20 my single score sucked. But I decided to keep the power plan and run HWINFO in the background while doing things like using chrome, doing work, gaming, etc - and there is a HUGE difference in performance that R20 did not reveal. Before this power plan, most of my cores only sometimes got above 4200 mhz with just a few lucky ones doing 4400mhz.
> ...



Although I do agree with most parts you are writing. There is a reason we use Cinebench and other tools to confirm a gain. Just seeing clocks rise in HWINFO doesn't equal better performance. That's just placebo. If you're happy with that, that's ok for me. But I would like to actually find out if my processor performs better in applications that I use. Which is difficult to do with gaming when my GPU (2070 Super) will be the bottleneck at 1440p. A quick way to test if you get more performance is using a tool that utilizes does cores like Cinebench. And then my Single cores boost slightly higher but no where near those peak speeds. Those peaks speeds you read in HWINFO are useless. Your processor is not doing actual work at those speeds. It's nice to see yes. But it's nicer to actually know it's making a difference. Which from my findings it barely does. Don't get me wrong I am using the profile because just like you I feel the system is snappy and works very well. But so did the Ryzen Balanced profile. I see no harm in the profile but the benefit for me is not really there also (mind you 3800X). You can say we rely too much on Cinebench. But I think in this case you rely too much on some core speed numbers in your monitoring software which doesn't translate into real performance gains in any way. 

So thank you for making this post and signing up. Happy you have the same system as 1usmus that it works for. But you don't have to judge all of us for trying to figure out if we actually get something out of it or not in BOLD CAPITAL LETTERS. Seems a bit rude to me.


----------



## willgart (Nov 6, 2019)

BitsInBytes said:


> Could very well be temp limited, I know ryzen 3000 boost is extremely temp dependent. I am running a water cooling system so unless I am rendering, all core load is only 45-55C. Rendering is about 70-75C.


do you know the bios options to increase the supported temperature?


----------



## Cidious (Nov 6, 2019)

Here is the difference between power profiles on my system. Same test ran over again. so I didn't switch power profiles during the test. Screenshotted at the same moment. Same power limit values. Same temps. Same core hopping. Same clockspeeds.. well.. spot the differences.

The boost in performance people are noticing might be more from finally using the correct bios settings than the profile. But I own a 3800X. Things might be different on the 3900X


----------



## thomasck (Nov 6, 2019)

@1usmus once again thanks!

A little feedback.
It works, 3900x + taichi x370. I've seen boosts of 4575 and 4550 using vcore in auto, which was not possible before, and scoring 3156 in cb15 with 82C
But, once I set vcore to 1.25v I see boosts of 4.5max and score of 3173 with 71C.

And, when using vcore in auto the system hangs for while and comes back, let's say I'm browsing and I change tabs in firefox it freezes, then I switch tabs and the next software would also be frozen in the screen (not responding), if I click on menu start it would pop up and be there, stuck for around 5-6 seconds then all comes to normality. 

Once I set vcore to fixed, the issue goes away. Same happens if I leave vcore auto and use balanced power plain, but once I change to high performance the issue disappears.


----------



## BitsInBytes (Nov 6, 2019)

I updated my post, but just throwing this here for anyone keeping up to date on this.

If things are not working for you, try to disable PBO / auto overclocking. At least for me I have discovered if I attempt to enable PBO or use the auto overclocking features like the +500 mhz per core, I am back to square one. Not sure I understand why this is happening so I need to leave PBO settings in my motherboard to [Auto]. It does not seem to matter which setting I change, the second I enable any overdrive feature, adjust EDC (or others) or overclocking I am back to 4400 mhz top and my performance drops across the board.


----------



## Cresp0pt (Nov 6, 2019)

I have the B450 Tomahawk (not max) and i cant find the cppc, all the others options are there but the cppc are not, any help?


----------



## Wickedt (Nov 6, 2019)

I think a lot of people are missing the point of all this. Windows 10 is horrible at picking the fastest cores to use, it just doesn't work. Enter this power plan and settings, and suddenly it works the way it is supposed to.  I am on 1.0.0.4 B and wasn't hitting 4600 on my 3900X, now i am hitting 4625 on 2 cores, and none below 4200. Remember, when your playing a game, most favor single core speeds, and with the way these Bios tweaks work, as well as the power plan, your game will be using the fastest cores available, as well as any other software your using. On my Taichi X570, i am seeing all cores boosted above what they were previously.

Awesome work 1usmus, thanks.

On my Taichi X570 

* Advanced\AMD CBS\CPU Common Options we find the Global C-State Control & Power Supply Idle Control

* Advanced\AMD CBS\NBIO Common Options\SMU Common Options we find CPPC & CPPC Preferred Cores


----------



## willgart (Nov 6, 2019)

Hi 1usmus,
question:
how can we edit the power plan?
and what we should try to change in case your fine tuning is not working well on our specific system?
in my case its a 3700X and X570 Asus motherboard (with windows 10 latest insider)
and I'm not able to get a flat CPU usage line like you got.


----------



## Cidious (Nov 6, 2019)

BitsInBytes said:


> I updated my post, but just throwing this here for anyone keeping up to date on this.
> 
> If things are not working for you, try to disable PBO / auto overclocking. At least for me I have discovered if I attempt to enable PBO or use the auto overclocking features like the +500 mhz per core, I am back to square one. Not sure I understand why this is happening so I need to leave PBO settings in my motherboard to [Auto]. It does not seem to matter which setting I change, the second I enable any overdrive feature, adjust EDC (or others) or overclocking I am back to 4400 mhz top and my performance drops across the board.



Cool mate. 

And yes I've noticed the same. The screenshots are purely from PBO on default and not enabled. No other features activated. Excactly as recommended by 1usmus. But as you can see for me there is no change whatsoever. And you can see temperatures are not that high so it's not thermally throttled in any way. It might be board or processor dependent. Or even bios. I can have a try with 1.0.0.3 ABBA which boosted better than 1.0.0.4 B. But since 1usmus is on 1.0.0.4 B I tried to replicate his config as much as possible to get his results. The differences being B450M Mortar Max and 3800X instead of whatever Godlike board he used and 3900X. In his earlier posts he clearly stated that effects were best for 3900X but slightly on other SKUs too. Which I can't confirm to have found. 

It's stable and smooth though. So was Ryzen Balanced for me. 

I'm looking forward to his version 2 that he was talking about on Twitter and I am very happy for the people that were helped by this already. 

Other than that. I'm not missing huge performance at all with the 3800X so there is literally nothing to complain about other than no real improvement. 

Keep up the good work 1usmus.


----------



## Adad (Nov 6, 2019)

This does not work for me, even I lost performance. I am on a AsRock ab350m Pro4 and a Ryzen 3600. My mother board  still have the 1.0.0.3 ABB and I did everything in the instructions, except for the AMD Cool'n'Quiet and the PPC Adjustment because they are not in my board or I am blind: does not work and my CB R15 and 20 score decresed, in game the beaviour seems equal.


----------



## Olster_1 (Nov 6, 2019)

Hey everyone..

What's the full settings used for the mobo for this.. I tried it and I did get a good score on geekbench 5 CPU and an ok cinebench 20 score.. but my 3800 x isn't boosting past 4.469 MHz.. what about the pbo and other settings..

System is 3800x
Gigabyte elite x570 mobo
240mm TT RIing 3.0 AIO
16gb 3200 mhz vengeance ram
Gigabyte G1 Gtx 1070ti
512 GB samsung 960 pro nvme ssd
512 GB intel 660p nvme
750gb wd storage drive

I have had boost upto 4.55 GHz before.. but can't seem to get back to that..


----------



## techpowerupadmin (Nov 6, 2019)

Ryzen 3600 with Boost Override = 200 (That is, theoretically, 4.4GHz).
Set 1usmus power plan. Ran CPU-Z benchmark.
It seems that it prefers C01 (fastest in CCX0) over C05 (fastest in CCX1 and the fastest in the system)


----------



## tyrael64 (Nov 6, 2019)

Some of the options of the bios or the plan corrected an annoying problem with the audio that clipping/stuttering.
So I am extremely grateful!

aorus master x570


----------



## TKnockers (Nov 6, 2019)

followed instructions, no difference for my 3600X.. same clocks. B450 Aorus Elite 1.0.0.3 ABBA..


----------



## lubomirz (Nov 6, 2019)

best achievements are with 3900x / 3950x CPUs and TOP TIER motherboards.  You can't expect 4.6GHz single-core boost on AB350 or B450 motherboards as those use CRAPPY VRMs, have crappy unoptimized BIOSes and generally were not designed/constructed to run Ryzen 3000 CPUs.  Also, many other factors come into the game :

- cooling (did you know it's a huge difference if you have 4layer PCB motherboard and 6layer PCB ?), cooler itself (sure it's better to have custom 360mm water than AMD box cooler)
- power delivery (not just VRMs on the motherboard, but power supply plays extreme role here, we are talking sudden spikes of dozens and dozens of amperes so the power has to be clean end-to-end)
- Windows installation itself (build 1903 ?  25 games already installed and system in bad shape ?)
- amount of drivers uninstallation / reinstallation and mess left in Windows after that
- BIOS optimizations [especially 1.0.0.4 AGESA might help tremendously] and settings  [ SOC 1.15V or CPU 1.475V and expecting miracles ? ]
- general board design / layout + unimaginable factors such as case airflow directly affecting for example temperatures of chipset

etc etc.


BTW, did you know that 3600 CPUs are the worst silicon coming out of factory ? IF they wouldn't be, they would be 3800x   Seriously, take a look at this voltage graphs and think about it for a split of a second :









14:12  notice how 3600 with stock cooler has 4 fps less than the same 3600 with different cooler - does it remind you something ? Maybe 50-100MHz higher boost due to temperature ?
14:33  *CHECK HOW TREMENDOUS DIFFERENCES THERE ARE BETWEEN CPUs !!! *there's no escaping it : 3600/3600x are BY FAR THE WORST silicons no matter how you look at that - these 6cores need 0.15V more [!!!] to run 4250MHz than their 8core [!!] 3700x brother.
Also notice how 12core 3900x are better than 8core 3800x ... how much less voltage they need to drive 50% more cores at the same frequency.  Now you understand why 3900 can boost couple of MHz higher than 3600 ??

Nobody is guaranteed to achieve significant gains out of this power plan ; users with new&clean Windows installation, 3900X CPUs, HIGH-END x570 motherboards and high-end cooling are MORE LIKELY to see results out of this.  Apologies to disappoint anyone, just be realistic : *don't expect to run 4.7GHz 3600 on B450 with box cooler and 4000+ CineBench score.*

Yes, even x570 motherboards below 200$ are SOMEHOW *CRAP, *the only exceptions are Asus TUG Gaming and Gigabyte Aorus Elite - all other motherboard are UNABLE to cope with temperatures of heavily overclocked CPUs and their VRM design is just non-sense, if you think this will not affect your CPU results you are about to have a surprising day.

Also, BIOSes are not created equal : I guess any benefits are much prone to show up with 1.0.0.4 than with 1.0.0.3 AGESA.


----------



## TKnockers (Nov 6, 2019)

lubomirz said:


> best achievements are with 3900x / 3950x CPUs and TOP TIER motherboards.  You can't expect 4.6GHz single-core boost on AB350 or B450 motherboards as those use CRAPPY VRMs, have crappy unoptimized BIOSes and generally were not designed/constructed to run Ryzen 3000 CPUs.  Also, many other factors come into the game :
> 
> - cooling (did you know it's a huge difference if you have 4layer PCB motherboard and 6layer PCB ?), cooler itself (sure it's better to have custom 360mm water than AMD box cooler)
> - power delivery (not just VRMs on the motherboard, but power supply plays extreme role here, we are talking sudden spikes of dozens and dozens of amperes so the power has to be clean end-to-end)
> ...


 
Ryzen 1, 2 and 3 all go into same socket... a320, b450...x570 chipsets all support the same cpus with bios update...so, not that differently engineered ( constructed as You mention ) one from another. Handicapped in a way to set them apart, yes. I have a320 Asrock board that supports 3600x just fine.. If they didn't handicap overclocking thru bios a320 could pull that off to some extent also.. not stellar like x570, but sufficient in it's own way.

As for VRm... VRM's primary purpose is to lower and control voltage sent to cpu...not created very extraodinary...kinda like a small transformer in it's own way. 
I have Corsair TX 750W PSU, clean install of 1903 Windows 10... No one is expecting anything, people try it for themselves and post their findings here. ( comments sections have that purpose anyway ) 
After all interested parties try it out some sort of statistics may come out and everyone will know for which cpus and mobos this makes sense and in which measure. 
All cpus are not created equal and that is a known fact, because of that someone with 3600x will see I had no luck on my piece of silicon...but may prove differently with his.
That's why all of this interests us and keeps us interested..


----------



## torsoreaper (Nov 6, 2019)

lubomirz said:


> best achievements are with 3900x / 3950x CPUs and TOP TIER motherboards.  You can't expect 4.6GHz single-core boost on AB350 or B450 motherboards as those use CRAPPY VRMs, have crappy unoptimized BIOSes and generally were not designed/constructed to run Ryzen 3000 CPUs.  Also, many other factors come into the game :
> 
> - cooling (did you know it's a huge difference if you have 4layer PCB motherboard and 6layer PCB ?), cooler itself (sure it's better to have custom 360mm water than AMD box cooler)
> - power delivery (not just VRMs on the motherboard, but power supply plays extreme role here, we are talking sudden spikes of dozens and dozens of amperes so the power has to be clean end-to-end)
> ...



I'm on an Hero VIII X570 with 360mm water cooling in a 900D that's got more airflow than a automobile wind tunnel.  So far this power plan does absolutely nothing for me. I really think it's coming down to being able to access some of the bios features that he says in the instructions.  People who have good results seem to be x570 AsRock and MSI and people who seem to not be able to get it to work are the Asus and others.


----------



## willgart (Nov 6, 2019)

torsoreaper said:


> I'm on an Hero VIII X570 with 360mm water cooling in a 900D that's got more airflow than a automobile wind tunnel.  So far this power plan does absolutely nothing for me. I really think it's coming down to being able to access some of the bios features that he says in the instructions.  People who have good results seem to be x570 AsRock and MSI and people who seem to not be able to get it to work are the Asus and others.


apparently its the trend. I have an Asus board and not able to flatten the core usage. just a little increase of about 25mhz, around 4225, but still far away from 4.4Ghz for my 3700X


----------



## Dyatlov A (Nov 6, 2019)

Where to find cppc in asrock bios?


----------



## Jism (Nov 6, 2019)

GoldenX said:


> Must. Test. On. Zen1!



For a 2x00 series, enable PBO/XFR and put thermal / current limit on maximum. Now slightly, and i'm just talking only a notch, undervolt the CPU and keep the CPU cores within 60 degrees of thermals. For a 2700x this is pretty tough, knowing it's small procede and the thermal heat density it puts out. But with a 360mm radiator your pretty close to that.

Now enjoy 4.35Ghz single core boost and 4.2Ghz all core boost. Once the water heats up the all core boost usually drops around 4.1Ghz due to temperatures. At least this is the best scenario for my 2700x for now. It's not a world of difference at all those few mhz' more.


----------



## Wickedt (Nov 6, 2019)

Dyatlov A said:


> Where to find cppc in asrock bios?


* Advanced\AMD CBS\CPU Common Options we find the Global C-State Control & Power Supply Idle Control

* Advanced\AMD CBS\NBIO Common Options\SMU Common Options we find CPPC & CPPC Preferred Cores


----------



## jgraham11 (Nov 6, 2019)

IceShroom said:


> No
> To work on a CPU, the CPU needs to be exist. There is nothing called Ryzen 2.


Don't be a jerk, obviously he meant Ryzen 2000 series....


----------



## Dyatlov A (Nov 6, 2019)

1usmus said:


> you can try, there is no threat to the computer



Yes, it did not harm. Actually the performance difference between Windows 7 and Windows 10 I think lessened,

1608 and 197 with Windows 10

1594 and 196 with Windows 7

Windows 7 used to make before, like 158x and 194.


----------



## HoneyBadgerSloth (Nov 6, 2019)

Am I retarded?
I can't find the settings in my BIOS (ASUS X570 ROG Crosshair Hero VIII Wifi), somebody with the same board?


----------



## 1usmus (Nov 6, 2019)

*Hello everyone *

I have a suggestion for those who are still experiencing a boost problem:

CPPC = Enabled
CPPC Preferred Cores = *Disabled*
The meaning of these settings is that we use CPPC, but do not use the core marking from AMD. Task Scheduler will select cores from ACPI table.



HoneyBadgerSloth said:


> Am I retarded?
> I can't find the settings in my BIOS (ASUS X570 ROG Crosshair Hero VIII Wifi), somebody with the same board?



1004B for ur board https://dlcdnets.asus.com/pub/ASUS/...FI/ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO-WIFI-ASUS-1105.zip

p.s. press F9 in BIOS and type what u want to find


----------



## willgart (Nov 6, 2019)

1usmus said:


> *Hello everyone *
> 
> I have a suggestion for those who are still experiencing a boost problem:
> 
> ...


thanks.
but when there is no CPPC Preferred Cores in the bios, what can we do?
for now still not able to have a flat core usage :-(


----------



## 1usmus (Nov 6, 2019)

willgart said:


> thanks.
> but when there is no CPPC Preferred Cores in the bios, what can we do?
> for now still not able to have a flat core usage :-(



In the near future there will be a correction from AMD (this will be a new BIOS and a new driver chipset), all the settings that I presented to you will be made by default.


----------



## willgart (Nov 6, 2019)

1usmus said:


> In the near future there will be a correction from AMD (this will be a new BIOS and a new driver chipset), all the settings that I presented to you will be made by default.


thanks a lot!!!!!
you are a master 



1usmus said:


> In the near future there will be a correction from AMD (this will be a new BIOS and a new driver chipset), all the settings that I presented to you will be made by default.


hey... just playing qieht the quickcpu tool, to manage the core parking parameters
here the line I got while running R20 single core mode...
its flat, but 2 cores used, and peak still low


----------



## HoneyBadgerSloth (Nov 6, 2019)

1usmus said:


> *Hello everyone *
> 
> I have a suggestion for those who are still experiencing a boost problem:
> 
> ...



thx man


----------



## Wickedt (Nov 7, 2019)

1usmus said:


> *Hello everyone *
> 
> I have a suggestion for those who are still experiencing a boost problem:
> 
> ...



Just curious 1usmus, is it better to leave preferred cores disabled?  I have a 3900X, and its working beautifull, but AMD Ryzen master picks 2 other cores as the fastest, but HWiNFO likes cores 0 and core 2, and based on the average, the best cores reported by HWiNFO are the fastest ones.
Thanks


----------



## Sujus (Nov 7, 2019)

So first I have to thank 1usmus for his great work. But I might have found the reason why this custom power plan does not work for everyone:

__
		https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/dspsp0


----------



## BitsInBytes (Nov 7, 2019)

So even though my new speeds were amazing, I never noticed the CPU core "parking" effect. I didn't really care, I was getting pretty good performance. I DISABLED the CPPC Preferred Cores just as a test...and I am seeing the parked cores and my single core R20 score did improve and I often had sustained longer higher clocks.

Not sure about now my "general performance" and gaming, I will need to just see what happens but at least in R20 I am now seeing the parked cores + higher 1 / 2 active core boost speeds. I am still not seeing the near 4.6 ghz even in R20 single thread with parked cores so there is still something not working just right. But better than it was, at least in R20 I am now seeing around 4.5 ghz average and small random jumps from time to time to 4.55. I will report back for general PC usage.

**Edit**

Multicore tests (like R20) show a small increase, gaming shows good boosts and when all core's has loads I am seeing goods speeds. So disabling CPPC for me kept the good boost speeds while allowing the CPU to go idle and cores being parked.


----------



## 1usmus (Nov 7, 2019)

Sujus said:


> So first I have to thank 1usmus for his great work. But I might have found the reason why this custom power plan does not work for everyone:
> 
> __
> https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/dspsp0



I prepared a material about this a long time ago, but I was asked to give time to solve this problem. The problem is much more serious.



BitsInBytes said:


> So even though my new speeds were amazing, I never noticed the CPU core "parking" effect. I didn't really care, I was getting pretty good performance. I DISABLED the CPPC Preferred Cores just as a test...and I am seeing the parked cores and my single core R20 score did improve and I often had sustained longer higher clocks.
> 
> Not sure about now my "general performance" and gaming, I will need to just see what happens but at least in R20 I am now seeing the parked cores + higher 1 / 2 active core boost speeds. I am still not seeing the near 4.6 ghz even in R20 single thread with parked cores so there is still something not working just right. But better than it was, at least in R20 I am now seeing around 4.5 ghz average and small random jumps from time to time to 4.55. I will report back for general PC usage.
> 
> ...



Thanks for checking out my recommendations. This is definitely great news.



Wickedt said:


> Just curious 1usmus, is it better to leave preferred cores disabled?  I have a 3900X, and its working beautifull, but AMD Ryzen master picks 2 other cores as the fastest, but HWiNFO likes cores 0 and core 2, and based on the average, the best cores reported by HWiNFO are the fastest ones.
> Thanks




There are 2 kinds of problems, because some users have better results when used enabled than disabled ( CPPC Preferred Cores )


----------



## DuxCro (Nov 7, 2019)

Didn't do shit on my R5 3600. Well, it did give additional 25Mhz it seems. Is there someone who really believes that this makes a difference in any game? I guess getting additional 25Mhz on Pentium II would be great. But here it does nothing at all.


----------



## hzy4 (Nov 7, 2019)

After the 1usmus power plan I noticed higher clocks in gaming.
I am using MSI Afterburner to show clocks and utilization of the threads.
In DayZ and Escape from Tarkov I could see clocks on all threads or 8 cores (these games are still not really optimized) reaching simultaneously 4300mhz.
Thanks 1usmus.


----------



## EarthDog (Nov 7, 2019)

DuxCro said:


> Didn't do shit on my R5 3600. Well, it did give additional 25Mhz it seems. Is there someone who really believes that this makes a difference in any game? I guess getting additional 25Mhz on Pentium II would be great. But here it does nothing at all.


The guy below you?


----------



## DuxCro (Nov 7, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> The guy below you?


Oh the guy below me has A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT CPU MODEL. That has higher boost clocks out of the box than mine does. So ofc it is the same situation.  Btw. ALL reviews on overclocking Ryzen CPU's show no benefits in gaming from100-200Mhz higher clocks. So just clock your RAM because that's the way to get better performance wity Ryzen. Intel is still the undisputed king of CPU overcloking. I OC'ed my RAM to 3800Mhz CL16 19 19 39. Which is fucking glorious considering i bought a cheapish RAM.


----------



## EarthDog (Nov 7, 2019)

DuxCro said:


> Oh the guy below me has A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT CPU MODEL. That has higher boost clocks out of the box than mine does. So ofc it is the same situation.  Btw. ALL reviews on overclocking Ryzen CPU's show no benefits in gaming from100-200Mhz higher clocks. So just clock your RAM because that's the way to get better performance wity Ryzen. Intel is still the undisputed king of CPU overcloking. I OC'ed my RAM to 3800Mhz CL16 19 19 39. Which is fucking glorious considering i bought a cheapish RAM.


Uhh, that wasn't the point there, bud... 

You asked if someone really believes it makes a difference in a game... I said the guy below you. It has nothing to do with what CPU but all to the point of the meager increase doing anything tangible. Capeesh?


----------



## torsoreaper (Nov 7, 2019)

So with newest Asus bios on a Hero VIII, I was able to get this to work with preferred cores set to off but it chose the wrong CCX.  Then I tried turning the PBO voltages back on manually to where I like them using the BIOS.  This made me have the core swapping issue again rather than focusing work on 1 core when doing a 1 core stress test; however, when doing multi core my multi core cinebench score went up.

I will try some of the other suggestions in here and keep reporting back.  It seems maybe with new bios and preferred cores = on, that I might get a good boost but I ran out of time last night to test.


----------



## Weshya (Nov 7, 2019)

Weshya said:


> I had the latest BIOS 3.40 (AGESA 1.0.0.4B) on my Tomahawk MAX B450 , latest chipset drivers installed (+amd's power plan), and Windows 1909 installed. The difference on the behavior of my Ryzen 3600 was like day and night after applying 1usmus power plan and recommended BIOS settings. Finally the fastest cores are utilized at a much higher and sustained clock frequency than before. So in my case,  the combination of right BIOS settings + 1usmus powerplan finally paid off .





DuxCro said:


> Didn't do shit on my R5 3600. Well, it did give additional 25Mhz it seems. Is there someone who really believes that this makes a difference in any game? I guess getting additional 25Mhz on Pentium II would be great. But here it does nothing at all.



Worked for me like a charm on my R5 3600 + Tomahawk MAX B450. And due to that behavior, i am able to see a noticeable difference while gaming (less stuttering due to correct CCX utilization and at a higher average boost frequency).


----------



## Ubersonic (Nov 7, 2019)

Tried this today on my 3900X, compared to AMD power plan it lost 17 points in CBR20 multi core and 2 points in single core.


----------



## dqniel (Nov 8, 2019)

DuxCro said:


> Didn't do shit on my R5 3600. Well, it did give additional 25Mhz it seems. Is there someone who really believes that this makes a difference in any game? I guess getting additional 25Mhz on Pentium II would be great. But here it does nothing at all.



A couple of things since you're being so self-centered about this that you seemed to have missed some things:

-It was already said that you'll see varying levels of improvement from CPU to CPU. Better silicon is going to see better improvements. Your 3600 was expected to see little difference.
-You saw an improvement, albeit small, for free due to somebody else's effort. And you complain about it? 
-This mod is in its infancy. It's expected that there will be hiccups and it might not even work *at all* for some people, much less perfectly.
-Some people are seeing significant boosts in gaming because their particular setup saw better clock increases. Just because it didn't work for you that doesn't mean that it's worthy of shitting on the mod right in front of its creator.


----------



## hzy4 (Nov 8, 2019)

I am curious to see, if AMD will get the PBO on Zen2 to a working state like described from AMD Robert (200mhz higher boost then default boost with sufficient cooling).I mean with enough time and effort and a lot og Agesa revisions.


----------



## mat9v (Nov 8, 2019)

hzy4 said:


> I am curious to see, if AMD will get the PBO on Zen2 to a working state like described from AMD Robert (200mhz higher boost then default boost with sufficient cooling).I mean with enough time and effort and a lot og Agesa revisions.


I don't think they will. Even the best (to date) silicon quality present in CCD0 of 3900x does not allow for exceeding 4.6Ghz with voltages below 1.45V - it is simply unstable below that. I have tested it on all 6 cores from each CCD0 on 2 CPUs (3900x) that I own. To reach 4.8Ghz would require voltages above 1.6V and that is liquid nitrogen territory.
Not to mention heat density for AVX workloads - the AVX2 tasks that really put a strain on the core are forcing clocks to fall to around 4Ghz with 1.1-1.15V just to keep up with heat. ZEN2 would really benefit from AVX offset in bios for overclocked. I mean I have (in bios) configured CCX0 to 4.6Ghz, CCX1 to 4.5Ghz and CCX2-3 to 4.4Ghz and it works beautifully in every game that I play, with temps never crossing 75C (with constant voltage of 1.47V) but if I as much as tried AVX2 load I would get instant shutdown from thermal protection. Did that once by accident, forgot to disable AVX in Prime95 when stability testing.


----------



## torsoreaper (Nov 8, 2019)

mat9v said:


> I don't think they will. Even the best (to date) silicon quality present in CCD0 of 3900x does not allow for exceeding 4.6Ghz with voltages below 1.45V - it is simply unstable below that. I have tested it on all 6 cores from each CCD0 on 2 CPUs (3900x) that I own. To reach 4.8Ghz would require voltages above 1.6V and that is liquid nitrogen territory.
> Not to mention heat density for AVX workloads - the AVX2 tasks that really put a strain on the core are forcing clocks to fall to around 4Ghz with 1.1-1.15V just to keep up with heat. ZEN2 would really benefit from AVX offset in bios for overclocked. I mean I have (in bios) configured CCX0 to 4.6Ghz, CCX1 to 4.5Ghz and CCX2-3 to 4.4Ghz and it works beautifully in every game that I play, with temps never crossing 75C (with constant voltage of 1.47V) but if I as much as tried AVX2 load I would get instant shutdown from thermal protection. Did that once by accident, forgot to disable AVX in Prime95 when stability testing.



not to get off topic but there is a way to do per CCX overclocking in the bios?


----------



## mat9v (Nov 8, 2019)

torsoreaper said:


> not to get off topic but there is a way to do per CCX overclocking in the bios?


In Asus X570 Prime Pro in latest bios, yes. I don't know about other boards.
I suppose all x570 boards from Asus (TUF and ROG certainly) will get that with present or future bios release.


----------



## Arcátko (Nov 8, 2019)

Does not seem to do much for me:
- Win10 (1903, fully updated)
- 3700X
- X470 Gigabyte Aorus Ultra Gaming

Tested with F40 and F42g (AGESA 1.0.0.3 ABBA) BIOS, i did not observe any difference in how windows scheduler handles the threads therefore there will not be any measurable clock difference for me.
F42g BIOS was tested with and without PBO enabled also.
Also note that "CPPC Preferred Cores" settings is NOT present on F40 BIOS on my board.

Might be coincidence but Windows seems to prefer first CCX over the second where the best CCD core is.


----------



## speedgoat (Nov 9, 2019)

hi, 3800X on C7H with 1.0.0.3ABBA.. cant complain much about the boost, im regularly getting this 





what i also like about the power plan is that i see less power spikes in everyday use, voltages are not jumping around now 

the question i have is with amd balanced the CPU dials down the frequency at 2200MHz at idle, whereas with your power plan i mostly see idle at 3600MHz. 
Is this how it is ? or is it perhaps a reporting issue with HWinfo64 ?


----------



## Arcátko (Nov 9, 2019)

speedgoat said:


> the question i have is with amd balanced the CPU dials down the frequency at 2200MHz at idle, whereas with your power plan i mostly see idle at 3600MHz.
> Is this how it is ? or is it perhaps a reporting issue with HWinfo64 ?


Because his profile is set to Min CPU power to 99% (i.e. base clock without any boost) for some reason.
You can alter it manually in advanced power plan settings to say 50% (that should allow the 2.2GHz low power state) and let me know if that does anything at all.


----------



## speedgoat (Nov 9, 2019)

Arcátko said:


> Because his profile is set to Min CPU power to 99% (i.e. base clock without any boost) for some reason.
> You can alter it manually in advanced power plan settings to say 50% (that should allow the 2.2GHz low power state) and let me know if that does anything at all.


it seems i cannot alter it manually, i have tried it with 5%. 30% and so on


----------



## Arcátko (Nov 9, 2019)

So i tested single-t and 2t Prime95 workload after updating to Win10 v1909 which has the supposed reworked thread scheduler.
While it does use best cores in given CCX it still does not correctly hop to best CCD cores which for me is on second CCX.

Also it is doing some weird stuff with bouncing the workload between actual core and SMT thread (screenshot from single-threaded workload, does it on 2t workload as well). This is regardless of power plan being used so just some Win10 F-up.


----------



## zstoichev (Nov 9, 2019)

Hi. Why I cant reach advertised 4600 on my 3900x, even with this power plan it is?





ASUS MB CH7 1.0.0.3ABBA 
CPPC = ON
CPPC Preferred Cores = OFF


----------



## Dyatlov A (Nov 10, 2019)

Because 4600MHz is way too high for these silicons. Generally they capable for 4200-4300MHz max, anything is over out of real performance gain.


----------



## hzy4 (Nov 10, 2019)

Did you achieve advertised boost clock of 4600mhz single core, before this power mod?


----------



## Ubersonic (Nov 10, 2019)

zstoichev said:


> Hi. Why I cant reach advertised 4600 on my 3900x, even with this power plan it is?
> 
> View attachment 136024
> 
> ...


That's odd, you should be able to get 4.6GHz on multiple cores (mine does 4.6 on six and 4.4 on the other six and I'm on an ASUS board too).  Have you tried monitoring with HWMonitor instead of HWiNFO?


----------



## shinarae (Nov 10, 2019)

zstoichev said:


> Hi. Why I cant reach advertised 4600 on my 3900x, even with this power plan it is?
> 
> ASUS MB CH7 1.0.0.3ABBA
> CPPC = ON
> CPPC Preferred Cores = OFF



Could be your cooling. I'm running on strix X570-e 1.0.0.3ABBA so the bios you're on should be good.


----------



## ORLY (Nov 10, 2019)

Windows 10 v1909 (installed from scratch from an MSDN image).
AGESA 1.0.0.3ABBA, couldn't find the "CPPC Preferred Cores " setting as well as those 2 last "insignificant" ones, may be that's why it doesn't work as I expected.

Ryzen 3600, CCX1 contains the fastest core overall, but Windows keeps using the fastest core on CCX0 and the second fastest core on CCX0, ignoring the fastest core of the whole CPU. Tested it with the Cinebench R20.060 single core test. It may be interesting that Windows 10 v1809 (LTSC) usually behaved the same when playing CS:GO - it only used the CCX0 fastest cores.

Even HWiNFO knows which core is the fastest overall and marks it as #1, but Windows still prefers the first CCX, although the best core is on the second CCX.

May be AGESA 1.0.0.4B will fix that, hopefully.


----------



## mat9v (Nov 10, 2019)

Dyatlov A said:


> Because 4600MHz is way too high for these silicons. Generally they capable for 4200-4300MHz max, anything is over out of real performance gain.


Right and that's why I happily use my PC at 4.6Ghz (CCD0). What ZEN2 should have is AVX1/2 offset so it would lower multiplier automatically when AVX2 load is detected. Beside that 4.6Ghz is no problem, not for stability, not for temperature. AVX2 is also a problem but not for stability but for heat density - you just can't cool it down without extreme measures above certain frequency (4.3Ghz for very good LC). Your last sentence is curious - are you suggesting that performance is not scaling with clock increase? Well, at least in tasks that do not use AVX it does, linearly at that. AVX2 of course would not work at that frequency due to heat.


----------



## Ubersonic (Nov 10, 2019)

mat9v said:


> Dyatlov A said:
> 
> 
> > Because 4600MHz is way too high for these silicons. Generally they capable for 4200-4300MHz max, anything is over out of real performance gain.
> ...


Don't listen to Dyatlov, his monitoring software maxes out at 3.6Ghz.


----------



## zstoichev (Nov 10, 2019)

Thanks all for the replies.


hzy4 said:


> Did you achieve advertised boost clock of 4600mhz single core, before this power mod?


No, never. The max I see is 4525, both HWInfo64 and Aida64. I think OpenHWMonitors showed 4550 maybe 1-2 times, very rarely. Maybe this should count by AMD as 4600. I don't think so.



Ubersonic said:


> That's odd, you should be able to get 4.6GHz on multiple cores (mine does 4.6 on six and 4.4 on the other six and I'm on an ASUS board too).  Have you tried monitoring with HWMonitor instead of HWiNFO?


Lucky you. Manually I can do 4300 @ 1,3V on all cores, and CCD0 = 4400; CCD1 = 4300 @ 1,35V. Didn't tried more. 



shinarae said:


> Could be your cooling. I'm running on strix X570-e 1.0.0.3ABBA so the bios you're on should be good.


I am using custom EK WB cooling, should be fine. CPU never goes above 75'C on 4300 all cores, or 85'C on 4400 as said above. Idle at 45. Enabling PBO does nothing.

=> My point it that on stock settings I never ever saw 4600. I can see some of you hit 4650. Not sure if I am missing something or its bad silicon?


----------



## shinarae (Nov 10, 2019)

zstoichev said:


> I am using custom EK WB cooling, should be fine. CPU never goes above 75'C on 4300 all cores, or 85'C on 4400 as said above. Idle at 45. Enabling PBO does nothing.
> 
> => My point it that on stock settings I never ever saw 4600. I can see some of you hit 4650. Not sure if I am missing something or its bad silicon?



That idle sounds quite high. Mine is 35 or so. What temperature and frequency are you maxing out on Ryzen Master when you run R15 single core with antivirus and other unnecessary background/monitoring processes turned off?


----------



## zstoichev (Nov 11, 2019)

You are right, when I stop all background processes it idles at 35-ish 

Ran some tests with R15 single core. For reference Multi Core R15 score results I get are like 3215.
Average temp on PrefCode Off is 58, and with PrefCode On is 65. You can see max temp difference of 7-8 degrees.
Single core R15 score is 207 when PrefCode Off vs 201 when On. So, better scores and thermals with Off setting.


----------



## necrophyte (Nov 12, 2019)

i dont have amd cpus, however ive been playing around with the hidden power plan options for years due to obvious improvment potential, so my question is, if somebody knows whether the changes to the preferred cores algorithm will only affect already user-accessible power plan options (HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\Power\PowerSettings), or also some inaccessible hard-coded ones? 

if there are only changes to power plan options, one can easily do the same thing prior to upgrading to 1909 already, resp. revert the changes back to pre-1909 after the upgrade, so this is no big deal actually.


----------



## q674077444 (Nov 12, 2019)

Hello God, I am a Chinese lover. I have encountered some problems while using my computer. This makes me very depressed. My 3600 will suddenly get stuck in the running process, and the appearance of Caton is very high. High, the result is a large current sound (I inserted the sound into the display), can you please God to guide the solution or opinion, thank you very much.


----------



## HD64G (Nov 12, 2019)

News from the developer with suggestions to solve the deviation in boost clocks from PC to PC.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1194264084230918144


----------



## zstoichev (Nov 13, 2019)

Nothing in KB4512941 description speaks about AMD boost fix. Someone tested this?


----------



## Arcátko (Nov 13, 2019)

zstoichev said:


> Nothing in KB4512941 description speaks about AMD boost fix. Someone tested this?


Since v1909 was made public, that's kinda obsolete workaround iirc.

I've tested removing chipset driver, PC restart, BIOS update to AGESA 1.0.0.4 B, reinstall chipset driver back, PC restart and i still see the Win scheduler using wrong CCX, still bouncing threads between SMT and phys cores but at least now i have low power idle back when using Ryzen Balanced power plan so not bad for me (aka the CPU finally enters idle state and does not cook itself while doing so).

I'm temp bound on the upper end of freq spectrum so i'm not going to see any higher boost clocks with or without this power plan mod.


----------



## Wickedt (Nov 13, 2019)

After some very cold serious testing, computer was rebooted on the power plan changes, HW reset before running Cinebench R15 single core bench.
So with a very cold day here were i live, i decided to run some tests with 1usmus Power Plan and Ryzen Balanced Power plan. As outdoor temperatures are very cold here, @-6C. I opened the sliding doors and pointed the fan at my open computer for cooling.

Temps never went above 52C while running Cinebench R15 single core bench. 1usmus power plan, CR15 was 209, with Ryzen power plan, score was 201, so thats an 8 point jump.

Temperature definitely affects the CPU performance and boosting.

















The point of all this is to see if the 1usmus power plan works as its supposed to, and this proves it does.
If you look at the cores that HW pick as the fastest, 1 and 2 (physical core 2 and core 0 respectfully) , we see a boost for the second choice of 34.2 Mhz, however, look at the core that was picked as the fastest,
it boosted itself 312.7 Mhz to a high of 4624 Mhz! This resulted in the Cine-bench Single core result of 209.

So for anybody with a 3900X or 3950X, this is a no brainer tweak.

PS To anyone concerned, i think the feeling is finally back in my toes after that arctic blast.


----------



## zstoichev (Nov 13, 2019)

Arcátko said:


> Since v1909 was made public, that's kinda obsolete workaround iirc.


Checked Win Update history, so I have it already:
>> Successfully installed on ‎9.‎9.‎2019



Wickedt said:


> The point of all this is to see if the 1usmus power plan works as its supposed to, and this proves it does.
> If you look at the cores that HW pick as the fastest, 1 and 2, we see a boost for the second choice of 34.2 Mhz, however, look at the core that was picked as the fastest,
> it boosted itself 312.7 Mhz to a high of 4624 Mhz!
> 
> So for anybody with a 3900X or 3950X, this is a no brainer tweak.


This is with Preferred Core On or Off?


----------



## Wickedt (Nov 13, 2019)

Preferred core on, basically all settings 1usmus recommended, except cool & quiet and PPC adjustment.
These settings are not available on ASRock X570 Taichi.

Test System Specifications:

Ryzen 9 3900X
NZXT X62 AIO
ASRock X570 Taichi (BIOS 2.46, AGESA 1.0.0.4В)
G.Skill Trident Z Royal Silver DDR4-3600 C16 dual-channel (@ 3733 CL15)
Windows 10 64-bit 1903
AMD Chipset Driver 1.9.27.1033
EDIT: added system specs.

EDIT2: Here are results with Prefered Core diasbled.









Lower temps (max 42C), but cores all over the place, never just the preferred fastest cores. CB 15 score of 202, as opposed to 209.
10C jump in heat, which is why cooling is so important.


----------



## Ubersonic (Nov 13, 2019)

Everyone seems to be getting great results with this power plan/settings, but when I copy them it drops my CB R20 scores from 7421/528 to 7203/527

I don't understand :S


----------



## Wickedt (Nov 13, 2019)

Ubersonic said:


> Everyone seems to be getting great results with this power plan/settings, but when I copy them it drops my CB R20 scores from 7421/528 to 7203/527
> 
> I don't understand :S



Are you using Bios 1.0.0.4B?
Also its for 3900X and 3950X soon to come out.


----------



## Ubersonic (Nov 13, 2019)

Wickedt said:


> Are you using Bios 1.0.0.4B?


Yup.


----------



## Wickedt (Nov 13, 2019)

Motherboard related maybe? I also un installed the latest amd chipset drivers, re i9nstalled chipset drivers, then changed it from ryzen power plan to 1usmus and rebooted, then tested


----------



## biffzinker (Nov 13, 2019)

Cresp0pt said:


> I have the B450 Tomahawk (not max) and i cant find the cppc, all the others options are there but the cppc are not, any help?


The CPPC Preferred Cores option showed up in the newest beta bios update for AMD ComboPI1.0.0.4 Patch B. The CPPC option is in CPU Features at the bottom.














						Ryzen Owners Zen Garden
					

You wrote the chips degrade fast. Do you have info about it?    Oh That was someone elses response (jism) not mine ...but im looking into it




					www.techpowerup.com


----------



## rckidyt (Nov 14, 2019)

When opening the .bat file I get the following:

********************************
* 1usmus Ryzen Power Plan v1.0 *
********************************

https://www.techpowerup.com/review/1usmus-custom-power-plan-for-ryzen-3000-zen-2-processors/

Installing...

The file could not be found.


The power plan has been installed, please activate it via "power options" - "additional plans"

Press any key to continue . . .


----------



## Wickedt (Nov 14, 2019)

Unzip it first to a temp folder on the desktop, run the bat file as admin

On another note, Bios 2.50 is out for  ASRock X570 Taichi









						ASRock X570 Taichi
					

Supports AMD AM4 Socket Ryzen™ 2000, 3000, 4000 G-Series, 5000 and 5000 G-Series Desktop Processors; Intel Wi-Fi 6 802.11ax (2.4Gbps) + BT 5.2; Supports DDR4 4666+ (OC); 3 PCIe 4.0 x16, 2 PCIe 4.0 x1; NVIDIA NVLink™, Quad SLI™, AMD 3-Way CrossFireX™; 7.1 CH HD Audio (Realtek ALC1220 Audio...




					www.asrock.com


----------



## ORLY (Nov 14, 2019)

R5 3600, 2 CCX - 0 and 1, the best core unfortunately is on CCX1, I've never seen it go 4200 MHz, moreover - the fastest core on CCX0 has higher turbo frequency than the core marked as the fastest of the whole CPU.
Windows 1909, 1.0.0.3ABBA - it loads the first CCX (CCX0) cores first, only after all 3 cores (w/o SMT) are loaded - it loads the fastest CPU core which is on CCX1. And it starts using SMT only after there are more threads than there are unloaded cores left, for me it's when I run Cinebench R20 with more than 6 threads.

If using CCX1 first drops overall performance - then it makes sense to use CCX0 first. And then this custom power plan only adds a bit of frequency, the rest stays the same visually, I've not benchmarked it, only checked how it loads cores/threads in Task Manager.


----------



## shinarae (Nov 14, 2019)

ORLY said:


> R5 3600, 2 CCX - 0 and 1, the best core unfortunately is on CCX1, I've never seen it go 4200 MHz, moreover - the fastest core on CCX0 has higher turbo frequency than the core marked as the fastest of the whole CPU.
> Windows 1909, 1.0.0.3ABBA - it loads the first CCX (CCX0) cores first, only after all 3 cores (w/o SMT) are loaded - it loads the fastest CPU core which is on CCX1. And it starts using SMT only after there are more threads than there are unloaded cores left, for me it's when I run Cinebench R20 with more than 6 threads.
> 
> If using CCX1 first drops overall performance - then it makes sense to use CCX0 first. And then this custom power plan only adds a bit of frequency, the rest stays the same visually, I've not benchmarked it, only checked how it loads cores/threads in Task Manager.



I wouldn't sweat too much over whats marked as the fastest core on the CCD. I'm in the situation too where the supposedly fastest core is on CCX1. For me, both the fastest core of CCX0 and CCX1 seem to boost to 4650mhz under light loads over time according to hwinfo polling at 500hz. I'd say the chance of your fastest cores being so different that it will actually matter is slim to none.


----------



## ORLY (Nov 14, 2019)

shinarae said:


> I wouldn't sweat too much over whats marked as the fastest core on the CCD. I'm in the situation too where the supposedly fastest core is on CCX1. For me, both the fastest core of CCX0 and CCX1 seem to boost to 4650mhz under light loads over time according to hwinfo polling at 500hz. I'd say the chance of your fastest cores being so different that it will actually matter is slim to none.


You know what's unfortunate? Cinebench R20 resets core affinity, I tried to link its single-core test to that best core and before it starts the test it resets the affinity... And to make Windows load that best core on CCX1 I need CCX0 to get fully loaded, so I can't check what's the highest frequency of the best core in single-core load...


----------



## shinarae (Nov 14, 2019)

ORLY said:


> You know what's unfortunate? Cinebench R20 resets core affinity, I tried to link its single-core test to that best core and before it starts the test it resets the affinity... And to make Windows load that best core on CCX1 I need CCX0 to get fully loaded, so I can't check what's the highest frequency of the best core in single-core load...



Yea I know. And then there's a situation like mine where the first core of CCX0 is the fastest core and Windows tends to primarily use that one for background tasks so any single thread benchmarking I do will be dumped on core #2 which according to Ryzen master is the slowest core of the CCX0 even tho core #3 is supposed to be faster and is idle. And then ofc there's the good ol' "hey look core #1 is free, let's throw the process on it. YIKES. <insert any background/taskbar process/service here> is doing something, let's throw it back to core #2" yoyo behavior  Looking at the windows logs tho, the system logs report both 1st and 2nd core of CCX0 to be equally fast and way faster than the Ryzen master gold star on CCX1. Validity of those numbers I'm not very sure of, but for sure play a big part of whats going on with assigning cores for tasks.

I can only comment the behavior on ABBA tho. Haven't bothered to update the AGESA yet since without constantly staring at the frequencies and what not, the computer is stable, feels amazing and is blisteringly fast at both work and pleasure.  the 3900x. Haven't had this much fun tweaking a system since Pentium 2 (legendary SL2W8) days. Infinity fabric/dram/voltage tweaking has been extremely addicting and satisfying


----------



## rckidyt (Nov 14, 2019)

Wickedt said:


> Unzip it first to a temp folder on the desktop, run the bat file as admin
> 
> On another note, Bios 2.50 is out for  ASRock X570 Taichi
> 
> ...


That did it, thanks


----------



## ORLY (Nov 14, 2019)

shinarae said:


> the first core of CCX0 is the fastest core and Windows tends to primarily use that one for background tasks


I have all background stuff disabled along with telemetry and sync so at least that one isn't a problem for me...


----------



## mat9v (Nov 14, 2019)

ORLY said:


> You know what's unfortunate? Cinebench R20 resets core affinity, I tried to link its single-core test to that best core and before it starts the test it resets the affinity... And to make Windows load that best core on CCX1 I need CCX0 to get fully loaded, so I can't check what's the highest frequency of the best core in single-core load...


Try Process Lasso and in "Options" select "Forced mode" that continuously allpies affinity to processes.
I have almost all system tasks and background apps relegated to the last CCX using CPU affinity and other cores are almost always asleep - in such a situation this power plan can show it's best


----------



## Wickedt (Nov 14, 2019)

rckidyt said:


> That did it, thanks



NP glad it worked.



shinarae said:


> Yea I know. And then there's a situation like mine where the first core of CCX0 is the fastest core and Windows tends to primarily use that one for background tasks so any single thread benchmarking I do will be dumped on core #2 which according to Ryzen master is the slowest core of the CCX0 even tho core #3 is supposed to be faster and is idle. And then ofc there's the good ol' "hey look core #1 is free, let's throw the process on it. YIKES. <insert any background/taskbar process/service here> is doing something, let's throw it back to core #2" yoyo behavior  Looking at the windows logs tho, the system logs report both 1st and 2nd core of CCX0 to be equally fast and way faster than the Ryzen master gold star on CCX1. Validity of those numbers I'm not very sure of, but for sure play a big part of whats going on with assigning cores for tasks.
> 
> I can only comment the behavior on ABBA tho. Haven't bothered to update the AGESA yet since without constantly staring at the frequencies and what not, the computer is stable, feels amazing and is blisteringly fast at both work and pleasure. the 3900x. Haven't had this much fun tweaking a system since Pentium 2 (legendary SL2W8) days. Infinity fabric/dram/voltage tweaking has been extremely addicting and satisfying



IKR?  I love the 3900x also, and glad i didn't wait for 3950X, seems a bit underwhelming to me.
I haven't done this much overclocking ram and benchmarking in a long time.
So much research lol


----------



## Gegi (Nov 16, 2019)

Hello,

is it still recommendable to use 1usmus power plan and the bios settings even with the latest Windows 10 1909?

Thank you in advance.
Gegi


----------



## mat9v (Nov 16, 2019)

Gegi said:


> Hello,
> 
> is it still recommendable to use 1usmus power plan and the bios settings even with the latest Windows 10 1909?
> 
> ...


Don't know about recommended but it still works correctly for me as to the single core boost and choosing correct highest quality core. I haven't seen any comparisons between default Windows power plan and 1usmus's one in regards to performance (on 1909) though so you have to test it yourself. It is best to do that anyway since different bios versions on different boards seem to react (guess what) differently


----------



## Gegi (Nov 17, 2019)

mat9v said:


> Don't know about recommended but it still works correctly for me as to the single core boost and choosing correct highest quality core. I haven't seen any comparisons between default Windows power plan and 1usmus's one in regards to performance (on 1909) though so you have to test it yourself. It is best to do that anyway since different bios versions on different boards seem to react (guess what) differently



thanks for your reply.

I tested both power plans and no luck at all. It switches always between the first and second core, but ryzen master shows me that my fifth core is the best in my system. 
In my bios there is no CPPC Prefered Cores entry. I have the latest bios on my asus x570-e


----------



## mat9v (Nov 17, 2019)

Gegi said:


> thanks for your reply.
> 
> I tested both power plans and no luck at all. It switches always between the first and second core, but ryzen master shows me that my fifth core is the best in my system.
> In my bios there is no CPPC Prefered Cores entry. I have the latest bios on my asus x570-e


I don't have this option either, but it is not required for the power plan to work, CPPC with low power idle is enough. But it does not mean that the power plan will give us more frequency, only better utilization of best cores. On the other hand 1usmus mentioned that there are some problems with best cores hierarchy between CCXes on some bios versions so maybe you are one of the unlucky ones?


----------



## Dyatlov A (Nov 17, 2019)

Anything over 3.6GHz is bullshit! Just enjoy your configuration...


----------



## ORLY (Nov 18, 2019)

Gegi said:


> It switches always between the first and second core, but ryzen master shows me that my fifth core is the best in my system.


Windows uses CCX0 first, no matter where the fastest core is.
1-thread load - uses the fastest core on CCX0 (no SMT).
2-thread load - uses the fastest and the second fastest core on CCX0 (no SMT).
If there are more threads required - it uses the cores left on CCX0 (no SMT).
If there are more threads required than there are unloaded cores (still no SMT) left on CCX0 - it uses the fastest, then the second fastest core on CCX1 (still without SMT).
If there are more threads required than there are unloaded cores left on CPU - it uses SMT on the fastest, then on the second fastest core on CCX0. It does not use SMT on the cores on CCX0 that aren't marked at all, instead it uses SMT on the marked cores on CCX1.
You can choose the number of threads in Cinebench, open some threads load monitoring program (I used regular Task Manager) and see it yourself.

I believe that with the 1usmus power plan it loads every thread with less "leaps"/ups and downs (when the load percentage doesn't stay at 100% but drops to let's say 98% and comes back to 100% and then drops again), and this must be a good thing.


----------



## mat9v (Nov 18, 2019)

You are describing it as it is and not as it should be. 
There are three competing mechanisms that select core to load:
- highest quality core
- threads colocation - threads from the same program should be placed on closest cores
- current core load
That is why Cinebench should not be used to test behaviour of this mechanism (threads colocation) - distinct one-thread apps should be used. Create 24 distinct apps that use 1 core load and start them one after the other. Anyway scheduler should load marked core on CCX0 then marked core on CCX1 (or in reverse if core on CCX1 is better quality), compare available max frequencies on CCD0 and CCD1 and either load best core on CCX2 or on CCX3 or it should start loading other cores on CCX0 and CCX1 - only then after all are loaded it could load cores on CCD1 according to quality rules. It is even more difficult in manual, per CCX overclock, for example I have CCX0 on 4.6Ghz, CCD1 on 4.5Ghz and CCX2-3 on 4.4Ghz and the scheduler in my case should load all cores on CCX0 before trying CCX1 and then CCX2-3 because they are of different max frequencies.


----------



## ORLY (Nov 19, 2019)

Try this: https://www.techpowerup.com/review/1usmus-power-plan-for-amd-ryzen-new-developments/


----------



## Wickedt (Dec 7, 2019)

So i decided to install the new ASRock Taichi X570 Beta bios 2.56.
Seems to be major solid, and also my performance went up.

Still using the 1usmus plan (universal)

I saw 4.625 on core 0 just booting up, which ive never seen, and then 2 cores at 4.6 Ghz after running Cinebench 20.

Seems there's more to this bios then just pci-e compatibility. I also noticed some changes in the actual structure of the bios layout itself.

For fun i ran the benchmarks at default bios (after resetting) and after tweaking the ram and bios settings.
Good performance increase for me on this bios.






Default



Tweaked


----------



## warhell200 (Dec 7, 2019)

@1usmus  or anyone who can help me that has a x470 taichi or similar bios if it's a x570, i need to know where all the other settings are or called for the x470 taichi, so far all i could find was, global c-state enable and power supply low current. if some one could help with this info thank you in advance if ya do. i already have 3.77 bios installed for x470, so i do have 1.0.0.4b


----------



## Wickedt (Dec 7, 2019)

This is were its located on the x570, there is a chance they have made it invisible on the x470, they did on a few other motherboard manufacturers.


----------



## warhell200 (Dec 7, 2019)

Wickedt said:


> This is were its located on the x570, there is a chance they have made it invisible on the x470, they did on a few other motherboard manufacturers.


Thank you very much, i finally found it in my bios, for my 3700x, and did your settings on it, thank you very much, this actually did allow me to see those commands. taichi is so hard to find settings compared to the standard's of asus lol. but thank you again very much!


----------



## Wickedt (Dec 7, 2019)

warhell200 said:


> Thank you very much, i finally found it in my bios, for my 3700x, and did your settings on it, thank you very much, this actually did allow me to see those commands. taichi is so hard to find settings compared to the standard's of asus lol. but thank you again very much!



IKR, the thing about it is, there are 3 or 4 places in the bios to do the same thing. Buildzoid commented on this when he was using the x570 to overclock some ram.


----------



## warhell200 (Dec 7, 2019)

Wickedt said:


> IKR, the thing about it is, there are 3 or 4 places in the bios to do the same thing. Buildzoid commented on this when he was using the x570 to overclock some ram.


Is there still the other commands i'm not finding tho i could know about? maybe? thanks in advance you been very helpful.


----------



## Wickedt (Dec 7, 2019)

Let me go through and get some pics of different  settings that are beneficial on this board, ill add them tomorrow. Have you used the advanced settings in Ryzen Dram calculator?
I am also looking into setting up PBO manually for an overclock, saw some info from Buildzoid im going to try tomorrow, just another way of overclocking without playing around with the CPU voltages.
Im all about 24/7 overclocking, not benchmarks so much, but they are fun to play with.


----------



## warhell200 (Dec 8, 2019)

Wickedt said:


> Let me go through and get some pics of different  settings that are beneficial on this board, ill add them tomorrow. Have you used the advanced settings in Ryzen Dram calculator?
> I am also looking into setting up PBO manually for an overclock, saw some info from Buildzoid im going to try tomorrow, just another way of overclocking without playing around with the CPU voltages.
> Im all about 24/7 overclocking, not benchmarks so much, but they are fun to play with.


Yeah, i ram oc'd my samsung b-die flareX ram from 3200mhz cl14 to 3600mhz cl14 timings recommend by ryzen calculator, I tried to find most the settings for ryzen dram calculator but haven't looked at the ryzen 3000 series stuff, because i just got it literally yesterday! i been running a 2600x and i'm so pleased with my 3700x i'm ocing my ram higher than i could before. and i think i'm gonna hold it at 3600mhz at cl14 it seems to be a good sweet spot i think for it. i haven't tried higher, but i also don't wanna burn out my memory controller on my cpu. I don't see the point in overclocking the cpu honestly the gains are what 4 percent boost usually on all core multi threaded things? i mean, i don't need that gaming and streaming, so i'm just trying to get the best i can for what i have honestly. hehe. just like any tinker does ! I'm also just running a stock wraith prism cooler as well. but i don't know how far that goes in the boost hehe.


----------



## Wickedt (Dec 8, 2019)

warhell200 said:


> Yeah, i ram oc'd my samsung b-die flareX ram from 3200mhz cl14 to 3600mhz cl14 timings recommend by ryzen calculator, I tried to find most the settings for ryzen dram calculator but haven't looked at the ryzen 3000 series stuff, because i just got it literally yesterday! i been running a 2600x and i'm so pleased with my 3700x i'm ocing my ram higher than i could before. and i think i'm gonna hold it at 3600mhz at cl14 it seems to be a good sweet spot i think for it. i haven't tried higher, but i also don't wanna burn out my memory controller on my cpu. I don't see the point in overclocking the cpu honestly the gains are what 4 percent boost usually on all core multi threaded things? i mean, i don't need that gaming and streaming, so i'm just trying to get the best i can for what i have honestly. hehe. just like any tinker does ! I'm also just running a stock wraith prism cooler as well. but i don't know how far that goes in the boost hehe.



Ya. its a good cooler, but you will definitely not see crazy boosts with it, its all based on the CPU temp, and how much more it can push the cpu.
I have my ram at 3733 cl 15 @1.46 V, which gives me some nice numbers in benches, and a good everyday 24/7 overclock for ram. I got lucky when i bought my AIO, a Kraken X62,
i just randomly bought based on some research i had done. Turns out its the best cooler for Ryzens, who knew? lol

This from 1usmus, an update on power plan


Pay close attention to operating system and BIOS updates. OS and firmware vendors are as of late changing things far too often with too little documentation. Problems and solutions to serious problems will often not be mentioned in the changelogs.
To update your BIOS, always use BIOS flashback (when possible/available) and clear the CMOS after flashing. Otherwise, Windows might not see the changes in the ACPI tables that describe the processor's configuration.
Keep monitoring for Ryzen Chipset Drivers updates. It is these drivers that are the most important link between the BIOS and OS, and these also indirectly affect the OS scheduler.
Global C-state Control, CPPC Preferred Cores, and AMD Cool'n'Quiet should always be set to "Enabled".
CPU Cooling: the boost frequency of the Zen 2 processors is very dependent on temperature. AMD calculated their rated boost clocks at 50°C.

Depending on the processor, maximum boost will go down with temperature:
- 3900/3950 - 75 MHz per 10°C
- 3800/3700 - 50 MHz per 10°C
- 3600/3500 - 35 MHz per 10°C

That's why some people with poor cooling may see lower frequencies. This includes case airflow and high ambient temperatures.
Some good info if you want to read it.









						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


----------



## warhell200 (Dec 8, 2019)

Wickedt said:


> Ya. its a good cooler, but you will definitely not see crazy boosts with it, its all based on the CPU temp, and how much more it can push the cpu.
> I have my ram at 3733 cl 15 @1.46 V, which gives me some nice numbers in benches, and a good everyday 24/7 overclock for ram. I got lucky when i bought my AIO, a Kraken X62,
> i just randomly bought based on some research i had done. Turns out its the best cooler for Ryzens, who knew? lol
> 
> ...


Yeah i know about the temperature boost technology which is pretty cool, but i didn't know that in depth with it, i don't see the amd Cool'n'Quiet anymore tho, but like you showed in that bios picture i have changed cppc, and the global c-state control and  lower current idle, so far, but yeah i got my bios updated, and i even check jzelectronic for bios on beta updates, but yeah i do keep my eye on things, i just wondered if there was any taichi specific things, like might be named different because in advanced settings i don't see everything from ryzen dram calculator in the taichi bios unless its names something different for that. or just not there.



warhell200 said:


> Yeah i know about the temperature boost technology which is pretty cool, but i didn't know that in depth with it, i don't see the amd Cool'n'Quiet anymore tho, but like you showed in that bios picture i have changed cppc, and the global c-state control and  lower current idle, so far, but yeah i got my bios updated, and i even check jzelectronic for bios on beta updates, but yeah i do keep my eye on things, i just wondered if there was any taichi specific things, like might be named different because in advanced settings i don't see everything from ryzen dram calculator in the taichi bios unless its names something different for that. or just not there.


I found the pmu training in my bios, so i did that last night, hehe taichi ya just gotta keep digging through menus hehe.


----------



## Wickedt (Dec 11, 2019)

Seems we have Bios 2.70 for the Taichi, updates to Agesa 1.0.0.4B it says. I installed it, reset bios and re did all my ram overclocking, but tried to see how it affects memory clocking, was able to hit 3800 easily, and at a lower voltage, loving my Aida scores at 3800, and if you look, you'll see Aida ran with multiplier 46.25, effectively 4625 MHz CPU, how cool is that.

PS still using the 1usmus international power plan.

















Anybody see an area for improvement in Mem timings, its B-die, Gskill Royal Silver


----------



## Gbarz (Dec 14, 2019)

WickedT are you using the newest chipset driver (v.1.11.22.0454) released 11/25/19 direct from AMD?  I have the X570 Taichi with a 3700 and love the new bios have heard weird things on reddit about the new chipset driver so I have been holding off.


----------



## Viruzz (Jan 6, 2020)

Is anyone tested this with the new Threadripper? Does this tweak help? Has Any effect? Or has negative effect?
Im building new build on 3960x

Thanks


----------



## Wickedt (Jan 7, 2020)

Gbarz said:


> WickedT are you using the newest chipset driver (v.1.11.22.0454) released 11/25/19 direct from AMD?  I have the X570 Taichi with a 3700 and love the new bios have heard weird things on reddit about the new chipset driver so I have been holding off.



Yeppers, and have had no problems at all.



Viruzz said:


> Is anyone tested this with the new Threadripper? Does this tweak help? Has Any effect? Or has negative effect?
> Im building new build on 3960x
> 
> Thanks



I would think that the latest Windows 10 update included all of the recommendations for thread-ripper just before launch, so i would think it will work, i mean the real difference here is Core Configuration: 4 CCD's, 6 Cores per CCD, my 3900X is 2 6 core CCD's . I would try it and see, chances are it will work, nothing to lose, except a little time changing the settings in bios.

*EDIT: The original changes that 1usmus recommended to change in the BIOS were all based on making sure the fastest cores were used, and that the windows would actually use the fastest cores, this was implemented better in WIN10 1903 update and also changes were made to these same settings in the 1.0.0.4B Bios updates to many X570 chipset based motherboards. So the Ryzen balanced power plan from the latest AMD chipset drivers mirror 1ustmus power plan. I still get better performance overall with the 1usmus Universal power plan (the latest from 1usmus).

Heres my results after installing Beta Bios 2.73 from ASRock

I was worried about temps with my ram, so i contacted GSKILL and asked if this was a problem.

This just in from Gskill, concerning temps and overclocking of my crazy fast ram:

"That is still within normal range so it will be fine.

The kit you have is surely overclockable, it is one of the best kits on the market.

Thank you
GSKILL SUPPORT"

So there ya have it.
Seems 44 to 45 is fine and well within allowable limits. Love this Ram! Ran Karhu Memtest, solid as a rock!
Final results













With this bios, i have 3 cores hitting over 4600, ok 0.1 over isn't crazy, but its still over. lol
This is with latest AMD chipset and 1usmus power plan, and settings.


----------



## Gbarz (Jan 7, 2020)

Wickedt said:


> Yeppers, and have had no problems at all.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


What voltage is you ram running @3800, and SOC VDDP and VDDG Taichi presets?  I have mine at 1.48 unfortunately the tforce Xtreem ram doesn't have temp monitoring enabled/ I don't know where it's being reported hwmonitor and hwinfo don't show it...


----------



## Wickedt (Jan 7, 2020)

Gbarz said:


> What voltage is you ram running @3800, and SOC VDDP and VDDG Taichi presets?  I have mine at 1.48 unfortunately the tforce Xtreem ram doesn't have temp monitoring enabled/ I don't know where it's being reported hwmonitor and hwinfo don't show it...



I was able to do this all at Taichi auto settings, only boosted the dram voltage 1.4V, and i did as many of the advanced settings from Ryzen Dram calculator, the memory learning, etc.
Heres some pics of various info from hwinfo, threw in my Asus RTX2080 oc mild overclock, but great performance from this card.
EDIT: The higher max info reported is playing Division 2 @4K, maxed out settings .


----------



## svan71 (Jan 26, 2020)

so is this recommended on 1909 with latest 2.01.15.2138 chipset drivers on x570 with a 3950x?


----------



## Wickedt (Jan 26, 2020)

I think the important part here is doing the bios settings and then use 1usmus plan or even AMD's high performance plan, seem to be very similar after i did benchmarks. I prefer the 1usmus plan myself.
I have a feeling that a lot of the Bios settings here have been set this way in the latest 1.0.0.4B  bios. Doesn't hurt to make sure though.


----------



## tefra (Mar 6, 2020)

Please help me.
I have an asrock taichi ultimate x470 motherboard with the latest P3.90 BIOS. And I can’t find the preferred CPPC and CPPC cores, but I saw a screenshot of the asrock x570 motherboard with the given parameters.
In BIOS version P3.90 there is no general settings folder for SMU. I would be grateful for any help.


----------



## midnightoil (Mar 10, 2020)

Can this be installed manually?  If so, how?

I've unzipped and then run it as admin, but on pressing a button it just closes immediately (not sure if intended behaviour). 

Nothing new in Power Plans either before or after reboot.

Running W10 Pro x64 on a 3600


----------



## willgart (Mar 10, 2020)

tefra said:


> Please help me.
> I have an asrock taichi ultimate x470 motherboard with the latest P3.90 BIOS. And I can’t find the preferred CPPC and CPPC cores, but I saw a screenshot of the asrock x570 motherboard with the given parameters.
> In BIOS version P3.90 there is no general settings folder for SMU. I would be grateful for any help.


not all bioses are equal
you may not have an option for that
no problem if you dont have the option.



midnightoil said:


> Can this be installed manually?  If so, how?
> 
> I've unzipped and then run it as admin, but on pressing a button it just closes immediately (not sure if intended behaviour).
> 
> ...


try running as admin
(right click run as administrator)


----------



## midnightoil (Mar 10, 2020)

willgart said:


> try running as admin
> (right click run as administrator)



I did, per my post.


----------



## willgart (Mar 10, 2020)

midnightoil said:


> I did, per my post.


sorry, to tired, dont catch this
lol
try running the batch from a command line gui, you'll see any error message
and still start the command line as admin.


----------



## midnightoil (Mar 10, 2020)

willgart said:


> sorry, to tired, dont catch this
> lol
> try running the batch from a command line gui, you'll see any error message
> and still start the command line as admin.



Doing it from elevated cmd prompt worked.  Thanks.


----------



## ddmeltzer8 (Mar 11, 2020)

Im using the 1usmus universal power plan,but every time windows goes to sleep it changes to another power plan!Can someone help me in any way?
Thanks.


----------



## Wickedt (Mar 11, 2020)

Try rebooting your computer right after you change the power plan to make it take effect, seems to me that going into sleep mode it is messing it up by not loading it right away, then defaulting to the previous plan selected.


----------



## ddmeltzer8 (Mar 11, 2020)

Wickedt said:


> Try rebooting your computer right after you change the power plan to make it take effect, seems to me that going into sleep mode it is messing it up by not loading it right away, then defaulting to the previous plan selected.


ok,but it doesnt matter what plan is the last,it always changes to high perf,anyway.even if its several plans after it.
i think it actually might be gigabyte easy tune thats the root of this evil.il post back if it doesnt fix it.
thanks.


----------



## Al Chafai (Mar 27, 2020)

Anyone here with a strix f x570? 
Who tied tried this mod!!


----------



## Trooyyy (May 29, 2020)

Not working for 3800x? Any help?
did change the bios setting and disable pbo
win10 2004
Gigabyte x470 1.0.0.4B


----------



## thomasck (Jun 5, 2020)

As this is the main thread about it, what's the relevance for the power plan now? 

I've seen @1usmus saying it's not relevant anymore around tweeter as Microsoft and amd fixed it, but, I still get better results with this power plan + bios settings. 

So it's time to revert settings in bios and back to use ryzen power plan? Or just use ryzen power plan and leave previous cppc etc bios settings?

This bellow is a post of my from couple os days ago when a guy questioned about over oc.net



This thread make me go back and try  [MENTION=540936]1usmus[/MENTION] power plan again. Lot's of changes along the way since released, and at that time I was having some 1-2s pauses while gaming when using 1usmus power plan, but I've noticed I was also having same issue with the ryzen balanced, so I always used ryzen high performance. 

Cutting the bushes, here are 4 runs of 3dmark firestrike, two with 1usmus plan and bios settings applied (cppc etc) and two runs with amd high perf. with bios reverted (cppc etc back to stock). 

1st run ryzen high perf 24827 
https://www.3dmark.com/fs/22788579
2nd run 1usmus power plan 25202 
https://www.3dmark.com/fs/22788535
3rd run ryzen high perf 24834 
https://www.3dmark.com/fs/22788516
4th run 1usmus power plan 25286 
https://www.3dmark.com/fs/22788491






Both physics and combined scores are higher with 1usmus power plan. Same behaviour is noticed when running cpuz and cinebench. In cpuz, particularly, ryzen high perf. power plan has slightly more muticore perf but loses in single core.
Cores reaching 4500-4600 and sometimes 4625 is visibly more frequent with 1usmus power plan too. 4200-4375 while gaming. With ryzen high perf I see less boosting around 4600 mark, gaming is around 4200-4275. 
I could do a more in depth analysis with capframex, some graphs from hwinfo64 but nobody in interested in this kid of stuff anymore. 
3900x / taichi x370 / 2x8gb 3733 1:1, windows 10 updated last build, latest chipset/gpu/bios.


----------



## Wickedt (Jun 5, 2020)

thomasck said:


> As this is the main thread about it, what's the relevance for the power plan now?
> 
> I've seen @1usmus saying it's not relevant anymore around tweeter as Microsoft and amd fixed it, but, I still get better results with this power plan + bios settings.
> 
> ...



I'm always interested in this stuff, i get the same results as you,. always better benches in almost everything using 1usmus plan.
Maybe a bios reset, then the Ryzen perf plan, to see if its based on default bios settings?


----------



## thomasck (Jun 5, 2020)

Wickedt said:


> I'm always interested in this stuff, i get the same results as you,. always better benches in almost everything using 1usmus plan.
> Maybe a bios reset, then the Ryzen perf plan, to see if its based on default bios settings?



I've ran couple more of FF to double check my mental sanity as I was sure I've done this in the past to "prove" is not bios related. 
The thing is, besides "Power Supply Idle Control = Low Current Idle" which in the stock bios is AUTO and PPC Adjustment = PState 0 which I did not found, the others are all AUTO which in my case (Taichi x370)  equals to ON or ENABLED. So in the end what would make difference, if any, is only setting Power Supply Idle Control as any option in the bios when is set to AUTO equals to ON/ENABLED.

So, in all tests bellow we have bios back to full stock > set timings and voltages > boot to windows > msconfig remove all startup etc > boot again > tests

1 run bios stock + ryzen high perf
2 run bios stock + ryzen high perf  
3 run bios stock + 1usmus power plan






Then I moved to cpuZ and the results are mixed. Best single core goes to Ryzen plan and best multi goes to 1usmus plan.
1st 1usmus 2nd ryzen 3rd 1usmus 4th ryzen





Clocks, around the time while benching the above. Is evident 1usmus plan is getting better clocks, even when I run any boost tester, 1usmus clocks go higher.

1usmus plan





ryzen plan





And then SuperPi 1MB to see some quick single core movement. Left 1usmus plan, right ryzen plan.
With 1usmus plan I could see two cores playing with 4525 scaling up to 4600mhz, hence the faster calculation.
With Ryzen plan I noticed only one core scaling from 4525 up to 4575, with then a slower calculation.






Then cb15 and cb20. 1usmus plan stays ahead.

cb15 1usmus plan averages,
*cb15 single 213
cb15 multi* 3235

cb15 ryzen plan averages,       
*cb15 single* 211   
*cb15 multi* 3208  

cb20 1usmus plan averages,
 cb20 single 519       
cb20 multi 7293

cb20 ryzen plan averages,
cb20 single 517
cb20 multi 7219

What to use now after this? Can't know. Is all that within error's margin? Maybe. What difference makes setting cppc etc in bios? Can't know. But by just switching from ryzen plan to 1usmus plan yields me more score in basically everything (except cpuz), I see more cores jumping around, and better scores overall.


----------



## Wickedt (Jun 5, 2020)

Its hard to explain that's for sure, with the 1ustmus plan my system always seems to run better, lower temps most of the time, and just overall better performance.
I do have most of the settings done in bios, found most of them, except a couple that really didn't matter according to 1ustmus. Im running a 3900X with Gskill silver ram @3800MHz CL15, and a ASRock Taichi X570.


----------



## thomasck (Jun 6, 2020)

@Wickedt do you mind posting some scores if you have? cpuz, cb15/20, superpi.. My rig is a 3900x taichi x370 1867 1:1 CL15.


----------



## Wickedt (Jun 6, 2020)

thomasck said:


> @Wickedt do you mind posting some scores if you have? cpuz, cb15/20, superpi.. My rig is a 3900x taichi x370 1867 1:1 CL15.


Ill run some tomorrow, and post them. Attached a few i already had. The ones here are 1utmus. I did some comparisons before, will look to see, i posted to another site, or even maybe here.


----------



## Mussels (Jun 7, 2020)

chucked this on my 3700x, got like 2% better performance in benches

not bad


----------



## Marucins (Jun 23, 2020)

Can this profile, after a system update, cause Windows 10 to spill (damage)?
Previously, I had this plan enabled - it worked.
But when I started installing the drivers from nVidia and updating the system, after 2 days the system crashed (I always put the computer to sleep - after the system upgrade I had to restart PC). I'm using an EDC= 1 bug. 
I couldn't even restore it... In the meantime I was doing OC RAM.


----------



## Mussels (Jun 23, 2020)

Marucins said:


> I was doing OC RAM.



Pretty obvious that the ram OC is what corrupted things


----------



## Marucins (Jun 23, 2020)

You did not understand me.
I changed the settings when the system did not turn on, I restored the previous settings. Then Windows let the system go back. When I did that, I reinstalled the graphics drivers), I returned to the OC RAM and again once the system crashed it no longer started. Even the default BIOS settings did nothing.


----------



## CabanaBanana (Jul 26, 2020)

Is this plan still viable after the AM4 chipset update with updated Ryzen Power Plans?

I am currently using the balanced power plan, And there does not seem to be any more information about this past November/December 2019.


----------



## Tomorrow (Jul 27, 2020)

CabanaBanana said:


> Is this plan still viable after the AM4 chipset update with updated Ryzen Power Plans?
> 
> I am currently using the balanced power plan, And there does not seem to be any more information about this past November/December 2019.


It's still relevant as the latest chipset driver only updated the GPIO driver in the package and not any of the power plans.


----------



## Max(IT) (Aug 13, 2020)

one question since I messed things up now I have in the Power settings TWO sets of 1usmus Power Plans   

How can UNINSTALL it and install it again ?

Thanks


----------



## Tomorrow (Aug 13, 2020)

Max(IT) said:


> one question since I messed things up now I have in the Power settings TWO sets of 1usmus Power Plans
> 
> How can UNINSTALL it and install it again ?
> 
> Thanks











						Delete Power Plan in Windows 10
					

How to Delete a Power Plan in Windows 10




					www.tenforums.com


----------



## Max(IT) (Aug 13, 2020)

Tomorrow said:


> Delete Power Plan in Windows 10
> 
> 
> How to Delete a Power Plan in Windows 10
> ...


First: thank you very much !
Second: I must be blind    I didn't see the "delete this plan" option in that page ...

Now I'm away from that computer, I will check later.


----------



## Drkavork1an (Sep 18, 2020)

I followed all of the instructions, but when its tie to install, it wants to unzip to downloads. What file is it supposed to go in? Or what am I doing wrong? Also the command prompt file does nothing, it says press any button to install, so I do and it just disappears. Please help!


----------



## willgart (Sep 18, 2020)

Drkavork1an said:


> I followed all of the instructions, but when its tie to install, it wants to unzip to downloads. What file is it supposed to go in? Or what am I doing wrong? Also the command prompt file does nothing, it says press any button to install, so I do and it just disappears. Please help!


you have to open a command line in admin mode.
and starts the install.bat file.
after that you can go in the power plan and selects the newly installed.


----------



## Drkavork1an (Sep 24, 2020)

Can you give me dos command?  So I can copy and paste? Please?


----------



## willgart (Sep 24, 2020)

Drkavork1an said:


> Can you give me dos command?  So I can copy and paste? Please?


1. go to the folder where you have unzipped the files
cd c:\myfolder
2. run the install by simply typing
install.bat


----------



## kapone32 (Sep 24, 2020)

So I tried this again today on my MSI X570 Pro and used HWINfo to validate. All I did was run 3dMark Firestrike benches. Leaving the CPU ratio at auto meant that the CPU clock was between 4.04 and 4.19 GHZ (R5 3600). Using that I got a score of 20495. The voltage on the CPU according to HWINFO was between 1.35 and 1.40 volts across all cores. The 2nd thing I did was go into the BIOS and set the multiplier to 42. I rebooted and ran Firestrike again, this time the score was 20794. The voltage on the CPU according to HWInfo was 1.1 to 1.25 volts. I have to get an X processor to see if that is a mitigating factor as the 3600 (I have) does not run stable past 4.2 GHZ regardless of the voltage applied.


----------



## RainingTacco (Sep 30, 2020)

I don't like that it uses big FFT for stability test. The lower the better, if its not prime95 small FFT stable then it isnt stable, period.


----------



## Tomorrow (Sep 30, 2020)

RainingTacco said:


> I don't like that it uses big FFT for stability test. The lower the better, if its not prime95 small FFT stable then it isnt stable, period.


This is a topic about the power plan. ClockTuner has it's own topic @ https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/...s-out-double-digit-percent-performance.271337


----------



## AMDiscool (Oct 25, 2020)

Hey guy, I‘m running a R5 3600 on my B450 Pro4 from ASRock. I recently discovered the 1usmus Power Plan and I‘m currently using it. As stated in the title, I OC/undervolted my R5 3600 and got a stable 4.1 GHz at about 1.08 Volt. I‘m running at 4.20 but gonna rollback to 3.90 for the settings recommended by 1usmus for the powerplan. My question is: Can I run the 1usmus powerplan with all bios settings recommended and leave my R5 oc‘d? Since I prefer low temps I prefer to keep my undervolt I don‘t really know how it‘s gonna react with the bios settings. Looking for help. Greets Full System: R5 3600 w/ stock cooler ASRock B450 Pro4 (running 4.20 Bios, rollbacking to 3.90) RX 5700 XT Red Devil 16 GB of G.Skill Aegis 300MHz CL16 Ram 512 GB of Intel 660p NVMe SSD 650W 80+ Gold SeaSonic PSU


----------



## biffzinker (Oct 25, 2020)

AMDiscool said:


> My question is: Can I run the 1usmus powerplan with all bios settings recommended and leave my R5 oc‘d?


It shouldn't be a problem as long the all core overclock is stable with the under voltage. I'm running my 3800X at 4,275 MHz for core complex zero, and 4.3 GHz for core complex one with 1.25V with the power plan.


AMDiscool said:


> Greets


Welcome to TPU.


----------



## Flapinux (Dec 11, 2020)

How to remove this? I have duplicates so I'd like to clear the power settings menu.


----------



## SparrowMP (Oct 7, 2021)

random question: will just having those bios settings be enough? don’t really want the power plan, odd question, but i just really want an answer to it.


----------



## Max(IT) (Oct 7, 2021)

SparrowMP said:


> random question: will just having those bios settings be enough? don’t really want the power plan, odd question, but i just really want an answer to it.


This thread is no longer relevant: Windows 10 (updated) and AMD drivers will take care of that. But you still have to use one of the Windows 10 power plans.


----------

