# New AMD Ryzen "Power Reporting Deviation" metric in HWiNFO



## windwhirl (Jun 9, 2020)

Just saw this around.






						Explaining the AMD Ryzen "Power Reporting Deviation" -metric in HWiNFO
					

Ryzen CPUs for AM4 platform rely on external, motherboard sourced telemetry to determine their power consumption. The voltage, current and power telemetry is provided to the processor by the motherboard VRM controller through the AMD SVI2 interface. This information is consumed by the processors...




					www.hwinfo.com
				






> Some motherboard manufacturers intentionally declare an incorrect (too small) motherboard specific reference value in AGESA. Since AM4 Ryzen CPUs rely on telemetry sourced from the motherboard VRM to determine their power consumption, declaring an incorrect reference value will affect the power consumption seen by the CPU. For instance, if the motherboard manufacturer would declare 50% of the correct value, the CPU would think it consumes half the power than it actually does. In this case, the CPU would allow itself to consume twice the power of its set power limits, even when at stock. It allows the CPU to clock higher due to the effectively lifted power limits however, it also makes the CPU to run hotter and potentially negatively affects its life-span, same ways as overclocking does. The difference compared to overclocking or using AMD PBO, is that this is done completely clandestine and that in the past, there has been no way for most of the end-users to detect it, or react to it.





> HWiNFO will display "Power Reporting Deviation" metric under the CPUs enhanced sensors. The displayed figure is a percentage, with 100.0% being the completely unbiased baseline. When the motherboard manufacturer has both properly calibrated and declared the reference value, the reported figure should be pretty close to 100% under a stable, near-full-load scenario. A ballpark for a threshold, where the readings become suspicious is around ±5%. So, if you see an average value that is significantly lower than ~ 95% there is most likely intentional biasing going on. Obviously, the figure can be greater than 100%, but for the obvious reasons it rarely is
> 
> As stated before, this metric is only valid during a relatively stable near-full-load condition. That is due to the typical measurement accuracy of the VRM controller telemetry, and also due to the highly advanced and fast power management on Ryzen CPUs, that not only result in extremely low idle, but also in extremely rapidly changing power consumption. A suggested workload to get a stable and reproducable deviation metric is Cinebench R20 NT, with the HWiNFO sample rate set to less or equal to 1000ms.





> I'd like to stress that despite this exploit is essentially made possible by something AMD has included in the specification, the use of this exploit is not something AMD condones with, let alone promotes.
> Instead they have rather actively put pressure on the motherboard manufacturers, who have been caught using this exploit.



I was not aware that motherboard makers tampered with the metrics in such a blatant way.

By the way, this feature is only available in the latest beta version of HWiNFO, v6.27-4185.


----------



## tabascosauz (Jun 9, 2020)

So...does this affect the power consumption reported by the CPU, or is the wattage still roughly accurate because the board is only lying to the CPU? Well, this is a Gigabyte board, where DRAM is overvolted up to an automatic +0.3V beyond what you set it, so I can't say I'm very surprised at the 76% result.






Somehow, I don't feel as though Cinebench is telling the whole story. All these benches behave very differently, and CB tends to set a temp target of 70C for itself, as well as reduce clockspeeds and Vcore as the test progresses. However, I can confirm that it is the same 76% reading in P95 Smallest, which by default runs lower clocks because of AVX but draws the same power.


----------



## windwhirl (Jun 9, 2020)

tabascosauz said:


> So...does this affect the power consumption reported by the CPU, or is the wattage still roughly accurate? Well, this is a Gigabyte board, where DRAM is overvolted up to an automatic +0.3V beyond what you set it, so I can't say I'm very surprised at the 76% result.
> 
> View attachment 158301
> 
> Somehow, I don't feel as though Cinebench is telling the whole story. All these benches behave very differently, and CB tends to set a temp target of 70C for itself.



I myself don't know what to think of the short testing I did. I got 96.5% minimum and 155.3% maximum, with an average of 117%. Ironically, it was nearly stable at 100% during the Cinebench run, but after it sort of went bananas.


----------



## Space Lynx (Jun 9, 2020)

and here I was thinking MSI meant it when they said Return to Honor... sigh.  unless MSI is not doing this, though I suspect all of the mobo makers do it? can anyone confirm?  AMD seems to not approve regardless lol


----------



## windwhirl (Jun 9, 2020)

lynx29 said:


> and here I was thinking MSI meant it when they said Return to Honor... sigh.  unless MSI is not doing this, though I suspect all of the mobo makers do it? can anyone confirm?  AMD seems to not approve regardless lol





> Here is an practical example recorded on MSI X570 Godlike motherboard, using the most recent 1.93 beta-bios version.
> For this bios version MSI has declared 280A reference current, when the correct value that produces near 100% result (i.e. no deviation) and also a matching power draw compared to other boards (same CPU and workload) is 300A. This means that the board allows 7.14% (300/280) higher power draw for the CPU than AMD specifications state. Compared to the worst violators (up to 50%) this is minor infraction, so MSI deserves a benefit of a doubt whenever this is intentional or a honest error.



The guy tested that board only in that article, but maybe this will be of interest to you



> As of now, outside of certain MSI motherboards, the biasing isn't end-user controllable. In case there is clear evidence of biasing taking place on certain motherboards or their bios versions, please contact the manufacturer and ask them to remove the telemetry biasing from the bios. The biasing can be implemented in different ways, it can be tied to a specific setting(s) (known as an "auto-rule") in the bios or be fixed in a certain bios version or in all available bios versions.


----------



## EarthDog (Jun 9, 2020)

Feels like what they do with intel power limits... ish. Or what card partners did/do with nvidia  power limits. Lol


----------



## thesmokingman (Jun 9, 2020)

Finally we can call BS on these BS motherboard speed tests results. Note I'm referring to board makers not those that run the tests. The boards technically should all perform the same but in reality they are damn varied.



tabascosauz said:


> So...does this affect the power consumption reported by the CPU, or is the wattage still roughly accurate because the board is only lying to the CPU? Well, this is a Gigabyte board, where DRAM is overvolted up to an automatic +0.3V beyond what you set it, so I can't say I'm very surprised at the 76% result.
> 
> View attachment 158301
> 
> Somehow, I don't feel as though Cinebench is telling the whole story. All these benches behave very differently, and CB tends to set a temp target of 70C for itself, as well as reduce clockspeeds and Vcore as the test progresses. However, I can confirm that it is the same 76% reading in P95 Smallest, which by default runs lower clocks because of AVX but draws the same power.



Wattage is not reliable since the MB is faking a low output to the cpu there in turn the cpu raises available power draw.


Cinebench cannot do any of what you suggest, it's an app. It doesn't have any power to control the algorithms in the cpu unlike the MB. Whatever it is doing the cpu is trying to stay inside it's power draw limit. P5 small is a much greater load than Cinebench so of course it is going to use a lower clock to maintain said power limit. You can see this in effect by running Small vs Smallest for yourself.


----------



## R0H1T (Jun 9, 2020)

Does the reading rely on actual TDP (rated) for the processors or what?

Besides that we've seen power readings on various reviews, even if motherboard (vendors) are lying to the processor as long as the temps are in check it shouldn't matter too much. AMD enforces aggressive TDP limits on their desktop processors & it can hurt performance in some cases.


----------



## AsRock (Jun 9, 2020)

The beta been removed or some thing ?, all links go to last stable.


----------



## R0H1T (Jun 9, 2020)

Try this ~








						Download Portable HWiNFO64 7.36 Build 4960
					

Download Portable HWiNFO64 - Displays the hardware configuration of your computer, providing support for HTML, XML, CSV or text reports that can be saved on the local PC




					www.softpedia.com


----------



## tabascosauz (Jun 9, 2020)

R0H1T said:


> Does the reading rely on actual TDP (rated) for the processors or what?
> 
> Besides that we've seen power readings on various reviews, even if motherboard (vendors) are lying to the processor as long as the temps are in check it shouldn't matter too much. AMD enforces aggressive TDP limits on their desktop processors & it can hurt performance in some cases.



Last AM4 CPU that I can think of actually kinda abided by TDP is the 2700, which actually sipped power but a little too much.

Ryzen CPUs all abide by PPT, TDC and EDC for their power and current limits. Thus it makes a lot of sense why this misreporting would be a problem. PPT is already considerably higher than TDP, approx 88W for 65W and 142W for 105W parts. Moreover, SMU power draw regularly exceeds even that number, without PBO, on full load for my chip.

@thesmokingman I just want to know if the SMU wattage readings under the CPU sensors in HWInfo are skewed because of this, or if it just affects the CPU's boost algorithms internally. Because despite purportedly being 25% off, the wattage readings coming from the IR35201 controller don't usually appear to be absurdly off in comparison to the SMU power draw. Misreporting CPU wattage is one thing, but I find it hard to believe that the IR35201 would be skewed on this as well as to the power it's providing to the socket.


----------



## thesmokingman (Jun 9, 2020)

AsRock said:


> The beta been removed or some thing ?, all links go to last stable.



Link works for me. When you click thru the beta is the grey option.



tabascosauz said:


> Last AM4 CPU that I can think of actually kinda abided by TDP is the 2700, which actually sipped power but a little too much.
> 
> Ryzen CPUs all abide by PPT, TDC and EDC for their power and current limits. Thus it makes a lot of sense why this misreporting would be a problem. PPT is already considerably higher than TDP, approx 88W for 65W and 142W for 105W parts. Moreover, SMU power draw regularly exceeds even that number, without PBO, on full load for my chip.
> 
> @thesmokingman I just want to know if the SMU wattage readings under the CPU sensors in HWInfo are skewed because of this, or if it just affects the CPU's boost algorithms internally. Because despite purportedly being 25% off, the wattage readings coming from the IR35201 controller don't usually appear to be absurdly off in comparison to the SMU power draw. Misreporting CPU wattage is one thing, but I find it hard to believe that the IR35201 would be skewed on this as well as to the power it's providing to the socket.



I think you are asking if the reading from the motherboard/vrms is accurate? I suppose they would be as the report didn't specify that the MB was giving lower readings to the user facing side. Then again as you wrote, 105w parts are drawing 142w and so it lends to the notion that we are seeing real numbers on our side. Percentage wise that is a grip that the board is pushing the cpu up.

It is hella sketchy imo, with certain boards already goosing it by that much and then people jack PBO up to max on top of that thinking they are within safe parameters...


----------



## tabascosauz (Jun 9, 2020)

thesmokingman said:


> Link works for me. When you click thru the beta is the grey option.
> 
> I think you are asking if the reading from the motherboard/vrms is accurate? I suppose they would be as the report didn't specify that the MB was giving lower readings to the user facing side. Then again as you wrote, 105w parts are drawing 142w and so it lends to the notion that we are seeing real numbers on our side. Percentage wise that is a grip that the board is pushing the cpu up.
> 
> It is hella sketchy imo, with certain boards already goosing it by that much and then people jack PBO up to max on top of that thinking they are within safe parameters...



No no, the higher PPT for all chips is by design and normal behaviour. But yeah, I just find it hard to believe that the IR controller also misreports. My rig is hooked up to a UPS that constantly reports power draw; taking into account power draw of fans and drives and the GPU, I don't think I've ever seen this ~30W full load discrepancy that a 76% reading would imply, on either IR or SMU readings.

Stilt suggests that this delta is fixed, which means that even though the actual limit is 140W+, no sane 3700X on stock settings will ever hit that without running into its temp or voltage limits.


----------



## thesmokingman (Jun 9, 2020)

I just went thru bios and set power draws to 100%, disabled PBO in tweaker and advanced cbs/oc menus. I am getting 96%-98% on deviation which I assume to mean it is on target. If you are only seeing 76%... I'd check your bios settings. My board is a Strix-E btw. It'd be hilarious though if my board was cheating since it was Stilt who pointed this out, lol. Gonna run r20 again to be sure.



> So, if you see an average value that is significantly lower than ~ 95% there is most likely intentional biasing going on. Obviously, the figure can be greater than 100%, but for the obvious reasons it rarely is...



*edit

Yeap, my deviation % stayed between 96%-98% thru the whole R20 run.



windwhirl said:


> I myself don't know what to think of the short testing I did. I got 96.5% minimum and 155.3% maximum, with an average of 117%. Ironically, it was nearly stable at 100% during the Cinebench run, but after it sort of went bananas.



Don't look at average unless you reset the counter. But you wrote yours went up to 155%? That's a huge arse overshoot.


----------



## windwhirl (Jun 9, 2020)

thesmokingman said:


> Don't look at average unless you reset the counter. But you wrote yours went up to 155%? That's a huge arse overshoot.



I monitored Hwinfo while I was doing Cinebench. During the benchmark it more or less remained around 100%. When Cinebench stopped and I started doing other things while I let the software keep recording data the Power Reporting Deviation started jumping up (I had completely forgotten about it and I caught it going over 140% when I minimized some apps). The capture I posted was from over half hour of HWinfo monitoring the sensors.



windwhirl said:


> View attachment 158303



To be frank, I'm not sure if it's just HWInfo being still a little "green" so to speak or if I have some erroneous BIOS/UEFI configuration to fix. EDIT: I sort of have to go to sleep now, so I guess later I'll reset everything or something...


----------



## thesmokingman (Jun 9, 2020)

windwhirl said:


> I monitored Hwinfo while I was doing Cinebench. During the benchmark it more or less remained around 100%. When Cinebench stopped and I started doing other things while I let the software keep recording data the Power Reporting Deviation started jumping up (I had completely forgotten about it and I caught it going over 140% when I minimized some apps). The capture I posted was from over half hour of HWinfo monitoring the sensors.
> 
> 
> 
> To be frank, I'm not sure if it's just HWInfo being still a little "green" so to speak or if I have some erroneous BIOS/UEFI configuration to fix.



Oh I think you are ok then. What we're concerned with is the % when under a full load.


----------



## Mussels (Jun 9, 2020)

well this could explain why some people have over-cooked ryzen builds that wont behave

makes me wonder if some of the 'enhancement' options in the BIOS control this

"As stated before, this metric is only valid during a relatively stable near-full-load condition " - ahah, cinebench time!






Asus did good


----------



## Space Lynx (Jun 9, 2020)

Mussels said:


> well this could explain why some people have over-cooked ryzen builds that wont behave
> 
> makes me wonder if some of the 'enhancement' options in the BIOS control this
> 
> ...



I'm leaning towards Asus B550 now, trust is important to me.


----------



## AsRock (Jun 9, 2020)

thesmokingman said:


> Oh I think you are ok then. What we're concerned with is the % when under a full load.



and goes below 100%, as if i read it right any thing over +-5%.  So if it's reading like mine is around 93% which indicates 2% extra power going to the cpu.


----------



## thesmokingman (Jun 9, 2020)

AsRock said:


> and goes below 100%, as if i read it right any thing over +-5%.  So if it's reading like mine is around 93% which indicates 2% extra power going to the cpu.



Stilt mentioned 95%-100% is on target. If you get drastically below 95% (like 75%) then shenanigans are at play. I think you are ok on that front.


----------



## AsRock (Jun 9, 2020)

thesmokingman said:


> Stilt mentioned 95%-100% is on target. If you get drastically below 95% (like 75%) then shenanigans are at play. I think you are ok on that front.



Thought as much, i aint worried about 7% lol.

EDIT: Added pic


----------



## GoldenX (Jun 9, 2020)

TFW you have a 3000 series Ryzen but it isn't a Zen2. Oh well, instructions unclear, pushed PBO scalar to 10x anyway.


----------



## Mussels (Jun 9, 2020)

GoldenX said:


> TFW you have a 3000 series Ryzen but it isn't a Zen2. Oh well, instructions unclear, pushed PBO scalar to 10x anyway.



try the various steps in between, dont just assume max is best


----------



## R0H1T (Jun 9, 2020)

The issue could be major if the motherboard is pumping high *voltage *at peak loads consistently ~ that's when this becomes a big deal.


----------



## Assimilator (Jun 9, 2020)

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1270245205090934784
"For AMD users, it's a nothingburger."


----------



## Thanh Trần (Jun 10, 2020)

Hi , i have this situation. When i start my comuter and checking with HwInfo  v6.27-4185 Sensor Status , My Power Reporting Deviation ~250% , when i running Cinebench R20 to get full load 100% CPU , My Power Reporting Deviation ~140% - 150% . So is there anything wrong with my computer?


----------



## AsRock (Jun 10, 2020)

Take a gander at this.


----------



## tabascosauz (Jun 10, 2020)

thesmokingman said:


> Stilt mentioned 95%-100% is on target. If you get drastically below 95% (like 75%) then shenanigans are at play. I think you are ok on that front.



An update: I've been doing a little bit of testing with my BR1500MS UPS, which shows real time power draw on the battery-protected sockets. I've only got my monitor and my main rig connected to battery power.

At idle, the CPU is at about 20-30W power draw and the GPU (1070 right now because 2060S on RMA) is low, at about 5-10W. So we'll say 40W.
On the UPS, idle power draw is about 45-48W with the monitor off and just the PC drawing power.
So at the very least, we know that the three fans in the case and three drives are barely drawing any power. The CPU is still doing its usual thing at idle.

When we move to Prime95 Smallest, the CPU is fully loaded with AVX instructions, which causes clocks to remain at between 39.5x and 40x. HWInfo always _reports_ that the CPU is at a steady "*90W*" of power draw, and temperatures range from 75-80C on a Dark Rock Pro 4.
However, at load, the power draw on the UPS shoots up all the way to *170W*. Same deal, monitor off. So at this point, while the CPU and GPU accounted for almost all of the wattage draw at idle, in Prime95 we have almost 70W of extra power draw.
The drives remain at millivolts' worth of power consumption, as they're not doing anything. The NF-A14iPPC-2000 is ramping up slightly and the Silent Wings 120mm and 135mm are up to full speed (although still quite slow and shockingly inaudible), but even the industrial grade A14 draws a maximum of 2.1W at full speed, which it isn't doing. So worst case unattainable scenario, the three fans pull 2W each for 6W total, and we'll give the drives another 5W of leeway at full power (which, again, they're not).

That still leaves us with *60W *of unexplained power draw, considering the GPU is still idling at 5-10W, VRM losses included obviously. This board reports a deviation value of 76%.

I get the feeling that although the X570 Master has been mostly cleared of culpability, Gigabyte's B450 series boards may not turn out _quite_ the same...

I'm starting to think that the reason why the B450I Aorus Pro WIFI suffers current overload with a 3900X and high VRM temps with everything else is not because its 4-phase IR35201 setup with IR3556 PowIRs is incapable of handling a 12-core, and instead because Gigabyte is putting 33% more power than is necessary through the VRM...


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Jun 10, 2020)

tabascosauz said:


> An update: I've been doing a little bit of testing with my BR1500MS UPS, which shows real time power draw on the battery-protected sockets. I've only got my monitor and my main rig connected to battery power.
> 
> At idle, the CPU is at about 20-30W power draw and the GPU (1070 right now because 2060S on RMA) is low, at about 5-10W. So we'll say 40W.
> On the UPS, idle power draw is about 45-48W with the monitor off and just the PC drawing power.
> ...


Some of that extra power will be the cost of data on internal networks and the extra load on memory and other subsystems.
Think I'll retest with auto settings instead of default.
See if it shows up.


----------



## tabascosauz (Jun 10, 2020)

theoneandonlymrk said:


> Some of that extra power will be the cost of data on internal networks and the extra load on memory and other subsystems.
> Think I'll retest with auto settings instead of default.
> See if it shows up.



P95 Smallest and Small fit entirely in CPU cache. There's next to no memory load. That's why I ran it. Infinity Fabric usually draws a constant 10-15W at all times on Matisse (unlike Renoir where its frequency is dynamic) and is included in the package power number. And like I said, the drives and fans don't draw nearly that much power even if they were at full blast. VRM losses is the only culprit that I can think of, and I can't imagine it accounts for all of that already conservative 60W.

I'm already on "Normal" Vcore, which is slightly lower than the default Auto Vcore.


----------



## thesmokingman (Jun 10, 2020)

tabascosauz said:


> An update: I've been doing a little bit of testing with my BR1500MS UPS, which shows real time power draw on the battery-protected sockets. I've only got my monitor and my main rig connected to battery power.
> 
> At idle, the CPU is at about 20-30W power draw and the GPU (1070 right now because 2060S on RMA) is low, at about 5-10W. So we'll say 40W.
> On the UPS, idle power draw is about 45-48W with the monitor off and just the PC drawing power.
> ...



Did you forget to calculate efficiency factor into it? The hwinfo reading is straight from the cpu. The reading at the UPS is at the wall not factoring in PSU efficiency, etc etc.


----------



## tabascosauz (Jun 10, 2020)

thesmokingman said:


> Did you forget to calculate efficiency factor into it? The hwinfo reading is straight from the cpu. The reading at the UPS is at the wall not factoring in PSU efficiency, etc etc.



I have a Focus Plus Platinum 550. At idle, it should be at a paltry 70-75% efficiency, but the idle readings are pretty much on the money. At between 75-200W, it's at around 85-92.5% efficiency depending on who you ask.

Point is, not all of that 60W+ is going to come from this specific firmware problem, but none of these peripheral factors account for more than half of that extra wattage, combined.

In the reported amp range, the IR3556s should be at 90%+ efficiency.


----------



## harm9963 (Jun 10, 2020)

Stock 2700X vs OC 2700X


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Jun 10, 2020)

Can't Get the thing to show up on mine?.

Default or auto.


----------



## AsRock (Jun 10, 2020)

theoneandonlymrk said:


> Can't Get the thing to show up on mine?.
> 
> Default or auto.



Uninstall and delete all left overs after maybe ?.


----------



## Iceni (Jun 10, 2020)

Just did a stock run on my 3600 and got 102% with the MSI x570 gaming plus. So if anything it's over reporting and I'm loosing a little power.


----------



## Assimilator (Jun 10, 2020)

tabascosauz said:


> An update: I've been doing a little bit of testing with my BR1500MS UPS, which shows real time power draw on the battery-protected sockets. I've only got my monitor and my main rig connected to battery power.
> 
> At idle, the CPU is at about 20-30W power draw and the GPU (1070 right now because 2060S on RMA) is low, at about 5-10W. So we'll say 40W.
> On the UPS, idle power draw is about 45-48W with the monitor off and just the PC drawing power.
> ...



Unless you're measuring physical power draw on the ATX connectors, your readings are going to be wrong, and there's no point in trying to draw inferences from bad data. This is true whether you are taking said readings from your UPS or HWINFO. *They. Are. Wrong.*


----------



## EarthDog (Jun 10, 2020)

Assimilator said:


> Unless you're measuring physical power draw on the ATX connectors, your readings are going to be wrong, and there's no point in trying to draw inferences from bad data. This is true whether you are taking said readings from your UPS or HWINFO. *They. Are. Wrong.*


...in many cases... they aren't that far off, however.


----------



## Goro_2030 (Aug 1, 2020)

lynx29 said:


> I'm leaning towards Asus B550 now, trust is important to me.


I have a B550 from ASUS, and the power deviation while doing NOTHING is at 115%, with peaks under load of 140% ... that is SO too much


----------



## agentnathan009 (Aug 1, 2020)

AMD has already addressed this issue that keeps popping up again because people panic about it and think their CPU is going to spontaneously combust like a punctured cellphone battery... Your CPU is fine and the Stilt didn't do anyone any good by mentioning this issue. AMD has safety limits in place to keep your CPU from dying when running default settings. Mobo manufacturers goose your CPU a small amount to gain a lead in benchmarks. It is not in the mobo manufacturers best interest to kill your CPU by dropping the hammer on your CPU. Stop worrying about it and stop the testing because most of you are not testing it per the Stilt's instructions anyway. CPU has to be full 100% load which Cinebench can do and you only check the deviation when Cinebench is running. Any CPU settings that you changed from default will change the reported number. CPU HAS TO BE RUN AT DEFAULT SETTINGS. If you are OC'ing then you are doing more damage to your CPU than the mobo maker goosing your CPU a bit at stock settings.


----------



## Goro_2030 (Aug 1, 2020)

agentnathan009 said:


> AMD has already addressed this issue that keeps popping up again because people panic about it and think their CPU is going to spontaneously combust like a punctured cellphone battery... Your CPU is fine and the Stilt didn't do anyone any good by mentioning this issue. AMD has safety limits in place to keep your CPU from dying when running default settings. Mobo manufacturers goose your CPU a small amount to gain a lead in benchmarks. It is not in the mobo manufacturers best interest to kill your CPU by dropping the hammer on your CPU. Stop worrying about it and stop the testing because most of you are not testing it per the Stilt's instructions anyway. CPU has to be full 100% load which Cinebench can do and you only check the deviation when Cinebench is running. Any CPU settings that you changed from default will change the reported number. CPU HAS TO BE RUN AT DEFAULT SETTINGS. If you are OC'ing then you are doing more damage to your CPU than the mobo maker goosing your CPU a bit at stock settings.



Well, I think that's not my case, I'm not overclocking the CPU , just enabled AMD's "built-in" Precision Boost to Enabled ... is that considered Overclocking for the author?


----------



## mstenholm (Aug 1, 2020)

Goro_2030 said:


> Well, I think that's not my case, I'm not overclocking the CPU , just enabled AMD's "built-in" Precision Boost to Enabled ... is that considered Overclocking for the author?


Post is empty.


----------



## agentnathan009 (Aug 1, 2020)

Precision boost is ok, PBO is not default.


----------



## Space Lynx (Aug 1, 2020)

Goro_2030 said:


> I have a B550 from ASUS, and the power deviation while doing NOTHING is at 115%, with peaks under load of 140% ... that is SO too much



I already got me a MSI X570 Tomahawk, and I love it.  VRM temps according to HWINFO are not going over 38 celsius while gaming... this mobo is so much overkill.  Not bad for $219

MY CPU si ryzen 3600, with plans to upgrade to 4800x.


----------



## Goro_2030 (Aug 3, 2020)

lynx29 said:


> I already got me a MSI X570 Tomahawk, and I love it.  VRM temps according to HWINFO are not going over 38 celsius while gaming... this mobo is so much overkill.  Not bad for $219
> 
> MY CPU si ryzen 3600, with plans to upgrade to 4800x.



Which cooler do you have man?!?!

My 3700X with the stock cooler won't be lower than 60 at idle ... One other thing that's strange from the temps is how it goes up and down all the time (look at the little upticks, or triangles in the measurements of core-temp , attached )

I tried everything ... my CPU is not overclocked, nor even with PBO. Just D.O.C.P .  Bought new high quality thermal paste that just helped reduce a degree 

Any ideas?


----------



## Mussels (Aug 3, 2020)

Goro_2030 said:


> Which cooler do you have man?!?!
> 
> My 3700X with the stock cooler won't be lower than 60 at idle ... One other thing that's strange from the temps is how it goes up and down all the time (look at the little upticks, or triangles in the measurements of core-temp , attached )
> 
> ...



fan curve, probably. high idles are normal on ryzen as i've been told it reads from the hottest core, its not the average over the dies


----------



## Goro_2030 (Aug 3, 2020)

Mussels said:


> fan curve, probably. high idles are normal on ryzen as i've been told it reads from the hottest core, its not the average over the dies



Yeap, maybe that ... as I have the fan curve to Ultra-Silent as I have an open case and it's really annoying . I have the stock fan at 1255 rpm up to 77 degrees Celsius.

Something that cought my eye as well is that Fan Xpert from ASUS reports a way lower temperature than Core Temp or HWInfo's TCTL/TDIA CPU TEMP ( I'm looking at it now and it's reporting 53 degrees, while the TCTL/TDIE temp is at 65 )


----------



## Space Lynx (Aug 3, 2020)

Goro_2030 said:


> Which cooler do you have man?!?!
> 
> My 3700X with the stock cooler won't be lower than 60 at idle ... One other thing that's strange from the temps is how it goes up and down all the time (look at the little upticks, or triangles in the measurements of core-temp , attached )
> 
> ...



if you are using wraith prism, there is a little switch on top of the cooler that has L and H, switch it H, it default is at L.  your temps will be better now.  will need a flashlight to spot it.


----------



## Goro_2030 (Aug 3, 2020)

lynx29 said:


> if you are using wraith prism, there is a little switch on top of the cooler that has L and H, switch it H, it default is at L.  your temps will be better now.  will need a flashlight to spot it.



Thanks for taking the time to responding so quickly! I did what you mentioned on day one, but that is not the issue. Having it on High allows the fan to go to 3700 rpm vs 3100 of the Low configuration. The curves do not change, sinceI control them with Asus'es software.

Basically my question is... If someone here does have a 3700x with a stock  cooler and you at the fan to ultra quiet ( meaning at minimum rpm until it hits 75C)... At which temperature it hovers? I've seen anything from 35 idle to my 60 idle...

My room temperature is 21C, btw


----------



## Mussels (Aug 4, 2020)

dont use ultra quiet, go set a manual curve of like 1000RPM til 60c, and raise it from there. If you have an option to slow down the changes i set like a 5s delay on my board, which means it smoothly ramps.


----------



## Goro_2030 (Aug 4, 2020)

Mussels said:


> dont use ultra quiet, go set a manual curve of like 1000RPM til 60c, and raise it from there. If you have an option to slow down the changes i set like a 5s delay on my board, which means it smoothly ramps.



I had it at 1300 RPM already ... that was "Ultra Quiet" for me ( A custom curve actually ) ... well, from the feedback I got from you guys, looks like this thing just "runs hot".


----------



## Max(IT) (Aug 8, 2020)

Goro_2030 said:


> I have a B550 from ASUS, and the power deviation while doing NOTHING is at 115%, with peaks under load of 140% ... that is SO too much


well. on my Asus ROG Strix B550-F gaming I read 190% while doing nothing ...


----------



## thesmokingman (Aug 8, 2020)

Goro_2030 said:


> I had it at 1300 RPM already ... that was "Ultra Quiet" for me ( A custom curve actually ) ... well, from the feedback I got from you guys, looks like this thing just "runs hot".





Max(IT) said:


> well. on my Asus ROG Strix B550-F gaming I read 190% while doing nothing ...



Read the OP, the test is only valid under an allcore load.


----------



## Max(IT) (Aug 8, 2020)

thesmokingman said:


> Oh I think you are ok then. What we're concerned with is the % when under a full load.


IN my case during Cinebench R20 test the Power Deviation is 99%.
While doing nothing (like now, just browsing) the value climb to 180/190%...


----------



## Mussels (Aug 9, 2020)

The number is ONLY relevant during all core load, it means nothing for idle or lower loads.


----------

