# The Ryzen 7 5800X has a way to high powertarget (great results with powerlimit tweaks)



## Deleted member 193596 (Dec 20, 2020)

i am not a native english speaker.


i started investigating many complaints about the 5800x running very hot.

in the last 14 days i tried over 200 different PBO tweaks to get the most out of my Chip.
the 5800X sits on a B550 STRIX-F and is cooled by a Kraken X73.

even with 100% Pump Speed i get like 78-85°C in Cinebench R20... and the reason is pretty clear.
the 5800X has the same power/current limits as a 5950X. (142W PPT, 140A EDC, 95A TDC)
that means the cores consume around twice the power on the 5800X.


after AMD said "this is normal and expected" i started living with it and tweaked it with PBO.

after a specific "benchmark" from me in Rainbow six siege (a custom map with the indentical paths, destroying specific walls with the same operator)

i ran every benchmark 15 times with stock, and the two most successful PBO tweaks.

Results for Rainbow Six Siege:

Stock Mainboard Settings with DOCP on.
all Cores were between 4.35 and 4.5 Ghz with an average all core clockspeed of around 4.43 Ghz. (average VCore 1.403 and 63°C) Average FPS 309

PBO PPT 180 / TDC 140 / EDC 180. 2X Scalar, 100 Mhz Offset.
all cores were between 4.45 and 4.55 Ghz with an average all core clockspeed of around 4.48 Ghz. (average VCore 1.437V and 67°C) Average FPS 313

PBO PPT 200 / TDC 165 / EDC 200. 4X Scalar, 150 Mhz Offset.
all cores were between 4.45 Ghz and 4.58 Ghz with an average all core clockspeed of around 4.52 Ghz. (average VCore 1.465V and 72°C) Average FPS 314


Results with Cinebench R23:
Stock:
1609 SC / 15533 MC (78.8°C 1.331V @ 139W)
4850 Mhz / 4500 Mhz

PBO PPT 180 / TDC 140 / EDC 180. 2X Scalar, 100 Mhz Offset:
1623 SC / 15549 MC (81.5°C 1.34V @ 144W)
4950 Mhz / 4525 Mhz

PBO PPT 200 / TDC 165 / EDC 200. 4X Scalar, 150 Mhz Offset:
1641 SC / 15602 MC (86.1°C 1.365V @ 153W)
4975-5000 Mhz / 4550 Mhz


then i started taking some Power off the CPU and let it do it's thing. (Using PBO with the following settings reduced the performance as much as  -200 MHz)

DOCP + Changing Powerlimits in PBO without changing any Scalar or Clockspeed Offset.

PBO PPT 105 / TDC 70 / EDC 90

Rainbow Six Siege:

all cores were between 4.58 Ghz and 4.72 Ghz with an average all core clockspeed of around 4.67 Ghz. (average VCore 1.38V and 61°C) Average FPS 324

Cinebench R20:
1611 SC / 15091 MC (64.8°C 1.2V @ 105W)
4850 Mhz / 4425 Mhz



The results are the biggest improvement so far.
Gaming and other lighter Tasks are much faster than PBO while consuming way less power.
Only the Multicore performance is around 3.5% lower while consuming around 33% less power.

i am currently trying this in other applications like Blender and other/heavier Videogames like Battlefield V and Cyberpunk 2077.

i highly recommend testing this for yourself


----------



## dont whant to set it"' (Dec 20, 2020)

Nice and thanks for sharing.

On mine , I found the best way to lower power consumption was a manual setting for the vcore . Last time it actually posted and booted was set to 1.23V@ 4.525MHz all-core oc , with wich settings I gamed and ran a couple of tests. Its sported by standard issued AM2 cooler mind you.
It no Post and boot no more, but hopefully, I get a new and different mb delivered tomorrow for a full refund on my Strix B550-F.


----------



## Deleted member 193596 (Dec 21, 2020)

Here are my Clock Speeds with the power tweak in CoD Warzone (CPU sits at around 70% Load)
that's around 200-250 Mhz more than Stock.


----------



## bluefrisky (Dec 31, 2020)

Hey, any update on this?

I followed your steps and ended up reducing PPT to 125, EDC to 125 and TDC to 85. I also used the curve optimizer with a negative offset of 10 on all cores, and increased frequency boost in PBO by 100mhz.

I’m now getting about the same multi score in R23/CPU-Z as my stock scores, and higher single core performance, and I’m running about 8C cooler (from 87 peak in R23 to 79).

When I drop the numbers as drastically as you did, my performance tanks, but it still helped me out a lot! No longer thermal throttling and temps never go above 80 in any scenario, better single core performance than stock, and almost the same multi score! Thank you!


----------



## Deleted member 193596 (Dec 31, 2020)

bluefrisky said:


> Hey, any update on this?
> 
> I followed your steps and ended up reducing PPT to 125, EDC to 125 and TDC to 85. I also used the curve optimizer with a negative offset of 10 on all cores, and increased frequency boost in PBO by 100mhz.
> 
> ...


when i use this "tweak" with PBO enabled it won't work properly.

i ended up using this and -5 on the curve optimizer.


----------



## INSTG8R (Dec 31, 2020)

WarTherapy1195 said:


> when i use this "tweak" with PBO enabled it won't work properly.
> 
> i ended up using this and -5 on the curve optimizer.


The right way do It. Hoping GB releases the BIOS with it before my 5600X gets here next week



WarTherapy1195 said:


> when i use this "tweak" with PBO enabled it won't work properly.
> 
> i ended up using this and -5 on the curve optimizer.


what kind of max voltage did that get you I’m curious how “low” you can go I’ve see 12 or 15 being used but just wondering how it translates as an undervolt   I currently run my 3700X with a -.1500 offset which gets me 1.35 and I know I could go even lower but I’m under water so no need to test the limit. This Curve Optimzer will make it even easier but how much -5 for example takes off your previous 1.45V


----------



## brandofriva (Jan 4, 2021)

Thanks very much for this info in this thread. At stock my CPU was running at 90degC even on custom water cooling. Managed to cut a few degrees from my temps with this while not sacrificing too much performance using some of the settings above.
Are there any PBO guides people here can recommend to finetune this for my CPU/setup properly? (either to reduce temps and/or improve performance)


----------



## Deleted member 193596 (Jan 4, 2021)

INSTG8R said:


> The right way do It. Hoping GB releases the BIOS with it before my 5600X gets here next week
> 
> 
> what kind of max voltage did that get you I’m curious how “low” you can go I’ve see 12 or 15 being used but just wondering how it translates as an undervolt   I currently run my 3700X with a -.1500 offset which gets me 1.35 and I know I could go even lower but I’m under water so no need to test the limit. This Curve Optimzer will make it even easier but how much -5 for example takes off your previous 1.45V


i checked my VCore with three different settings. and the new 1.1.9.0 AGESA

Stock
"Powertweak with 105W"
and with Curve Optimizer.

Black Ops Cold War solo custom match at 480P with a 3090 forces my CPU to it's limits and the clock speed is very stable.

Stock:
~4.55 Ghz all core with one core at 4.65 Ghz at 1.412V

Powertweak:
~4.65 Ghz on all Cores and two cores at 4.7 GHz at 1.38V

Stock with Curve Optimizer at -10:
~4.7 Ghz on all Cores (4680-4700 Mhz) at 1.394V

Powertweak plus Curve Optimizer at -10:
far above 4.7 Ghz on all cores except one and ~4.8 Ghz on two cores. at 1.378V


The Curve Optimizer is stable up to -10 across all cores.
at -15 i start getting crashes in games like Battlefield or Rainbow Six Siege (no bluescreens but it is absolutely on the edge)


----------



## bluefrisky (Jan 9, 2021)

WarTherapy1195 said:


> when i use this "tweak" with PBO enabled it won't work properly.
> 
> i ended up using this and -5 on the curve optimizer.


I decided to follow in your footsteps more closely.

I lowered PPT to 115, EDC to 100 and TDP to 80, then applied -5 to all cores in curve optimizer. I am seeing incredible results. 

My multi core is down 3%, single core is the same, tested in both CPU-Z and R23 multiple times. My peak temperatures during full stress load dropped by about 13c, I am now never going above 70c in R23.

I tested stability for hours across many bench tests and games, it seems perfectly stable.

As for gaming performance, so far CP2077 and Shadow of The Tomb Raider are showing slightly increased FPS (including better 1% lows).

I think you are right, the 5800x draws way too much power and overheats itself for no apparent reason.

I also discovered something interesting recently. The 5800x is unique in the way it generates heat, and may require adjustment of the positioning of the cooler and mounting. Read more here: 




__
		https://www.reddit.com/r/overclocking/comments/kszoh9


----------



## Zach_01 (Jan 9, 2021)

Comparing a 5800X to 5900X/5950X the main difference is that while all 3 have the same power consumption and heat dissipation, on 5800X all heat comes from a single CCD. Thus it has double heat density. That’s not an easy task to accomplish when trying to maintain temperature to a reasonable limit. Der8aur’s solution may help a little but don’t expect miracles.
It also involves cooler dissipation capacity and thermal paste/Tim material for transferring heat quickly.


----------



## bluefrisky (Jan 9, 2021)

Zach_01 said:


> Comparing a 5800X to 5900X/5950X the main difference is that while all 3 have the same power consumption and heat dissipation, on 5800X all heat comes from a single CCD. Thus it has double heat density. That’s not an easy task to accomplish when trying to maintain temperature to a reasonable limit. Der8aur’s solution may help a little but don’t expect miracles.
> It also involves cooler dissipation capacity and thermal paste/Tim material for transferring heat quickly.


Interesting. I have read some reviews and most claim 5-7c lower temps, I’d say that’s pretty good.


----------



## Zach_01 (Jan 9, 2021)

Like I said, it involves cooler capacity and TIM heat transfer rate. 6-7C reduction might be the best case scenario with open loop waterblock or highend AIO with special TIM, other than regular paste.


----------



## Leothelesser (Jan 11, 2021)

Curve optimizer with a negative offset of -30 on all cores
PPT to 120 EDC auto and TDC auto
Chinebench20 6069 multi 625 single 78c

Offset -30 PPT auto
Chinebench20 6145 multi 624 single 86c

Offset -30 PPT 135
Chinebench20 6117 multi 624 single 85c

Offset -30 PPT 125
Chinebench20 5957 multi 625 single 80c

Offset -30 PPT 120
Chinebench20 6069 multi 625 single 78c

Why did the PPT limit dropping from 125 to 120 gave an increase to multi core score?


----------



## Zach_01 (Jan 11, 2021)

Leothelesser said:


> Offset -30 PPT 125
> Chinebench20 5957 multi 625 single 80c
> 
> Offset -30 PPT 120
> ...



Do you remember speed, EDC and voltage values during those test 2 tests?

PPT alone can’t say much.


----------



## bluefrisky (Jan 11, 2021)

Leothelesser said:


> Curve optimizer with a negative offset of -30 on all cores
> PPT to 120 EDC auto and TDC auto
> Chinebench20 6069 multi 625 single 78c
> 
> ...


A lot of this might be run to run variance. Sometimes with the same values I get a score that’s higher or lower by as much as 100 points. You need to do multiple tests and average them out. 

Anyway, your temps and score look good with the -30 curve and 120ppt, I’d stay on that. Should be nice in games too.


----------



## Leothelesser (Jan 11, 2021)

TDC 82.608a
EDC 135.507a
Core Voltage 1.325v
Core VID Effective 1.350v

4830.2 mhz
4552.2 average effective


----------



## Zach_01 (Jan 11, 2021)

Leothelesser said:


> TDC 82.608a
> EDC 135.507a
> Core Voltage 1.325v
> Core VID Effective 1.350v
> ...


Over which of the 2 runs in question?

You need to compare these values over both runs (120 and 125 PPT) to come to a conclusion about why lower PPT gave better score.


----------



## blu3dragon (Jan 18, 2021)

I'm skeptical.  Why would lowering the power target make the cpu faster?

Cooler, I get, but faster doesn't seem right.  There's either something else going on or AMD got something wrong here.


----------



## bluefrisky (Jan 18, 2021)

blu3dragon said:


> I'm skeptical.  Why would lowering the power target make the cpu faster?
> 
> Cooler, I get, but faster doesn't seem right.  There's either something else going on or AMD got something wrong here.


It makes perfect sense. Without a lower power target, the CPU’s hit 80c or higher (in a lot of cases 90c) and start down clocking. If you’re running at 75c or lower, you’ll have higher sustained clocks.


----------



## ratirt (Jan 18, 2021)

I'm thinking about the HWUB (GN as well BTW) Youtube channel when they have specifically said, lowering power targets to make a CPU clock run higher, doesn't always translate to a better performance. (Obviously you will have lower temps as well) I only hope you keep that aspect in mind while you fiddle with the settings.


----------



## blu3dragon (Jan 18, 2021)

bluefrisky said:


> It makes perfect sense. Without a lower power target, the CPU’s hit 80c or higher (in a lot of cases 90c) and start down clocking. If you’re running at 75c or lower, you’ll have higher sustained clocks.



I dunno.  The 5800x has a stock thermal limit of 90c.  It appears to adjust clock and voltage to stay below that.  However, if it hits a power limit I would expect it to do exactly the same thing.  It will need to down clock and down volt to stay under the limit.


----------



## mtcn77 (Jan 18, 2021)

bluefrisky said:


> It makes perfect sense. Without a lower power target, the CPU’s hit 80c or higher (in a lot of cases 90c) and start down clocking. If you’re running at 75c or lower, you’ll have higher sustained clocks.


It is because of PTTL, right in the same drop menu that you find the 'scalar' setting.
The question is to set as low as possible such that even if the cpu was prime 95 tested it wouldn't trigger the temperature threshold. The issue is finding a setting which won't trigger it and then setting up a threshold that it will boost over it, but then as maximum temperature is reached it will coast alongside it. In summary, you keep PPT tidy along with EDC at the beginning and then delimit PPT. I suggest decreasing EDC from its 140 default to 130 such that there is a 10% gap from PPT which was a key point in former Ryzen generations.
An easy way to find out is prime95. As it scales in power output according to the sram usage, if you use less FFT to do the calculations, you will be effectively singling out the execution unit stability.
I found good quotes on that over the net;


> For example, by selecting 8-8 kB as the FFT size, the program stresses primarily the CPU.





> Thus a 4K FFT will use 32KB of data plus some for sin/cos and other data. It would probably fit in 64KB of L2 cache.


----------



## Leothelesser (Jan 18, 2021)

Offset -30 PPT 120
Chinebench20 6069 multi 625 single 78c

My idea was to reduce my temps as my cooler is only a be Quiet! Dark Rock Slim and the ambient temp is 30c + all summer.

The post talked of a “way to high powertarget” so I limited the power target and set a -30 offset to see if I could post. Then I  started lowering the PPT with everything else on Auto and when I got the above 6069 and 625 I was happy with that. 

Not the best stats but Reasonable and with Better temps.


----------



## Nexium (Jan 18, 2021)

Hello Everyone,

I was looking around the web for some current 5800x PBO2 Curve Optimizations out there to compare to my own results and experience. Not too much out there yet as things are still fairly new. I'd thought I'd contribute here with my results while I'm at it. Keep in mind I'm no expert, just a person that also likes to find the CPU limits and squeeze max CPU performance while maintaining stability and comfortable system temperatures for gaming. I mainly use Cinebench and various games to test temperatures and stability. If someone has suggestions what else I can try to tweak it further for higher stable boost clocks through the MSI BIOS settings, I'm all ears!

From what I understand, these Ryzen 5000 series PBO2 method of overclocking is to find the CPU "Zen" to allow the CPU's hardware coded power algorithm to hit the highest boost speeds often and consistently is the goal which is different than the conventional way of all core overclocking that I was used to with past CPUs over the years. In my observations using HWinfo64 monitoring, while my 5800x can boost 5.1Ghz on some cores with -20 All Core Curve, it doesn't boost to that speed very often or consistently and of course unstable. As I experimented moving down the boost clock speeds by -25Mhz from 5.1Ghz until 5Ghz that's when I noticed my average clock speeds increased as the CPU can boost to top speeds more often. This leads me to believe if the CPU struggles at certain overclocked boost speeds it reluctantly or will seldom hit your top boost clock speeds based on its algorithm to ensure system stability as top priority.

I found my 5800x is most happy and stable so far in both Cinebench R23 with various games all cores boosting 5005Mhz consistently with the BIOS settings I provided below on a MSI Unify x570 with the beta BIOS 7C35vA86 (1/12/2021).

One other thing to note here is I was only initially stable at -12 Curve All Core Offset at 5Ghz and any offset values of more than -12 would crash to desktop in any games. Adding CPU voltage offset and LLC seemed to allow me to stabilize at my current -15 Curve All Core Offset and at the same time allowed the CPU to hit my top boost clock speeds even more consistently and often. Again, my theory is this should have allowed the CPU to work with the lower power curve allowing more frequent max boost clocks and the motherboard provides the CPU voltage offset in order to stabilize voltages at the CPU lower power curve working in tandem.

PBO = Advanced
PBO Limits = Disabled
PBO Scalar = x7
Max CPU Boost Clock Override = +150Mhz
Platform Thermal Throttle Limit = 255
Curve Optimizer = All Cores -15 
Bus Clock = 100.1Mhz
CPU Offset Voltage = 0.0125v
CPU LLC = Level 3

*System Temp Average*: 27C
*All Core Max Temp*: 76C
*Single Core Max Temp*: 62C

*Cinebench R23 Scores*
*MultiCore*: 15601
*SingleCore*: 1653

*System Specs:*
Seasonic Prime 750w
MSI Unify x570 Beta BIOS 7C35vA86 (1/12/2021)
Ryzen 5800x
Phanteks 280mm AIO
G.Skill Neo 32GB Dual Channel 16-19-19-39 1T @ 1.35v- XMP
EVGA 1080Ti FTW3
Sabrent Rocket Plus 2TB NVME SSD
Samsung 970 Evo 1TB NVME SSD


----------



## mtcn77 (Jan 19, 2021)

Nexium said:


> PBO Scalar = x7
> 
> CPU LLC = Level 3


These two do the same thing. You can select one or the other. Ryzen doesn't need you to set voltages, it can demand it from the motherboard itself. Try to keep one and forego the other. It misses the point if you reduce 15mV and add 125 somewhere else. It only reduces base voltage and that is without the incrementally static 125 offset anyway.
We dearly miss the Stilt making things clearcut.


----------



## Nexium (Jan 19, 2021)

mtcn77 said:


> These two do the same thing. You can select one or the other. Ryzen doesn't need you to set voltages, it can demand it from the motherboard itself. Try to keep one and forego the other. It misses the point if you reduce 15mV and add 125 somewhere else. It only reduces base voltage and that is without the incrementally static 125 offset anyway.
> We dearly miss the Stilt making things clearcut.


Thank you for your suggestion. I tried it and set CPU LLC back to AUTO setting. I did not pass my usual GTA 5 game stress test and crashed to desktop within about 30 min. So to me this should disprove PBO Scalar provides the proper voltage stability needed to replace my current setting with CPU LLC at level 3.

I was only able to reach -15 stable with the CPU with both the motherboard .125 offset and CPU LLC at level 3. Without these two, I'm back at -12 to maintain stability. Again, my theory is the -15 should allowing the CPU's algorithm to boost to max clocks more often and consistently with all cores to 5Ghz during normal or heavy use which is what I'm seeing in just by browsing the web with Chrome and a few office apps running.


----------



## blu3dragon (Jan 19, 2021)

mtcn77 said:


> These two do the same thing. You can select one or the other. Ryzen doesn't need you to set voltages, it can demand it from the motherboard itself. Try to keep one and forego the other. It misses the point if you reduce 15mV and add 125 somewhere else. It only reduces base voltage and that is without the incrementally static 125 offset anyway.
> We dearly miss the Stilt making things clearcut.



My understanding of PBO scaler is that it raises either the time for which the cpu will request max voltage (allowing maximum frequency), or it raises the maximum voltage itself, allowing it to sustain a higher boost clock at a given temperature.  As temperature increases, the allowable voltage decreases.  As requested voltage decreases, clock speed decreases.  Increasing this value is effectively a way to oc the cpu, with the cost being possible reduced lifespan of the cpu.

This has a slightly different effect to LLC, which alters the voltage drop between the requested (set) level and that actually seen by the cpu.  Increasing LLC will not alter boost clocks directly, but since increasing LLC will increase actual voltage at the cpu core, it will increase heat, which will the result in the cpu lowering it's max voltage band then lower the clock to match.  Increasing LLC can help with stability, but also possibly at the cost of some cpu life and setting to a high level can result in voltage overshoots.  Generally it is better to have this at a medium to low setting and increase stability by increasing the set (or requested) voltage level.

Setting a voltage offset and changing LLC might be more similar.  A voltage offset will offset the voltage level requested by the cpu and so lowering this would have a somewhat similar effect to lowering LLC.  However, with Zen3 the cpu seems to be monitoring this somehow and clock stretching when the set voltage goes too low.

So far in my experience, it seems best to leave voltage offset at 0, llc at auto, and just tune curve offset.

You can also increase PBO scaler to allow higher boosts at a given temperature as long as you are ok with potentially reduced cpu life.


----------



## mtcn77 (Jan 19, 2021)

blu3dragon said:


> My understanding of PBO scaler is that it raises either the time for which the cpu will request max voltage (allowing maximum frequency), or it raises the maximum voltage itself, allowing it to sustain a higher boost clock at a given temperature.  As temperature increases, the allowable voltage decreases.  As requested voltage decreases, clock speed decreases.  Increasing this value is effectively a way to oc the cpu, with the cost being possible reduced lifespan of the cpu.
> 
> This has a slightly different effect to LLC, which alters the voltage drop between the requested (set) level and that actually seen by the cpu.  Increasing LLC will not alter boost clocks directly, but since increasing LLC will increase actual voltage at the cpu core, it will increase heat, which will the result in the cpu lowering it's max voltage band then lower the clock to match.  Increasing LLC can help with stability, but also possibly at the cost of some cpu life and setting to a high level can result in voltage overshoots.  Generally it is better to have this at a medium to low setting and increase stability by increasing the set (or requested) voltage level.
> 
> ...


+1. I think you have good insight into the topic. Honestly, I wouldn't worry about scalar if that is the case precisely because right above you also have the PTTL setting which should, incidentally, determine when the scalar starts its temperature adjustment.


----------



## Nexium (Jan 19, 2021)

blu3dragon said:


> My understanding of PBO scaler is that it raises either the time for which the cpu will request max voltage (allowing maximum frequency), or it raises the maximum voltage itself, allowing it to sustain a higher boost clock at a given temperature.  As temperature increases, the allowable voltage decreases.  As requested voltage decreases, clock speed decreases.  Increasing this value is effectively a way to oc the cpu, with the cost being possible reduced lifespan of the cpu.
> 
> This has a slightly different effect to LLC, which alters the voltage drop between the requested (set) level and that actually seen by the cpu.  Increasing LLC will not alter boost clocks directly, but since increasing LLC will increase actual voltage at the cpu core, it will increase heat, which will the result in the cpu lowering it's max voltage band then lower the clock to match.  Increasing LLC can help with stability, but also possibly at the cost of some cpu life and setting to a high level can result in voltage overshoots.  Generally it is better to have this at a medium to low setting and increase stability by increasing the set (or requested) voltage level.
> 
> ...


Based on your in depth explanation of the PBO Scaler, it's similar to my personal understanding of how it works and aware of the consequence to the lifespan of the CPU for more performance in theory. Temperature is not an issue for me at the moment, but I'm still keeping a close eye on my CPU voltages to keep it within or below the max voltage limit of these 5000 Ryzen CPUs when boosting clocks. I also tried CPU LLC set one level down lower to 4 for instance, unfortunately games start crashing again so I believe I have found my CPUs limit or close to it while maintaining stability with my settings. Fine tuning to running less voltage as possible at the limit is always a good thing.

There are always risks with overclocking to the limit I'm used to and accepted for many years . Technology these days are outdated so fast like cellular phones, I do have less regard to keeping any computer components for no more than 4-5 years at a time anyway to satisfy this hobby. Plus, I haven't personally experienced any degradation effects with any overclocked Intel or AMD CPUs over the past 20 years doing this as long as I stay within or below the safe acceptable voltage and temperature range, but then again I'm also not running at 100% 24/7.


----------



## Zach_01 (Jan 19, 2021)

Nexium said:


> Based on your in depth explanation of the PBO Scaler, it's similar to my personal understanding of how it works and aware of the consequence to the lifespan of the CPU for more performance in theory. Temperature is not an issue for me at the moment, but I'm still keeping a close eye on my CPU voltages to keep it within or below the max voltage limit of these 5000 Ryzen CPUs when boosting clocks. I also tried CPU LLC set one level down lower to 4 for instance, unfortunately games start crashing again so I believe I have found my CPUs limit or close to it while maintaining stability with my settings. Fine tuning to running less voltage as possible at the limit is always a good thing.
> 
> There are always risks with overclocking to the limit I'm used to and accepted for many years . Technology these days are outdated so fast like cellular phones, I do have less regard to keeping any computer components for no more than 4-5 years at a time anyway to satisfy this hobby. Plus, I haven't personally experienced any degradation effects with any overclocked Intel or AMD CPUs over the past 20 years doing this as long as I stay within or below the safe acceptable voltage and temperature range, but then again I'm also not running at 100% 24/7.


Do not compare these 7nm chips to what we had 5, 10, or 20 years ago. The same or even less electomigration could potentially inflict more degradation on thinner traces and transistors, caused by voltage and high-er current. Even if temp is within limits. Taking scalar on manual, and above X1, is nevertheless an override, hence PBO-verride. Use it wisely and sparingly, I sincerely advise you.

Too much sustained voltage (+higher speed +load = higher sustained current) could worsen things quickly too, as much as too high voltage alone under load. Thats why these 7nm chiplets hit their stock target voltages and speeds shortly and as AMD declares... opportunistically.

I will agree that 5000's curve optimizer is a way better OC, in terms of performance and reliability, than static values that its the only way on 3000... but still its easy to misuse and you should all be cautious as there is no background that connects 7nm ZEN3 (and ZEN2) to anything. Any reference to older gens of chips I find it to be mistargeted and/or irrelevant.
Tell me 1 CPU of the past (pre 7nm) that can be degraded with 1.35V static. Well, ZEN2 can and I'm pointing at this as an example to past references. Its uncharted waters both ZEN2/3.

What OCing users (most) seems not grasping is how and why these CPUs are regulated the way they are. Its my estimate based on what I see on attempted settings.

----------------------------------------------------

This is general and not directly refering to 7nm ZEN but its food for thought for everyone.


----------



## blu3dragon (Jan 19, 2021)

bluefrisky said:


> I also discovered something interesting recently. The 5800x is unique in the way it generates heat, and may require adjustment of the positioning of the cooler and mounting. Read more here:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Since I have an arctic liquid freezer ii rev3 with an offset mount option I decided to try this.  I had originally installed it with the normal mounting position.  Removed and switched to the offset position.  End result?  Almost no difference.  After letting it sit for 24hrs, with an 85C temp limit set in the bios, p95 with fixed fft size of 84, avx disabled, I was previously at ~145-150W with a motherboard temp of 22C.  Now I'm at 150-152W with a motherboard temp of 23C.  That's either a very slight improvement, measurement error, or a change due to better luck with the quantity of thermal compound I used 

Regarding *PBO Scaler* I just did a quick experiment and this appears to make no difference with a steady state load that is not power or temp limited.  Maybe this makes a short term difference if a power or voltage limit is reached?  I also checked all core steady state load and that was the same as well.

I tried with P95, single thread, in place fft fixed size of 84, avx disabled, and used hwinfo to report average effective clocks over >15s for each core.

First ran with all cores to let everything heat soak, then switched to a single core, and used task manager to assign it to a single core (same core each time).  Let it sit for a bit for temps to settle down.  Clicked reset counters, then let it run for >15s for the average to settle down and made a note of that.

BTW, this is a very good way to test if your curve setting is stable for each core.  I thought I was 100% stable, but core2 failed after a few min of having a single thread locked to that core and so I need to go reduce that offset :-|


scaler x1scaler x1scaler x10scaler x10CoreAverage effective clocktemp (C)Average effective clocktemp (C)0485070484071.31482770484870.32480669.6479169.53474569.1473569.14487771487770.55486170.1486769.96472474.6476574.87475072.1473772.1*average**4805**71**4808**71*


----------



## mtcn77 (Jan 19, 2021)

You know the reference two negatives does not prove a positive? You are making assumptions based on unknowns.


----------



## blu3dragon (Jan 20, 2021)

I tried a cinebench run as well and that gave the same results too.  Clean boot, quit all apps running in the task bar.  Single core 264 w/PBO scaler=x10, 266 w/PBO scaler=x1.  Multicore was 2593 vs 2594.  I'm actually surprised it was that consistent since normally the scores change a little if I run a 2nd time.


----------



## Nexium (Jan 20, 2021)

Zach_01 said:


> Do not compare these 7nm chips to what we had 5, 10, or 20 years ago. The same or even less electomigration could potentially inflict more degradation on thinner traces and transistors, caused by voltage and high-er current. Even if temp is within limits. Taking scalar on manual, and above X1, is nevertheless an override, hence PBO-verride. Use it wisely and sparingly, I sincerely advise you.
> 
> Too much sustained voltage (+higher speed +load = higher sustained current) could worsen things quickly too, as much as too high voltage alone under load. Thats why these 7nm chiplets hit their stock target voltages and speeds shortly and as AMD declares... opportunistically.
> 
> ...


Duly noted. I understand the curve optimization overclocking should not be approached with the same the old conventional overclocking ways. But this was just one configuration I was able to get running and stabilized but may not be my final daily setting just yet. I'm still learning and playing with the curve optimizer to compare my current most stable results. I'm may also be closing in to finding a stable curve optimized negative setting that should net me the similar boost clock behavior and frequency without touching and CPU voltage offsets or PBO Scalar by identifying the 2 best cores first, then configuring the curve by individual cores from there. It's taking a long time by even more meticulous trial and error, but should be better optimized this way if I can get it stable somehow.


----------



## darrenj (Jan 20, 2021)

I have a 5800x on a GA X570i Aorus Pro WIFI costum water loop dual rad in a tiny Ghost Louqe MKIII.
Will try these PBO settings


----------



## Kamilz34 (Jan 25, 2021)

I have mine set on a B550-F to just straight core VID 1.275 and CCX0 Ratio of 46.75. So basically all my cores run to 4.675 GHz and no more. But my Cinebench R23 score is quite good for that at 15780 repeatable, got above 16100 average when I could do -15 undervolt.

It runs at like 66/67C max temps during the run usually with a 280mm Arctic AIO with fans spinning at less than 50%.


I have my PBO at motherboard, I didn't touch anything else as any curve optimizer settings at all, even -5 make my computer not even want to boot up. It used to run at -15 but idk why it won't accept that anymore 

Is 1.275v too low for a CPU?


----------



## thesmokingman (Jan 25, 2021)

darrenj said:


> I have a 5800x on a GA X570i Aorus Pro WIFI costum water loop dual rad in a tiny Ghost Louqe MKIII.
> Will try these PBO settings


You're better off just leaving it at auto or a simple pbo + manual limit aka PPT limit of whatever floats your boat for power draw. Like for ex. 160w on a 5800x is really humming along. That's doable since you're on a full loop.


----------



## Kamilz34 (Jan 25, 2021)

Btw for most I see in this thread, your (perf) core clock is not your actual clock, your effective clock is what the program sees. My Cinebench scores are directly related to the Effective clock and could care less that my (perf) clock is at 5Ghz when the effective is at 4.3GHz. I am no expert, but that is what I see from my testing. Correct me if I'm wrong.


----------



## thesmokingman (Jan 25, 2021)

Kamilz34 said:


> Btw for most I see in this thread, your (perf) core clock is not your actual clock, your effective clock is what the program sees. My Cinebench scores are directly related to the Effective clock and could care less that my (perf) clock is at 5Ghz when the effective is at 4.3GHz. I am no expert, but that is what I see from my testing. Correct me if I'm wrong.


Effective clock vs instant (discrete) clock | HWiNFO Forum

Core clocks are used for epeen. Effective are what's actually doing work as you found out.


----------



## Kamilz34 (Jan 25, 2021)

thesmokingman said:


> Effective clock vs instant (discrete) clock | HWiNFO Forum
> 
> Core clocks are used for epeen. Effective are what's actually doing work as you found out.


Eeeeeee  haha I saw some people show their HWiNFO and quote their core clock speeds not the effective. Glad I found something new


----------



## blu3dragon (Jan 25, 2021)

Kamilz34 said:


> I have mine set on a B550-F to just straight core VID 1.275 and CCX0 Ratio of 46.75. So basically all my cores run to 4.675 GHz and no more. But my Cinebench R23 score is quite good for that at 15780 repeatable, got above 16100 average when I could do -15 undervolt.
> 
> It runs at like 66/67C max temps during the run usually with a 280mm Arctic AIO with fans spinning at less than 50%.
> 
> ...



Since you have manually set VID you have already undervolted.  You don't need to use curve offset in this case.  Interesting that had an effect though, I would have thought it would be ignored.



Kamilz34 said:


> Btw for most I see in this thread, your (perf) core clock is not your actual clock, your effective clock is what the program sees. My Cinebench scores are directly related to the Effective clock and could care less that my (perf) clock is at 5Ghz when the effective is at 4.3GHz. I am no expert, but that is what I see from my testing. Correct me if I'm wrong.




As thesmokingman already mentioned, this is true.  But now you need to look at why your effective clock is so much lower than actual 

Two things I am aware of that can cause this with Zen3:

1)  ASUS Fmax enhancer, if enabled try disabling this.
2) Setting a voltage offset that is too low for the cpu.


----------



## Illusion (Jan 28, 2021)

WarTherapy1195 said:


> i am not a native english speaker.
> 
> 
> i started investigating many complaints about the 5800x running very hot.
> ...


So, what is your VCore voltage set to? Auto? Also, what is the VCore set to when doing curve optimizer? Thanks!


----------



## Fry178 (Feb 7, 2021)

Got pretty good gains using the clock tuner from 1usmus.
no numbers yet, was just messing with the tool prior to clean win install..

go thru the guide, even if you used prior CTRs.
CTR 2.0


----------



## brandofriva (Feb 7, 2021)

Fry178 said:


> Got pretty good gains using the clock tuner from 1usmus.
> no numbers yet, was just messing with the tool prior to clean win install..
> 
> go thru the guide, even if you used prior CTRs.
> CTR 2.0


Ye this gave me vastly improved numbers too.
You can however still get a pretty good improvement just from PBO etc as in the rest of this thread.


----------



## Fry178 (Feb 7, 2021)

it makes use of pbo. just switch to enabled prior to tuning.


----------



## blu3dragon (Feb 7, 2021)

PBO + manual tuning of curve offset gives me higher clocks than CTR 2.0.  CTR uses lower voltages so less heat and power though.  I need to play with it some more to figure the right balance and also understand how it works when there is a heavy avx load.  It is nicely written and a lot less effort than manual tuning.


----------



## Fry178 (Mar 2, 2021)

@bluefrisky
unless you have a really crappy block, doubt the offset bracket will make any impact,
as almost all decent aio/blocks will cover the full HS.

when i look at my 30$ block (clear), it shows the channels cover whole (cpu) HS,
and when i took a friends pump apart (240 eisbaer) for cleaning, same thing.
water channels are covering the whole HS, so the bracket wont do anything.


----------

