# Ryzen 9 3900x Voltage and Temperature



## azngreentea01 (Jul 12, 2019)

Doing some benchmark with Cinebench R20 . I notice something funny is when the computer is idle the voltage at 1.45-1.46 V and temp is around 45-55 Cel.













When i started doing the benchmark, the  Voltage  drop to 1.3- 1.4 v. The CPU core is at  4.0 ghz on all cores.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Jul 12, 2019)

azngreentea01 said:


> Doing some benchmark with Cinebench R20 . I notice something funny is when the computer is idle the voltage at 1.45-1.46 V and temp is around 45-55 Cel.
> View attachment 126650
> View attachment 126651View attachment 126652
> 
> ...


That voltage is WAY too high! For first gen Ryzen 1.35 to 1.4 was common, but these new gen Ryzen CPU's should only be at 1.2 or 1.25.

See this and start at 3:32;








Jay will walk you through what to set and why.


----------



## HenrySomeone (Jul 12, 2019)

Ah, yes, the delights of AMD ownership...


----------



## azngreentea01 (Jul 12, 2019)

So, what I did was. I offset my cpu by  - .1  in the bios. Now it showing 1.35 - 1.39 v




After rerun the benchmark. It showing better result.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Jul 12, 2019)

HenrySomeone said:


> Ah, yes, the delights of AMD ownership...


Actually, the problems here are not the fault of AMD, it's the board maker not setting the voltages in the BIOS correctly based on the CPU microcode


azngreentea01 said:


> So, what I did was. I offset my cpu by  - .1  in the bios. Now it showing 1.35 - 1.39 v
> View attachment 126660
> 
> After rerun the benchmark. It showing better result.
> ...


Are your temps better as well? I'd still set the voltage lower, say -0.2, if you're not OCing.


----------



## Space Lynx (Jul 12, 2019)

lexluthermiester said:


> That voltage is WAY too high! For first gen Ryzen 1.35 to 1.4 was common, but these new gen Ryzen CPU's should only be at 1.2 or 1.25.
> 
> See this and start at 3:32;
> 
> ...



Jay is great. Always enjoyed his videos, don't watch anyone too much these days, except Linus once in awhile because he is goofy as crap sometimes. lol


----------



## azngreentea01 (Jul 12, 2019)

lexluthermiester said:


> Actually, the problems here are not the fault of AMD, it's the board maker not setting the voltages in the BIOS correctly based on the CPU microcode
> 
> Are your temps better as well? I'd still set the voltage lower, say -0.2, if you're not OCing.



Yes temp drop down to 38-45 Cel.  I think i stay at this offset at -0.1 for now and let see on gaming. Voltage will drop down 0.850v when idle and when is use is at 1.345 V, No i don't think i will OCing because of the state we in right now. lots of problem with the motherboard bios.


----------



## Space Lynx (Jul 12, 2019)

lexluthermiester said:


> Actually, the problems here are not the fault of AMD, it's the board maker not setting the voltages in the BIOS correctly based on the CPU microcode
> 
> Are your temps better as well? I'd still set the voltage lower, say -0.2, if you're not OCing.



Honestly Asus has always done this. Even on my Asus Z68 Deluxe or w.e it was called, whenever I flipped the switch to auto OC it on the mobo, called TPU and EPU, it would skyrocket high voltage and only give me 4.3ghz oc on sandy bridge 2500k... everyone always just manually oc'd a 4.5 clock at like much lower voltage than that.

Asus is just overrated as a company as far as I am concerned.


----------



## oxrufiioxo (Jul 12, 2019)

Similar issues on my Z390 Asus Maximus Code... Regardless of bios version the stock voltages for vccio and SA are way too high.


----------



## TheMadDutchDude (Jul 12, 2019)

All vendors seem to do it. I asked MSI (on the X99 platform) why this was... and their best response was: "it provides guaranteed stability."

Yeah... 1.35 VCCIO on a CPU that only needs 1.05v to function is not what I would deem safe, nor stable. Not to mention that anything over 1.3v on air/water was actually considered a damaging prospect too.


----------



## Metroid (Jul 12, 2019)

That is something that i dont like, if cooling is at 70c, why 4.0ghz? supposed to be all at 4.6ghz, i wonder when the cpu starts throttling, 60c? does anybody know?

What the hell this is supposed to work all with 4.6ghz? 30c and vcore 1.2? well as cold as it gets vcore can be dropped little by little and maintains maximum clock speed allowed 4.6 on 3900x, or same can be said about as hot as it gets vcore and clock speed lowers to maintain temperature that is good to make that vcore stable.






Here at the techpowerup boos analysis, wizzard forgot to show the current temperature graph scale too. I wonder if temperature less than said 50c will still leave it at 4.2ghz maximum on all cores. LN2 bench can confirm my theory or a very good watercooling.









						AMD Ryzen 9 3900X Review
					

The flagship of AMD's new Ryzen 3000 lineup is the Ryzen 9 3900X, which is a 12-core, 24-thread monster. Never before have we seen such power on a desktop platform. Priced at $500, this processor is very strong competition for Intel's Core i9-9900, which only has eight cores.




					www.techpowerup.com


----------



## harm9963 (Jul 12, 2019)

Waiting till Christmas ,  lots BIOS   updates till then.
learn the hard way with GD80 990FXA,BIOS  updates every month for 8 months back in 2011.


----------



## Metroid (Jul 12, 2019)

azngreentea01 said:


> Doing some benchmark with Cinebench R20 . I notice something funny is when the computer is idle the voltage at 1.45-1.46 V and temp is around 45-55 Cel.
> 
> When i started doing the benchmark, the  Voltage  drop to 1.3- 1.4 v. The CPU core is at  4.0 ghz on all cores.



Can you disable smt and see if you can overclock it better, also can you see power consumption with smt off, 100% load? I just don't understand why no reviewers have done this test.


----------



## ShurikN (Jul 12, 2019)

azngreentea01 said:


> No i don't think i will OCing because of the state we in right now. lots of problem with the motherboard bios.


You wont get much from overclocking anyway, don't bother. PBO and XFR do a good job. In some cases (like lightly threaded games) you might even lose performance versus stock.


----------



## racer243l (Jul 12, 2019)

TheMadDutchDude said:


> All vendors seem to do it. I asked MSI (on the X99 platform) why this was... and their best response was: "it provides guaranteed stability."
> 
> Yeah... 1.35 VCCIO on a CPU that only needs 1.05v to function is not what I would deem safe, nor stable. Not to mention that anything over 1.3v on air/water was actually considered a damaging prospect too.


My Asus Maximus XI Hero used 1.45v VCCIO and 1.4v VCCSA on 3600Mhz XMP and almost 1.38v on the CPU for 4.7Ghz allcore turbo
Manually I got down to 1.365v VCCIO and 1.34v VCCSA with 4000Mhz RAM and 1.3v for 5Ghz on the CPU.


----------



## the54thvoid (Jul 12, 2019)

I can't get it now (on mobile) but I saw a Reddit thread from an AMD rep, could even have been a guy called Rob. But... Monitoring software isn't reporting idle voltage. Effectively, the software wakes the core, which responds to the call as an intense load. Therefore, the idle voltage is actually a load voltage, instigated by the monitoring. Ultimately, it's like quantum. The act of observing the chip, changes it's state from cc6.
Only one single software or bios monitoring tool should be active. I think he said either CPUz was okay or Ryzen master. But only one. Mobo monitoring tools will mess either up.


----------



## Hardi (Jul 12, 2019)

the54thvoid said:


> I can't get it now (on mobile) but I saw a Reddit thread from an AMD rep, could even have been a guy called Rob. But... Monitoring software isn't reporting idle voltage. Effectively, the software wakes the core, which responds to the call as an intense load. Therefore, the idle voltage is actually a load voltage, instigated by the monitoring. Ultimately, it's like quantum. The act of observing the chip, changes it's state from cc6.
> Only one single software or bios monitoring tool should be active. I think he said either CPUz was okay or Ryzen master. But only one. Mobo monitoring tools will mess either up.




__
		https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/cbls9g


----------



## Vlada011 (Jul 12, 2019)

Finally day when gamers could buy killer PC for 2000$.
3900X, 1TB Gen 4 M.2-Radeon 5700XT CH4H Motherboard and 16GB RAM.


----------



## HenrySomeone (Jul 12, 2019)

A killer 2k$ PC with a Radeon 5700XT? Current crap blower ones no less?


----------



## HD64G (Jul 12, 2019)

Some BIOS and driver tuning is still needed to allow all CPUs to perform as intended for the boost frequencies.


----------



## the54thvoid (Jul 12, 2019)

Now a TPU news post.


----------



## azngreentea01 (Jul 12, 2019)

the54thvoid said:


> I can't get it now (on mobile) but I saw a Reddit thread from an AMD rep, could even have been a guy called Rob. But... Monitoring software isn't reporting idle voltage. Effectively, the software wakes the core, which responds to the call as an intense load. Therefore, the idle voltage is actually a load voltage, instigated by the monitoring. Ultimately, it's like quantum. The act of observing the chip, changes it's state from cc6.
> Only one single software or bios monitoring tool should be active. I think he said either CPUz was okay or Ryzen master. But only one. Mobo monitoring tools will mess either up.



I undestand the observer effect on TPU article, but why is it the Temp is so high. I mean if it in idle the Temp should be around 35-45 Cel. When it idle it sitting around 45-55 cel.
I am only running one instance monitor tool. Not opening up 2-3 tools to monitor.


Edit:
ALso, when i use  or turn on Icue software from  Corsair.  The voltage will be at contanst 1.35- 1.37V when idol . When i turn it off the idol will drop down to .885v.


----------



## mngew (Jul 12, 2019)

azngreentea01 said:


> Doing some benchmark with Cinebench R20 . I notice something funny is when the computer is idle the voltage at 1.45-1.46 V and temp is around 45-55 Cel.
> View attachment 126658
> View attachment 126650
> View attachment 126651View attachment 126652
> ...



My 3900X also idles at those temperatures.  I have mine cooled by H115i.  I reseated the heatsink 3 times. Didn't make any changes.  I'm going to try NH-D15 later tonight.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Jul 12, 2019)

mngew said:


> My 3900X also idles at those temperatures.  I have mine cooled by H115i.  I reseated the heatsink 3 times. Didn't make any changes.  I'm going to try NH-D15 later tonight.


Like him, check your voltages in the BIOS. If they're above 1.25, set them to 1.25.


----------



## Prillan (May 5, 2020)

Old post but i found that with gaming mode turned on in dragon center will push the cpu all the time hence the extreme idle temps, went from 45-50c to about 35-40 when i turned it off,  maybe different utility programs are messing with eachother


----------



## yentlvdd (May 25, 2020)

if some of u guys still have these problems, this is what i did :

i use msi x570 gaming plus motherboard and NZXT Kraken X53 aio cooler

i updated the bios to the latest fw, after that i went into dragon center and updated the cpu chipset drivers and... bam solved the problem. 

idle temp : 34°c -38°c
idle voltage : 1.104 V


----------



## phill (May 26, 2020)

I've set mine to 1.00vcore and it's stuck at 4.20GHz across all cores..  Being stressed with WCG/Boinc on all 24 threads..  It's a beast of a CPU and I still wish I could have ordered a 3950X instead...

I digress.. I did a load of testing, testing this very thing not too long ago..  Before I updated my bios, I was able to get to 0.900vcore and that didn't used to crash..  Not anything under 1.00vcore the board doesn't seem to like (X570 Crosshair 8 Hero) 

From auto vcore (around 1.45v) and that was hitting 90C in around 1 minute of running WCG taking roughly 280w of power for my whole system, to now, taking just 160 to 165w for my whole system under full load, I'm very impressed....


----------



## Leonoid007 (Jun 30, 2020)

Hi, I am a bit confused by all the values posted here. I have these and they are much higher. However I have 4725 Mhz boost on one core and 4.7 on second best (Ryzen 9 3950x). If I lower my CPU voltage system crashes under load or even do not boot at all. MB is ASUS TUF 570+ wi-fi. CPU voltage set Auto - 0.0625 (the best I can do). If I just leave it on auto (no offset, my best core boosts at 4775 Mhz. I decided to let it go at a bit less stress and use offset -0.0625













So, my concerns are: voltages being around 1.44v max (core) , CPU package temps. 50-60 idle  in hwm (around 47 in Ryzen Master), 86 cinebench test load.
And individual cores show 1.5v max ???

Do I have a problem? Cooler is Noctua-U12A.

Thanks!


----------



## $ReaPeR$ (Jun 30, 2020)

Leonoid007 said:


> Hi, I am a bit confused by all the values posted here. I have these and they are much higher. However I have 4725 Mhz boost on one core and 4.7 on second best (Ryzen 9 3950x). If I lower my CPU voltage system crashes under load or even do not boot at all. MB is ASUS TUF 570+ wi-fi. CPU voltage set Auto - 0.0625 (the best I can do). If I just leave it on auto (no offset, my best core boosts at 4775 Mhz. I decided to let it go at a bit less stress and use offset -0.0625
> 
> View attachment 160762
> View attachment 160763
> ...


You're fine. What are you worried about?


----------



## northvisit (Jun 30, 2020)

Leonoid007 said:


> Hi, I am a bit confused by all the values posted here. I have these and they are much higher. However I have 4725 Mhz boost on one core and 4.7 on second best (Ryzen 9 3950x). If I lower my CPU voltage system crashes under load or even do not boot at all. MB is ASUS TUF 570+ wi-fi. CPU voltage set Auto - 0.0625 (the best I can do). If I just leave it on auto (no offset, my best core boosts at 4775 Mhz. I decided to let it go at a bit less stress and use offset -0.0625
> 
> View attachment 160762
> View attachment 160763
> ...


VCore (SVI2 TFN) voltage is the correct to look when you have set VCore negative offset (0,0625V). VID value is requested voltage and when it is about 1,5V when the real Vcore = 1,5V - offset (0,0625V) (about). Temps are a bit high but maybe just fine for 3950 depending on load and cooling. When using negative offset you have to check also that it does not affect on performance. Run some program like CB20 without any background programs/processes to see if scores stay about the same with and without applied offset voltage. If negative offset is over some limit the CPU could drop real frequency (clock stretching) without showing it in shown clocks in hwinfo. Performance drop would be clearly noticeable. My CPU/MB seem to work up to about -0.100V before perf drops so I use -0,075V offset.


----------



## Leonoid007 (Jun 30, 2020)

$ReaPeR$ said:


> You're fine. What are you worried about?



Temps are on high end... Of course prime95 will heat up to 95C without any problems and stay there so I do not bother. But cinebench at 86C is my concern.
For the cooling I use silent profile, so it runs very quite idle and only goes full speed cooling at about 70C.
Thanks, so I guess I am fine. I will lower offset to -0.05v because after that CB20 shows a bit of performance loss at 0.0625v My best CB20 score is 9732 and total cpu package power at about 211WT

Is this OK for high end air cooling? I did not want water for 2 reasons - one more part to fail (pump) and noise at idle. I also use computer for work so when I am typing in code it does not bother me with noise and C++ compilation time is 2.5-3 times faster than my work Intel computer.


----------



## $ReaPeR$ (Jul 1, 2020)

Leonoid007 said:


> Temps are on high end... Of course prime95 will heat up to 95C without any problems and stay there so I do not bother. But cinebench at 86C is my concern.
> For the cooling I use silent profile, so it runs very quite idle and only goes full speed cooling at about 70C.
> Thanks, so I guess I am fine. I will lower offset to -0.05v because after that CB20 shows a bit of performance loss at 0.0625v My best CB20 score is 9732 and total cpu package power at about 211WT
> 
> Is this OK for high end air cooling? I did not want water for 2 reasons - one more part to fail (pump) and noise at idle. I also use computer for work so when I am typing in code it does not bother me with noise and C++ compilation time is 2.5-3 times faster than my work Intel computer.


i have a 3900x and my temps are very similar although i use a corsair h115i pro with a room temp of 21C. tbh you made the better choice with the noctua cooler, i never liked water cooling because of the extra things that can go wrong and the fact that unless you go "all in" with custom loop the benefit is negligible. so, i think your temps are ok although if you continue playing with voltages you could lower them even further, it just takes time and a lot of trial and error.


----------



## Leonoid007 (Jul 2, 2020)

$ReaPeR$ said:


> i have a 3900x and my temps are very similar although i use a corsair h115i pro with a room temp of 21C. tbh you made the better choice with the noctua cooler, i never liked water cooling because of the extra things that can go wrong and the fact that unless you go "all in" with custom loop the benefit is negligible. so, i think your temps are ok although if you continue playing with voltages you could lower them even further, it just takes time and a lot of trial and error.



System crashes when I do -0.1v and unstable at -0.09ish anything more than 0.05 reduces CB20 score.

BTW my home temperature set to 23.5C not sure about the room with computer, I think it 's a bit cooler but sure above +22C.


----------



## thesmokingman (Jul 2, 2020)

azngreentea01 said:


> I undestand the observer effect on TPU article, but why is it the Temp is so high. I mean if it in idle the Temp should be around 35-45 Cel. When it idle it sitting around 45-55 cel.
> I am only running one instance monitor tool. Not opening up 2-3 tools to monitor.
> 
> 
> ...



That's because it causes observer effects. Icue is hyper aggressive with its polling. Read the article again, it's polling the cpu thus keeping it from idling and allowing cores to sleep.


----------



## $ReaPeR$ (Jul 2, 2020)

Leonoid007 said:


> System crashes when I do -0.1v and unstable at -0.09ish anything more than 0.05 reduces CB20 score.
> 
> BTW my home temperature set to 23.5C not sure about the room with computer, I think it 's a bit cooler but sure above +22C.


cool, if thats the case then i think you are ok with the current settings. out of curiosity, whats your vrm temps?


----------



## Leonoid007 (Jul 2, 2020)

I don't know which sensor is VRM temps, here is the screenshot from hwinfo







$ReaPeR$ said:


> cool, if thats the case then i think you are ok with the current settings. out of curiosity, whats your vrm temps?


----------



## thesmokingman (Jul 2, 2020)

Leonoid007 said:


> I don't know which sensor is VRM temps, here is the screenshot from hwinfo
> 
> View attachment 160889



If you don't see vrm temps in bios that means it doesn't have the sensor. Not a whole lot of boards actually have vrm temp sensors that we can use.


----------



## A Computer Guy (Jul 2, 2020)

Leonoid007 said:


> Temps are on high end... Of course prime95 will heat up to 95C without any problems and stay there so I do not bother. But cinebench at 86C is my concern.
> For the cooling I use silent profile, so it runs very quite idle and only goes full speed cooling at about 70C.
> Thanks, so I guess I am fine. I will lower offset to -0.05v because after that CB20 shows a bit of performance loss at 0.0625v My best CB20 score is 9732 and total cpu package power at about 211WT
> 
> Is this OK for high end air cooling? I did not want water for 2 reasons - one more part to fail (pump) and noise at idle. I also use computer for work so when I am typing in code it does not bother me with noise and C++ compilation time is 2.5-3 times faster than my work Intel computer.



I was surprised your CPU package power is so high I thought the default was 142W.  Do you have PBO enabled?

I'm running water (including water cooled vrm) but just for comparison...

On water my 3950x will typically bounce between 38c to 48c at idle (vrm about 45c idle) and running CB20 it will bump up to CPU 75c, VRM 72c (80c/80c after multiple runs, pegging PPT, TDC, and EDC to 100% default values) My my case intake temp is 29c.  I can peak cold start out CB20 score of about 9400's.   Running prime 95 will have 65c to 70c temps with only EDC pegged at 100%.

I had been looking into Power Reporting Deviation after watching GN video (







) and I did some investigation on my motherboard options since I was getting a lower than 95% PRD when running CB20 (I think was around 70%).  I don't recall what the option was called off hand but my MB allowed configuration of PPT, TDC, and EDC based on CPU, Motherboard, Custom, Disabled.  Also PBO had options to the effect of Disabled, Basic, and Enhanced.  I set both to disabled in BIOS and got some increase in PRD up to 85%, better temps and now kept my CPU Package Power (SMU) at 142W default.  (Ryzen Master now reports PPT 98% in CB20)


----------



## Leonoid007 (Jul 2, 2020)

Yes I have PBO enabled.

Prime95 has many options. 2 first options will heat cpu the most and in my opinion it's too much stress on CPU which will not happen in real usage.
Also my system uses EDC bug to disable throttling on that parameter which gives a bit more performance but also drives temps and watts very high.

CPU going at 211WT uses twice more power than TDP ... Ouch...

I reset everything to default but DOCP profile enabled. And CB20 gives me about 9000. Temps are much better and I hit TDC and EDC limits in CB20 (95A and 140A).
So without PBO I have about 6% less score but much better temps and low noise from computer. 




A Computer Guy said:


> I was surprised your CPU package power is so high I thought the default was 142W.  Do you have PBO enabled?
> 
> I'm running water (including water cooled vrm) but just for comparison...
> 
> ...


----------



## A Computer Guy (Jul 2, 2020)

Leonoid007 said:


> Prime95 has many options. 2 first options will heat cpu the most and in my opinion it's too much stress on CPU which will not happen in real usage.
> Also my system uses EDC bug to disable throttling on that parameter which gives a bit more performance but also drives temps and watts very high.
> 
> CPU going at 211WT uses twice more power than TDP ... Ouch...



Interestingly I was expecting Prime95 to give me higher temps.  I could have sworn I got much higher temps when testing weeks ago but I didn't get anywhere near that today for some reason.


----------



## $ReaPeR$ (Jul 2, 2020)

its similar to this. 



Leonoid007 said:


> I don't know which sensor is VRM temps, here is the screenshot from hwinfo
> 
> View attachment 160889





its similar to this.


----------



## Leonoid007 (Jul 3, 2020)

Looks like my MB does not report VRM temps... It has 12+2 Dr.Mos.. I guess this is quite good for power needed for 3950x  and should not be a problem.



$ReaPeR$ said:


> its similar to this.
> 
> 
> View attachment 160916
> its similar to this.



I think temp9 is the closest to VRM temps with

37 30 39 38

Does it make sense?





$ReaPeR$ said:


> its similar to this.
> 
> 
> View attachment 160916
> its similar to this.


----------



## thesmokingman (Jul 3, 2020)

Leonoid007 said:


> Looks like my MB does not report VRM temps... It has 12+2 Dr.Mos.. I guess this is quite good for power needed for 3950x  and should not be a problem.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It doesn't have vrm temp sensors at all.


----------



## $ReaPeR$ (Jul 3, 2020)

Leonoid007 said:


> Looks like my MB does not report VRM temps... It has 12+2 Dr.Mos.. I guess this is quite good for power needed for 3950x  and should not be a problem.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


what @thesmokingman said.


----------



## Leonoid007 (Jul 3, 2020)

Is there any concern with vrm temps? 
12+2 Dr.Mos drivers will give at least 350Amps - enough to fry CPU 





$ReaPeR$ said:


> what @thesmokingman said.


----------



## $ReaPeR$ (Jul 3, 2020)

Leonoid007 said:


> Is there any concern with vrm temps?
> 12+2 Dr.Mos drivers will give at least 350Amps - enough to fry CPU


not really in your case, its just nice to have that info.


----------



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

lexluthermiester said:


> That voltage is WAY too high! For first gen Ryzen 1.35 to 1.4 was common, but these new gen Ryzen CPU's should only be at 1.2 or 1.25.
> 
> See this and start at 3:32;
> 
> ...


Great great video !
I just assembled my Ryzen 3900X with an Asus ROG STrix B550-F and I was wondering why idle temperatures were so high (about 50°).
I noticed CPU Core Voltage was set at 1.440 V by default in the BIOS 

Since I’m not an expert of AMD CPUs (my last was an Athlon 64) I wasn’t sure about the value.
After seeing the video I set an offset of -0.125 V and idle temperature is 41° !!!
Much better.
During Cinebench R20 previously I was reaching 1.48 V and 85°, with a good cooler like a Dark Rock 4, now it tops at 1.37 V and 76°.
Maybe I could try even a bigger offset...


----------



## lexluthermiester (Aug 9, 2020)

Max(IT) said:


> After seeing the video I set an offset of -0.125 V





Max(IT) said:


> Maybe I could try even a bigger offset...


I'm betting you can get away with -0.25 or even -0.35 and still stay stable.


----------



## Max(IT) (Aug 9, 2020)

lexluthermiester said:


> I'm betting you can get away with -0.25 or even -0.35 and still stay stable.


Most probably but what about Turbo speed ?
dont you think it could be reduced if I lower the voltage ?


----------



## lexluthermiester (Aug 9, 2020)

Max(IT) said:


> Most probably but what about Turbo speed ?
> dont you think it could be reduced if I lower the voltage ?


The stock turbo speeds should not be affected.


----------



## Max(IT) (Aug 9, 2020)

lexluthermiester said:


> The stock turbo speeds should not be affected.



Are you sure ?
I should do some tests...
Right now I found a good compromise (considering a Tamb of about 28°C) using PBO in Auto setting and an offset of -0.125 V

Core voltage is in the 1.1 / 1.2 V range while browsing and under load it doesnt go above 1.4 V (staying around 1.3 most of the time).
Temperatures are at least 5° C lower than in stock settings.


----------



## Leonoid007 (Aug 9, 2020)

My pbo boost speed is 4.725Ghz on one best core  at stock voltage (auto) and 4.7 second best core. If I do -0.2 I think the turbo speed goes to something like 4.65Ghz. CPU is 3950x which has 4.7Ghz advertised boost speed. So voltage does affect turbo speed.


----------



## Max(IT) (Aug 9, 2020)

Leonoid007 said:


> My pbo boost speed is 4.725Ghz on one best core  at stock voltage (auto) and 4.7 second best core. If I do -0.2 I think the turbo speed goes to something like 4.65Ghz. CPU is 3950x which has 4.7Ghz advertised boost speed. So voltage does affect turbo speed.


I was afraid of that.

BTW which voltage do you have at stock settings ? because the reason I undervolted is the insanely high 1.440 V my Asus board is giving at default.
I know that AMD said that boost up to 1.5V are normal, but... 



Leonoid007 said:


> My pbo boost speed is 4.725Ghz on one best core  at stock voltage (auto) and 4.7 second best core. If I do -0.2 I think the turbo speed goes to something like 4.65Ghz. CPU is 3950x which has 4.7Ghz advertised boost speed. So voltage does affect turbo speed.


Ok now I am officially confused  

i just did a test with -0.150 V and my 3900X seems to boost HIGHER than previously 

During Cinebench R20 the boost speed was 4/4.1 GHz now it is a solid 4.2/4.3 GHz, which is fine for an all thread load I think. The results is slightly better (100 points).
I tried also CPU Z to stress 1 Thread and the boost was 4.5/4.6 GHz, which is the rated for my CPU .

So basically the undervolt is doing good to my system.
Why are Asus using those insane 1.440 V for Vcore ????


----------



## Leonoid007 (Aug 9, 2020)

You got luck with your chip I guess. I am running with offset -0.075v and the best one core boost is 4.575Ghz. If I do full auto than it's 4.725
Undervolting does not do good for my chip. But it helps with temps so  I am OK with that. NB I have 16 cores so it's harder for my chip to get cooloer ( I have 85C under load ) and 41 idle (room temp 25C)


For the high voltage - you can ignore it. MB will limit it under load to safe values and high voltage helps with boost clock, I see it under 1.25v under CB20

Update: just retested and confirm auto voltage gives me best performance: all core freq: 4.125 in CB20 with two best cores boosting at 4.75 and 4.725




Max(IT) said:


> I was afraid of that.
> 
> BTW which voltage do you have at stock settings ? because the reason I undervolted is the insanely high 1.440 V my Asus board is giving at default.
> I know that AMD said that boost up to 1.5V are normal, but...
> ...


----------



## puma99dk| (Aug 9, 2020)

Lol my MSI B450 Gaming Pro Carbon AC had 1.45V as default for my Ryzen 9 3900X I think MSI needs to look at this even loading default didn't get this down.

At Auto the CPU was getting about 1.45V in bios so I lowered the voltage to 1.30V (CPU-Z 1.92.0 x64 shows 1.304V) and just booting up the temps went down with 10C.

At the moment my AIO is running 2xFractal Design Dynamic X2 GP-12 that came with the cooler but i manually set 75% speed at all times even in gaming and the noise ain't bad.


----------



## Leonoid007 (Aug 9, 2020)

Can you try to set PBO Max settings and report temps and freqs and voltages?

I can get my CPU much cooler without PBO and much lower voltages, but at the performance loose about 10%. FYI my CB20 score ~9400




puma99dk| said:


> Lol my MSI B450 Gaming Pro Carbon AC had 1.45V as default for my Ryzen 9 3900X I think MSI needs to look at this even loading default didn't get this down.
> 
> At Auto the CPU was getting about 1.45V in bios so I lowered the voltage to 1.30V (CPU-Z 1.92.0 x64 shows 1.304V) and just booting up the temps went down with 10C.
> 
> At the moment my AIO is running 2xFractal Design Dynamic X2 GP-12 that came with the cooler but i manually set 75% speed at all times even in gaming and the noise ain't bad.


----------



## Max(IT) (Aug 10, 2020)

puma99dk| said:


> Lol my MSI B450 Gaming Pro Carbon AC had 1.45V as default for my Ryzen 9 3900X I think MSI needs to look at this even loading default didn't get this down.
> 
> At Auto the CPU was getting about 1.45V in bios so I lowered the voltage to 1.30V (CPU-Z 1.92.0 x64 shows 1.304V) and just booting up the temps went down with 10C.
> 
> At the moment my AIO is running 2xFractal Design Dynamic X2 GP-12 that came with the cooler but i manually set 75% speed at all times even in gaming and the noise ain't bad.


And what about boost clocks with lowered voltage ?
because someone is suggesting a lower boost while I’m experiencing the opposite.
it is quite confusing.


----------



## Leonoid007 (Aug 10, 2020)

Max(IT) said:


> And what about boost clocks with lowered voltage ?
> because someone is suggesting a lower boost while I’m experiencing the opposite.
> it is quite confusing.



There are 2 reasons for lower boost with high voltage 

1) CPU power limit (most likely, if you did not do override default settings in BIOS)
2) Temperature throttling  (less likely if you have good cooling)


----------



## tabascosauz (Aug 10, 2020)

Max(IT) said:


> And what about boost clocks with lowered voltage ?
> because someone is suggesting a lower boost while I’m experiencing the opposite.
> it is quite confusing.



Within -0 to -0.075V, you may experience an increase in boost performance (on boards with aggressive default voltage settings) or no performance loss.

Going beyond -0.075V, you will begin to lose clocks and scores. The good thing about Ryzen is that when the firmware works properly, it will continue to scale downwards almost indefinitely in clocks/temps as you remove voltage. 

Generally, you will not scale past -0.075V without losing performance. Raising LLC at that point may mitigate it to a certain point, but high LLC and Ryzen boost don't mix. Whether that loss of performance shows up in the specific benchmarks you use is another question entirely.

For me, I can run at 100% default clocks and scores with a -0.075V undervolt, but only with Turbo LLC to compensate. -0.05V if I use High LLC. Even at that point, single core boost already takes a hit in benchmarks (though <5% difference). All-core is unaffected until I go to nearly -0.1V.


----------



## AsRock (Aug 10, 2020)

Max(IT) said:


> I was afraid of that.
> 
> BTW which voltage do you have at stock settings ? because the reason I undervolted is the insanely high 1.440 V my Asus board is giving at default.
> I know that AMD said that boost up to 1.5V are normal, but...
> ...



With CB i found that doing a all core is the best way to go by a good 400 points at least. On top of that all core at 4.2 1.27v is much cooler than leaving it boosting a few cores hitting no more than 79c with a ambiant of 34c.


----------



## Leonoid007 (Aug 10, 2020)

Mine boosts at 4.15 all cores in CB yet boosting 4.75 in one thread.... But yes, it runs hot! 



AsRock said:


> With CB i found that doing a all core is the best way to go by a good 400 points at least. On top of that all core at 4.2 1.27v is much cooler than leaving it boosting a few cores hitting no more than 79c with a ambiant of 34c.


----------



## moproblems99 (Aug 10, 2020)

Max(IT) said:


> Since I’m not an expert of AMD CPUs (my last was an Athlon 64) I wasn’t sure about the value.
> After seeing the video I set an offset of -0.125 V and idle temperature is 41° !!!
> Much better.
> During Cinebench R20 previously I was reaching 1.48 V and 85°, with a good cooler like a Dark Rock 4, now it tops at 1.37 V and 76°.
> Maybe I could try even a bigger offset...



Check your CB scores, you start losing score very fast when undervolting.  There is pretty much 0 chance you are not losing performance when undervolting over .100v.



Max(IT) said:


> And what about boost clocks with lowered voltage ?
> because someone is suggesting a lower boost while I’m experiencing the opposite.
> it is quite confusing.



Most will lose performance when lowering voltage.  When using PBO, I got the most performance benefit by limiting EDT and lowering voltage via vdroop by changing LLC.

I plan on doing more testing but you know, life happens.


----------



## Max(IT) (Aug 10, 2020)

tabascosauz said:


> Within -0 to -0.075V, you may experience an increase in boost performance (on boards with aggressive default voltage settings) or no performance loss.
> 
> Going beyond -0.075V, you will begin to lose clocks and scores. The good thing about Ryzen is that when the firmware works properly, it will continue to scale downwards almost indefinitely in clocks/temps as you remove voltage.
> 
> ...


In my case CB 20 results are better with -0.1 V than at default.
The difference is not huge (around 100 points) but it is consistent.
I’m using -0.1 V offset and LCC Level 4 (there are 5 levels on Asus’s motherboards).
How you check you single thread performance and Turbo boost ? CB20 single ?

And the most important question: what was you Vcore at default setting ? because I have 1.440 V at default, and that seems strange to me.
Maybe your is lower, so you need less undervolt



moproblems99 said:


> Check your CB scores, you start losing score very fast when undervolting.  There is pretty much 0 chance you are not losing performance when undervolting over .100v.



well my cpu beg to differ 
I’ve done extensive testing in CB20 and my CPU are obtaining better results with -0.125/0.100 than at default.
The difference is about 100 points



> Most will lose performance when lowering voltage.  When using PBO, I got the most performance benefit by limiting EDT and lowering voltage via vdroop by changing LLC.
> 
> I plan on doing more testing but you know, life happens.


this point is not clear to me...
“Lowering voltage” changing LCC ? As far as I know using high LCC you are avoiding a Vcore drop... Are you using a low LCC setting on purpose ?
Do you care to explain better, please ?

BTW the most important question also for you: what is your default BIOS Vcore at stock ? 
Because the main point is my Asus board setting a 1.440 V as default, which is the reason while I was trying to undervolt since the beginning. Maybe your motherboard si using a more reasonable 1.35-1.38 V and in that case your CPU doesn’t need undervolt at all.

Thank you


----------



## tabascosauz (Aug 10, 2020)

Max(IT) said:


> In my case CB 20 results are better with -0.1 V than at default.
> The difference is not huge (around 100 points) but it is consistent.
> I’m using -0.1 V offset and LCC Level 4 (there are 5 levels on Asus’s motherboards).
> How you check you single thread performance and Turbo boost ? CB20 single ?
> ...



The BIOS Auto "Vcore" numbers literally means nothing. On the default "Auto" setting, the chip itself has complete control over how it boosts, how much it boosts, how it will respond to temperatures, how much voltage it needs at any point and how much voltage it will draw at any point. Seeing "1.440V" in the little black box to the left of the Auto field for Vcore is about as useful as telling us that your computer is powered on.

Open up Prime95 and run Small FFTs with AVX disabled, and keep HWInfo open to see what Vcore is *during the test *under the CPU Core Voltage SVI2 TFN setting. Or you can do the same while Cinebench is running. The Min and Max values when you're just sitting on desktop are completely useless.

I know for a fact that the B550 firmwares for Asus prior to BIOS 0608 were wack as fuck. You should be on 0608, 0805/0803 or later, even newer BIOS just released a couple days ago.

You see Vcore jump up into the 1.4-1.5V range at low loads/idle because that's what Ryzen calls for to sustain high single core clock speeds so as to meet the speeds on the box, and for AMD to avoid a class action lawsuit. When you offset -0.1V to Vcore and bring the perceived idle Vcore down to 1.3V, it will not be able to sustain high single core boosts, even if you perceive the system as being x degrees cooler. Depending on your settings, multi core may be fully unaffected, but the single core loss due to Vcore offset is plain to see in any single threaded test.

For single thread, run CPU-Z if you don't have time, and CB R20 single core if you do have time.


----------



## Max(IT) (Aug 10, 2020)

tabascosauz said:


> The BIOS Auto "Vcore" numbers literally means nothing. On the default "Auto" setting, the chip itself has complete control over how it boosts, how much it boosts, how it will respond to temperatures, how much voltage it needs at any point and how much voltage it will draw at any point. Seeing "1.440V" in the little black box to the left of the Auto field for Vcore is about as useful as telling us that your computer is powered on.
> 
> Open up Prime95 and run Small FFTs with AVX disabled, and keep HWInfo open to see what Vcore is *during the test *under the CPU Core Voltage SVI2 TFN setting. Or you can do the same while Cinebench is running. The Min and Max values when you're just sitting on desktop are completely useless.
> 
> ...


first thing first: thank you for your reply.
i understand your point about reported Vcore but ... that’s still the applied Vcore in the bios, and I can’t understand why such an high value.
and it has REAL impact on “idle” temperature in Windows : with default settings is about 49° (is quite hot here now) but When undervolting it is about 42°.
not a big deal, but just to let you know.

I‘m using the latest BIOS released a few days ago.

now I will focus on single core benchmarks to let you know but yesterday i did A LOT of CB20 tests and I can say for sure than I obtained slightly better results with a 0.1 V undervolt (7200 vs 7100). Consistently.


----------



## puma99dk| (Aug 10, 2020)

My all core is around 4-4.1GHz but I can see I might need to do some tweaks but I am not that familiar with AMD/MSI's OC menu so I have to read and watch some videos if there are some avaliable for this board.


----------



## Max(IT) (Aug 10, 2020)

puma99dk| said:


> My all core is around 4-4.1GHz but I can see I might need to do some tweaks but I am not that familiar with AMD/MSI's OC menu so I have to read and watch some videos if there are some avaliable for this board.


4.1 GHz all cores (with ambient temperature of about 30°C) is what I’m getting in CB20.


----------



## northvisit (Aug 10, 2020)

Max(IT) said:


> first thing first: thank you for your reply.
> i understand your point about reported Vcore but ... that’s still the applied Vcore in the bios, and I can’t understand why such an high value.
> and it has REAL impact on “idle” temperature in Windows : with default settings is about 49° (is quite hot here now) but When undervolting it is about 42°.
> not a big deal, but just to let you know.
> ...


There is nothing to worry about Vcore 1,44V during bios. It could be even higher. In normal use (if not overclocked manual voltage) Zen2 adjust its voltages rapidly so it is not constantly so high. Constant vaues 1.35V might be actually problematic due silicon aging. Idle temps 49C is also not alarming so no worries either. Of course lower voltage and temperatures are better and I also use currently -offset 0,075V which drops temps, voltage and current consumption. I dont see perf drop until the offset is more than -0.100 but I like to have some margins with this. Zen2 with small 7nm process do cause higher temp peaks than generally used to, but it is still fine as default. I just want to see a bit lower values so small negative offset is applied. Just note that too high negative offset drop performance and occasionally also cause instability depending on chip&CPU combo. This performance drop is described as clock stretching (some overclocker has made clarifications about this behaviour). When CPU detects too low voltages it will delay clock periods and effective CPU speed drops even it is not read correctly in monitoring. User will see just lower perf in tests like CB20 .


----------



## puma99dk| (Aug 10, 2020)

northvisit said:


> There is nothing to worry about Vcore 1,44V during bios. It could be even higher. In normal use (if not overclocked manual voltage) Zen2 adjust its voltages rapidly so it is not constantly so high. Constant vaues 1.35V might be actually problematic due silicon aging. Idle temps 49C is also not alarming so no worries either. Of course lower voltage and temperatures are better and I also use currently -offset 0,075V which drops temps, voltage and current consumption. I dont see perf drop until the offset is more than -0.100 but I like to have some margins with this. Zen2 with small 7nm process do cause higher temp peaks than generally used to, but it is still fine as default. I just want to see a bit lower values so small negative offset is applied. Just note that too high negative offset drop performance and occasionally also cause instability depending on chip&CPU combo. This performance drop is described as clock stretching (some overclocker has made clarifications about this behaviour). When CPU detects too low voltages it will delay clock periods and effective CPU speed drops even it is not read correctly in monitoring. User will see just lower perf in tests like CB20 .



Normal voltage is 1.300V so 1.440V is too high for idle even my MSI board got that wrong and a lot of Asus even Maximus boards get this wrong.

@Leonoid007 I do not like AMD's PBO as a lot of other people complains about it's not really good optimized.

@Max(IT) the frequency kept jumping too much and even down to an all-core of 3.8GHz when everything was on auto and now I put in the Offset that it should have 1.300V with an offset of like +0.125V and I do all-core 3.99GHz (40x in Bios) in CB20 with no issues.


----------



## tabascosauz (Aug 10, 2020)

puma99dk| said:


> Normal voltage is 1.300V so 1.440V is too high for idle even my MSI board got that wrong and a lot of Asus even Maximus boards get this wrong.
> 
> @Leonoid007 I do not like AMD's PBO as a lot of other people complains about it's not really good optimized.
> 
> ...



It's been 13 months since Matisse released. That being so, I'd expect you to know that up to 1.5V at low loads is perfectly normal to see in HWInfo. Only Ryzen Master sees true idle voltage, and up to 1.5V is allowed at lower current (and often necessary for shittier chips) for single core boosting to the advertised Max Boost Speed. At this point, we're beating a dead horse that should have stayed dead a long time ago.

If you apply a negative offset that begins to reduce light load Vcore below what your chip _needs _for single threaded boost, you will start to see a loss of single thread performance. Whether that's worth it, is up to you. I'm not sure what it takes for @Max(IT) to listen to what other people have said and realize that this:





...means *Auto*. It does not mean 1.144V, 1.5V, a green unicorn, or whatever the hell happens to be displayed in that box to the left. It means *Auto*. The BIOS suffers from the same monitoring-software-syndrome that plagues every software that isn't Ryzen Master. It simply takes an instantaneous reading of Vcore when it starts, and that's what you see. Much more often than not, that "value" is over 1.4V. But in this case, the reviewer on the X570-TUF happened to see 1.144V. No Matisse chip is sustaining its advertised Max Boost single thread with 1.144 goddamn volts. Neither is a Matisse chip going to sustain all-core at 1.440V out of the box, because that's suicidal for silicon life.

When you set a Vcore *offset *, you are still affecting the Vcore at all times by that set amount regardless of what Vcore might be displaying at any given moment or load. Unless you _listen_ for once, open up HWInfo and watch your SVI2 TFN Vcore while you are running CB R20, this is going nowhere and no one will be any wiser as to what's actually going on with your stock settings and your -0.1V offset.


----------



## puma99dk| (Aug 10, 2020)

@tabascosauz my SVI2 TFN for SoC is 1.086V current and max is 1.106V in HWInfo64.

Higher then 1.300V I see about 99C under load in CB20 but as for now themps are more controlled at 4.1GHz all-core I see 83C max and Ryzen Master shows 1.3V max.

Where did you see the VDDCK CPU Voltage in Ryzen Master I cannot see that in version 2.3.0.1591 using Advanced View maybe I am just blind.


----------



## tabascosauz (Aug 10, 2020)

puma99dk| said:


> @tabascosauz my SVI2 TFN for SoC is 1.086V current and max is 1.106V in HWInfo64.
> 
> Higher then 1.300V I see about 99C under load in CB20 but as for now themps are more controlled at 4.1GHz all-core I see 83C max and Ryzen Master shows 1.3V max.
> 
> Where did you see the VDDCK CPU Voltage in Ryzen Master I cannot see that in version 2.3.0.1591 using Advanced View maybe I am just blind.



Vcore is Vcore. VSOC is VSOC. Both are reported accurately over SVI2 TFN, and will show up in HWInfo. If you run 1.3V through your SOC you can kiss your I/O die goodbye.

If you don't even have an Asus board, isn't it kinda a given that you won't be finding VDDCR CPU Voltage? It's just the setting for Vcore.

Anyways, all that needs to be said has been said a number of times. Up to OP to decide whether he wants to figure things out or continue down this road of "Vcore is set to 1.440V". Which wouldn't be all that surprising if this was an early B550 BIOS we're talking about, as I've mentioned, but OP still hasn't provided info as to what BIOS he's on, so I'm out.


----------



## puma99dk| (Aug 10, 2020)

@tabascosauz I been thinking about getting a B550 board but I rather wait for AMD's Big Navi/RDNA2 price and buy a better graphics then my Sapphire PULSE RX 5700 XT and a Oculus Rift S for Medal of Honor Above and Beyond.

Thank, but I am not going over 1.1V max but what is the default SoC voltage ain't that like V1.000? Because at the moment it's set to AUTO in the bios and with all-core at 4.1GHz at 1.3V Core the SoC voltage maxes out at 1.106V this is what HWInfo64 shows me doing AiDA64 stress test.


----------



## Max(IT) (Aug 10, 2020)

northvisit said:


> There is nothing to worry about Vcore 1,44V during bios. It could be even higher. In normal use (if not overclocked manual voltage) Zen2 adjust its voltages rapidly so it is not constantly so high. Constant vaues 1.35V might be actually problematic due silicon aging. Idle temps 49C is also not alarming so no worries either. Of course lower voltage and temperatures are better and I also use currently -offset 0,075V which drops temps, voltage and current consumption. I dont see perf drop until the offset is more than -0.100 but I like to have some margins with this. Zen2 with small 7nm process do cause higher temp peaks than generally used to, but it is still fine as default. I just want to see a bit lower values so small negative offset is applied. Just note that too high negative offset drop performance and occasionally also cause instability depending on chip&CPU combo. This performance drop is described as clock stretching (some overclocker has made clarifications about this behaviour). When CPU detects too low voltages it will delay clock periods and effective CPU speed drops even it is not read correctly in monitoring. User will see just lower perf in tests like CB20 .



yep, I'n not really "worried". I'm just under the impression the system isn't working the best way.
Using default settings Vcore values are quite often above the 1.35 V.
Is it dangerous ? I don't think so. But I can't see the point, since performance are affected.
I found that an offset of -0.100 V is the sweet spot for me. Maybe with colder temperatures I will try again to see if situation changes.



puma99dk| said:


> Normal voltage is 1.300V so 1.440V is too high for idle even my MSI board got that wrong and a lot of Asus even Maximus boards get this wrong.
> 
> @Leonoid007 I do not like AMD's PBO as a lot of other people complains about it's not really good optimized.
> 
> ...



Excuse me, you put a POSITIVE offset in ?   
You worte *+* 0.125V ...

Is that a typo ?



tabascosauz said:


> It's been 13 months since Matisse released. That being so, I'd expect you to know that up to 1.5V at low loads is perfectly normal to see in HWInfo. Only Ryzen Master sees true idle voltage, and up to 1.5V is allowed at lower current (and often necessary for shittier chips) for single core boosting to the advertised Max Boost Speed. At this point, we're beating a dead horse that should have stayed dead a long time ago.
> 
> If you apply a negative offset that begins to reduce light load Vcore below what your chip _needs _for single threaded boost, you will start to see a loss of single thread performance. Whether that's worth it, is up to you. I'm not sure what it takes for @Max(IT) to listen to what other people have said and realize that this:
> 
> ...



Dude, I can be no expert in Matisse yet, but I'm an IT engineers since 1993 so I surely know how to do tests.
I didn't read that value, but the value reported also in HWInfo64, and during CB20 I saw the SVI2 TFN went up to 1.5 V.
You should learn how to speak with others without being offensive.
I checked SVI2 TFN under load and with an offset is 1.30 V all cores and 1.35 V single core. Without the offset it goes above 1.4 V (thus the higher temperature).

Now I did an extensive testing and I can report what I discovered.

I tried 3 configurations:
A) stock AUTO voltage
B) offset -0.150 V
C) offset -0.100 V (my "daily driver" )

Cinebech results aren't really affected much by the 3 settings, BUT temperatures are.
In option A I had these results:



which is ok but idle temperature is around 49° and under load I reached 85° C.

Options B and C were quite similar in term of results, so I will just report C screenshot:





as you can see, basically NOTHING changed, BUT (a BIG BUT no pun intended  ) temperature at idle is about 43° and under load I had a spike at 79° but for most of the time it was around 70° C.
A huge difference.
As far as clock speeds well, the results where almost identical: in single core I had 4,541.8 MHz most of the time (with a spike at 4,616.7 MHz) and in multicore it stays around 4.1 GHz.

Now, I need advice (but not lecturing, please), but these are my results. And to be clear, I did AT LEAST 5 TESTS for each configuration, so be sure to report coherent results.

What do you think ?


----------



## puma99dk| (Aug 10, 2020)

Max(IT) said:


> Excuse me, you put a POSITIVE offset in ?
> You worte *+* 0.125V ...
> 
> Is that a typo ?
> ...



No typo   
The offset got 3 settings
AUTO
+
-

But yeah cloud change it shouldn't hurt


----------



## Max(IT) (Aug 10, 2020)

puma99dk| said:


> No typo
> The offset got 3 settings
> AUTO
> +
> ...


so your motherboard is actually giving less voltage than intended ?

You are in an opposite situation then


----------



## puma99dk| (Aug 10, 2020)

Max(IT) said:


> so your motherboard is actually giving less voltage than intended ?
> 
> You are in an opposite situation then



HWInfo64 shows max CPU 1.312V and minimum 1.294V when while I do a CB20 run it's 1.294-1.300V so that's not bad, but it's not here it's 31c and I cannot get it cooler in my apartment I hate the summers in a 2 room apartment.


----------



## Max(IT) (Aug 10, 2020)

puma99dk| said:


> HWInfo64 shows max CPU 1.312V and minimum 1.294V when while I do a CB20 run it's 1.294-1.300V so that's not bad, but it's not here it's 31c and I cannot get it cooler in my apartment I hate the summers in a 2 room apartment.


quite different than my situation, where with an offset of -0.100 V, HWInfo is reporting max CPU 1.437 V and minimum 1.044 V (which I think is fine).


----------



## puma99dk| (Aug 10, 2020)

Max(IT) said:


> quite different than my situation, where with an offset of -0.100 V, HWInfo is reporting max CPU 1.437 V and minimum 1.044 V (which I think is fine).



Under the Offset I have set the CPU Voltage to 1.300V this can be set to AUTO or a manual value. I trust AMD Ryzen Master it maxes at 1.3 volt.


----------



## Max(IT) (Aug 10, 2020)

puma99dk| said:


> Under the Offset I have set the CPU Voltage to 1.300V this can be set to AUTO or a manual value. I trust AMD Ryzen Master it maxes at 1.3 volt.


Understood. You set a manual voltage of 1.3 V and then added an offset of +0.125 V.
May I ask you why you did that way ?


----------



## puma99dk| (Aug 10, 2020)

Max(IT) said:


> Understood. You set a manual voltage of 1.3 V and then added an offset of +0.125 V.
> May I ask you why you did that way ?



I felt a bit of a stutter and slow opening applications running 4.0GHz all-core but now at 4.1GHz all-core with 1.3V and the +0.125V it runs as normal.


----------



## Max(IT) (Aug 10, 2020)

tabascosauz said:


> Anyways, all that needs to be said has been said a number of times. Up to OP to decide whether he wants to figure things out or continue down this road of "Vcore is set to 1.440V". Which wouldn't be all that surprising if this was an early B550 BIOS we're talking about, as I've mentioned, but OP still hasn't provided info as to what BIOS he's on, so I'm out.



If you just actually READ it is written several posts above your:



> I‘m using the latest BIOS released a few days ago


----------



## lexluthermiester (Aug 10, 2020)

tabascosauz said:


> The BIOS suffers from the same monitoring-software-syndrome that plagues every software that isn't Ryzen Master. It simply takes an instantaneous reading of Vcore when it starts, and that's what you see.


This is not true. HWinfo and Open Hardware Monitor both do real-time sensor polling. If you haven't seen either one, go take a look as they both are very useful.





						Open Hardware Monitor - Core temp, fan speed and voltages in a free software gadget
					






					openhardwaremonitor.org
				








						HWiNFO - Free System Information, Monitoring and Diagnostics
					

Free Hardware Analysis, Monitoring and Reporting. In-depth Hardware Information, Real-Time System Monitoring, Reporting & more




					www.hwinfo.com
				



Both are free to use.


----------



## Max(IT) (Aug 10, 2020)

lexluthermiester said:


> This is not true. HWinfo and Open Hardware Monitor both do real-time sensor polling. If you haven't seen either one, go take a look as they both are very useful.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


According to an AMD engineer on Reddit, CPU Z also reports real-time sensor polling regarding the Vcore.


----------



## tabascosauz (Aug 11, 2020)

lexluthermiester said:


> This is not true. HWinfo and Open Hardware Monitor both do real-time sensor polling. If you haven't seen either one, go take a look as they both are very useful.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That's not what I meant. To be fair, HWInfo is technically "real-time" compared to static BIOS readings as it is polling according to whatever interval is set, but not nearly with the polling resolution or ability to take average values like Ryzen Master, which will show you under Average Core Voltage what the CPU is effectively idling at. HWInfo will just tell you every 1-2 seconds that it's idling at 1.3-1.5V, and CPU-Z will _occasionally _show idle Vcore dip down to 0.2V. HWInfo's SVI2 TFN Vcore sensor then _becomes_ accurate under full load, because Vcore is constant in that scenario. 

I use Openhardwaremon all the time on Intel platforms, but along with HWmonitor it's not nearly as useful/accurate on Matisse compared to the wealth of sensors available to recent HWInfo versions.


----------



## Leonoid007 (Aug 11, 2020)

When use all cores manual overcklocking - does CPU looses idle state? Will it result in significantly more power consumption when idling?


----------



## Max(IT) (Aug 11, 2020)

tabascosauz said:


> That's not what I meant. To be fair, HWInfo is technically "real-time" compared to static BIOS readings as it is polling according to whatever interval is set, but not nearly with the polling resolution or ability to take average values like Ryzen Master, which will show you under Average Core Voltage what the CPU is effectively idling at. HWInfo will just tell you every 1-2 seconds that it's idling at 1.3-1.5V, and CPU-Z will _occasionally _show idle Vcore dip down to 0.2V. HWInfo's SVI2 TFN Vcore sensor then _becomes_ accurate under full load, because Vcore is constant in that scenario.
> 
> I use Openhardwaremon all the time on Intel platforms, but along with HWmonitor it's not nearly as useful/accurate on Matisse compared to the wealth of sensors available to recent HWInfo versions.


I don’t know which motherboard are you using but on mine bios readings aren’t static. They are real time.


----------



## tabascosauz (Aug 11, 2020)

Max(IT) said:


> I don’t know which motherboard are you using but on mine bios readings aren’t static. They are real time.



The exact same 0608/0805/1002 BIOSes that you're looking at, minus the red ROG colour scheme?  

Just because they change hardly means they're "real time". I don't know how many times I have to repeat myself. My BIOS only ever shows me 1.450 and 1.472 Vcore, both of which are horseshit because no software other than Ryzen Master shows the actual 0.2-0.3V low current idle that these CPUs sit at when they're idling along at 38C as they are in BIOS. We've already been over all this. If Auto is in the box next to Vcore, it tells you all you need to know.

You know you could, with the help of the search box, read into the wealth of information on TPU and elsewhere regarding how Ryzen behaves at idle, why monitoring programs think Matisse idles at "1.5V", how monitoring programs negatively affect that idle to varying degrees by constantly "waking" it from an idle state when they poll the CPU, and how the CPU automatically decides how to scale voltage with load.

As an aside, perhaps a more productive problem to be addressing, Be Quiet coolers aren't known to be the absolute best performing SKUs and the high core count chips do require at least high end air coolers to perform to their fullest. Even the Dark Rock Pro 4 which I have is consistently a step behind its D15 competitor, and the Dark Rock 4 is another step behind, and getting close to the edge of what I'd put on a 3900X. That's not to say that it'll struggle or overheat, far from it since you could run the 3900X with the Wraith Prism if you wanted, but Matisse's stock boosting is highly sensitive to temperatures approaching even 75C, and combined with high ambient temperatures can easily account for 50-100 points in Cinebench. I can crank my AC down 5C and gain 50 points without changing anything else.


----------



## Max(IT) (Aug 11, 2020)

tabascosauz said:


> The exact same 0608/0805/1002 BIOSes that you're looking at, minus the red ROG colour scheme?



I'm on BIOS 1002.



> Just because they change hardly means they're "real time". I don't know how many times I have to repeat myself. My BIOS only ever shows me 1.450 and 1.472 Vcore, both of which are horseshit because no software other than Ryzen Master shows the actual 0.2-0.3V low current idle that these CPUs sit at when they're idling along at 38C as they are in BIOS. We've already been over all this. If Auto is in the box next to Vcore, it tells you all you need to know.


I'll take your words for true.




> You know you could, with the help of the search box, read into the wealth of information on TPU and elsewhere regarding how Ryzen behaves at idle, why monitoring programs think Matisse idles at "1.5V", how monitoring programs negatively affect that idle to varying degrees by constantly "waking" it from an idle state when they poll the CPU, and how the CPU automatically decides how to scale voltage with load.



I don't know why you are making these assumptions   
I'm using CPU Z and/or HWInfo64 as monitoring programs (CPUZ for Voltage was indicated by an AMD engineer as a good application to see voltage and clock speed without affecting idle state) and those programs are indicating me that the CPU is staying around those voltages, with spikes at 1.5 V.
It is not only the idle state that worries me, it is also the voltage under load.
Maybe I'm overthinking it, but temperatures are surely high on default AUTO setting.



> As an aside, perhaps a more productive problem to be addressing, Be Quiet coolers aren't known to be the absolute best performing SKUs and the high core count chips do require at least high end air coolers to perform to their fullest. Even the Dark Rock Pro 4 which I have is consistently a step behind its D15 competitor, and the Dark Rock 4 is another step behind, and getting close to the edge of what I'd put on a 3900X. That's not to say that it'll struggle or overheat, far from it since you could run the 3900X with the Wraith Prism if you wanted, but Matisse's stock boosting is highly sensitive to temperatures approaching even 75C, and combined with high ambient temperatures can easily account for 50-100 points in Cinebench. I can crank my AC down 5C and gain 50 points without changing anything else.



Yep, that's a good point.
I was aware of that when I choose the Dark Rock 4, but reading a lot of reviews I was under the impression it still was a good choice as an air cooler. Maybe the extremely hot temperatures of these days are affecting boost performance, and surely I will test it again in one week, when the weather here in the Netherlands will return to "normality".
It could be that the undervolting that I'm using now (-0.075 V) won't be necessary in a colder weather because I'm operating in the range of 70/85º CPU temperature that, as you said, is affecting boost.


----------



## tabascosauz (Aug 11, 2020)

Max(IT) said:


> It is not only the idle state that worries me, it is also the voltage under load.
> 
> Yep, that's a good point.
> I was aware of that when I choose the Dark Rock 4, but reading a lot of reviews I was under the impression it still was a good choice as an air cooler. Maybe the extremely hot temperatures of these days are affecting boost performance, and surely I will test it again in one week, when the weather here in the Netherlands will return to "normality".
> It could be that the undervolting that I'm using now (-0.075 V) won't be necessary in a colder weather because I'm operating in the range of 70/85º CPU temperature that, as you said, is affecting boost.



85C when? At all-core load? That's a bit high, but not out of the realm of possibility for a cooler that lies somewhere in the middle between a 212 EVO and U12A in performance. Especially considering your room is 28C. Up to 75C, it can still be debatable whether your BIOS/firmware or CPU internal voltage limits are the factors holding you back, but past 80C you definitely lose speed on account of temperature.

It's not a bad cooler; it's just that Ryzen behaves differently in a thermal sense. Regardless of what people say about running 3900X on the Wraith Prism and 3950X on air coolers, can =! should, so if you want to get all the performance you paid for then water is the only way. A top-end air cooler can definitely get you very close on a 3900X, though.

As long as Vcore is somewhere in the 1.3-1.35V range under full load with default settings, there doesn't look to be anything out of the ordinary. 3900X really isn't a cool chip. If your case is as restrictive as it looks + you haven't added fans + your room is 28C = nothing looks too off.

Manually overclocking is always a surefire way to reduce idle temperatures and noise, but you should probably find out your chip's safe voltage before you start, which you can do through Prime95 Small FFTs with all AVX checkboxes disabled. At that point, it's completely up to the quality of your CPU the kinds of all-core speeds you can get out of that safe voltage or less.

Some have experience with overclocking in RM instead, some say that they can Manual OC set a max never-exceed Vcore in RM and have the system respect that while still otherwise boosting as normal. I haven't been able to replicate that "feature" with many different boards and firmware, so ymmv.


----------



## Max(IT) (Aug 11, 2020)

tabascosauz said:


> 85C when? At all-core load? That's a bit high, but not out of the realm of possibility for a cooler that lies somewhere in the middle between a 212 EVO and U12A in performance. Especially considering your room is 28C. Up to 75C, it can still be debatable whether your BIOS/firmware or CPU internal voltage limits are the factors holding you back, but past 80C you definitely lose speed.



85º is the maximum spike I saw, during a CB20 all cores at default AUTO voltage, but temperature was around 75º for the whole test. While gaming the CPU stays around 60/63º.



> It's not a bad cooler; it's just that Ryzen behaves differently in a thermal sense. Regardless of what people say about running 3900X on the Wraith Prism and 3950X on air coolers, can =! should, so if you want to get all the performance you paid for then water is the only way. A top-end air cooler can definitely get you very close on a 3900X, though.



According to my research the Dark Rock 4 is enough for a 3900X and much better than a 212 EVO! I had a 212 EVO on a i5-9600K and you cannot compare the twos. The be Quiet! is much bigger than the 212 Evo and it weights more than twice !

According to the tests I saw it is comparable to a U12A (especially at max fan speed)









> As long as Vcore is somewhere in the 1.3-1.35V range under full load with default settings, there doesn't look to be anything out of the ordinary. 3900X really isn't a cool chip. If your case is as restrictive as it looks + you haven't added fans + your room is 28C = nothing looks too off.



My case is ok (it was ok for an overclocked 9700K @ 5 GHz so it surely isn't an issue).
Surely unusual ambient temperatures are playing a role, but I will take a further look to Vcore under full load.

BTW my CB20 results seem to be fine (507 single and 7200 multicore are in line with every review I've read about 3900X) and the clock speeds seem to be fine too: during CB20 multicore I read 4/4.1 GHz and during CB20 single core most of the time is 4.4/4.5 GHz.
Does it sound good ? 



> Manually overclocking is always a surefire way to reduce idle temperatures and noise, but you should probably find out your chip's safe voltage before you start, which you can do through Prime95 Small FFTs with all AVX checkboxes disabled. At that point, it's completely up to the quality of your CPU the kinds of all-core speeds you can get out of that safe voltage or less.


I'm not planning to manual overclock the CPU.
I just want it to safely runs at default clock using PBO if possible.

Right now PBO is doing nothing, maybe due to the high ambient temperature.


----------



## tabascosauz (Aug 11, 2020)

Is that 507 score after the undervolt? 3900X chips should be at least in the 510s if not higher. My 3700X is a mediocre bin amongst its peers and does 509 easy at an effective clock of 4.325-4.35GHz on the working core. If it's with the undervolt, that's probably the loss of single thread perf coming into play.

See, the issue about cooler reviews is that every site comes up with different results. Not too much a fan of Tom's. Most reviews I've seen put the U12A competitive with or slightly better than my Dark Rock Pro 4, with a number of them putting it within striking distance of the D15. DR4 is most definitely not beating the DRP4 with 1 less heatpipe, less fin stack area, and one less (larger) fan.

The other issue is that the results you've provided are with a 5930X, a physically large soldered chip with a larger(?) die on a larger process with low thermal density. Same goes for the 9700K, both have "less" silicon than a 3900X. You will find that 1) Intel chips draw a lot of power but run cool for that power draw and are thermally more predictable than Ryzen and 2) on Ryzen the differences between coolers are shrunk considerably because of the issue of getting heat out of the tiny chiplets and into the heatsink in time.

Vcore will fluctuate slightly during a test as the initial high all core speeds gradually come down, but you will get a good idea of what you're pulling at load.


----------



## Max(IT) (Aug 11, 2020)

tabascosauz said:


> Is that 507 score after the undervolt? 3900X chips should be at least in the 510s if not higher. My 3700X is a mediocre bin amongst its peers and does 509 easy at an effective clock of 4.325-4.35GHz on the working core. If it's with the undervolt, that's probably the loss of single thread perf coming into play.



507 was after the undervolt, but even at AUTO voltage the result was about the same...
My 3900X in single core CB20 is keeping a slightly higher clock than yours at 4.419 GHz

Guru3D obtained 502:





OC3D around 500 points:





Extremetech 503 points:





Maybe it's not the best silicon but it seems to be just fine   

I will check if a lower ambient temperature would improve things.




> See, the issue about cooler reviews is that every site comes up with different results. Not too much a fan of Tom's. Most reviews I've seen put the U12A competitive with or slightly better than my Dark Rock Pro 4, with a number of them putting it within striking distance of the D15. DR4 is most definitely not beating the DRP4 with 1 less heatpipe, less fin stack area, and one less (larger) fan.



Noctua D15 surely is better, bu I wasn't looking for such an huge cooler.
I bought DR4 because of many reviews saying it is one of the best "mid-size" cooler.






Here it is quite close to the U-12A (single fan) at full speed.
Long story short, my cooler isn't the best (I knew that since the beginning  ) but it is not holding my CPU back, most probably.




> Vcore will fluctuate slightly during a test as the initial high all core speeds gradually come down, but you will get a good idea of what you're pulling at load.



I've noticed that.


----------



## tabascosauz (Aug 11, 2020)

Mine is a 3700X......if your 3900X can barely match mine in ST and sports a nearly 0.2GHz single core deficit at stock compared to what is advertised, then something's blatantly wrong with your BIOS settings or board itself. Matisse not meeting advertised box speeds was completely fixed about 8 months ago...

Clear CMOS and start fresh, see if anything changes. Make sure your chipset drivers are up to date from AMD's website.

Half of the reviews you linked are launch day reviews. Like I said, early AGESA prior to 1.0.0.3ABBA had serious boosting issues, leading to the whole commotion about "Ryzen not meeting advertised speeds". Today, all reviewers are standardized on 1.0.0.4B or v2 and there is, firmly, no way a 3900X scoring below 510 stock is "normal". Notice the results for all the Matisse CPUs:





As to your cooler, I have no doubt you would see higher all-core clocks under water, but it's not the culprit behind your single core clocks.


----------



## Max(IT) (Aug 11, 2020)

I'm a PITA I know but I did further testing 
I tried a CMOS reset and default settings (only DOCP enabled for XMP profile 3600 CL16).
Cinebench results were much lower: 6853 multi, 489 single.

I stand my position: the motherboard is giving too much voltage and it affects temperature (in my situation of cooler and ambient temperature).
I monitored Voltage and clock speed, and it was around 4.3 GHz single core and 3.9 GHz multi, while temp was hitting 82º (in multicore) before settling down at 80º. Voltage initially was 1.27 V (single) and 1.38 V (multi).

With a -0.075 V undervolt the situation was much better.
Cinebench results: 7188 multi, 507 single (consistent).

Clock speed was 4.5 GHz single (this alone is very important IMHO. I'm almost reaching the max rated freq, which indicates the CPU is working within limits) and 4.1 GHz multi (almost 200 MHz more than default voltage). Temperature never exceeded 80º, settling down at 78º (multicore).
I observed the voltage and it was 1.25 (single) and 1.35 V (multi).

As far as I can see temperature is the culprit here.
Without undervolting I'm hitting temperature limits that starts throttling back voltage and thus frequency in order to keep the CPU below 80º.
With undervolting I'm giving my CPU a little thermal headroom to reach slightly higher clock speeds (about 100/150 MHz).

I'm curious about results with a 8/10º lower ambient temperature.
A better air cooler (Noctua D15) or a custom loop liquid cooler could improve the situation, for sure, but considering the high cost involved and the very little improvement I'm not planning to do that 



tabascosauz said:


> Mine is a 3700X......if your 3900X can barely match mine in ST and sports a nearly 0.2GHz single core deficit at stock compared to what is advertised, then something's blatantly wrong with your BIOS settings or board itself. Matisse not meeting advertised box speeds was completely fixed about 8 months ago...
> 
> Clear CMOS and start fresh, see if anything changes. Make sure your chipset drivers are up to date from AMD's website.
> 
> ...



do you want me to say YOU ARE RIGHT ? 


The Techpowerup review you reported above is FROM 1 JULY 2019 
Exactly like the others.

BTW I will help you: I found a more recent review , one from July 2020 :






The result is above 510, ok, but we are speaking about a "whole" *11 points, or 2% difference.*
I wouldn't speak about "something's blatantly wrong" , especially because they are using a Gigabyte X570 Aorus Master motherboard with 8GB G.Skill FlareX CL14 modules for a 32GB capacity, so the 11 points difference could just be caused by a better system (the cooler was not specified but they usually are using Corsair Hydro H115i RGB Platinum 280mm liquid cooler).

BTW temperature are lower this evening (due to a thunderstorm ) and take a look:



the CPU reached the rated 4.6 GHz during the test



this with a -0.075 V of undervolt.
It was an ambient temperature related "issue".

Tamb is 24º now. It will further improve.


Just to add more data, this review with AGESA 1.0.0.4 has a whole 4 points difference from my CPU in single (and a lower result in multi !). Are you still speaking about "something blatantly wrong" in my setup ? 






I just think something is blatantly wrong in the Dutch weather this summer


----------



## tabascosauz (Aug 11, 2020)

Check yourself before you start going off the rails. That graph is from the 3900XT review, with up-to-date results for the older Matisse parts. XT SKUs came out a month ago.

I don't know what your major malfunction is, but I'm here trying to help you figure out why your 3900X is performing on default settings like a 3900 MT and 2700X ST. The vast majority of users don't need to set a -0.075V offset to achieve expected performance on up to date firmware. No need to throw    at me for offering suggestions to help you fix your shit.

Was going to suggest that you physically bridge the CMOS jumper instead of using BIOS to load defaults because I've personally had weird behaviour on old boards that can only be fixed that way, and that CB doesn't care about memory speed, but it looks like you're pretty confident in yourself over the conclusions that others have come to over a year of ownership. Good day to you.


----------



## Max(IT) (Aug 11, 2020)

tabascosauz said:


> Check yourself before you start going off the rails. That graph is from the 3900XT review, with up-to-date results for the older Matisse parts. XT SKUs came out a month ago.



You were right about the graph, my bad, but the result changed 6 points from the initial review to the final results of one months ago, so the point stands: 510 vs 526 is a negligible difference speaking about two different systems with two different motherboards and different RAM.



> I don't know what your major malfunction is, but I'm here trying to help you figure out why your 3900X is performing on default settings like a 3900 MT and 2700X ST. The vast majority of users don't need to set a -0.075V offset to achieve expected performance on up to date firmware. No need to throw    at me for offering suggestions to help you fix your shit.
> 
> Was going to suggest that you physically bridge the CMOS jumper instead of using BIOS to load defaults because I've personally had weird behaviour on old boards that can only be fixed that way, and that CB doesn't care about memory speed, but it looks like you're pretty confident in yourself over the conclusions that others have come to over a year of ownership. Good day to you.


there are a LOT of review of 3900X achieving worst results than mine, and you completely ignore the results I posted above.
quite ridiculous your comment about "2700X single core results". You are just trying to downplay other people. You started with the cooler, then the case ....
510 is a ST results perfectly in line with 3900X CPU.
Not a new record, for sure, but it was quite expected with a Dark Rock 4 single fan cooler.
And the funny part is you wrote "everything below 510 is not normal", and when I reached 510 you completely ignored that and my CPU are offering "2700X ST results"... 

And the link above about AGESA 1.0.0.4 results in line with mine ? Ignored again...

And, AGAIN, you didn't even read my post:



> I tried a CMOS reset and default settings



English might not be my first language, but I think is quite clear that I bridged the jumper for a CMOS reset.

You are not giving ANY suggestion. Since the beginning you are just standing your position that you are right and everyone else is wrong.

And, by the way, this is a well known website with updated results for cinebench R20 scores:

https://www.cgdirector.com/cinebench-r20-scores-updated-results/

I will help you: *Ryzen 9 3900X results are 511 ST - 7100 MT*

Or this, even lower:

https://nanoreview.net/en/cpu-list/cinebench-r20-scores


So much for a "2700X single core results" ...


----------



## moproblems99 (Aug 11, 2020)

tabascosauz said:


> you could run the 3900X with the Wraith Prism if you wanted



I can assure anyone who has questions, you don't want to.


----------



## Dos101 (Aug 11, 2020)

Been following this thread since I have been struggling with my 3900XT, I can't seem to hit anywhere close to the CB R20 scores that the 3900XT and 3900X are getting in reviews. With everything stock in the BIOS except XMP enabled, and Ryzen High Performance power plan set,  I can get 6963 in CB R20 multi-core, but with temps hovering around 80c (my ambient temp is ~22c). Single core score is 485 and never hits 4.7Ghz on any core, highest I see it go is 4.5Ghz. Setting PBO from auto to enabled drops my multi-core score to 6866 but with temps only around 73c, but single core score bumps up to 496 and I do actually hit 4.7Ghz on one of the cores. I have played around with negative offsets but I end up with better temps, slightly lower multi core score, and much lower single core scores. These results have been consistent through the last 3 BIOS revisions on my X570 Aorus Master.

Is there a gold standard of what BIOS settings should be used with 3900X/3900XT?


----------



## Max(IT) (Aug 12, 2020)

Dos101 said:


> Been following this thread since I have been struggling with my 3900XT, I can't seem to hit anywhere close to the CB R20 scores that the 3900XT and 3900X are getting in reviews. With everything stock in the BIOS except XMP enabled, and Ryzen High Performance power plan set,  I can get 6963 in CB R20 multi-core, but with temps hovering around 80c (my ambient temp is ~22c). Single core score is 485 and never hits 4.7Ghz on any core, highest I see it go is 4.5Ghz. Setting PBO from auto to enabled drops my multi-core score to 6866 but with temps only around 73c, but single core score bumps up to 496 and I do actually hit 4.7Ghz on one of the cores. I have played around with negative offsets but I end up with better temps, slightly lower multi core score, and much lower single core scores. These results have been consistent through the last 3 BIOS revisions on my X570 Aorus Master.
> 
> Is there a gold standard of what BIOS settings should be used with 3900X/3900XT?


did you try 1usmus Power Plan ?
I don't know how much it improves performance because I'm using it since the beginning, but everyone told me to use it.
From my multiple tests I can say that undervolt can help if you are somehow temperature limited (approaching 80º the CPU starts dropping voltage and clock speed) but I found the "sweet spot" between -0.075 and -0.0625 V.
More and you are slightly affecting single core performance, less and there is no visible results.
In my case PBO isn't helping at all.


----------



## Dos101 (Aug 12, 2020)

Max(IT) said:


> did you try 1usmus Power Plan ?
> I don't know how much it improves performance because I'm using it since the beginning, but everyone told me to use it.
> From my multiple tests I can say that undervolt can help if you are somehow temperature limited (approaching 80º the CPU starts dropping voltage and clock speed) but I found the "sweet spot" between -0.075 and -0.0625 V.
> More and you are slightly affecting single core performance, less and there is no visible results.
> In my case PBO isn't helping at all.



I have tried that power plan and I got similar results to that of using stock settings in the BIOS. My biggest issue is that when I make a change that gets me better temeperatures it always comes at the cost of single core performance.


----------



## Max(IT) (Aug 12, 2020)

Dos101 said:


> I have tried that power plan and I got similar results to that of using stock settings in the BIOS. My biggest issue is that when I make a change that gets me better temeperatures it always comes at the cost of single core performance.


485 single core definitely is too low for a 3900XT (it is a little low even for a 3900X)


----------



## puma99dk| (Aug 12, 2020)

Going to 4.2GHz all-core I went up 280 pts in CB20 at the same voltage.




and I limit my SOC voltage to show max 1.050V in bios and HWInfo64 reports 1.012-1.031V.


----------



## Max(IT) (Aug 12, 2020)

puma99dk| said:


> Going to 4.2GHz all-core I went up 280 pts in CB20 at the same voltage.
> 
> View attachment 165310
> 
> and I limit my SOC voltage to show max 1.050V in bios and HWInfo64 reports 1.012-1.031V.


interesting results.
You used a fixed multiplier 42X and fixed voltage of 1.3 V ?

What about single core performance in that configuration ?


----------



## puma99dk| (Aug 12, 2020)

458pts and yes It should be higher, but I am only doing 4.2GHz so maybe I should try to see if I can set a single core boost even I rarely use it.



I have to get going on my 4km power walk now so I am not gonna do more any more tweaks for now.


----------



## AsRock (Aug 12, 2020)

I use all core 4.2 @ 1.275v no offset, max cpu temp 73c with a ambient of 32c. If  let it run without the voltage limit and let the core's run as high as they can go i drop too about 7k and single goes up about the 500's.

i am happy with all core performance which is why i never really bothered messing any more, i do not use any single core applications that make it matter,  how ever i might try finding the max to each core just to see how that turns out.

All so if you want higher scores maybe consider shutting down all applications that are not needed.


----------



## Max(IT) (Aug 12, 2020)

AsRock said:


> I use all core 4.2 @ 1.275v no offset, max cpu temp 73c with a ambient of 32c. If  let it run without the voltage limit and let the core's run as high as they can go i drop too about 7k and single goes up about the 500's.
> 
> i am happy with all core performance which is why i never really bothered messing any more, i do not use any single core applications that make it matter,  how ever i might try finding the max to each core just to see how that turns out.
> 
> All so if you want higher scores maybe consider shutting down all applications that are not needed.


 
Did you try gaming with that settings compared to stock ?
I mean, gaming is not exactly a single core application but not even a multi core application (it depends on the game engine itself).
During gaming most of the time my CPU stay around 4.2 GHz, often with every thread populated (that depends on the game), but sometimes a few cores go higher at 4.4 GHz.

I'm curious about performance in a fixed clock situation like that.


----------



## AsRock (Aug 12, 2020)

Stock adds about 10c with no gaming difference as i can tell, but i am not all that fussy hitting 50-60fps i am happy haha.  CPU never got over 55c while playing RDR2(100's of hours) but i am only using a AMD 390X.

I think it's falling a sleep haha, with the 3770k i was using the usage was was around 50-75%.


----------



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

Just to update who wrote about my "2700X ST performance", today with a slightly lower ambient temperature:



with a -0.075 V undervolt.


----------



## vinny_tec (Aug 14, 2020)

I got my 3900x  running on all core at 4.4Ghz 1.425v offset on a MSI X570 tomahawk Motherboard and some Patriot viper 3733 locked 1:1 3600mhz,  running on a Cooled by triple open loop triple 120mm radiator and Phantek c350a waterblock.   Stable on Prime 95 and occt stress test.  

Was able to get 4.5 ghz on all core with 1.45v however this custom cooling setup might be the waterblock or my D5 pump not able to keep up with the heat after 15 mins of stress test hits 95C +

Highest multi core cinebench score I got was 7919.   all cores on full load 55C to 75C  and idle around 40C.   My ram timings and settings are below in the screenshot.


----------



## Max(IT) (Aug 14, 2020)

vinny_tec said:


> I got my 3900x  running on all core at 4.4Ghz 1.425v offset on a MSI X570 tomahawk Motherboard and some Patriot viper 3733 locked 1:1 3600mhz,  running on a Cooled by triple open loop triple 120mm radiator and Phantek c350a waterblock.   Stable on Prime 95 and occt stress test.
> 
> Was able to get 4.5 ghz on all core with 1.45v however this custom cooling setup might be the waterblock or my D5 pump not able to keep up with the heat after 15 mins of stress test hits 95C +
> 
> Highest multi core cinebench score I got was 7919.   all cores on full load 55C to 75C  and idle around 40C.   My ram timings and settings are below in the screenshot.



Great results.
I wasn't looking for any record  
I just want to fine tune my stock CPU, and I think I did it.

I'm not sure about playing around with LLC and how it could improve/degrade things 

On my Intel setup I used it and it was useful but I don't know about AMD.


----------



## vinny_tec (Aug 14, 2020)

Max(IT) said:


> Great results.
> I wasn't looking for any record
> I just want to fine tune my stock CPU, and I think I did it.
> 
> ...



Stock??!! lol gotta live on the edge a little bit 

I have my LLC on auto and haven't experimented much with that.   Had it on level 3 and it just made my machine run slower.

I actually never tried running stock I went from box to case to windows and straight to overclock.


----------



## Leonoid007 (Aug 15, 2020)

I found PBO for my 3950x is not working very well. I went with manual OC and lost about 3% single core performance while got at least 8% multi thread gain. 
Temps are the same as with PBO.

I have 4.3Ghz CCD0 and 4.2Ghz CCD1 vcore 1.28125v and LLC 5 for cpu and LLC4 soc. Under load SVI2 in hw shows 1.262v  and 1.281 max (LLC5 is not enough?)

Max temp on CCD1 89.3 but mostly around 86 under load CCD0 temp is 86 max with normally 83 under load. Idles around 40.

It hits EDC limit of 190Amp and max CPU power 206wt (ouch!)

I have air cooler Noctua NH-U12A

What do you guys think? I feel I can push it a bit. But I actually think this is good result!


----------



## puma99dk| (Aug 15, 2020)

Leonoid007 said:


> I found PBO for my 3950x is not working very well. I went with manual OC and lost about 3% single core performance while got at least 8% multi thread gain.
> Temps are the same as with PBO.
> 
> I have 4.3Ghz CCD0 and 4.2Ghz CCD1 vcore 1.28125v and LLC 5 for cpu and LLC4 soc. Under load SVI2 in hw shows 1.262v  and 1.281 max (LLC5 is not enough?)
> ...



This intimidates me more and more to buy a Noctua air cooler to replace my Fractal Design Celsius S24 but how is noise with your current setup @Leonoid007 ???


----------



## Leonoid007 (Aug 15, 2020)

The noise is OK. When there is no load it's very silent. Under load it might be a bit louder than would be water cooling (I tried water cooling and the temps with basic 240mm and pump noise - all the time, when under load it's also noisy).  I did not see much difference, what is different I now have full case of fans which would not be possible with AIO. I have mid tower so limited to 6 fans max 



puma99dk| said:


> This intimidates me more and more to buy a Noctua air cooler to replace my Fractal Design Celsius S24 but how is noise with your current setup @Leonoid007 ???


----------



## puma99dk| (Aug 15, 2020)

Leonoid007 said:


> The noise is OK. When there is no load it's very silent. Under load it might be a bit louder than would be water cooling (I tried water cooling and the temps with basic 240mm and pump noise - all the time, when under load it's also noisy).  I did not see much difference, what is different I now have full case of fans which would not be possible with AIO. I have mid tower so limited to 6 fans max



Ah make sense, I got Cougar's Conquer case for now so there is a lot of air in it because it's a open design.

Link: https://cougargaming.com/us/products/cases/conquer/


----------



## vinny_tec (Aug 15, 2020)

Leonoid007 said:


> I found PBO for my 3950x is not working very well. I went with manual OC and lost about 3% single core performance while got at least 8% multi thread gain.
> Temps are the same as with PBO.
> 
> I have 4.3Ghz CCD0 and 4.2Ghz CCD1 vcore 1.28125v and LLC 5 for cpu and LLC4 soc. Under load SVI2 in hw shows 1.262v  and 1.281 max (LLC5 is not enough?)
> ...


I'm not familiar with 3950X but look like you have headroom with the voltages, pretty sure you could go a bit higher however your air cooler will just not be able to keep up.
I would recommend to leave the highest stable overclock settings and if you wish to go higher get a custom watercooling setup.
At the end of the day you're system is already fast stock and unless you want those extra 15- 20 fps in games, encoding or rendering for productivity that would shaves off minutes.
Overclocking ryzen is just for fun to see how far you can push it.


----------



## Max(IT) (Aug 15, 2020)

as a side note I've just noticed Asus pulled BIOS 1002, released a week ago, from their website, without any note.
I have that BIOS installed...


----------



## Leonoid007 (Aug 15, 2020)

vinny_tec said:


> I'm not familiar with 3950X but look like you have headroom with the voltages, pretty sure you could go a bit higher however your air cooler will just not be able to keep up.
> I would recommend to leave the highest stable overclock settings and if you wish to go higher get a custom watercooling setup.
> At the end of the day you're system is already fast stock and unless you want those extra 15- 20 fps in games, encoding or rendering for productivity that would shaves off minutes.
> Overclocking ryzen is just for fun to see how far you can push it.



I am ok with my current setup. I don't really care about few more Mhz  

I just want maximum speed and maximum safety in OC. I think I nailed it. My final settings:

CCD0 4.375 Ghz
CCD1 4.225 / 4.2 Ghz (last 4 cores wont do more than 4.2 with current voltage)

core v 1.281
temps are 83-86 under load 

CB20 score 9920


----------



## puma99dk| (Aug 15, 2020)

It would be nice if @Leonoid007 would fill out the System Specs  so show all what's under the bonnet / hood


----------



## Leonoid007 (Aug 15, 2020)

Sorry I think I already mentioned all that somewhere in this thread, very short summary:

MB: Asus Tuf x570 plus wifi with latest BIOS update
CPU: Ryzen 9 3950X
RAM: 64GB Corsair 3200 
Cooler: Noctua NH-U12A (Air high end)
PSU: SeaSonic 1200 Platinum
GPU: Nvidia GTX 1080TI
SSD: Sabrent 2TB Rocket Nvme PCIe 4.0
Case: Phanteks Eclipse P400A (mesh front) white




puma99dk| said:


> It would be nice if @Leonoid007 would fill out the System Specs  so show all what's under the bonnet / hood


----------



## Max(IT) (Aug 15, 2020)

Leonoid007 said:


> Sorry I think I already mentioned all that somewhere in this thread, very short summary:
> 
> MB: Asus Tuf x570 plus wifi with latest BIOS update
> CPU: Ryzen 9 3950X
> ...


there is a section in your user profile where you can fill up those info.


----------



## Leonoid007 (Aug 15, 2020)

Max(IT) said:


> there is a section in your user profile where you can fill up those info.



Thank you, just filled it up


----------



## Antrax360 (Sep 12, 2020)

Hello guys sorry for bringing this back up. Recently got an asus tuf gaming x570 wifi model and the 3900x. All settings at stocks i would see the vcore jump up to 1.45 and temps would spike so crazy. Like running cinebench would go to high 80s. I did the vcore offset by -1 but when i go into hwmonitor i see under VPU VDD voltages higher then the ones i set up. Do i have to set up those individually? Iddle temps with offset -1 are in 34c eith noctua d15. Cinebench goes to 67. Im not trying to do any oc. Just want better temps and not those voltages spikes.


----------



## Max(IT) (Sep 12, 2020)

Th


Antrax360 said:


> Hello guys sorry for bringing this back up. Recently got an asus tuf gaming x570 wifi model and the 3900x. All settings at stocks i would see the vcore jump up to 1.45 and temps would spike so crazy. Like running cinebench would go to high 80s. I did the vcore offset by -1 but when i go into hwmonitor i see under VPU VDD voltages higher then the ones i set up. Do i have to set up those individually? Iddle temps with offset -1 are in 34c eith noctua d15. Cinebench goes to 67. Im not trying to do any oc. Just want better temps and not those voltages spikes.


in my opinion there is nothing really wrong with your computer.
voltage spikes at 1.45 V or higher are absolutely normal with a 3900X. I would lower your offset a little bit ( maybe at -0.0725 V) because in my opinion you are slightly reducing performance with -0.1 V, but don’t worry about voltage. Cinebench at 80° is not out of ordinary (on my system I reach 78°).

btw why you are using 3200 DDR4 at 3000 ?


----------



## Antrax360 (Sep 12, 2020)

Max(IT) said:


> Th
> 
> in my opinion there is nothing really wrong with your computer.
> voltage spikes at 1.45 V or higher are absolutely normal with a 3900X. I would lower your offset a little bit ( maybe at -0.0725 V) because in my opinion you are slightly reducing performance with -0.1 V, but don’t worry about voltage. Cinebench at 80° is not out of ordinary (on my system I reach 78°).
> ...


Any higher and it crashes dont know why. I get the ram issues and wont boot up. But the voltages spikes is not on the vcore but the vids. On vcore the highest it goes now is like 1.376. I have no experience with that so i dont know if thats how it supposed to go. But when i used to use ryzen master i used to have all cores at 4.3 with a vcore at 1.25 and its super stable. And all the cores dont go higher than that. So there must be a setting or something. But i cant run ryzen master with the offset on. Reboots the system. And i really dont wanna be using that software every time i boot.


----------



## northvisit (Sep 12, 2020)

Antrax360 said:


> Any higher and it crashes dont know why. I get the ram issues and wont boot up. But the voltages spikes is not on the vcore but the vids. On vcore the highest it goes now is like 1.376. I have no experience with that so i dont know if thats how it supposed to go. But when i used to use ryzen master i used to have all cores at 4.3 with a vcore at 1.25 and its super stable. And all the cores dont go higher than that. So there must be a setting or something. But i cant run ryzen master with the offset on. Reboots the system. And i really dont wanna be using that software every time i boot.


Vcore (or CPU core voltage SVI2 TFN) or correct and real voltage. VID is some requested voltage and not real especially when negative Vcore voltage is set. If you see VID 1,5V then offset is applied on that so with -0.100mV Vcore would be about 1.4V. Some inaccuracies or variation may exist. Remember also real voltage is not constant but zen2 modifies that very rapidly. It is more like local max voltage like 1,37V in your case. If you set constant voltage 1,25 with Ryzen master (or bios) the it is about constant value all the time. If you modify LLC (LoadLine Calibration) value in bios then the voltage behaviour in low (1 core) and full (max cores) will change. Some set LLC value to 2-4 or even more but I have kept it auto. If modifies check the performance also (&stalility&temps) with various loads. That time consuming.


----------



## Antrax360 (Sep 12, 2020)

northvisit said:


> Vcore (or CPU core voltage SVI2 TFN) or correct and real voltage. VID is some requested voltage and not real especially when negative Vcore voltage is set. If you see VID 1,5V then offset is applied on that so with -0.100mV Vcore would be about 1.4V. Some inaccuracies or variation may exist. Remember also real voltage is not constant but zen2 modifies that very rapidly. It is more like local max voltage like 1,37V in your case. If you set constant voltage 1,25 with Ryzen master (or bios) the it is about constant value all the time. If you modify LLC (LoadLine Calibration) value in bios then the voltage behaviour in low (1 core) and full (max cores) will change. Some set LLC value to 2-4 or even more but I have kept it auto. If modifies check the performance also (&stalility&temps) with various loads. That time consuming.



Would you recommend doing the same oc setup i had in ryzen master through bios or you have everything auto in bios and oc in ryzen master?


----------



## Max(IT) (Sep 12, 2020)

Forget about VID ! That’s not the voltage supplied, that’s just the voltage “requested” by the cpu.
I think you should reduce the offset a little bit.



Antrax360 said:


> Would you recommend doing the same oc setup i had in ryzen master through bios or you have everything auto in bios and oc in ryzen master?


I always prefer bios overclock/settings over software because they are more stable and controlled (software settings could be fighting with bios all the time).
As far as Ryzen overclock is concerned, I don’t like it. It means to sacrifice part of single core performance to multi core performance.
Most of the tasks today are multi threaded so you are not really losing much. I just don’t like it, but the choice is your.


----------



## northvisit (Sep 12, 2020)

Antrax360 said:


> Would you recommend doing the same oc setup i had in ryzen master through bios or you have everything auto in bios and oc in ryzen master?


I have not really used Ryzen master so I just tried it shortly. I prefer BIOS settings in overclocking. Actually oveclocking zen2 is almost  unusable as the gain is minimal, but I do have slight PBO OC with small limits changed. No big changes in performance and actually the biggest gains achievable by RAM OC and BLCK OC. I have set bclk to 103.5 (so 3,5% OC) and RAM (Micron) slightly below 3800 MHz (1900) effectively (IF 1:1). No remarkable improvements in performance, but at least some and it is stable. I dont like to use constant voltage, but rather small vCore negative offset with Zen2 (as many have indicated so). Currently offset is 0.075V (or 0,0875 cant remember now) that does not affect negatively on performance. Values over -0.1V already show clear (not big) lower CB20 results. So I can see a bit lower temps and keep real vCore below 1,4V at all times (<1,3V in full load) because it just feels better. Temps are about 75C (max) because low fan speeds (for silence) with D16 in my R5 3600. I just feel better to have temps below 80C even it is not any dangerous temperature. Normal use (games&photo edit and shorter heavy load apps) max temps stay below 65C and idle fluctuates around 36-45C. Thats fine for me. Some other people like to use constant low voltages and clocks in OC. Some chips (not all) might be stable even with 1.25V, but often around 1,3V is required. I could play with LLC a bit to see if there is better balance with different loads, but it is just too time consuming and only small gains expected. So I am a bit lazy and not started that really. You might have some problem with your RAM if it does not work with XMP profile (3200MHz). DRAM calculator with its guides could help, but debugging with probably manual timings may be needed as each RAM units behave differently.


----------



## Caring1 (Sep 12, 2020)

As mentioned above, you can do it the right way in the Bios, or if spikes in charts worry you, turn off PBO, lose a little performance and those nasty spikes.


----------



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

Caring1 said:


> As mentioned above, you can do it the right way in the Bios, or if spikes in charts worry you, turn off PBO, lose a little performance and those nasty spikes.


Voltage spikes are not PBO related. You will have it even with PBO off (or AUTO, which defaults to off). It is the way Ryzen are designed, and the OP was even confused by VID.


----------



## Shahzada (Oct 2, 2020)

Ryzen 9 3900XT
Default was at 4007  Ghz at 1.298 & CPU PPT 
CCX 1 4375 MHz
CCX 2 4425 Mhz
CCX 3 4375 Mhz
CCX 4 4400 Mhz
Stable at - 4416 Mhz at 1260 mV ambient temps at 34 - and Full load  between 49 to 52 
CPU PPT Default was at 142 now is at at 56.3
Cinebench 20 Score 7357 one time even went 7408 
Using Krakken X62


----------



## mclaren85 (Mar 30, 2021)

here is the solution for this design error: (design error is my view, not AMD's official statement!!)
disable core performance boost and precision boost overdrive. and it should looks like this:


----------



## Deleted member 205776 (Mar 30, 2021)

mclaren85 said:


> here is the solution for this design error:
> disable core performance boost and precision boost overdrive. and it should looks like this:
> View attachment 194585


I can't even with you anymore.

For anyone curious enough, *don't do this shit.* You will handicap your CPU's performance for nothing. Ryzen idle voltage being high at idle is nothing to be concerned of...


----------



## mclaren85 (Mar 30, 2021)

Alexa said:


> I can't even with you anymore.
> 
> For anyone curious enough, *don't do this shit.* You will handicap your CPU's performance for nothing. Ryzen idle voltage being high at idle is nothing to be concerned of...


Hey, no offense but here is famous Turkish hardware forum link:






						AMD Core Performance Boost Isıya ve FPS'e etkisi
					

Arkadaşlar AMD tarafında çoğu arkadaşımız özellikle geçtiğimiz zamanlarda yapanlar çok bu forumda halen yapanlar vardır illaki sormak istiyorum. AMD, Core Performance Boost olarak bir hız aşırtma olayı var ve genelde sürekli kendini yüksek frekans ve voltajlarda çalıştırıyor. Bundan kaynaklı...




					www.technopat.net
				




They all use that way.


----------



## Kursah (Mar 30, 2021)

mclaren85 said:


> here is the solution for this design error:
> disable core performance boost and precision boost overdrive. and it should looks like this:
> View attachment 194585



Please ensure you're stating that the "design error" is your opinion at this point unless there's quantifiable evidence provided by AMD or a high-level investigation to support your claims. Even then, you can dial it back a bit.

Also continually posting this in any related topic is approaching levels of spam. Please temper your approach here, it helps to share, but shoving it down everyone's throat repeatedly with the claims you've made is not appropriate. Please adjust course moving forward.

Thanks!



Alexa said:


> I can't even with you anymore.
> 
> For anyone curious enough, *don't do this shit.* You will handicap your CPU's performance for nothing. Ryzen idle voltage being high at idle is nothing to be concerned of...



Everyone has a right to their opinion and we do understand there are folks in the community that disagree with the above statements. But lets please dial back the anger and aggression, no need for drama and breaking the rules over this.

Thanks all!


----------



## Deleted member 205776 (Mar 30, 2021)

mclaren85 said:


> They all use that way.


Well congratulations to you all, but please don't recommend others reduce their CPU's performance for nothing, and mislead them, only because you think you are smarter than AMD's engineers.


Kursah said:


> Everyone has a right to their opinion and we do understand there are folks in the community that disagree with the above statements. But lets please dial back the anger and aggression, no need for drama and breaking the rules over this.
> 
> Thanks all!


Noted. But it is ridiculous at this point, this guy just goes in random threads giving the same misleading advice, even after we explained it to him a hundred times.


----------



## Kursah (Mar 30, 2021)

I get it, which is why I'm intervening. But folks have a right to share findings and opinions. Folks also have a right to constructively disagree or never see eye-to-eye. 

As a Ryzen owner and Intel owner, I am not bothered by undervolting and tuning, I've done it for over a decade. But I surely won't blame AMD or Intel for maintaining their safe standard settings and say its a massive mistake or error in design. Who knows, it may be, but its surely not worth the drama we've seen about it over the past week. 

Now its bleeding out yet again, and it needs to stop before we have to shut down yet another topic or start handing out warnings and bans.

So, let's all move on constructively, and on better footing for the best of the community please. Thanks!


----------



## Deleted member 205776 (Mar 30, 2021)

Anyway. This is not a design error, nor is it unintended behavior. As I explained in that other thread, the CPU requests such high voltages at idle (high voltage on low loads is safe) in order to have a high single thread clocks. Voltage goes down when you start gaming/start a multicore load. You can observe that for yourself using Ryzen Master/HWiNFO.

Now, if the voltage *didn't* go down from 1.45-1.5v during a load, I would be concerned. But, unless you have PBO on (which again, isn't stock operation), it almost always does.


----------



## mclaren85 (Mar 30, 2021)

Kursah said:


> So, let's all move on constructively, and on better footing for the best of the community please. Thanks!


Affirmative! I will not post any other thoughts or experiments about that problem again.

Ps. Views are my own, not AMD's official statements, so don't take it %100 true.


----------



## Nitroe (Jul 10, 2021)

I just switched my voltages for my 3900x based of Jay's recommendations in the video. My temps are lower but now my CPU base speed is 3.80 GHz and does not go over that at all. Before this I was boosting to 4.2-4.3 GHz. I'd like to get the most out of my CPU. Is there any way I can accomplish both boosted speeds plus lower temps? I don't see much of a difference in FPS in games but it's probably there.


----------



## Shahzada (Jul 10, 2021)

Nitroe said:


> I just switched my voltages for my 3900x based of Jay's recommendations in the video. My temps are lower but now my CPU base speed is 3.80 GHz and does not go over that at all. Before this I was boosting to 4.2-4.3 GHz. I'd like to get the most out of my CPU. Is there any way I can accomplish both boosted speeds plus lower temps? I don't see much of a difference in FPS in games but it's probably there.


Try CTR


----------



## AsRock (Jul 11, 2021)

Most likely some thing int he bios that would allow you to fix a max speed,  so have a look at the manual for some thing like that.  If you want help maybe you should post the motherboard your using too.

I used  HWinfo64 to find the lowest speed core which was 4.31 so i set my bios for 4.2. I all so found the max i could get just using the bios 6 cores at 4.4 and the other 6 at 4.2.


----------



## Zach_01 (Jul 12, 2021)

Nitroe said:


> I just switched my voltages for my 3900x based of Jay's recommendations in the video. My temps are lower but now my CPU base speed is 3.80 GHz and does not go over that at all. Before this I was boosting to 4.2-4.3 GHz. I'd like to get the most out of my CPU. Is there any way I can accomplish both boosted speeds plus lower temps? I don't see much of a difference in FPS in games but it's probably there.


That video is 2 years old now and most importantly it was released the first week of ZEN2 launch. That time there was a misconception about 3000series operating parameters and conditions, BIOSs was immature and no tech background was really known about these CPUs.

If you want to set your CPU its better to start a new thread and ask for help.
Be very detailed about the system and its components, about the operating conditions, the ambient conditions and pretty much everything.
Also show screenshots of HWiNFO64 sensors window under various loads


----------



## puma99dk| (Jul 12, 2021)

Nitroe said:


> I just switched my voltages for my 3900x based of Jay's recommendations in the video. My temps are lower but now my CPU base speed is 3.80 GHz and does not go over that at all. Before this I was boosting to 4.2-4.3 GHz. I'd like to get the most out of my CPU. Is there any way I can accomplish both boosted speeds plus lower temps? I don't see much of a difference in FPS in games but it's probably there.



This is where 1usmus' clock tuner for ryzen comes in, it's a great tool used it on my AMD setup.

Link: https://twitter.com/1usmus


----------

