# ClockTuner for Ryzen Simplifies "Zen 2" Overclocking, Squeezes Out Double-digit Percent Performance



## btarunr (Aug 25, 2020)

ClockTuner for Ryzen (CTR) by Yuri "1usmus" Bubliy, is an evolution of the DRAM Calculator for Ryzen utility. The utility goes beyond the functionality of the DRAM Calculator - which finds the most precise memory settings for Ryzen processors - and does your homework for Ryzen CPU overclocking. Optimized for processors based on the "Zen 2" microarchitecture, CTR has been designed both for Socket AM4 and sTRX4 (Threadripper) processors, and Linus Tech Tips in its announcement video of CTR demonstrated the tool's prowess in squeezing out a neat 10% performance gain for their Threadripper 3960X processor. Besides CPU and memory settings, the tool performs stability testing and benchmarking. 1usmus expects to release CTR 1.0 in September 2020.



 



*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## Space Lynx (Aug 25, 2020)

the linustechtips video on it didn't show much benefit really, they were not able to replicate the 10% gain. at end of day Ryzen overclocks itself well enough, just leave everything default in BIOS. if you want fps gains, then you want to get good bdie ram and overclock it with dram calculator made by the same guy here 1usmus

but since all of us here do enjoy tweaking from time to time, I have to admit I will probably give this a shot at some point if it ends up supporting ryzen 4800x, seems neat anyway


----------



## biffzinker (Aug 25, 2020)

I’m curious enough to try tuning my 3800X. It would be one way to find out if it’s a gold bin.


----------



## Tomorrow (Aug 25, 2020)

Well i hope this turns out better than DRAM Calc as that may work fine for B-Die but offers completly unusable numbers for RAM using Hynix chips (DJR, CJR, JJR)


----------



## Xzibit (Aug 25, 2020)

3700X score is extremely low. Most of the reviews had it at around 4900s on launch BIOSes


----------



## Xex360 (Aug 25, 2020)

Why can't Ryzen maintain it's boost speeds, I believe for Intel MOBO manufacturers can enforce unlimited boost time this offering better performance by "default".


----------



## thesmokingman (Aug 25, 2020)

Did you see the asterik during the video around the 7min mark? "*except for single core boost." I'm going to assume single core boosting is unaffected by this tool which is not a bad thing imo.



Xex360 said:


> Why can't Ryzen maintain it's boost speeds, I believe for Intel MOBO manufacturers can enforce unlimited boost time this offering better performance by "default".



That's NOT the point of this tool. Boost, if you want to waste wattage 24/7 just run an all core setting. However this is like the opposite extreme, kind of like hypermiling this is to increase perf while reducing wattage where possible.


----------



## biffzinker (Aug 25, 2020)

Xex360 said:


> Why can't Ryzen maintain it's boost speeds, I believe for Intel MOBO manufacturers can enforce unlimited boost time this offering better performance by "default".


Power draw at the higher voltage to maintain the boosted clockspeed is the issue. Electromigration would make quick work of degrading the 7nm silicon die to point the clockspeeds would be unstable to the cores going kaput. Intel is still riding it out on 14nm+++ which can handle the higher all core clockspeed without sudden degradation.


----------



## zo0lykas (Aug 25, 2020)




----------



## TheLostSwede (Aug 25, 2020)

Tomorrow said:


> Well i hope this turns out better than DRAM Calc as that may work fine for B-Die but offers completly unusable numbers for RAM using Hynix chips (DJR, CJR, JJR)


Or maybe you're the one that's clueless and doesn't know how to use it? It worked perfectly fine for me with CJR modules. I'm up 200MHz with lower latency than my modules were sold as and that's with four sticks. So please keep your opinions to yourself.


----------



## LutinChris (Aug 25, 2020)

biffzinker said:


> Power draw at the higher voltage to maintain the boosted clockspeed is the issue. Electromigration would make quick work of degrading the 7nm silicon die to point the clockspeeds would be unstable to the cores going kaput. Intel is still riding it out on 14nm+++ which can handle the higher all core clockspeed without sudden degradation.



Please enough with fanboy(ism) attitude. I'm on xeon Intel CPU (kaby lake) in my laptop (hp zbook 17 G4). Intel marketed my xeon cpu as a 3.1GHz with a boost at 4.2GHZ (one Core). Checking with Aida64, Intel Extrem tuning and antiThrottle tool from TechpowerUp, I notice the 4.2GHz frequency never last more than 1s and appears very rarely. 90% of the time, in maximum performance mode, all my CPU core works between 3.0GHz & 3.4GHz (3.6 at best). So excuse me, but the hypothetical higher clockspeed advantage achieve by Intel with it's 14nm++++++ sounds more like bullshit and marketing nuisance for me.

Intel cpu are not the best anymore. Amd catch them up and amd cpu are now more Advanced / Cooler / Powerfull / Secure. Competition is good for inovation, so let's see what's happen in next years. but For now Intel is just a follower in x86 cpu market and Amd the leader in all the aspects I've mentionned, including technologically.


----------



## phill (Aug 25, 2020)

biffzinker said:


> I’m curious enough to try tuning my 3800X. It would be one way to find out if it’s a gold bin.


No my 3900X wasn't fast enough  (Continued from the other thread...)  I do wish I'd gone for the 3950X but it seems my 3900X is pretty decent so it'll be fine for the moment   Maybe a treat for myself at Christmas for the 3950X or 4950X..  When crunching you can never have enough cores    But free performance is free performance 

Can't wait to see what this tool is like   Looks very promising...


----------



## Tomorrow (Aug 25, 2020)

TheLostSwede said:


> Or maybe you're the one that's clueless and doesn't know how to use it? It worked perfectly fine for me with CJR modules. I'm up 200MHz with lower latency than my modules were sold as and that's with four sticks. So please keep your opinions to yourself.


Wow how insightful. Maybe get some JJR based sticks (i have 4x8GB) and try to boot at 3733 CL16 when the sticks can only do CL16 at 3200 (that's the XMP profile). At 3733 they can't go below CL18. DRAM Calc for reason keeps suggesting CL16. And yes - i did import my Thaiphoon Burner profile. So it's not that.
Plus too low of a voltage, plus unreasonably low tRFC (only values that b-die can do) etc.

So don't come here saying that i don't know what im talking about. I am running at 3733 CL18 with tightened subtimings (~67ns latency with 3800X). But thanks to calclulator for useless recommendation.


----------



## Chomiq (Aug 25, 2020)

Tomorrow said:


> Wow how insightful. Maybe get some JJR based sticks (i have 4x8GB) and try to boot at 3733 CL16 when the sticks can only do CL16 at 3200 (that's the XMP profile). At 3733 they can't go below CL18. DRAM Calc for reason keeps suggesting CL16. And yes - i did import my Thaiphoon Burner profile. So it's not that.
> Plus too low of a voltage, plus unreasonably low tRFC (only values that b-die can do) etc.
> 
> So don't come here saying that i don't know what im talking about. I am running at 3733 CL18 with tightened subtimings (~67ns latency with 3800X). But thanks to calclulator for useless recommendation.


Sample base: 1 
"Completely unusable"


----------



## nangu (Aug 25, 2020)

Tomorrow said:


> Well i hope this turns out better than DRAM Calc as that may work fine for B-Die but offers completly unusable numbers for RAM using Hynix chips (DJR, CJR, JJR)



The calc offers a baseline to start tunning, it's not a "enter and forget settings" app. My 3600 c18 CJRs are running @3800 c16 in the 2x8Gb configuration, tweaked from the Calc suggested settings as a baseline, so not bad at all for a little free utility.

About this new Clock Tuner utility, It seems that its purpose is to tune a per CCX overclock with an enfasis on lower power consumption at the same, or better, all core performance than stock, which everybody can achieve by tuning in the BIOS. This app makes things easier by setting values and testing without user intervention, and without the hassle that is to roundtrip to BIOS, Windows, stress testing, benchmark, and all over again to test other values, so it's interesting to check it at least. If you want max single core boost performance, this tool is not for you. In fact, it's highly probable you end up with lower single core boost than stock.

On my 3900X I gained 7% all core performance by tweaking per CCX, at the same overall power consumption and temperature, so the gain figures presented by 1usmus are achievable I guess, depending on silicon quality of course.


----------



## Tomorrow (Aug 25, 2020)

Chomiq said:


> Sample base: 1
> "Completely unusable"


That could be said about almost anything. So unless you are Silicon Lottery that you can test hundreds of samples then 99% of problems with any product on the Internet fall into the sample size: 1 category. 2 or 3 best case if the user had RMA returs or bought extra one.


----------



## TheLostSwede (Aug 25, 2020)

Tomorrow said:


> Wow how insightful. Maybe get some JJR based sticks (i have 4x8GB) and try to boot at 3733 CL16 when the sticks can only do CL16 at 3200 (that's the XMP profile). At 3733 they can't go below CL18. DRAM Calc for reason keeps suggesting CL16. And yes - i did import my Thaiphoon Burner profile. So it's not that.
> Plus too low of a voltage, plus unreasonably low tRFC (only values that b-die can do) etc.
> 
> So don't come here saying that i don't know what im talking about. I am running at 3733 CL18 with tightened subtimings (~67ns latency with 3800X). But thanks to calclulator for useless recommendation.


What does this have to with the software you're trashing? It doesn't even support your modules  
And yes, you clearly have no idea what you're talking about.


----------



## Rahnak (Aug 25, 2020)

lynx29 said:


> the linustechtips video on it didn't show much benefit really, they were not able to replicate the 10% gain. at end of day Ryzen overclocks itself well enough, just leave everything default in BIOS. if you want fps gains, then you want to get good bdie ram and overclock it with dram calculator made by the same guy here 1usmus
> 
> but since all of us here do enjoy tweaking from time to time, I have to admit I will probably give this a shot at some point if it ends up supporting ryzen 4800x, seems neat anyway


It still had a small performance uplift. Though I did notice their 3970X was below average. And the ram situation on the bench was weird too. 3600CL14 memory running at 3200CL16.
Still, the 30 watt decrease running cinebench was well worth it, imo.

Also, keep in mind the version LTT used was older. It was still called "Workstation Tool" rather than "ClockTuner for Ryzen" and the date on the bench was 08/06/2020. Which to me it means June 8th, but it's probably August 6th. Some countries and dates..


----------



## kayjay010101 (Aug 25, 2020)

Rahnak said:


> ...and the date on the bench was 08/06/2020. Which to me it means June 8th, but it's probably August 6th. Some countries and dates..


Well, DD/MM/YYYY is the _right_ way to format it


----------



## ChosenName (Aug 25, 2020)

Tomorrow said:


> Well i hope this turns out better than DRAM Calc as that may work fine for B-Die but offers completly unusable numbers for RAM using Hynix chips (DJR, CJR, JJR)


Works absolutely fine (tested when CPU folding for over a month) on my RAM which uses Hynix chips. Which might suggest that the numbers are not "completly unusable".


----------



## Bobweadababyitsaboy (Aug 25, 2020)

LutinChris said:


> Please enough with fanboy(ism) attitude. I'm on xeon Intel CPU (kaby lake) in my laptop (hp zbook 17 G4). Intel marketed my xeon cpu as a 3.1GHz with a boost at 4.2GHZ (one Core). Checking with Aida64, Intel Extrem tuning and antiThrottle tool from TechpowerUp, I notice the 4.2GHz frequency never last more than 1s and appears very rarely. 90% of the time, in maximum performance mode, all my CPU core works between 3.0GHz & 3.4GHz (3.6 at best). So excuse me, but the hypothetical higher clockspeed advantage achieve by Intel with it's 14nm++++++ sounds more like bullshit and marketing nuisance for me.
> 
> Intel cpu are not the best anymore. Amd catch them up and amd cpu are now more Advanced / Cooler / Powerfull / Secure. Competition is good for inovation, so let's see what's happen in next years. but For now Intel is just a follower in x86 cpu market and Amd the leader in all the aspects I've mentionned, including technologically.



I think your problem is your laptop cooler. Put the same chip on a better cooler and I bet you could boost for longer. No fanboisim here as I want AMD to kick the shit out of intel. If you’re watching the benchmarks intel still has a slight edge when it comes to single core-performance.


----------



## amit_talkin (Aug 25, 2020)

Tomorrow said:


> Well i hope this turns out better than DRAM Calc as that may work fine for B-Die but offers completly unusable numbers for RAM using Hynix chips (DJR, CJR, JJR)



I agree to this. I have DJR ( 4000 MHz 18-18-18 XMP ). I imported xmp to DRAM Calculator and it suggest me 14-18-20-20 @ 3600. However System even doesnt start with 14 CAS, so I guess this needs to be fixed.


----------



## Ja.KooLit (Aug 25, 2020)

Cant wait to try this. I am basically settled with my settings but more fine tuning is better.

Linus did say however that as per 1usmus, this works better with a cpu with more ccx.


----------



## Max(IT) (Aug 25, 2020)

nangu said:


> The calc offers a baseline to start tunning, it's not a "enter and forget settings" app. My 3600 c18 CJRs are running @3800 c16 in the 2x8Gb configuration, tweaked from the Calc suggested settings as a baseline, so not bad at all for a little free utility.
> 
> About this new Clock Tuner utility, It seems that its purpose is to tune a per CCX overclock with an enfasis on lower power consumption at the same, or better, all core performance than stock, which everybody can achieve by tuning in the BIOS. This app makes things easier by setting values and testing without user intervention, and without the hassle that is to roundtrip to BIOS, Windows, stress testing, benchmark, and all over again to test other values, so it's interesting to check it at least. If you want max single core boost performance, this tool is not for you. In fact, it's highly probable you end up with lower single core boost than stock.
> 
> On my 3900X I gained 7% all core performance by tweaking per CCX, at the same overall power consumption and temperature, so the gain figures presented by 1usmus are achievable I guess, depending on silicon quality of course.


what about single core performance ? After you tuned the CPU for all core, I mean...



kayjay010101 said:


> Well, DD/MM/YYYY is the _right_ way to format it


except for americans ...   



night.fox said:


> Cant wait to try this. I am basically settled with my settings but more fine tuning is better.
> 
> Linus did say however that as per 1usmus, this works better with a cpu with more ccx.


I think 3900X, 3950X and Threadripper's will benefit more from this tool.


----------



## Xex360 (Aug 25, 2020)

biffzinker said:


> Power draw at the higher voltage to maintain the boosted clockspeed is the issue. Electromigration would make quick work of degrading the 7nm silicon die to point the clockspeeds would be unstable to the cores going kaput. Intel is still riding it out on 14nm+++ which can handle the higher all core clockspeed without sudden degradation.


Maybe, but Intel isn't doing it MOBO manufacturers are doing it,


biffzinker said:


> Power draw at the higher voltage to maintain the boosted clockspeed is the issue. Electromigration would make quick work of degrading the 7nm silicon die to point the clockspeeds would be unstable to the cores going kaput. Intel is still riding it out on 14nm+++ which can handle the higher all core clockspeed without sudden degradation.


Maybe, but still running Intel's CPUs beyond their limits isn't technically within specs.
Edit: removed some nonese


----------



## Agent_D (Aug 25, 2020)

TheLostSwede said:


> Or maybe you're the one that's clueless and doesn't know how to use it? It worked perfectly fine for me with CJR modules. I'm up 200MHz with lower latency than my modules were sold as and that's with four sticks. So please keep your opinions to yourself.



Its his experience with the tool; I have the same experience with it on the CJR and DJR modules in that I cannot get them to work no matter which settings are chosen, but I have also used it on the samsung bdie and had no issues with it. There may be some very poorly binned CJR/DJR that just doesn't work with the settings the tool recommends. No reason to get snarky about others' experience.


----------



## thesmokingman (Aug 25, 2020)

TheLostSwede said:


> What does this have to with the software you're trashing? It doesn't even support your modules
> And yes, you clearly have no idea what you're talking about.



Get the F over yourself. Dram calc doesn't always work and the values get whacked from version to version. Not everyone has this dream experience and your odd fanboying is really weird.


----------



## TheLostSwede (Aug 25, 2020)

Sorry, but incompetence doesn't make it a bad tool. Keep in mind what it is, it's a third party tool to get you started, it's not guaranteed to work and it's not from AMD.
Seriously, what are you people expecting? It works perfectly fine on my CJR modules, so I'm sorry to say, that it's most likely down to incompetence if you can't get it working and maybe if you can't do something as simple as changing a handful of setting in the UEFI, then maybe you shouldn't tinker around in there at all.

But yeah, it's all me, while it's apparently ok to attack the creator of this tool and call his software out as trash, makes perfect sense


----------



## Max(IT) (Aug 25, 2020)

TheLostSwede said:


> Sorry, but incompetence doesn't make it a bad tool. Keep in mind what it is, it's a third party tool to get you started, it's not guaranteed to work and it's not from AMD.
> Seriously, what are you people expecting? It works perfectly fine on my CJR modules, so I'm sorry to say, that it's most likely down to incompetence if you can't get it working and maybe if you can't do something as simple as changing a handful of setting in the UEFI, then maybe you shouldn't tinker around in there at all.
> 
> But yeah, it's all me, while it's apparently ok to attack the creator of this tool and call his software out as trash, makes perfect sense


You seem to be very happy about DRAM calculator, and that’s fine.
And you are right about there is no point attacking 1usmus about his wonderful tools, which are useful and great.
But the DRAM calculator is not working for everyone, and that has nothing to do with incompetence. Sometimes DRAM modules are just too bad to go any faster than XMP values.
In my case (Hynix DJR on G.Skill 3600CL16 sticks) the suggested values worked but the performance gain were negligible at best, so I’d stick with defaults XMP.



night.fox said:


> Cant wait to try this. I am basically settled with my settings but more fine tuning is better.
> 
> Linus did say however that as per 1usmus, this works better with a cpu with more ccx.


I’m intrigued about the LLC level 4 (Asus) suggested setting.
During my fine tuning of the Ryzen 9 3900X I was under the impression that LLC Level 4 on my Asus ROG Strix B550-F was providing a sort of benefit for my results.
I asked for advice here but someone told me “leave it on AUTO because you are overvolting without a reason”. Since I’ve just recently jumped ship from Intel (where I was quite expert with those settings) I didn’t argue about that.
Now it is interesting to see 1usmus to suggest the same setting I was using with my slightly undervolted 3900X.


----------



## nangu (Aug 25, 2020)

Max(IT) said:


> what about single core performance ? After you tuned the CPU for all core, I mean..



Single core is worse, but only measurable in benchmarking tools. While gaming, my fastest core at stock + PBO sustain 4.3 / 4.35 Ghz and jumping all over the place due to the boost algorithm, and very temperature dependant. 

My CCX overclock is 4.35/4.35/4.25/4.25 @1.3v (1.26v after droop), so for gaming is the same as PBO, but I gain performance in multithreaded applications such as rendering, encoding, etc., at slightly more power draw, about 10 watts at 100% load, and performance is always the same regardless the ambient temp. Stock + PBO I loss performance in summer because the raised ambient temp and how the boost algorithm depends on that.

In a normal system, that you use everyday with Windows bloatware and a lot of background apps, I never saw my CPU sustain that 4.6Ghz single core in apps or games. The best I got was 4.4Ghz under certain scenarios, and around 4.5Ghz in benchmarks such as CB, AIDA or CPU-z, so the theoretical single core boost advertised by AMD has zero meaning in everyday usage in my opinion. It's only a peak, instantaneous value, sustained is much lower in a normal system with a lot of apps loaded. My all core sustained clocks @ stock are 4.05 / 4.2Ghz load dependant, so in my particular system, dialing a CCX overclock as I did is a no brainer.

For others with much better binned CPUs the situation would be different, of course.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Aug 25, 2020)

biffzinker said:


> I’m curious enough to try tuning my 3800X. It would be one way to find out if it’s a gold bin.


It is what it is, they're are higher clocked stock chip's so I wouldn't worry about gold bins.

I'll try it too but doubt it is beating my best 4.5 all core run or my usual Oc tactics of defaults ,and memory OC.

Regardless Ty 1usmus I hope you prove me wrong and it's nice to have some tools to mess with, Ryzen master could be better, I like it ,but it could, per core clock's for example.


----------



## nangu (Aug 25, 2020)

theoneandonlymrk said:


> It is what it is, they're are higher clocked stock chip's so I wouldn't worry about gold bins.
> 
> I'll try it too but doubt it is beating my best 4.5 all core run or my usual Oc tactics of defaults ,and memory Of.
> 
> Regardless Ty 1usmus I hope you prove me wrong and it's nice to have some tools to mess with, Ryzen master could be better, I like it ,but it could, per core clock's for example.



Agree, per core clock and AVX all core max clock and voltage would be great IMO.


----------



## Max(IT) (Aug 25, 2020)

nangu said:


> Single core is worse



as usual... 



> but only measurable in benchmarking tools.



most probably true.




> While gaming, my fastest core at stock + PBO sustain 4.3 / 4.35 Ghz and jumping all over the place due to the boost algorithm, and very temperature dependant.



Well, gaming it’s not a single core duty...
Not many game engine can populate all the cores of the 3900X, but most modern games can spread the workload over many cores, so single core performance aren’t relevant even for gaming.
at stock on my 3900X using Doom Eternal I’m seeing 4.2/4.4 GHz on many cores. Same for AC Odyssey.




> My CCX overclock is 4.35/4.35/4.25/4.25 @1.3v (1.26v after droop), so for gaming is the same as PBO, but I gain performance in multithreaded applications such as rendering, encoding, etc., at slightly more power draw, about 10 watts at 100% load, and performance is always the same regardless the ambient temp. Stock + PBO I loss performance in summer because the raised ambient temp and how the boost algorithm depends on that.



it could be just me, but I’m scared by fixed voltage on a cpu, so overclock in a Ryzen isn’t my kind of business...



> In a normal system, that you use everyday with Windows bloatware and a lot of background apps, I never saw my CPU sustain that 4.6Ghz single core in apps or games. The best I got was 4.4Ghz under certain scenarios, and around 4.5Ghz in benchmarks such as CB, AIDA or CPU-z, so the theoretical single core boost advertised by AMD has zero meaning in everyday usage in my opinion. It's only a peak, instantaneous value, sustained is much lower in a normal system with a lot of apps loaded. My all core sustained clocks @ stock are 4.05 / 4.2Ghz load dependant, so in my particular system, dialing a CCX overclock as I did is a no brainer.



On my PC during everyday usage the CPU is hitting 4541 MHz on many cores, with 4616 MHz (the best I’ve ever seen) on the two best cores.



> For others with much better binned CPUs the situation would be different, of course.


Yep. Every cpu is a different story. Mine is extremely temperature dependent.


----------



## ThrashZone (Aug 25, 2020)

Tomorrow said:


> Well i hope this turns out better than DRAM Calc as that may work fine for B-Die but offers completly unusable numbers for RAM using Hynix chips (DJR, CJR, JJR)


Hi,
Hynix is useless memory anyway even on intel micron is hit and miss.


----------



## nangu (Aug 25, 2020)

Max(IT) said:


> Well, gaming it’s not a single core duty...
> Not many game engine can populate all the cores of the 3900X, but most modern games can spread the workload over many cores, so single core performance aren’t relevant even for gaming.
> at stock on my 3900X using Doom Eternal I’m seeing 4.2/4.4 GHz on many cores. Same for AC Odyssey.



That's correct. Even a heavily single core game (like IL-2 series) can't sustain high core clocks because there are a lot of things going on in Windows itself, so these high clock figures are almost impossible to reach outside benchmarks. 




Max(IT) said:


> it could be just me, but I’m scared by fixed voltage on a cpu, so overclock in a Ryzen isn’t my kind of business...



I'm on a Gigabyte board. If you use offsets for core voltage, the CPU downvolts, downclock and put cores to sleep as usual, it's not like the fixed voltages as we seen in previous generations.




Max(IT) said:


> On my PC during everyday usage the CPU is hitting 4541 MHz on many cores, with 4616 MHz (the best I’ve ever seen) on the two best cores.



Yes, mine too, but these are clock spikes which last nanoseconds and when there are almost no load on the core, so not performance impacting in any meaningfull way. Which it's important here is sustained (or effective) clock speeds from start to finish for a given task. That effective clock speed is much lower than that spikes. On mu CPU, it's around 4.35 Ghz at stock + PBO.


----------



## Max(IT) (Sep 3, 2020)

still no news about the 1usmus tool ?  
He wrote about a beta, on Twitter, but never released one.


----------



## chevy350 (Sep 3, 2020)

Stated in Sept. no specific date 
From OP  "1usmus expects to release CTR 1.0 in September 2020."


----------



## Max(IT) (Sep 3, 2020)

chevy350 said:


> Stated in Sept. no specific date
> From OP  "1usmus expects to release CTR 1.0 in September 2020."


Yep. I was hoping about a beta release...


----------



## Max(IT) (Sep 6, 2020)

according to last tweets from yesterday, he is improving the tool and there will be a late September beta release


----------



## biffzinker (Sep 28, 2020)

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1310526652758274051


----------



## phill (Sep 28, 2020)

Looking forward to it


----------



## Taraquin (Sep 29, 2020)

This will be interesting!


----------



## SeventhReign (Sep 29, 2020)

lynx29 said:


> the linustechtips video on it didn't show much benefit really, they were not able to replicate the 10% gain. at end of day Ryzen overclocks itself well enough, just leave everything default in BIOS. if you want fps gains, then you want to get good bdie ram and overclock it with dram calculator made by the same guy here 1usmus
> 
> but since all of us here do enjoy tweaking from time to time, I have to admit I will probably give this a shot at some point if it ends up supporting ryzen 4800x, seems neat anyway



This is a total lie.  They may not have been able to get 10% but they DID see significant improvements to both performance and voltage.  If you are going to spout nonsense, try not to do it about a video with several million views.


----------



## Space Lynx (Sep 29, 2020)

SeventhReign said:


> This is a total lie.  They may not have been able to get 10% but they DID see significant improvements to both performance and voltage.  If you are going to spout nonsense, try not to do it about a video with several million views.



sure thing. enjoy your 3% gains.  and voltage depends on mobo and BIOS used in said mobo, can't just take results from two setups and say its definitively better at voltage control prediction.


----------



## biffzinker (Sep 30, 2020)

phill said:


> Looking forward to it


It's here if you want to try. https://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/clocktuner-for-ryzen-ctr-guide-download,1.html

Download Link: https://www.guru3d.com/files-details/clocktuner-for-ryzen-download.html

I downloaded everything just need to hop over to the bios and change a couple of settings.

It’s moved the clockspeed on the 3800X from 4,175 MHz all cores to 4,300 with the same voltage from the beginning at 1.25. Nvm it was sleep mode.

Energy Efficiency so far has went from 3.35 to 3.48

Looks likes moved on to testing the individual CCX1 & CCX 2. And it’s done.


----------



## Space Lynx (Sep 30, 2020)

biffzinker said:


> It's here if you want to try. https://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/clocktuner-for-ryzen-ctr-guide-download,1.html
> 
> Download Link: https://www.guru3d.com/files-details/clocktuner-for-ryzen-download.html
> 
> ...




what do you mean by "nvm it was sleep mode"?


----------



## biffzinker (Sep 30, 2020)

lynx29 said:


> what do you mean by "nvm it was sleep mode"?


Windows power management kicked in, did the shut off and suspended to RAM.

Anyways I missed a step for the benchmark that shows before and after change.

The set OC with CTR in Cinebench, score is up, and power usage is down.





__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1310992125828501507

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1311017352486584320


----------



## Nordic (Sep 30, 2020)

I have results. It says I have a silver sample while I thought I would have had a trash tier bronze sample. that is good to know. Efficiency is improved but performance is nearly the same. I am not even reaching the default performance for a 3900x but that could be because I have my memory set to 2133mhz for maximum stability.



Spoiler: Diagnostic Results





```
***ClockTuner for Ryzen 1.0r by 1usmus***
```AMD Ryzen 9 3900X 12-Core Processor (870F10)
ASUSTeK COMPUTER INC. TUF GAMING X570-PLUS
BIOS ver. 2607 SMU ver. 46.63.00
DRAM speed 2133 MHz
09/29/2020 18:37:09


AVX light mode
Cycle time: 30000 ms
Reference frequency: 4050MHz
Reference voltage: 1175 mV
Voltage step: 6 mV


Manual overclocking mode enabled
Sets overclocking parameters...
CCX1  Quality 148  Frequency 4050 MHz  Voltage 1175 mV
CCX2  Quality 130  Frequency 4050 MHz  Voltage 1175 mV
CCX3  Quality 148  Frequency 4050 MHz  Voltage 1175 mV
CCX4  Quality 130  Frequency 4050 MHz  Voltage 1175 mV

Step# 1
Diagnostic VID voltage: 1175 mV
Stress test started!  09/29/2020 18:37:19
CPU Vdroop: 1 %  CPU Temperature: 44.9°
Stress test stopped!  09/29/2020 18:37:53

Step# 2
Diagnostic VID voltage: 1169 mV
Stress test started!  09/29/2020 18:37:54
CPU Vdroop: 1.6 %  CPU Temperature: 46.3°
Stress test stopped!  09/29/2020 18:38:28

Step# 3
Diagnostic VID voltage: 1163 mV
Stress test started!  09/29/2020 18:38:28
CPU Vdroop: 1.6 %  CPU Temperature: 46.6°
Stress test stopped!  09/29/2020 18:39:02

Step# 4
Diagnostic VID voltage: 1157 mV
Stress test started!  09/29/2020 18:39:02
CPU Vdroop: 1.6 %  CPU Temperature: 47.4°
Stress test stopped!  09/29/2020 18:39:36

Step# 5
Diagnostic VID voltage: 1151 mV
Stress test started!  09/29/2020 18:39:37
CPU Vdroop: 1.7 %  CPU Temperature: 47.2°
SOC SVI2 1.013
Thread# 25 fall down, usage 87.9%
Stress test stopped!  09/29/2020 18:40:04

Step# 6
Diagnostic VID voltage: 1157 mV


Diagnostic results:
Energy efficient: 3.5
AMD Ryzen 9 3900X 12-Core Processor - Silver sample
Recomended values for Overclocking:
Reference frequency: 4250 MHz
Reference voltage: 1250 mV
Recomended values for Undervoolt:
Reference frequency: 4050 MHz
Reference voltage: 1150 mV```
```


----------



## Mussels (Sep 30, 2020)

Running this i just keep seeing 'error on CCX1' and ever decreasing clocks down to 2GHz at 1.25v?
Have i likely got something screwing with it, or am i missing how its meant to work?


----------



## Calmmo (Sep 30, 2020)

Looks neat, gave it a try just to see what it is, how it works. Just confirmed what i knew, that my ccd1 is pretty solid, ccd2 trash


----------



## thevoiceofreason (Sep 30, 2020)

I tried it with my early 3600 bin. Rated bronze by the software. It's running in an ITX-case with a single 120mm AIO so I wanted to optimize for thermals. Worked pretty well:

Voltage down from 1.367 to 1.225V
CCX1/CCX2 down from 4100/4100Mhz to 4000/4000Mhz
CB20 multi score down from 3680 to 3607 (-2%)
PPT from 82W to 64W (-22%!)
Temps from 73C to 66C in CB


----------



## Nordic (Sep 30, 2020)

While overclocking was so underwhelming, I tried underclocking and saw results. The CB20 run was  about 2.5% faster for about 23% more efficiency. Greater efficiency might be preferred if I run boinc 24/7 all winter.

It feels weird that my cpu is a silver sample and clocks so poorly. I cant imagine the poor souls who got a bronze sample.

I updated windows before installing and running this tool. At least I attempted to and windows asked for a restart. This morning I am being asked to restart windows in order to complete installation of Windows 10 x64 1909-2004. This version of windows or newer is one of the requirement for the software. Maybe I will get a different result after I upgrade.



Spoiler: Log data





```
***ClockTuner for Ryzen 1.0r by 1usmus***
AMD Ryzen 9 3900X 12-Core Processor (870F10)
ASUSTeK COMPUTER INC. TUF GAMING X570-PLUS
BIOS ver. 2607 SMU ver. 46.63.00
DRAM speed 2133 MHz
09/29/2020 21:06:58


AVX Light mode
Cycle time: 480000 ms
Reference frequency: 4000 MHz
CCX delta: 175 MHz
Reference voltage: 1150 mV
Target voltage: 1150 mV


Cinebench 20 started
Cinebench 20 finished with result: 6865
Voltage: 1.311 V  PPT: 142 W  Temperature: 70.1°
Manual overclocking mode enabled

Step# 1
Sets overclocking parameters...
CCX1  Quality 148  Frequency 4075 MHz  Voltage 1150 mV  OC+
CCX2  Quality 130  Frequency 4075 MHz  Voltage 1150 mV  OC+
CCX3  Quality 148  Frequency 4000 MHz  Voltage 1150 mV  OC+
CCX4  Quality 130  Frequency 4000 MHz  Voltage 1150 mV  OC+
Stress test #1 started!  09/29/2020 21:08:03
FFT: 2048  CPU Vdroop: 1.7 %  CPU Temperature: 48.4°
Stress test stopped!  09/29/2020 21:10:48
Stress test #2 started!  09/29/2020 21:10:49
FFT: 1344  CPU Vdroop: 1.7 %  CPU Temperature: 46.4°
Stress test stopped!  09/29/2020 21:13:34
Stress test #3 started!  09/29/2020 21:13:35
FFT: 4096  CPU Vdroop: 1.7 %  CPU Temperature: 46.5°
Stress test stopped!  09/29/2020 21:16:20

Step# 2
Sets overclocking parameters...
CCX1  Quality 148  Frequency 4100 MHz  Voltage 1150 mV  OC+
CCX2  Quality 130  Frequency 4100 MHz  Voltage 1150 mV  OC+
CCX3  Quality 148  Frequency 4025 MHz  Voltage 1150 mV  OC+
CCX4  Quality 130  Frequency 4025 MHz  Voltage 1150 mV  OC+
Stress test #1 started!  09/29/2020 21:16:21
FFT: 2048  CPU Vdroop: 1 %  CPU Temperature: 46.1°
Stress test stopped!  09/29/2020 21:19:06
Stress test #2 started!  09/29/2020 21:19:07
FFT: 1344  CPU Vdroop: 1.7 %  CPU Temperature: 46.5°
Stress test stopped!  09/29/2020 21:21:52
Stress test #3 started!  09/29/2020 21:21:53
FFT: 4096  CPU Vdroop: 1 %  CPU Temperature: 46.3°
CCX4 overclocking failure detected!
Thread# 22 fall down, usage 94.1%
Stress test stopped!  09/29/2020 21:24:36

Step# 3
Sets overclocking parameters...
CCX1  Quality 148  Frequency 4100 MHz  Voltage 1150 mV  OC+
CCX2  Quality 130  Frequency 4100 MHz  Voltage 1150 mV  OC+
CCX3  Quality 148  Frequency 4025 MHz  Voltage 1150 mV  OC+
CCX4  Quality 130  Frequency 4000 MHz  Voltage 1150 mV  OC=
Stress test #1 started!  09/29/2020 21:24:38
FFT: 2048  CPU Vdroop: 1 %  CPU Temperature: 46.2°
Stress test stopped!  09/29/2020 21:27:23
Stress test #2 started!  09/29/2020 21:27:24
FFT: 1344  CPU Vdroop: 1.7 %  CPU Temperature: 46.4°
Stress test stopped!  09/29/2020 21:30:09
Stress test #3 started!  09/29/2020 21:30:10
FFT: 4096  CPU Vdroop: 1.7 %  CPU Temperature: 46.4°
Stress test stopped!  09/29/2020 21:32:55

Step# 4
Sets overclocking parameters...
CCX1  Quality 148  Frequency 4125 MHz  Voltage 1150 mV  OC+
CCX2  Quality 130  Frequency 4125 MHz  Voltage 1150 mV  OC+
CCX3  Quality 148  Frequency 4025 MHz  Voltage 1150 mV  OC=
CCX4  Quality 130  Frequency 4000 MHz  Voltage 1150 mV  OC=
Stress test #1 started!  09/29/2020 21:32:55
FFT: 2048  CPU Vdroop: 1.7 %  CPU Temperature: 46.4°
Stress test stopped!  09/29/2020 21:35:40
Stress test #2 started!  09/29/2020 21:35:41
FFT: 1344  CPU Vdroop: 1 %  CPU Temperature: 46.6°
Stress test stopped!  09/29/2020 21:38:26
Stress test #3 started!  09/29/2020 21:38:27
FFT: 4096  CPU Vdroop: 1.7 %  CPU Temperature: 46.4°
Stress test stopped!  09/29/2020 21:41:12

Step# 5
Sets overclocking parameters...
CCX1  Quality 148  Frequency 4150 MHz  Voltage 1150 mV  OC+
CCX2  Quality 130  Frequency 4150 MHz  Voltage 1150 mV  OC+
CCX3  Quality 148  Frequency 4025 MHz  Voltage 1150 mV  OC=
CCX4  Quality 130  Frequency 4000 MHz  Voltage 1150 mV  OC=
Stress test #1 started!  09/29/2020 21:41:13
FFT: 2048  CPU Vdroop: 1.7 %  CPU Temperature: 46.3°
Stress test stopped!  09/29/2020 21:43:58
Stress test #2 started!  09/29/2020 21:43:59
FFT: 1344  CPU Vdroop: 1.7 %  CPU Temperature: 46.4°
Stress test stopped!  09/29/2020 21:46:44
Stress test #3 started!  09/29/2020 21:46:45
FFT: 4096  CPU Vdroop: 1.7 %  CPU Temperature: 46.4°
Stress test stopped!  09/29/2020 21:49:30

Step# 6
Sets overclocking parameters...
CCX1  Quality 148  Frequency 4175 MHz  Voltage 1150 mV  OC+
CCX2  Quality 130  Frequency 4175 MHz  Voltage 1150 mV  OC+
CCX3  Quality 148  Frequency 4025 MHz  Voltage 1150 mV  OC=
CCX4  Quality 130  Frequency 4000 MHz  Voltage 1150 mV  OC=
Stress test #1 started!  09/29/2020 21:49:31
FFT: 2048  CPU Vdroop: 1.7 %  CPU Temperature: 46.1°
CCX2 overclocking failure detected!
Thread# 8 fall down, usage 91.2%
Stress test stopped!  09/29/2020 21:49:49

Step# 7
Sets overclocking parameters...
CCX1  Quality 148  Frequency 4175 MHz  Voltage 1150 mV  OC+
CCX2  Quality 130  Frequency 4150 MHz  Voltage 1150 mV  OC=
CCX3  Quality 148  Frequency 4025 MHz  Voltage 1150 mV  OC=
CCX4  Quality 130  Frequency 4000 MHz  Voltage 1150 mV  OC=
Stress test #1 started!  09/29/2020 21:49:50
FFT: 2048  CPU Vdroop: 1.7 %  CPU Temperature: 46°
Stress test stopped!  09/29/2020 21:52:35
Stress test #2 started!  09/29/2020 21:52:36
FFT: 1344  CPU Vdroop: 1.7 %  CPU Temperature: 46.2°
Stress test stopped!  09/29/2020 21:55:21
Stress test #3 started!  09/29/2020 21:55:22
FFT: 4096  CPU Vdroop: 1.7 %  CPU Temperature: 46.2°
Stress test stopped!  09/29/2020 21:58:07

Step# 8
Sets overclocking parameters...
CCX1  Quality 148  Frequency 4150 MHz  Voltage 1150 mV  OC=
CCX2  Quality 130  Frequency 4125 MHz  Voltage 1150 mV  OC=
CCX3  Quality 148  Frequency 4000 MHz  Voltage 1150 mV  OC=
CCX4  Quality 130  Frequency 3975 MHz  Voltage 1150 mV  OC=
Cinebench 20 started
Cinebench 20 finished with result: 7041
Voltage: 1.15 V  PPT: 108.9 W  Temperature: 60.8°
Profile successfully saved!
```


----------



## biffzinker (Sep 30, 2020)

Did a second run, and now it's got both CCX set for 4,300 MHz with the voltage at 1.275 compared to CCX1 4,300/CCX2 4,275 1.25V. There must be small deviation in what it considers stable.


----------



## Tomorrow (Sep 30, 2020)

I also ran this on my 3800X.
This is compared to my own profile that is using much more voltage than stock.
Temp and clock are peaks. Voltage is sustained allcore.

Temp: 83c > 63c
Energy usage: 131W > 87W
Voltage: 1.42v > 1.25v
CB20: 4905/517 > 5158/497
Clock: 4550Mhz > 4275Mhz

So like i suspected i lost about 20 points ST perf and gained about 250 points MT perf.
Both of my CCX's appear almost equal but i also set the delta to only 25Mhz. If i had set it higher one might have boosted higher because 3800X is (even the early ones) some of the best binned models.


----------



## RainingTacco (Sep 30, 2020)

I too have bronze bin/quality and as you would expect -it's garbage, going at 4100-4125mhz max, which i get with the normal everyday stock boost. Sadly no OC potential for me.


----------



## Nordic (Oct 1, 2020)

I seem to occasionally get this error and I am not sure why. Maybe the hotfix will fix it.





Edit1:
I have also run the program three times at 1.15v and I have received the near same result each time.





Edit2:
After the hotfix was released I have finally had a completely successful overclock run. 6% faster and 3% more efficient. I am going to keep testing but I think I like the 23% more efficiency from undervolting more.


----------



## RainingTacco (Oct 1, 2020)

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


----------



## mtcn77 (Oct 1, 2020)

RainingTacco said:


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


Yep, I never go above 16K.


----------



## Nordic (Oct 2, 2020)

RainingTacco said:


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


This only does a quick test with Prime 95 for a maximum of 1000ms. That is very short. You should run a proper stress test for 24 hours once you have found settings you think will work.


----------



## wolf (Oct 2, 2020)

RainingTacco said:


> I too have bronze bin/quality and as you would expect -it's garbage, going at 4100-4125mhz max, which i get with the normal everyday stock boost. Sadly no OC potential for me.


Same, 3700X bronze. 4125 it tops out with CTR, but with 1usmus power plan everything else stock, it boost single core to 4400 and is generally around 4200-4375 when gaming so this tool isn't going to help me unless my focus was productivity.

I haven't re-ran it though, might do a touch better. Are there settings to allow it to try clock more aggressively by adding volts?


----------



## Nordic (Oct 2, 2020)

Yes. You can tell it which voltage to test for and a reference clock to start testing with. The diagnostic will give you a reference clock for 1.15v and 1.25v. I tested it at 1.1v and 1.3v myself. 1.1v instantly crashed the system and it was unable at the clocks it gave me for 1.3v.


----------



## bonezy (Oct 2, 2020)

Hi, I get a bronze rating on my 3700X but it depends on the run. I saw a silver rating and better clocks on another run with the first edition.
Efficiency is up but I dunno if I am benefiting at all with gaming. I don't use my PC for anything else just wanted to play around with the tool.

The problem is that I can't boot into Windows with 1Usmus's suggested settings (LLC 3, Phase control standard, CPU Current Capability 100%), so the below is with Auto on all setting including LLC.
The only thing I changed after resetting is the DOCP

For some inexplicable to me reason, I get BSOD's constantly using his settings.
My specs are in the first ss below. Anyone else run into the same problem?


Cheers!


----------



## Ja.KooLit (Oct 2, 2020)

Sadly, my 3900XT, gold as per Diagnostic, but when I do overclocking, my system is just rebooting. even I increased LLC up to level 5, no improvement. for Beta 1 to 3.. Well lets see if there are fixes in the future.


----------



## drinking12many (Oct 3, 2020)

I must have gotten a pretty good 3700x this is where I am at so far. I haven't done a ton of stability testing at 4425 all-core but its not doing too bad. I backed it off from 4475 which seemed like it was ok at that...4500 crashed pretty quickly.


----------



## le0111 (Oct 6, 2020)

hi all
as you can see the program says i have platinum sample ryzen 3600 . I'm on air cooler.
how i use the setting the program suggest?


----------



## Ja.KooLit (Oct 8, 2020)

le0111 said:


> hi all
> as you can see the program says i have platinum sample ryzen 3600 . I'm on air cooler.
> how i use the setting the program suggest?



wow good for you... congratulations. after diagnostic, just click the start button, beware to that you need to save your work before because there are multiple bsod, and reboot. 1usmus should release version 1.1 soon


----------



## Mussels (Oct 9, 2020)




----------



## biffzinker (Oct 14, 2020)

I've been meaning to run the diagnostic to find out what my 3800X is classified. Guess I'm golden, expected a different rating.


----------



## Chomiq (Oct 14, 2020)

biffzinker said:


> I've been meaning to run the diagnostic to find out what my 3800X is classified. Guess I'm golden, expected a different rating.
> View attachment 171794


Yeah good luck with those "ratings". Same as Micron E-Die being rated as "4133" regardless of actual timings:


----------



## biffzinker (Oct 14, 2020)

Chomiq said:


> Yeah good luck with those "ratings". Same as Micron E-Die being rated as "4133" regardless of actual timings:
> View attachment 171795


The last three weeks it's been running at 4.3 GHz with the voltage at 1.25 without any instability.


----------



## Breit (Oct 16, 2020)

Does anyone know what the max PPT/EDC/TDC limits are in CTR?
...and also how to change them?

Just doing binary search trial-and-error and figured it must be:
400W PPT
450A EDC
300A TDC

But sometimes hacking in different values for TDC results in a "PPT too high!" error, although I havn't changed it?!

I'm runing my 3960X currently with a manually configured and fine-tuned setup with perCCX OC in BIOS using the following settings:
CCX1 - 44.00x
CCX2 - 44.00x
CCX3 - 43.50x
CCX4 - 43.25x
CCX5 - 44.00x
CCX6 - 43.75x
CCX7 - 44.00x
CCX8 - 44.00x
vCore 1.4V per BIOS, LLC High (~1.31V under prime95 SmallFFT load all-core)
Package Power Limit manually configured to 600W and cTDP manually configured to 500W in BIOS. 

This runs Prime-stable, even with 4K SmallFFT. I just thought I could give CTR a chance to optimize this a bit further.
But without a raised PPT limit, this can not work. The system is pulling about 500W under max. load CPU alone.

What also bothers me is that somehow the reported CPPC values seem to have changed over time? I thought they were set fixed inside the CPU during manufacturing? When I bought the CPU back in April 2020, I started overclocking per CCX and used the values from the Windows event log using BIOS F5c (AGESA 1.0.0.3B). I recently upgraded to BIOS F5k (AGESA 1.0.0.4). Board is a Gigabyte TRX40 Aorus Master.

They were:
CCX1 - C01 = 175 (now: 167)
CCX1 - C02 = 171 (now: 163)
CCX1 - C03 = 167 (now: 160)

CCX2 - C04 = 163 (now: 156)
CCX2 - C04 = 159 (now: 152)
CCX2 - C04 = 156 (now: 149)

CCX3 - C04 = 140 (now: 134)
CCX3 - C04 = 137 (now: 131)
CCX3 - C04 = 133 (now: 127)

CCX4 - C04 = 129 (now: 123)
CCX4 - C04 = 125 (now: 120)
CCX4 - C04 = 125 (now: 120)

CCX5 - C04 = 182 (now: 174)
CCX5 - C04 = 178 (now: 171)
CCX5 - C04 = 182 (now: 174)

CCX6 - C04 = 152 (now: 145)
CCX6 - C04 = 148 (now: 142)
CCX6 - C04 = 144 (now: 138)

CCX7 - C04 = 125 (now: 120)
CCX7 - C04 = 125 (now: 120)
CCX7 - C04 = 125 (now: 120)

CCX8 - C04 = 125 (now: 120)
CCX8 - C04 = 125 (now: 120)
CCX8 - C04 = 125 (now: 120)

Anyone experienced something similiar?
These new values are the same in the Windows event log and in CTR btw.


----------



## mtcn77 (Oct 16, 2020)

Breit said:


> But sometimes hacking in different values for TDC results in a "PPT too high!" error, although I havn't changed it?!


You have to manually enter them if you are activating pbo. The defaults for 280w tdp are,

280W PPT,
300A EDC,
215A TDC.



			https://www.overclock3d.net/reviews/cpu_mainboard/amd_3rd_generation_ryzen_threadripper_tr_3960x_review/
		

You shouldn't elevate them past this much if you want to save your chip down the line. Also, 1.31v is too high. Stay safe ~1.25v.
Unless you want single threaded performance, you don't need EDC all that much either and even if you are overclocking you should only make PPT 10% higher than EDC, no more. Again, these are best practice measures.
Precision Boost Overdrive should not interest users since it was intentionally developed for threadripper platform to curb temperature related power spikes from damaging the motherboard, a.k.a. Poole-Frenkel Effect. It doesn't overclock, instead it monitors consumption.
PS: okay, so I found out about 3960X's defaults.


----------



## Breit (Oct 16, 2020)

The 3960X already has 280W TDP @stock. So the default PPT must be somewhat north of 300 @stock either. To do a proper OC, raising PPT above that is necessary I guess.


----------



## mtcn77 (Oct 16, 2020)

Breit said:


> The 3960X already has 280W TDP @stock. So the default PPT must be somewhat north of 300 @stock either. To do a proper OC, raising PPT above that is necessary I guess.


That is risky as indicated. Temperature has a reciprocal effect with more heat. What is not indicated here is the voltage: if we take 1.31v as you say, that's 213A - right at the TDC limit, so we might say we are EDC limited for a good bin increase. If however we decrease the voltage to 1.25v we are at 224A - any leftover current will be used to boost more often.
Of course, it is up to user preference whether overclocking should be manual, but I insist pbo is just for threadripper power management.
What we can do is take a much lower EDC, but only after looking at how little voltage is enough for each cores random operation. They come with discrete power gates, why leave it at stock? Undervolt and overcurrent is my motto. If we curb voltage, that will double power efficiency but only linearly affect the speed bin. We can develop a voltage to maximum bin gradient and not waste overclock potential for the slower cores. They had this developed in 1800X testing, at low voltage the cpu was using less than half at sub-60°C temperatures. This is what any big die cpu user should consider imo.








The first is watts, the second core temperature. Even from this example the message should be clear - don't rely on voltage to do your overclocks for you.


----------



## Zach_01 (Oct 16, 2020)

Breit said:


> I'm runing my 3960X currently with a manually configured and fine-tuned setup with perCCX OC in BIOS using the following settings:
> CCX1 - 44.00x
> CCX2 - 44.00x
> CCX3 - 43.50x
> ...


Can I ask what was the max voltage applied by CPU power management running prime95 (custom 128K FFTs) when the CPU was under full auto boost settings?
Because you're not suppose to apply more than that on static speed/voltage.



Breit said:


> What also bothers me is that somehow the reported CPPC values seem to have changed over time? I thought they were set fixed inside the CPU during manufacturing? When I bought the CPU back in April 2020, I started overclocking per CCX and used the values from the Windows event log using BIOS F5c (AGESA 1.0.0.3B). I recently upgraded to BIOS F5k (AGESA 1.0.0.4). Board is a Gigabyte TRX40 Aorus Master.
> 
> They were:
> CCX1 - C01 = 175 (now: 167)
> ...


Have you consider degradation?
I dont really know, just asking...


----------



## mtcn77 (Oct 16, 2020)

I think you would benefit from saving more than 100w(160>52@3.3GHz example). If you consider your whole chip a 2 parts 1800X, take the lower bin CCX'es for a lower limit and open up more room for better clocking ones. Otherwise, you are TDP limited(280W÷1.31=213A, TDC:215A at stock) let alone EDC. At TDC current, you are temperature limited - it overrides everything, you need to be below a certain temperature threshold for it to untrigger 'FID' the master power switch.
If you want to reach peak current limits, you need to save on average consumption. Even if you cut down half of the cores on power(the way you do this is via the voltage setting) you leave the rest to EDC limits. Notice if you had throttled them with EDC instead, neither the good cores or the bad would overclock - they would all clock the same. So, there are ways to go about it. Be safe and smart: maximise EDC, but lower voltage and PPT wherever you may.


----------



## Breit (Oct 17, 2020)

Zach_01 said:


> Can I ask what was the max voltage applied by CPU power management running prime95 (custom 128K FFTs) when the CPU was under full auto boost settings?


I just re-run it for the sake of getting the baseline straight. Without PBO at full stock settings, the voltage settles at 1.312-1.344V (SVI2) under full load (Prime95 128K FFTs AVX 48 threads) with clocks around 4120MHz. With PBO enabled, voltage is mostly 1.381V with dips occasionally to 1.369V and spikes to 1.4V. Clocks are around 4170MHz.

Since I installed the new BIOS, I thought to revise my overclock and managed to get an additional +25/+50MHz on each CCX and also was able to lower voltages. VCore is set to 1.350V in BIOS and droops to around 1.312V/1.319V (acording to the SVI2 reading). Temps are below 80°C then hovering between 70 and 78 most of the time during Prime95 AVX load.

I guess I'll leave it at that for now with clocks of: 4425; 4425; 4375; 4350; 4450; 4425; 4450; 4425 MHz. This is good for +15.000 CB20 scores.



mtcn77 said:


> whether overclocking should be manual, but I insist pbo is just for threadripper power management


In my experience PBO doesn't do much in terms of clock speed increase. What it does is increasing power draw without substantially increasing performance. It also sets PPT to 600W, TDC to 800A and EDC to 960A. 
Its a shame you could not fine-tune PBO and use it as your overclock. Retaining boost behavior to get high single core clock speeds while lowering clocks on multi-core workloads would be highly appreciated. Sadly AMD did not intended it this way.



mtcn77 said:


> Undervolt and overcurrent is my motto.


You mean keeping voltage as low as possible for a given clock? That's what I intend to do. But you only have vCore and clock to change, current comes only as a result of that setting, it's nothing you can exchange willingly?! Given that, a desired clock speed demands a certain voltage to run stable at, you can't tell the CPU to magically draw more current to get a clock speed stable.



Zach_01 said:


> Have you consider degradation?
> I dont really know, just asking...


Yes, I'm working on incentivize myself to upgrade to a Zen3 Threadripper when they come out. 



mtcn77 said:


> I think you would benefit from saving more than 100w(160>52@3.3GHz example). If you consider your whole chip a 2 parts 1800X, take the lower bin CCX'es for a lower limit and open up more room for better clocking ones. Otherwise, you are TDP limited(280W÷1.31=213A, TDC:215A at stock) let alone EDC. At TDC current, you are temperature limited - it overrides everything, you need to be below a certain temperature threshold for it to untrigger 'FID' the master power switch.
> If you want to reach peak current limits, you need to save on average consumption. Even if you cut down half of the cores on power(the way you do this is via the voltage setting) you leave the rest to EDC limits. Notice if you had throttled them with EDC instead, neither the good cores or the bad would overclock - they would all clock the same. So, there are ways to go about it. Be safe and smart: maximise EDC, but lower voltage and PPT wherever you may.


I guess I can not follow you there. Dynamic boosting is only possible without PB/PBO as I understand it. As soon as I type in stuff manually, clocks are fixed (perCCX). Maybe that wasn't the case with the the 1800X, but with the 3960X it sure is. As said earlier, PBO does not give anything worthwhile in a performance uplift justifying the power draw it produces.


----------



## DuxCro (Oct 17, 2020)

What kind of crazy recommendations is this program giving me? WTF?


----------



## Zach_01 (Oct 17, 2020)

DuxCro said:


> What kind of crazy recommendations is this program giving me? WTF?
> View attachment 172136


Platinum?
I want a Diamond one....

Seriously something is not right. Show us RyzenMaster... would you?


----------

