# Zen 3 5600x overclocking



## lance36 (May 21, 2021)

Mobo
Asus Tuf gaming 570x-pro (wifi)
CPU Zen 3 5600x cooled with an galahad 360 aio
GPU RX 6800 Asus Tuf
Ram GSkill TridentZ neo 3600 F4-3600c16d-16gtznc 32gbs
Storage 2X NVMe WD 850 1TB each
Case Phanteks P500A
PSU Seasonice Prime PX0-850 80+platinum.

Little about me. I've been playing on a gaming laptop for the past 8 to 10 years haswell (i7 and gtx 970) before then I had a desktop with an OC AMD black edition CPU and I think a 500 series GPU. Awhile ago for me.
So with that out of the way here's the meat and potatoes of the post. I'm overclocking my 5600x and this is what I've got so far. 1.375v @4.75 all core OC @ 72c . My cinebench scores stock with multi 10695 single 1512 after OC multi 12014 and single of 1568.  To get 4.80Ghz stable I have to volt all the way to 1.45v and only got 200 more on my multi score (Didn't do a single). My friend said wow that's kinda hot @72c but said that might be fine for AMD since he OC his i9 9900k to 5.0Ghz all core @ 50c, I do know that anything around 90 is bad. I'm looking for opinions, tips/tricks, other people experience and, is it worth it (to you if you where in my shoes).

Thanks
​


----------



## Zach_01 (May 21, 2021)

72C is not that hot for a ZEN3 CPU. Their max operating temp are 90C.
What can potentially kill or "just" degrade the CPU in the long run is the static voltage you feed it in conjunction with that temp, depending on the workloads you're using.

The 5000 series CPUs came with the wonderful feature of the CurveOptimizer build in their PBO settings. This let you adjust the V/F (voltage/frequency) curve across all workloads (type and amount of load).
This is practically OC under boost behavior and also is letting you set the limits of power consumption, current(ampere) and temp. If it's not overdone by the user the CPU can hold its internal limits while boosting beyond the specified(stock) limits.

By setting it to a static voltage/frequency the CPU is with its pants down against workloads, with no way to protect it self, if the user is not know what is doing or what voltage is appropriate for what type of workload.

Ryzens are very complicated and advanced CPUs (no other like it), and your past experience with Intel or past AMD CPUs can only hurt the new one.


----------



## freeagent (May 21, 2021)

If you do use a static OC don't deviate too far from your FIT voltage. They do run cool, but once you start going up from there the heat cant escape fast enough. I am of course thinking of absolute absolute full load, which does not come from cinebench or aida64 type programs. I don't normally run more than .05v more than FIT. And with something like y-cruncher I cant run more than 1.3v anyways, it's trying to draw too much jo0s and just reboots. Most I saw in hwinfo was 143w. Not bad for a 65w cpu.

Edit:

Not Y-Cruncher.. must have been Py-prime.. one of those two..


----------



## INSTG8R (May 21, 2021)

Honestly no point in static OC just turn on PBO , set the max limit (200mhz)and it will do 4800-48050 all day long whenever it needs to.


----------



## freeagent (May 21, 2021)

I agree if you are a regular user no point in a static oc. But just because it runs faster doesn’t make it stronger.. that was a tough one to learn.


----------



## INSTG8R (May 21, 2021)

freeagent said:


> I agree if you are a regular user no point in a static oc. But just because it runs faster doesn’t make it stronger.. that was a tough one to learn.


I mean even under heavy MT loads it still sits at 4725 across most core s 4700 on the lowest., so how much stronger does  it have to be?


----------



## GerKNG (May 21, 2021)

if you sit at around 1.4V under load you're up to 250mv above the stock voltage and you will degrade the CPU pretty fast.

just unlock powerlimits with PBO and use the curve optimizer.

best performance, 100% safe.


----------



## INSTG8R (May 21, 2021)

GerKNG said:


> if you sit at around 1.4V under load you're up to 250mv above the stock voltage and you will degrade the CPU pretty fast.
> 
> just unlock powerlimits with PBO and use the curve optimizer.
> 
> best performance, 100% safe.


1.4 peak voltage using -15 Curve Optimzer. 200Mhz is the max limit


----------



## Space Lynx (May 21, 2021)

freeagent said:


> I agree if you are a regular user no point in a static oc. But just because it runs faster doesn’t make it stronger.. that was a tough one to learn.



I really would love to see your BIOS settings for 4.6 ghz 1.25v stable, is that all core no dc?  even w1zz needed 1.35v to get that stable in his review of the 5600x.

i just use the "Enhanced PBO option" on my MSI X570 mobo... ever since the latest BIOS its been rock solid stable. I believe I get 4750 max on 1 to 2 cores at a time when it boosts, and when it does all core it does 4.4 ghz... it never goes over 70 celsius even in benchmarks... so I am pretty happy overall... but if I could have 4.6 all core stable at 1.25v, I would do it. I don't think this chip is capable of it (unless there are other BIOS besides voltage I am not setting correctly)


----------



## lance36 (May 21, 2021)

Thanks for all the replies.  I am new to Curve Optimizer and I'll give it a shoot! Like I said it's been a long time since I've OCed.


----------



## freeagent (May 21, 2021)

Sure. It’s everything stable. Occt, Linpack, benchmarks, games, daily life.. after 4600 it’s pretty tough. I am actually running 4650.. next bump is to 1.3 for 4700. That’s the tippy top for me.


----------



## Space Lynx (May 21, 2021)

freeagent said:


> Sure. It’s everything stable. Occt, Linpack, benchmarks, games, daily life.. after 4600 it’s pretty tough. I am actually running 4650.. next bump is to 1.3 for 4700. That’s the tippy top for me.



you got a golden chip there my friend.  i may try to mimic these settings this weekend. we'll see.


----------



## freeagent (May 21, 2021)

Have at it man! I did the same with some interconnect settings.. very helpful..

Also to run 4700 I have to turn pbo on for the extra juice.. right now it’s not on..



INSTG8R said:


> I mean even under heavy MT loads it still sits at 4725 across most core s 4700 on the lowest., so how much stronger does  it have to be?


You would have to bench it yourself to see the differences.


----------



## INSTG8R (May 21, 2021)

freeagent said:


> Have at it man! I did the same with some interconnect settings.. very helpful..
> 
> Also to run 4700 I have to turn pbo on for the extra juice.. right now it’s not on..
> 
> ...


Compared to what? I get 4611 i R20 I mean I just game ion my PC it’s fast enough, runs cool, I’m not sure I see your point?


----------



## freeagent (May 21, 2021)

INSTG8R said:


> Compared to what? I get 4611 i R20 I mean I just game ion my PC it’s fast enough, runs cool, I’m not sure I see your point?


You can see it aida64.. Look at your L3 bandwidth

Also, you can check hwbot to see how your scores stack up, there are plenty of 5600X entries, heck I even have a couple in there.. but all of mine were with static numbers..

Edit again:

It’s no different than Intel in that regard, at least older Intel. Run a bench with C1e and all the green stuff on.. then dive back in and set a static oc and run that bench again.. you will see a higher score with the static oc. If it’s the same then run Linpack Xtreme and take not of your Gflop output, it should be higher with the static oc..


----------



## lance36 (May 22, 2021)

Alright folks, it looks like this weekend I will be watching a tutorial about PBO. Because I am doing something wrong. First I went in and "set the max limit (200mhz)and it will do 4800-4805" and my cinebench score was worse than my static @ 11358. Started messing around with some of the other features that I understand and she wouldn't boost over 4.5ghz. So I'll be back once I get educated.


----------



## freeagent (May 22, 2021)

Are you using the curve optimizer? If so stop..

Use the other one and let it use the full power of the board..

Use CO after you see what kind of power it wants.. I can only go +150 with -30. It will run +200 but OCCT throws a ton of errors.


----------



## lance36 (May 22, 2021)

freeagent said:


> Are you using the curve optimizer? If so stop..
> 
> Use the other one and let it use the full power of the board..
> 
> Use CO after you see what kind of power it wants.. I can only go +150 with -30. It will run +200 but OCCT throws a ton of errors.


I'll have to watch a tutorial, I did my changes in BIOS and then I tried my changes in rise and master which one is better?

Alright boys I've watched a YouTube video therefore I'm now an expert . What are some good starting points for my limits PTT, TDC, and EDC. From what I've read the best PBO scalar to start with would be 10x. Let me know if that should be any different. I am running a 360mm aio, but I don't know if I should really play with the platform thermal throttle limit. I'm really looking forward to your guys's advice this is the first time I played with PBO.


----------



## Zach_01 (May 22, 2021)

I will apologize in advance for the language...

Who the heck is suggesting a X10 scalar?
That thing will voltage the crap out of the CPU, increase its temp, and eventually not boost too high.

ZEN2/3 CPUs are very temp sensitive and they keep boosting higher when their temp is decreased, with 50C to be the best you can get. The road to thermal throttle (ZEN2= 95C, ZEN3= 90C) is filled with all kinds of boost/performance cut.
The key for higher boost/performance is reduced temp and reduced voltage is the main way to do it. That is CurveOptimizer's deal by introducing a negative offset to the V/F curve. That works pretty well with almost all 5000 series CPUs.

Always choose BIOS for your settings.

Friendly advice: Don't be eager to OC the CPU without know it first.

Start here:










And remember... don't overdo this either. It can result in a really (long term) bad situation for your CPU. And don't run heavy stress/burn tests (like Prime95/OCCT) all day long to test stability.
They can worn-out a CPU if (PBO, CO) settings are too aggressive. Always in the long-term.

Get HWiNFO64 and start observing the CPU operational parameters at pure stock settings. Get to know it first.
A lot of things to see there, like clock speed, effective clock speed, voltages (SVI2 TFN), PB and PBO limits (PPT, EDC, TDC), Power Reporting Deviation... and many more.








						Effective clock vs instant (discrete) clock
					

It has become a common practice for several years to report instant (discrete) clock values for CPUs. This method is based on knowledge of the actual bus clock (BCLK) and sampling of core ratios at specific time points. The resulting clock is then a simple result of ratio * BCLK. Such approach...




					www.hwinfo.com
				









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

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




					www.hwinfo.com
				




This is for 3000 series but the general rules apply to 5000 as well








						Explaining AMD Ryzen Precision Boost Overdrive (PBO), AutoOC, & Benchmarks
					

With the launch of the Ryzen 3000 series processors, we’ve noticed a distinct confusion among readers and viewers when it comes to the phrases “Precision Boost 2,” “XFR,” “Precision Boost Overdrive,” which is different from Precision Boost, and “AutoOC.” There is also a lot of confusion about...




					www.gamersnexus.net
				




And feel free to ask questions.


----------



## lance36 (May 22, 2021)

Zach_01 said:


> I will apologize in advance for the language...
> 
> Who the heck is suggesting a X10 scalar?
> That thing will voltage the crap out of the CPU, increase its temp, and eventually not boost too high.
> ...


http://









This is where I saw the 10x or heard it.



Zach_01 said:


> I will apologize in advance for the language...
> 
> Who the heck is suggesting a X10 scalar?
> That thing will voltage the crap out of the CPU, increase its temp, and eventually not boost too high.
> ...





Zach_01 said:


> I will apologize in advance for the language...
> 
> Who the heck is suggesting a X10 scalar?
> That thing will voltage the crap out of the CPU, increase its temp, and eventually not boost too high.
> ...


I'm doing something wrong, I think. All right I went into precision boost overdrive and put the PTT TDC and EDC at the limits I saw in Ryzen master with everything stock. Then went into my curve optimizer for core set it to negative and brought down all my curves. All of them went down to 30. I did see some Cinabench scores better than stock. I don't think I should be able to get to 30 on all cores that seems fishy to me. The other thing is hardware monitor doesn't show me boosting over 4.2, 4.4 megahertz. Even after increasing my Max boost override by 25 MHz. I've only done it up to 50 until now. Am I supposed to change precision boost override to enable after changing my values?


----------



## Zach_01 (May 22, 2021)

Did you see the video I posted and read the links?

Try a 200MHz override but start with minimum negative offset (like 5) and work the way up. All cores are not created equally on a ZEN2/3 CPU. Even a 30 negative offset is too much for all cores let alone 50. Some are doing better than others.

You have to find for yourself what is best for you and what exactly you want to achieve.
Best single score of best multicore. Medium speed override with high negative offset or high speed override with low/medium negative offset (cant remember what is what right now).
You have to expand limits too (PPT at least, and EDC/TDC) but first you must see what the CPU is doing on stock (with HWiNFO64 sensors mode).

Also, HWmonitor is a very old and unsupported/obsolete piece of software, incapable to report correctly and in detail a modern and an advanced system like a ZEN3 one.
HWiNFO64 is your best bet. This was also pointed out in the video.
Didn't you see the screenshot of it I posted?

All the links/video I posted will get you started on the understanding of what is PBO and its limits (PPT/EDC/TDC) with the help of HWiNFO.


----------



## lance36 (May 22, 2021)

Zach_01 said:


> Did you see the video I posted and read the links?
> 
> Try a 200MHz override but start with minimum negative offset (like 5) and work the way up. All cores are not created equally on a ZEN2/3 CPU. Even a 30 negative offset is too much for all cores let alone 50. Some are doing better than others.
> 
> ...


I think my PPT EDC and TDC need to be much higher. I was screwing around and Ryzen master and noticed there's a tab for Creator mode which have all those settings much higher. My motherboard won't let me go past -30 on my curve. I'll try what you said with the 200 MHz and -5. I'll let you know when I get



lance36 said:


> I think my PPT EDC and TDC need to be much higher. I was screwing around and Ryzen master and noticed there's a tab for Creator mode which have all those settings much higher. My motherboard won't let me go past -30 on my curve. I'll try what you said with the 200 MHz and -5. I'll let you know when I get


Under Max load at 4.6 GHz stock I get about 69° during a cinebench run. That's completely stock



Zach_01 said:


> Did you see the video I posted and read the links?
> 
> Try a 200MHz override but start with minimum negative offset (like 5) and work the way up. All cores are not created equally on a ZEN2/3 CPU. Even a 30 negative offset is too much for all cores let alone 50. Some are doing better than others.
> 
> ...


I tried the 200 MHz with -5 and with cinebench running my clock speeds don't get over 4,200.  My PPT is 76 TDC is 47 and EDC is 90. I don't know but I'm doing something wrong


----------



## Zach_01 (May 23, 2021)

lance36 said:


> I think my PPT EDC and TDC need to be much higher. I was screwing around and Ryzen master and noticed there's a tab for Creator mode which have all those settings much higher. My motherboard won't let me go past -30 on my curve. I'll try what you said with the 200 MHz and -5. I'll let you know when I get
> 
> 
> Under Max load at 4.6 GHz stock I get about 69° during a cinebench run. That's completely stock
> ...


Under stock settings it’s really unlikely for the CPU to run at 4.6GHz all core load. This is the single or reduced threaded load frequency.

When you tried the 200MHz/-5 settings what was the PPT/EDC limits percentage(%) reported by HWiNFO?
Did you set PPT/EDC manually? Above the stock 76W PPT, 90A EDC.

Let me put it differently.
Did you follow instructions from that video?


----------



## lance36 (May 23, 2021)

I manually set the PPT/EDC to stock values when I tried the 200mghz/-5. I use cinebench to check for stability it puts all course at 100% usage. Unless I have PTO enabled instead of in advanced on my motherboard it won't boost to 4.6. when I start manually doing stuff it stays around 4.2 to 4.4.


----------



## Zach_01 (May 23, 2021)

If you set PPT/EDC at stock values then how do you expect PBO and curve optimizer to work?
The stock limits are for non PBO/curve optimizer function. Only for... stock boosting.

When you just enabling PBO without touching anything else the system set these values very high (600-900).

I guess you didn’t notice the limits when PBO is enabled in RyzenMaster and HWiNFO sensors mode.

Didn’t you see it in the video I posted that you need to change PPT/EDC when you use curve optimizer?

I also guess that you didn’t notice them either when you OCed the CPU to static 4.75 speed with that crazy 1.375V.

At this point, I don’t think you have paid the proper attention to the video or the links I posted.
Those was for your better understanding of PBO, its limits and how exactly works.
I was expecting questions about them and about the info you see on HWiNFO.

Personally I’m not willing to continue to help you if you don’t first get to know your system and how it works first on stock settings. Handing out just settings without anything else can be dengerous and I almost regret doing it before.

EDIT: typo


----------



## lance36 (May 23, 2021)

I'm new to tuning PBO, I thought stock numbers would give me stock boost numbers. In the video the guy says to start with stock numbers and how to figure out your stock numbers,then bring down your core with negative increments of five. Until you get a crash but I didn't get a crash I got all cores down to neg 30. However when I was in Ryzen master I did notice when I played with Max boost PPT/EDC changed pretty drastically especially when putting in a 4.8 GHz. It says in the video to start by finding your curve by starting at stock numbers and then moving the individual cores down each until a crash but like I said never came.



Zach_01 said:


> If you set PPT/EDC at stock values then how do you expect PBO and curve optimizer to work?
> The stock limits are for non PBO/curve optimizer function. Only for... stock boosting.
> 
> When you just enabling PBO without touching anything else the system set these values very high (600-900).
> ...


Is Ryzen Master being generous with its PPT/EDC numbers when I change max boost? Or should I put those numbers in and slowly bring them down into a crash? Or do I put those numbers in and slowly start bringing down the cores until I crash?

So I changed my PPT/EDC to what Ryzen Master showed my static overclock  PPT/EDC was didn't touch the curve left everything at zero. Put Max boost over boost at 150mhz. Never boosted over 4.5Ghz I'm at a loose. I'm new to PBO so I know I'm missing something but I can't find it.


----------



## lance36 (May 25, 2021)

Zach_01 said:


> If you set PPT/EDC at stock values then how do you expect PBO and curve optimizer to work?
> The stock limits are for non PBO/curve optimizer function. Only for... stock boosting.
> 
> When you just enabling PBO without touching anything else the system set these values very high (600-900).
> ...


I figured it out. In my motherboard settings there are AI tweaker which has precision boost overdrive options PPT/TDC/EDC precision boost overdrive scalar, override. But then under advanced I have AMD overclocking, precision boost overdrive with many of the other same values that I can change but it includes curve optimizer. If I don't match the settings from one to the other nothing happens.

Here are my setting and the issue I run into PPT limit 161, TDC limit 95, EDC limit 160. Scaler is at 3x Max boost override is set to 150. Neg 30 on all cores. In Ryzen Master I can see my different limits like PPT and TDC and EDC and I've given him a little bit of room so I can definitely bring those down but my problem is I only hit 4.7 GHz . I decrease my curve by changing it to neg 20 on all cores and I boost even less 4.65.


----------



## Zach_01 (May 25, 2021)

4.7GHz under what load?
Single or multi threaded?


----------



## lance36 (May 25, 2021)

Sorry multi thread 100% load Cinebench, I get 4.7 I do  reach 4.85 but only with single.I did overclocked my ram last night. In Intel burn test boost wood occasionally reach 4.8  for brief time periods but I changed a lot of settings to get my ram to 3733/1866


----------



## tabascosauz (May 25, 2021)

Zach_01 said:


> If you set PPT/EDC at stock values then how do you expect PBO and curve optimizer to work?
> The stock limits are for non PBO/curve optimizer function. Only for... stock boosting.
> 
> When you just enabling PBO without touching anything else the system set these values very high (600-900).
> ...



I'm not sure if you've had any actual hands-on with Ryzen 5000, but it's straight up not true that Curve Optimizer only works with PBO enabled. PBO must be enabled and set to Advanced in order to expose the CO submenu in AMD Overclocking, but you can simply set your undervolt then disable PBO again. The undervolt stays in effect despite the menu being hidden again, this is easily corroborated from the improved benchmark scores and higher boosting. It's how I've been running since I finished verifying per-core stability on my CO settings, Curve Optimizer with PBO off and stock 142/95/140 limits.

Alternatively setting stock power limits with PBO on achieves basically the same result, as long as scalar remains on 1X.

At least, this is how it works in the Asus BIOS, which OP is also using. The only thing that matters in the AMD Overclocking PBO menu is Curve Optimizer, everything else should be set from the main PBO menu under AI Tweaker. In the last few BIOSes the board only cares about the power limit / scalar / override settings in the AI Tweaker menu anyways, which makes sense as the AMD OC PBO menu used to be designed for Ryzen Master to use not the user.

@lance36 start listening to other people and stop staring at Ryzen Master. Watch Effective Clock in HWInfo. When verifying stability on Curve Optimizer use a per-core script like corecycler and let it run 2 iterations through the cores (2-3h). And when you test, close absolutely all background tasks save for HWInfo as you let the script do its thing. Judging from the seat of your pants based on when you "get a crash" will get you nowhere, because all-core stress tests don't reveal jack shit about whether your CO settings are stable.

Sync the settings if you need to, whatever sticks.


----------



## lance36 (May 25, 2021)

tabascosauz said:


> I'm not sure if you've had any actual hands-on with Ryzen 5000, but it's straight up not true that Curve Optimizer only works with PBO enabled. PBO must be enabled and set to Advanced in order to expose the CO submenu in AMD Overclocking, but you can simply set your undervolt then disable PBO again. The undervolt stays in effect despite the menu being hidden again, this is easily corroborated from the improved benchmark scores and higher boosting. It's how I've been running since I finished verifying per-core stability on my CO settings, Curve Optimizer with PBO off and stock 142/95/140 limits.
> 
> Alternatively setting stock power limits with PBO on achieves basically the same result, as long as scalar remains on 1X.
> 
> At least, this is how it works in the Asus BIOS, which OP is also using. The only thing that matters in the AMD Overclocking PBO menu is Curve Optimizer, everything else should be set from the main PBO menu under AI Tweaker. In the last few BIOSes the board only cares about the power limit / scalar / override settings in the AI Tweaker menu anyways, which makes sense as the AMD OC PBO menu used to be designed for Ryzen Master to use not the user.


The problem I have right now it's annoying but it works, is that if I don't change the settings in both locations nothing happens. It's good to know about the undervolt settings staying put after changing it to enable. Should I change it to enable cuz I left it with advanced open?


----------



## Zach_01 (May 25, 2021)

tabascosauz said:


> I'm not sure if you've had any actual hands-on with Ryzen 5000, but it's straight up not true that Curve Optimizer only works with PBO enabled. PBO must be enabled and set to Advanced in order to expose the CO submenu in AMD Overclocking, but you can simply set your undervolt then disable PBO again. The undervolt stays in effect despite the menu being hidden again, this is easily corroborated from the improved benchmark scores and higher boosting. It's how I've been running since I finished verifying per-core stability on my CO settings, Curve Optimizer with PBO off and stock 142/95/140 limits.
> 
> At least, this is how it works in the Asus BIOS, which OP is also using. The only thing that matters in the AMD Overclocking PBO menu is Curve Optimizer, everything else should be set from the main PBO menu under AI Tweaker.


I’m not arguing that this can work like this.

The thing is that @lance36 expects all core boost at least to the point of his static OC (4.75GHz). Can this be achieved by CO alone with stock PBO settings? No...

I’m not saying that I’m backing up this decision. It’s too much to expect from ZEN3 CPU to run all cores boost equal or above its stock single core boost level.
These are not INTEL CPUs to crank up voltage and run all cores to single core freq.

OP should be aware of this before he damage his CPU in the long run.
I was about to tell him this...

It’s different to want better (higher or more consistent) single/reduced threaded performance within the same stock PB limits. I’m all into that.

@lance36 should decide if he really wants all that (all core) boost performance that he seeks. If yes then it was wrong to buy a 6core CPU in the first place.


----------



## lance36 (May 25, 2021)

My PBO settings are not stock. I had my PBO settings maxed out by the motherboard and still couldn't reach the static clocks.



Zach_01 said:


> I’m not arguing that this can work like this.
> 
> The thing is that @lance36 expects all core boost at least to the point of his static OC (4.75GHz). Can this be achieved by CO alone with stock PBO settings? No...
> 
> ...


With Ryzen Master open, I can see my PBO settings and the gauges are not even pushing out of the green.


----------



## Taraquin (May 25, 2021)

Pbo+curve optimizer rocks! Better than static oc. Try tuning tdc, edc and tdp a bit and don't be surprised if you can run 4.7GHz all core and 4.85GHz single.


----------



## lance36 (May 25, 2021)

Taraquin said:


> Pbo+curve optimizer rocks! Better than static oc. Try tuning tdc, edc and tdp a bit and don't be surprised if you can run 4.7GHz all core and 4.85GHz single.


I did run those things, with my ram overclocked it pushes the limits of tdp/EDC/PPT more into the red. However I was hoping I guess a best of both worlds where I could see boosts of 4.75 all core since my system can handle it. Even if PBO won't do it, I'm keeping it because single core performance is better for gaming.


----------



## Taraquin (May 25, 2021)

lance36 said:


> I did run those things, with my ram overclocked it pushes the limits of tdp/EDC/PPT more into the red. However I was hoping I guess a best of both worlds where I could see boosts of 4.75 all core since my system can handle it. Even if PBO won't do it, I'm keeping it because single core performance is better for gaming.


Maximizing ram is much better than cpu oc on ryzen for gaming performance. I tweaked all I could on the ram before I began cpu oc


----------



## lance36 (May 25, 2021)

Taraquin said:


> Maximizing ram is much better than cpu oc on ryzen for gaming performance. I tweaked all I could on the ram before I began cpu oc


Omg no joke 3733/1866 banging it . Noticed that fps


----------



## Taraquin (May 25, 2021)

lance36 said:


> Omg no joke 3733/1866 banging it . Noticed that fps


Tried agesa 1.2.0.2? On 5600X you can usually do 3800\1900 with ease and often more. Post your zentimings and we can give you input on ramtweaking if you want?


----------



## lance36 (May 25, 2021)

Taraquin said:


> Tried agesa 1.2.0.2? On 5600X you can usually do 3800\1900 with ease and often more. Post your zentimings and we can give you input on ramtweaking if you want?


Yeah I changed a lot so it'll have to wait till I get home. Good to know tho. I was a little easy with it because it's hynix Dems.


----------



## wymdrnik (May 25, 2021)

This seems quite strange to me. I was able to do all core 4.7 GHz at much much lower voltage. 1.45V is way too much.


----------



## Zach_01 (May 25, 2021)

lance36 said:


> I did run those things, with my ram overclocked it pushes the limits of tdp/EDC/PPT more into the red. However I was hoping I guess a best of both worlds where I could see boosts of 4.75 all core since my system can handle it. Even if PBO won't do it, I'm keeping it because single core performance is better for gaming.


Just because you could run static 4.75GHz with 1.375Vcore it does not mean that the CPU can handle it for the long run. Depending on the workloads you want to frequently use.
I'm trying to tell you this from my first post, but its not understandable by you it seems.

The 5600X has a stock PB limits of 76W PPT, 90A EDC and you already more than doubled PPT (160W), increase current (EDC) by more than 75% (160A) on a 6core CPU and still is not enough for you.
You don't seem to understand how fragile 7nm process is under high current. Don't be surprised if your CPU starts to give you errors and crashes after a few months or 1~2years maybe at best.

This is not 14+++++++++nm Intel process...
Be aware of your doing.

I wish you best luck, and I'm out of giving any further advice.
I will only post if I see any contradictory comment to my "knowledge" on the subject.


----------



## freeagent (May 25, 2021)

If you do choose to run an all core OC.. find out what your FIT voltage is. Mine is 1.243v 1.25 is the next bump up for me and that is what I would run. With hardcore loads I found it was a happy medium as it was getting less voltage from me then if it were running the show, and in turn runs a bit cooler. Personally I think 1.3v static is too much for all loads.


----------



## lance36 (May 25, 2021)

Zach_01 said:


> Just because you could run static 4.75GHz with 1.375Vcore it does not mean that the CPU can handle it for the long run. Depending on the workloads you want to frequently use.
> I'm trying to tell you this from my first post, but its not understandable by you it seems.
> 
> The 5600X has a stock PB limits of 76W PPT, 90A EDC and you already more than doubled PPT (160W), increase current (EDC) by more than 75% (160A) on a 6core CPU and still is not enough for you.
> ...





Zach_01 said:


> Just because you could run static 4.75GHz with 1.375Vcore it does not mean that the CPU can handle it for the long run. Depending on the workloads you want to frequently use.
> I'm trying to tell you this from my first post, but its not understandable by you it seems.
> 
> The 5600X has a stock PB limits of 76W PPT, 90A EDC and you already more than doubled PPT (160W), increase current (EDC) by more than 75% (160A) on a 6core CPU and still is not enough for you.
> ...


I guess what bothers me is the fact that at stock when she boosts the 4.65GHz she's using 1.42 to 1.43 volts. When I put it up to 4.75 boost override she's still pushing the same 1.42, 1.43 volts but won't hit the frequency....



freeagent said:


> If you do choose to run an all core OC.. find out what your FIT voltage is. Mine is 1.243v 1.25 is the next bump up for me and that is what I would run. With hardcore loads I found it was a happy medium as it was getting less voltage from me then if it were running the show, and in turn runs a bit cooler. Personally I think 1.3v static is too much for all loads.


I'll try to give you my perspective on why I think it's kind of poopy. Before I touched my static overclock I opened up hardware monitor and watched it boost stock. Hardware monitor showed that she was running around 1.40v maybe a little higher at max load. This is the reason I made my static overclock start at 1.40v. I'm probably expecting too much from PBO. Leaving 50MHz, and and a lower .75v on the table is probably not that much. While my PPT (160W), and 160a EDC under Max load has an average voltage of 1.35 @4.7 GHz. These are still under the stock voltages. Maybe these processors aren't as good as the YouTubers make them out to be if I'm pushing it way too hard.


----------



## Zach_01 (May 25, 2021)

lance36 said:


> I guess what bothers me is the fact that at stock when she boosts the 4.65GHz she's using 1.42 to 1.43 volts. When I put it up to 4.75 boost override she's still pushing the same 1.42, 1.43 volts but won't hit the frequency....
> 
> 
> I'll try to give you my perspective on why I think it's kind of poopy. Before I touched my static overclock I opened up hardware monitor and watched it boost stock. Hardware monitor showed that she was running around 1.40v maybe a little higher at max load. This is the reason I made my static overclock start at 1.40v. I'm probably expecting too much from PBO. Leaving 50MHz, and and a lower .75v on the table is probably not that much. While my PPT (160W), and 160a EDC under Max load has an average voltage of 1.35 @4.7 GHz. These are still under the stock voltages. Maybe these processors aren't as good as the YouTubers make them out to be if I'm pushing it way too hard.


Volts alone does not mean anything.
When the CPU is boosting to the stock 4.65GHz on single or reduced threaded workloads, like gaming, Its ok to hit 1.45V. The current(EDC) is low in that situation. And the 1.45V is occasional and brief, like a burst. The CPU (on stock PB behavior) alters voltage and frequency once every 1~15ms depending on the power plan you're using. It cannot hurt it self. AMD engineers made a very good job to set boost algorithm and no one of us can be better at it with our lacking knowledge on the subject.

When you do 4.75GHz/1.375V static or use too much negative V/F with very high PB limits, then EDC is way out of specs and that can degrade CPU internal traces over time.

CPU has internal protection called silicon FITness manager or controller. This always protects the CPU from silicon stress under high load/current(EDC). When you static OC this FIT controller is shutdown, unable to reduce voltage or frequency (hence load) when silicon is under high stress. Same if you push curve optimizer too hard and EDC skyrockets.

Please stop using HWmonitor for observation and monitor of the system. Its unable to grasp the tech behind ZEN CPUs. Use HWiNFO64 sensors mode and watch frequency, CPU Core Voltage(SVI2 TFN) and effective clocks. Its unlikely that you'll see 1.4V under (stock) boosting with CB R20/23 all core/thread run.


----------



## Taraquin (May 25, 2021)

lance36 said:


> I guess what bothers me is the fact that at stock when she boosts the 4.65GHz she's using 1.42 to 1.43 volts. When I put it up to 4.75 boost override she's still pushing the same 1.42, 1.43 volts but won't hit the frequency....


That is probably not allcore, but singlecore, loading one core at 1.43V is much less taxing than loading all cores 1.375V. If you watch all core liad it's probably 4.4GHz@1.18V-ish.


----------



## lance36 (May 25, 2021)

Zach_01 said:


> Volts alone does not mean anything.
> When the CPU is boosting to the stock 4.65GHz on single or reduced threaded workloads, like gaming, Its ok to hit 1.45V. The current(EDC) is low in that situation. And the 1.45V is occasional and brief, like a burst. The CPU (on stock PB behavior) alters voltage and frequency once every 1~15ms depending on the power plan you're using. It cannot hurt it self. AMD engineers made a very good job to set boost algorithm and no one of us can be better at it with our lacking knowledge on the subject.
> 
> When you do 4.75GHz/1.375V static or use too much negative V/F with very high PB limits, then EDC is way out of specs and that can degrade CPU internal traces over time.
> ...


What about Ryzen Master, I run it simultaneously and it's showing me pretty much the same thing....


----------



## freeagent (May 25, 2021)

I know it says 1.4, but that would drop as soon as anything intense comes on. I downloaded prime 95 and set 128k and let er rip, it was intense. PBO has to be enabled, vcore and multi have to be on auto. turn CO off. In that scenario 1.243 is where she sat. 

Sure I can run all core 4850 at 1.4.. but one or more of my cores do not like going past 4700-4750.. and if I hit it with anything hardcore the system would just reboot acting like it is not being given the amps it needs. Which is ok. Because I don't want to hurt it.

I also do not use any windows based tools.. everything is done in uefi so I cannot comment on RM.


----------



## Taraquin (May 25, 2021)

lance36 said:


> I guess what bothers me is the fact that at stock when she boosts the 4.65GHz she's using 1.42 to 1.43 volts. When I put it up to 4.75 boost override she's still pushing the same 1.42, 1.43 volts but won't hit the frequency....
> 
> 
> I'll try to give you my perspective on why I think it's kind of poopy. Before I touched my static overclock I opened up hardware monitor and watched it boost stock. Hardware monitor showed that she was running around 1.40v maybe a little higher at max load. This is the reason I made my static overclock start at 1.40v. I'm probably expecting too much from PBO. Leaving 50MHz, and and a lower .75v on the table is probably not that much. While my PPT (160W), and 160a EDC under Max load has an average voltage of 1.35 @4.7 GHz. These are still under the stock voltages. Maybe these processors aren't as good as the YouTubers make them out to be if I'm pushing it way too hard.


The silicone lottery varies a lot. My 5600X can do 4.7@1.24V and 4.8@1.32V (overheats in avx), but I prefer pbo+curve optimizer at -30 and 50MHz as it idles at 3.7@850mv and runs 4.6GHz allcore and 4.7 single core.


----------



## Zach_01 (May 25, 2021)

lance36 said:


> Maybe these processors aren't as good as the YouTubers make them out to be if I'm pushing it way too hard.


ZEN CPUs were never advertised as the best OCers out there. If you want max OC buy a 6/8/10core 14++++++++nm Intel CPU, OC it at 4.8~5.0GHz and be happy with the 250~300W of heat. They can take it.
If any youtuber told you that you can OC the crap out of ZEN3 then you are watching the wrong youtubers.



Taraquin said:


> The silicone lottery varies a lot. My 5600X can do 4.7@1.24V and 4.8@1.32V (overheats in avx), but I prefer pbo+curve optimizer at -30 and 50MHz as it idles at 3.7@850mv and runs 4.6GHz allcore and 4.7 single core.


What is the max temp and max EDC under those conditions?


----------



## Taraquin (May 25, 2021)

Zach_01 said:


> ZEN CPUs were never advertised as the best OCers out there. If you want max OC buy a 6/8/10core 14++++++++nm Intel CPU, OC it at 4.8~5.0GHz and be happy with the 250~300W of heat. They can take it.
> If any youtuber told you that you can OC the crap out of ZEN3 then you are watching the wrong youtubers.
> 
> 
> What is the max temp and max EDC under those conditions?


I run stock AMD EDC. Max temp at 4.7 is 82C, but I get thermal throttlig at 95C+ at 4.8 in avx like CB20. Doable in games though.


----------



## Zach_01 (May 25, 2021)

Taraquin said:


> I run stock AMD EDC. Max temp at 4.7 is 82C, but I get thermal throttlig at 95C+ at 4.8 in avx like CB20. Doable in games though.


If you keep EDC at stock (90A) its ok to be at 80+ and occasionally hit 90+, unless you run heavy burn/stress test all day long.
Gaming is not that stressfull under those settings I believe.


----------



## Taraquin (May 25, 2021)

Zach_01 said:


> If you keep EDC at stock (90A) its ok to be at 80+ and occasionally hit 90+, unless you run heavy burn/stress test all day long.
> Gaming is not that stressfull under those settings I believe.


No, but cpu-fan noise annoys me. I prefer co+pbo


----------



## freeagent (May 25, 2021)

With PBO and manual TDC EDC and PPT I could set low values and it will just take more, does yours do that? Say if I set 75 PPT and 110 EDC it will still take say 120 PPT and 130 EDC. I hope I am getting my terminology right. I have seen like 140w PPT and amps into the 130s.. Do you guys see the same thing? Maybe I'm doing it wrong


----------



## Zach_01 (May 25, 2021)

Taraquin said:


> No, but cpu-fan noise annoys me. I prefer co+pbo


No what? I'm confused...



freeagent said:


> With PBO and manual TDC EDC and PPT I could set low values and it will just take more, does yours do that? Say if I set 75 PPT and 110 EDC it will still take say 120 PPT and 130 EDC. I hope I am getting my terminology right. I have seen like 140w PPT and amps into the 130s.. Do you guys see the same thing? Maybe I'm doing it wrong


If you just increase PBO limits manually without curve optimizer negatives (i doubt it, right?) and saw those numbers, then the CPU its doing this by it self and its ok.
If you pushed negatives too far with those limits then you pushed it too far. What's your temp under 120~140PPT and 130EDC?
If its over 75C then I think its too far.


----------



## lance36 (May 25, 2021)

Zach_01 said:


> If you just increase PBO limits manually without curve optimizer negatives (i doubt it, right?)


Maybe you can help me understand curve optimizer better. Since I have everything neg 30 that's what's allowing me to push high PPT/EDC?


----------



## freeagent (May 25, 2021)

I will set it up again shortly when I get a moment, home schooling the kidlits still have another hour and a half till schools done yay lol


----------



## lance36 (May 25, 2021)

tabascosauz said:


> I'm not sure if you've had any actual hands-on with Ryzen 5000, but it's straight up not true that Curve Optimizer only works with PBO enabled. PBO must be enabled and set to Advanced in order to expose the CO submenu in AMD Overclocking, but you can simply set your undervolt then disable PBO again. The undervolt stays in effect despite the menu being hidden again, this is easily corroborated from the improved benchmark scores and higher boosting. It's how I've been running since I finished verifying per-core stability on my CO settings, Curve Optimizer with PBO off and stock 142/95/140 limits.
> 
> Alternatively setting stock power limits with PBO on achieves basically the same result, as long as scalar remains on 1X.
> 
> ...


I just want to make sure I get what your putting down. One is this what your running?142/95/140 limits. I have no plans on copy paste. Two You say "The only thing that matters in the AMD Overclocking PBO menu is Curve Optimizer, everything else should be set from the main PBO menu under AI Tweaker." So set the curve disable move to the AI Tweaker side and make adjustments.


----------



## Zach_01 (May 25, 2021)

lance36 said:


> Maybe you can help me understand curve optimizer better. Since I have everything neg 30 that's what's allowing me to push high PPT/EDC?


Unfortunately I can't do it better than the video I posted at first page.




As the words "Curve Optimizer" saying its about V/F (voltage/frequency) curve alteration. Meaning you're trying to tell the CPU to run different V/F curve (blue curve) than its stock one (red curve).
Long story short, you're OCing through undervolting. Or you can say it differently, that you adding frequency for the same voltage.

Also, I found this guide talking about a 5900X and a 5600X.

__
		https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/khtx1o

This guy took the stock 5600X that was boosting 4.65GHz(single core)/4.2~4.3GHz (all core) and make it boosting 4.85GHz(single core)/4.6~4.65GHz (all core) and was pretty happy about it.
This I would consider as a doable and reasonable OC if temp is checked around the 70ies.

Both PPT and EDC should be more than +60% from stock numbers, again if temp is reasonable (<80C) *and you're not running stress tests or AVX loads too often*. Going over 75~80C with +60% limits is too much.
Going double (+100%) the stock limits and around 75~80C is also too much.



lance36 said:


> I just want to make sure I get what your putting down. One is this what your running?142/95/140 limits. I have no plans on copy paste. Two You say "The only thing that matters in the AMD Overclocking PBO menu is Curve Optimizer, everything else should be set from the main PBO menu under AI Tweaker." So set the curve disable move to the AI Tweaker side and make adjustments.


@tabascosauz has a 5900X and those are stock 5900X (PPT/TDC/EDC) limits, like 5600X has 76/60/90 stock limits. Do not compare it with yours.


----------



## lance36 (May 25, 2021)

Zach_01 said:


> ZEN CPUs were never advertised as the best OCers out there. If you want max OC buy a 6/8/10core 14++++++++nm Intel CPU, OC it at 4.8~5.0GHz and be happy with the 250~300W of heat. They can take it.
> My buddy Matt was worried about my temps because his i9 9900k doesn't get over 50c


----------



## Space Lynx (May 25, 2021)

Zach_01 said:


> Unfortunately I can't do it better than the video I posted at first page.
> 
> View attachment 201620
> 
> ...



you guys are wasting a lot of time for an extra 100 mhz... i just turn on enhanced PBO in mobo BIOS, i get 4.4 all core and 4750 single core boosts. temps are great never breaking 70 celsius. literally just one BIOS change from off to on. saved me a lot of time compared to learning all of this for an extra 100 mhz.  /shrug  to each their own i guess


----------



## tabascosauz (May 25, 2021)

lance36 said:


> I just want to make sure I get what your putting down. One is this what your running?142/95/140 limits. I have no plans on copy paste. Two You say "The only thing that matters in the AMD Overclocking PBO menu is Curve Optimizer, everything else should be set from the main PBO menu under AI Tweaker." So set the curve disable move to the AI Tweaker side and make adjustments.



I was just making a point that CO works at stock power limits. We don't have the same CPU, stock power limits or the same goals here. When I set EDC the current is applied across 12 cores on 2 chiplets.

If you find you need to set them in both places for it to work then so be it, more power to you.

Unless you start monitoring with HWInfo, getting baseline benchmark results, and stability testing with tools that actually work for Curve Optimizer, we're getting nowhere talking about theoretical e-peen numbers to hit.


----------



## lance36 (May 25, 2021)

tabascosauz said:


> I was just making a point that CO works at stock power limits. We don't have the same CPU, stock power limits or the same goals here. When I set EDC the current is applied across 12 cores on 2 chiplets.
> 
> If you find you need to set them in both places for it to work then so be it, more power to you.


I see, yeah, if I don't set them in both places it's like I've done nothing


----------



## freeagent (May 25, 2021)

Ok, so when I said it was failing before it was because I had some timings too tight, forgot about those.. heh..

Anyways PBO +200 -30 PPT 140 TDC 130 EDC 130


----------



## lance36 (May 25, 2021)

Zach_01 said:


> Unfortunately I can't do it better than the video I posted at first page.
> 
> View attachment 201620
> 
> ...


How do u go about this PBO business? Wher


Zach_01 said:


> Unfortunately I can't do it better than the video I posted at first page.
> 
> View attachment 201620
> 
> ...


What would you consider pushing it PTT/EDC numbers wise the 5600x? If you could give me a possible wall that would be great


----------



## freeagent (May 25, 2021)

I think you can set them as high as you want it will only take what it needs. I think I had 250 ppt and 600 for the others lol.. it didn’t do anything that I saw or cause any abnormal behaviour. Like setting 500MHz boost in the other pbo menu.. you only get 200 still..


----------



## lance36 (May 25, 2021)

freeagent said:


> I think you can set them as high as you want it will only take what it needs. I think I had 250 ppt and 600 for the others lol.. it didn’t do anything that I saw or cause any abnormal behaviour. Like setting 500MHz boost in the other pbo menu.. you only get 200 still..


The load source does determine the current, voltage does play apart but it's more of a force. If your voltage is too low your load can't get the current it needs. But Zach is saying my PTT/EDC is way to high. The guide does say this "but PBO has a hard limit of allowing 105W TDP CPUs to draw ~220W and 65W TDP CPUs to draw ~130W" my CPU is drawing 94w under max load 30w over. My EDC was at 86% of 147a which is somewhere around 126a. That backs up my voltage from numbers from my different HW monitors of around 1.35v. So I'm still under the limit?


----------



## freeagent (May 25, 2021)

You are ok, you didn’t physically set 1.35 and just leave it there.. I’m no pro but that looks ok to me 

In that screen I posted it spent a lot of time over 1.3v and closer to 1.35v so if that’s what she wants that’s what she gets.. if it was to much it would throttle itself wouldn’t it?


----------



## lance36 (May 26, 2021)

freeagent said:


> You are ok, you didn’t physically set 1.35 and just leave it there.. I’m no pro but that looks ok to me
> 
> In that screen I posted it spent a lot of time over 1.3v and closer to 1.35v so if that’s what she wants that’s what she gets.. if it was to much it would throttle itself wouldn’t it?


This is what I'm sticking to. PPT137/TDC79/EDC125 curve looks like this -30,-15,-15,-20,-30,-30. My temps bounce between 69/70c. In cinebench cpu power is 93w and in Intel burn she will jump to 103w.
This set up gets me a multi core score in cinebench of 11,902 not too short of my static score. My single core score was 1590. Not too bad she runs a bit cooler and that single core performance is what I really wanted.


----------



## freeagent (May 26, 2021)

That's sweet man!

Sounds pretty fancy to me! I should really get to know my CPU like you guys did. I will with my next one..

If you click on rankings, you get a bunch of people with the same CPU waiting for you to take their position in the rankings from them 

AMD Ryzen 5 5600X @ HWBOT


----------



## wymdrnik (May 26, 2021)

*@freeagent:* Did you set PBO at Ai Tuner and then additionally optimized Curve in AMD Overclocking settings?
I can't get curve optimizer feature to work. If I alter same settings (e.g. limits) in AMD Overclocking, does it override the settings set in Ai Tuner?


----------



## Zach_01 (May 26, 2021)

lance36 said:


> This is what I'm sticking to. PPT137/TDC79/EDC125 curve looks like this -30,-15,-15,-20,-30,-30. My temps bounce between 69/70c. In cinebench cpu power is 93w and in Intel burn she will jump to 103w.
> This set up gets me a multi core score in cinebench of 11,902 not too short of my static score. My single core score was 1590. Not too bad she runs a bit cooler and that single core performance is what I really wanted.


I think these numbers are ok.

Something else now...
What is the report of PowerReportingDeviation (%) in HWiNFO64 sensors during cinebench (93W) and Intel burn test (103W)?


----------



## lance36 (May 26, 2021)

Zach_01 said:


> I think these numbers are ok.
> 
> Something else now...
> What is the report of PowerReportingDeviation (%) in HWiNFO64 sensors during cinebench (93W) and Intel burn test (103W)?


I'll let you know when I get home. @ work


----------



## freeagent (May 26, 2021)

wymdrnik said:


> *@freeagent:* Did you set PBO at Ai Tuner and then additionally optimized Curve in AMD Overclocking settings?
> I can't get curve optimizer feature to work. If I alter same settings (e.g. limits) in AMD Overclocking, does it override the settings set in Ai Tuner?


No for CO clocking I just go into the amd oc settings. I only use the other pbo section for running static overclocks over 4650MHz, or 1.3v and up.


----------



## lance36 (May 26, 2021)

Zach_01 said:


> I think these numbers are ok.
> 
> Something else now...
> What is the report of PowerReportingDeviation (%) in HWiNFO64 sensors during cinebench (93W) and Intel burn test (103W)?


Cinebench was minimum 112.3% Maximum 209.7% average 133.2%. Intel burn minimum 104.8% maximum 217.5% , average 156.3%

This might be caused by my ram overclock. I'm going to mess with that tonight. I'm going to try 3800 MHz/1900.



Zach_01 said:


> I think these numbers are ok.
> 
> Something else now...
> What is the report of PowerReportingDeviation (%) in HWiNFO64 sensors during cinebench (93W) and Intel burn test (103W)?


Alright with new settings in the VRM and I changed my ram to 3800Mhz/1900 I get between 100% and 104% on Intel burn. For a brief moment it will actually boost all course 4.8 GHz. And my wattage was the same as before. With Cinebench though things are different. She jumps between 105% and 118% runs at 90w and has the same behavior of boosting between 4.7 GHz and 4.8 briefly. Temps are the same 70/71c but in cinebench temperature 68/70c


----------



## Zach_01 (May 27, 2021)

lance36 said:


> Cinebench was minimum 112.3% Maximum 209.7% average 133.2%. Intel burn minimum 104.8% maximum 217.5% , average 156.3%
> 
> This might be caused by my ram overclock. I'm going to mess with that tonight. I'm going to try 3800 MHz/1900.
> 
> ...


Power Reporting Deviation (PRD) has absolutely nothing to do with RAM settings or RAM OC.

The CPU relies on the board about its power consumption. The board is sending feedback to CPU via telemetry data from the VRMs and the CPU is adjusting its operating parameters based on that feedback.
This sensor is reporting if the board is telling the truth or lie to the CPU via telemetry about CPU power consumption. PRD *only* matters when the CPU load is 100%. No other situation (<100% load).
You have to observe it only during the 100% load.

When you see a PRD value of 110% during any type of all core workload (Cinebench, IntelBurn, P95, OCCT... etc.) it means that the board is over-stating the CPU power consumption (by 10%) back to the CPU. The board is telling to the CPU that it draws more power than the power it really draws.

For (2) example(s):

1.
During a Cinebench run
PPT report is 90W
PRD report is 105%

90 / 1.05 = 85.7

The true power consumption of the CPU is 85.7W

2.
During a Cinebench run
PPT report is 90W
PRD report is 115%

90 / 1.15 = 78.26

The true power consumption of the CPU is 78.26W


----------



## lance36 (May 27, 2021)

So changing the vddcr CPU current capability should have no impact on these stats it should be my sensors. Are my sensors holding back my CPU because their actual power is less than what's being reported?


----------



## Zach_01 (May 27, 2021)

lance36 said:


> So changing the vddcr CPU current capability should have no impact on these stats it should be my sensors. Are my sensors holding back my CPU because their actual power is less than what's being reported?


Did you notice any change in PRD if you change the "vddcr CPU current capability"?

Some boards do have settings to adjust VRM telemetry feedback to the CPU so they can correct PRD value very close to 100%(=true power).
I know for example some MSI boards have a setting called:
"CPU VDD Full Scale Current"
...and through that the user can adjust VRM feedback to the CPU to report PRD=100%


----------



## lance36 (May 27, 2021)

Zach_01 said:


> Did you notice any change in PRD if you change the "vddcr CPU current capability"?
> 
> Some boards do have settings to adjust VRM telemetry feedback to the CPU so they can correct PRD value very close to 100%(=true power).
> I know for example some MSI boards have a setting called:
> ...


I'll check it out.


----------



## Space Lynx (May 27, 2021)

Zach_01 said:


> Power Reporting Deviation (PRD) has absolutely nothing to do with RAM settings or RAM OC.
> 
> The CPU relies on the board about its power consumption. The board is sending feedback to CPU via telemetry data from the VRMs and the CPU is adjusting its operating parameters based on that feedback.
> This sensor is reporting if the board is telling the truth or lie to the CPU via telemetry about CPU power consumption. PRD *only* matters when the CPU load is 100%. No other situation (<100% load).
> ...



I wish you had a 5600x man, you put more effort into this stuff than anyone else I know lol


----------



## Zach_01 (May 27, 2021)

I'll probably get a 5900X, next year...
The R5 3600 is serving me nicely for now


----------



## lance36 (May 27, 2021)

Zach_01 said:


> Did you notice any change in PRD if you change the "vddcr CPU current capability"?
> 
> Some boards do have settings to adjust VRM telemetry feedback to the CPU so they can correct PRD value very close to 100%(=true power).
> I know for example some MSI boards have a setting called:
> ...


I did some research and I should have a setting CPU core current telemetry(I'll check when I get home). My question is since Intel burn and cinebench have different percentages which one should I use. I feel like I should use Intel burn because cinebench doesn't really use any ram under load and pulls more power.


----------



## freeagent (May 27, 2021)

Cinibench isn’t a hard load.. want to test your cooling and check for stability? Check out Linpack Xtreme it’s in the download section. Occt is pretty sensitive too but it’s not a hard load until you make it one..


----------



## Zach_01 (May 27, 2021)

freeagent said:


> Cinibench isn’t a hard load.. want to test your cooling and check for stability? Check out Linpack Xtreme it’s in the download section. Occt is pretty sensitive too but it’s not a hard load until you make it one..


He is asking what type of workload to use to try to correct PowerReportingDeviation close to 100%. Not to check stability.



lance36 said:


> I did some research and I should have a setting CPU core current telemetry(I'll check when I get home). My question is since Intel burn and cinebench have different percentages which one should I use. I feel like I should use Intel burn because cinebench doesn't really use any ram under load and pulls more power.


I’m not entirely sure but I think if you manage to correct PRD close to 100% with only one type of workload it should work about the same with others too.


----------



## lance36 (May 28, 2021)

Zach_01 said:


> He is asking what type of workload to use to try to correct PowerReportingDeviation close to 100%. Not to check stability.
> 
> 
> I’m not entirely sure but I think if you manage to correct PRD close to 100% with only one type of workload it should work about the same with others too.


This has been done I had to change it to 4amps to get Intel burn to 100%. I chose Intel burn because well what's the old saying s*** rolls downhill. But I noticed a different behavior my multicore Max boost was 20 to 25 MHz under my 4.7Ghz. This is quite a surprise to me I expected  maybe even higher boosts with the over reporting that was happening. But I noticed my scalar was set to Auto I switched it to 3x and I'm back to 4.7. right now my memory is set at 3800/1900MHz and I'm going to work on further tightening the timings. Unless you have other ideas or thoughts



Zach_01 said:


> He is asking what type of workload to use to try to correct PowerReportingDeviation close to 100%. Not to check stability.
> 
> 
> I’m not entirely sure but I think if you manage to correct PRD close to 100% with only one type of workload it should work about the same with others too.


Big update I don't know what's going on there's a glitch somewhere something's up. I changed my settings back with the telemetry to auto. I went to play Apex tonight and instead of having my frames pegged out at 165 I was getting 140s and 150s. I also noticed something I didn't mention earlier. With the telemetry setting I ran a couple degrees warmer. I didn't pay attention to this until I noticed my FPS drop. I switched everything back and it all disappeared. Something's weird somewhere.


----------



## Zach_01 (May 28, 2021)

The false telemetry that causes PRD to report (for example) 110%, means that the CPU is thinking that it consumes 10% more power that the real. This causes the CPU to hold back. By correcting PRD to ~100% from 110% through VRM telemetry the CPU then sees that it has headroom to boost more. It’s normal to observe higher temp after this correction (110% —> 100%).

Most boards do the opposite. They understate the CPU power consumption (PRD = 85~95%) so the CPU is thinking it consumes less than the real. This results to even higher temp, along with more performance.

Some board vendors did fix this with BIOS updates and make it . Others not so much. Mine for example even with the latest BIOS it keeps reporting a 91~92% PRD during Cinebench and 93~95% during P95 (128KB FFTs).
Never really bother me as I can cool it down easy with a 280mm AIO. Even at 105W real power consumption (P95) it hovers between 70~75C.


----------



## Zach_01 (May 28, 2021)

The best way to show everyone your current settings is this:





And maybe a test of it like this:


----------



## lance36 (May 28, 2021)

Zach_01 said:


> The best way to show everyone your current settings is this:
> 
> View attachment 201911
> 
> ...


I'll fix my post, I have a question tho. Since the infinity fabric is in the CPU when I change it on the Dram this has an impact on CPU since it matches it. I feel like a higher ram speeds might lead to lower boost clocks? Idk I'm still very nooby to PBO.


----------



## Zach_01 (May 28, 2021)

As you can see in ZenTimings the 3 main speeds of the memory subsystem are:
MCLK = Memory true speed
UCLK = Unified Memory Controller (UMC) speed
FCLK = Infinity Fabric (IF) speed

These 3 should be matched for the best memory performance results (latency mostly and bandwidth)

UMC and IF are placed inside the CPU. UMC is inside the separate I/O Die also called SoC. IF is divided into 2 sections, half in the cores and other half in the SoC.

The PPT(W) and EDC(A) values are a sum of all CPU package containing also the SoC. When you increasing DRAM speed and UCLK/FCLK are also up the individual SoC and IF power consumption and amperage are increased. Besides the increased speed selection from user, the system can also (auto) increase the voltage of these sub-parts. 
So in other words the SoC/IF is “stealing” power over the cores as PBO limits are referring to the entire CPU package.

You can see SoC individual power consumption in HWiNFO64 sensors.

ZenTimings also report voltages for:
SoC (VSOC)
UMC (cLDO VDDP)
IF (VDDG CCD/IOD)

Depending on the system configuration, it’s components and the load, the SoC power could be from less than 10W up to 25W. Although at max load/power of SoC when comparing it between different UCLK/FCLK speeds is a lot smaller than that (10-25).

Still this could affect core boosting but only during all core loads. The less threads are active the less impact on core boosting it has. In single core boost it shouldn’t make any (real) difference.


----------



## lance36 (May 29, 2021)

Zach_01 said:


> As you can see in ZenTimings the 3 main speeds of the memory subsystem are:
> MCLK = Memory true speed
> UCLK = Unified Memory Controller (UMC) speed
> FCLK = Infinity Fabric (IF) speed
> ...


I'm going to look around to see if anyone has experience at tightening the ram numbers. I was wondering if maybe there was a couple of spots where someone has gone a little further than I have


----------



## freeagent (May 29, 2021)

Check out the aida64 thread, a few of us have been playing in there


----------



## Zach_01 (May 29, 2021)

Something else I came across today by accident looking for something else:









						How do you optimize Ryzen for gaming?
					

Answer (1 of 3): You could do what I do.  Install the Ryzen CPU. Install some faster RAM, at least 3,200 MHz. Update the motherboard BIOS to the latest. There have been a ton of fixes since the boards were released.  Load the BIOS optimized defaults. Set the memory speed if it didn’t default to i...




					www.quora.com
				



_(WARNING: DO NOT CHANGE THE PBO SCALAR FROM 1, RAISING THAT MULTIPLIER FROM 1 CAN POTENTIALLY CAUSE PBO TO DEGRADE YOUR CPU OVER TIME BECAUSE THE SCALAR OVERRIDES THE DEFAULT HEALTH MANAGEMENT OF THE CPU, ALLOWING IT TO DRAW MORE VOLTAGE THAN IT NORMALLY WOULD IN ANY GIVEN LOAD. IT’S NOT WORTH THE RISKS.)_

The name is just a coincidence...


----------



## freeagent (May 29, 2021)

No scalar no problem! I didn't know people used it..


----------



## lance36 (May 29, 2021)

Zach_01 said:


> Something else I came across today by accident looking for something else:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I wasn't running the scalar until I changed the telemetry. But that's a given with overclocking. This happens when you take any product outside of its operating parameters.


----------



## Zach_01 (May 29, 2021)

Anything than scalar X1 does take the CPU outside its operating parameters. Of course the X2 and X10 has great difference and its definitely not the same, but from X2 the override of silicon FITness manager (override health management) begins.
Just FYI. Every one should use it knowing the risk.

I once use (on the R5 3600 more than a year ago) extended PBO limits and tried along scalar X3/4 and I didnt like at all the voltages I saw during any load compared to stock.
I only use X1/2 ever since.


----------



## lance36 (May 29, 2021)

Zach_01 said:


> Anything than scalar X1 does take the CPU outside its operating parameters. Of course the X2 and X10 has great difference and its definitely not the same, but from X2 the override of silicon FITness manager (override health management) begins.
> Just FYI. Every one should use it knowing the risk.
> 
> I once use (on the R5 3600 more than a year ago) extended PBO limits and tried along scalar X3/4 and I didnt like at all the voltages I saw during any load compared to stock.
> I only use X1/2 ever since.


You also got to look at the advantage of PBO you're not running a constant voltage. Then look at your workloads in gaming I'm not maxing out the CPU usage. The game I play with the most CPU intensity is my drug of choice rust and I'm still not maxing it out at 100%.


----------

