• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

1usmus Custom Power Plan for Ryzen 3000 Zen 2 Processors

1usmus said:
Hello everyone :)

I have a suggestion for those who are still experiencing a boost problem:
  • CPPC = Enabled
  • CPPC Preferred Cores = Disabled
The meaning of these settings is that we use CPPC, but do not use the core marking from AMD. Task Scheduler will select cores from ACPI table.



1004B for ur board https://dlcdnets.asus.com/pub/ASUS/...FI/ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO-WIFI-ASUS-1105.zip

p.s. press F9 in BIOS and type what u want to find
Click to expand...

Just curious 1usmus, is it better to leave preferred cores disabled? I have a 3900X, and its working beautifull, but AMD Ryzen master picks 2 other cores as the fastest, but HWiNFO likes cores 0 and core 2, and based on the average, the best cores reported by HWiNFO are the fastest ones.
Thanks
 
So even though my new speeds were amazing, I never noticed the CPU core "parking" effect. I didn't really care, I was getting pretty good performance. I DISABLED the CPPC Preferred Cores just as a test...and I am seeing the parked cores and my single core R20 score did improve and I often had sustained longer higher clocks.

Not sure about now my "general performance" and gaming, I will need to just see what happens but at least in R20 I am now seeing the parked cores + higher 1 / 2 active core boost speeds. I am still not seeing the near 4.6 ghz even in R20 single thread with parked cores so there is still something not working just right. But better than it was, at least in R20 I am now seeing around 4.5 ghz average and small random jumps from time to time to 4.55. I will report back for general PC usage.

**Edit**

Multicore tests (like R20) show a small increase, gaming shows good boosts and when all core's has loads I am seeing goods speeds. So disabling CPPC for me kept the good boost speeds while allowing the CPU to go idle and cores being parked.
 
Last edited:
Sujus said:
So first I have to thank 1usmus for his great work. But I might have found the reason why this custom power plan does not work for everyone:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/dspsp0
Click to expand...

I prepared a material about this a long time ago, but I was asked to give time to solve this problem. The problem is much more serious.

BitsInBytes said:
So even though my new speeds were amazing, I never noticed the CPU core "parking" effect. I didn't really care, I was getting pretty good performance. I DISABLED the CPPC Preferred Cores just as a test...and I am seeing the parked cores and my single core R20 score did improve and I often had sustained longer higher clocks.

Not sure about now my "general performance" and gaming, I will need to just see what happens but at least in R20 I am now seeing the parked cores + higher 1 / 2 active core boost speeds. I am still not seeing the near 4.6 ghz even in R20 single thread with parked cores so there is still something not working just right. But better than it was, at least in R20 I am now seeing around 4.5 ghz average and small random jumps from time to time to 4.55. I will report back for general PC usage.

**Edit**

Multicore tests (like R20) show a small increase, gaming shows good boosts and when all core's has loads I am seeing goods speeds. So disabling CPPC for me kept the good boost speeds while allowing the CPU to go idle and cores being parked.
Click to expand...

Thanks for checking out my recommendations. This is definitely great news.

Wickedt said:
Just curious 1usmus, is it better to leave preferred cores disabled? I have a 3900X, and its working beautifull, but AMD Ryzen master picks 2 other cores as the fastest, but HWiNFO likes cores 0 and core 2, and based on the average, the best cores reported by HWiNFO are the fastest ones.
Thanks
Click to expand...


There are 2 kinds of problems, because some users have better results when used enabled than disabled ( CPPC Preferred Cores )
 
Didn't do shit on my R5 3600. Well, it did give additional 25Mhz it seems. Is there someone who really believes that this makes a difference in any game? I guess getting additional 25Mhz on Pentium II would be great. But here it does nothing at all.
 
After the 1usmus power plan I noticed higher clocks in gaming.
I am using MSI Afterburner to show clocks and utilization of the threads.
In DayZ and Escape from Tarkov I could see clocks on all threads or 8 cores (these games are still not really optimized) reaching simultaneously 4300mhz.
Thanks 1usmus. :respect:
 
Last edited:
DuxCro said:
Didn't do shit on my R5 3600. Well, it did give additional 25Mhz it seems. Is there someone who really believes that this makes a difference in any game? I guess getting additional 25Mhz on Pentium II would be great. But here it does nothing at all.
Click to expand...
The guy below you?
 
EarthDog said:
The guy below you?
Click to expand...
Oh the guy below me has A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT CPU MODEL. That has higher boost clocks out of the box than mine does. So ofc it is the same situation. :kookoo: Btw. ALL reviews on overclocking Ryzen CPU's show no benefits in gaming from100-200Mhz higher clocks. So just clock your RAM because that's the way to get better performance wity Ryzen. Intel is still the undisputed king of CPU overcloking. I OC'ed my RAM to 3800Mhz CL16 19 19 39. Which is fucking glorious considering i bought a cheapish RAM. :rockout:
 
DuxCro said:
Oh the guy below me has A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT CPU MODEL. That has higher boost clocks out of the box than mine does. So ofc it is the same situation. :kookoo: Btw. ALL reviews on overclocking Ryzen CPU's show no benefits in gaming from100-200Mhz higher clocks. So just clock your RAM because that's the way to get better performance wity Ryzen. Intel is still the undisputed king of CPU overcloking. I OC'ed my RAM to 3800Mhz CL16 19 19 39. Which is fucking glorious considering i bought a cheapish RAM. :rockout:
Click to expand...
Uhh, that wasn't the point there, bud...

You asked if someone really believes it makes a difference in a game... I said the guy below you. It has nothing to do with what CPU but all to the point of the meager increase doing anything tangible. Capeesh?
 
So with newest Asus bios on a Hero VIII, I was able to get this to work with preferred cores set to off but it chose the wrong CCX. Then I tried turning the PBO voltages back on manually to where I like them using the BIOS. This made me have the core swapping issue again rather than focusing work on 1 core when doing a 1 core stress test; however, when doing multi core my multi core cinebench score went up.

I will try some of the other suggestions in here and keep reporting back. It seems maybe with new bios and preferred cores = on, that I might get a good boost but I ran out of time last night to test.
 
Weshya said:
I had the latest BIOS 3.40 (AGESA 1.0.0.4B) on my Tomahawk MAX B450 , latest chipset drivers installed (+amd's power plan), and Windows 1909 installed. The difference on the behavior of my Ryzen 3600 was like day and night after applying 1usmus power plan and recommended BIOS settings. Finally the fastest cores are utilized at a much higher and sustained clock frequency than before. So in my case, the combination of right BIOS settings + 1usmus powerplan finally paid off .
Click to expand...
DuxCro said:
Didn't do shit on my R5 3600. Well, it did give additional 25Mhz it seems. Is there someone who really believes that this makes a difference in any game? I guess getting additional 25Mhz on Pentium II would be great. But here it does nothing at all.
Click to expand...

Worked for me like a charm on my R5 3600 + Tomahawk MAX B450. And due to that behavior, i am able to see a noticeable difference while gaming (less stuttering due to correct CCX utilization and at a higher average boost frequency).
 
Tried this today on my 3900X, compared to AMD power plan it lost 17 points in CBR20 multi core and 2 points in single core.
 
DuxCro said:
Didn't do shit on my R5 3600. Well, it did give additional 25Mhz it seems. Is there someone who really believes that this makes a difference in any game? I guess getting additional 25Mhz on Pentium II would be great. But here it does nothing at all.
Click to expand...

A couple of things since you're being so self-centered about this that you seemed to have missed some things:

-It was already said that you'll see varying levels of improvement from CPU to CPU. Better silicon is going to see better improvements. Your 3600 was expected to see little difference.
-You saw an improvement, albeit small, for free due to somebody else's effort. And you complain about it?
-This mod is in its infancy. It's expected that there will be hiccups and it might not even work *at all* for some people, much less perfectly.
-Some people are seeing significant boosts in gaming because their particular setup saw better clock increases. Just because it didn't work for you that doesn't mean that it's worthy of shitting on the mod right in front of its creator.
 
I am curious to see, if AMD will get the PBO on Zen2 to a working state like described from AMD Robert (200mhz higher boost then default boost with sufficient cooling).I mean with enough time and effort and a lot og Agesa revisions.
 
hzy4 said:
I am curious to see, if AMD will get the PBO on Zen2 to a working state like described from AMD Robert (200mhz higher boost then default boost with sufficient cooling).I mean with enough time and effort and a lot og Agesa revisions.
Click to expand...
I don't think they will. Even the best (to date) silicon quality present in CCD0 of 3900x does not allow for exceeding 4.6Ghz with voltages below 1.45V - it is simply unstable below that. I have tested it on all 6 cores from each CCD0 on 2 CPUs (3900x) that I own. To reach 4.8Ghz would require voltages above 1.6V and that is liquid nitrogen territory.
Not to mention heat density for AVX workloads - the AVX2 tasks that really put a strain on the core are forcing clocks to fall to around 4Ghz with 1.1-1.15V just to keep up with heat. ZEN2 would really benefit from AVX offset in bios for overclocked. I mean I have (in bios) configured CCX0 to 4.6Ghz, CCX1 to 4.5Ghz and CCX2-3 to 4.4Ghz and it works beautifully in every game that I play, with temps never crossing 75C (with constant voltage of 1.47V) but if I as much as tried AVX2 load I would get instant shutdown from thermal protection. Did that once by accident, forgot to disable AVX in Prime95 when stability testing.
 
mat9v said:
I don't think they will. Even the best (to date) silicon quality present in CCD0 of 3900x does not allow for exceeding 4.6Ghz with voltages below 1.45V - it is simply unstable below that. I have tested it on all 6 cores from each CCD0 on 2 CPUs (3900x) that I own. To reach 4.8Ghz would require voltages above 1.6V and that is liquid nitrogen territory.
Not to mention heat density for AVX workloads - the AVX2 tasks that really put a strain on the core are forcing clocks to fall to around 4Ghz with 1.1-1.15V just to keep up with heat. ZEN2 would really benefit from AVX offset in bios for overclocked. I mean I have (in bios) configured CCX0 to 4.6Ghz, CCX1 to 4.5Ghz and CCX2-3 to 4.4Ghz and it works beautifully in every game that I play, with temps never crossing 75C (with constant voltage of 1.47V) but if I as much as tried AVX2 load I would get instant shutdown from thermal protection. Did that once by accident, forgot to disable AVX in Prime95 when stability testing.
Click to expand...

not to get off topic but there is a way to do per CCX overclocking in the bios?
 
torsoreaper said:
not to get off topic but there is a way to do per CCX overclocking in the bios?
Click to expand...
In Asus X570 Prime Pro in latest bios, yes. I don't know about other boards.
I suppose all x570 boards from Asus (TUF and ROG certainly) will get that with present or future bios release.
 
Does not seem to do much for me:
- Win10 (1903, fully updated)
- 3700X
- X470 Gigabyte Aorus Ultra Gaming

Tested with F40 and F42g (AGESA 1.0.0.3 ABBA) BIOS, i did not observe any difference in how windows scheduler handles the threads therefore there will not be any measurable clock difference for me.
F42g BIOS was tested with and without PBO enabled also.
Also note that "CPPC Preferred Cores" settings is NOT present on F40 BIOS on my board.

Might be coincidence but Windows seems to prefer first CCX over the second where the best CCD core is.
 
hi, 3800X on C7H with 1.0.0.3ABBA.. cant complain much about the boost, im regularly getting this :)

135981

what i also like about the power plan is that i see less power spikes in everyday use, voltages are not jumping around now

the question i have is with amd balanced the CPU dials down the frequency at 2200MHz at idle, whereas with your power plan i mostly see idle at 3600MHz.
Is this how it is ? or is it perhaps a reporting issue with HWinfo64 ?
 
speedgoat said:
the question i have is with amd balanced the CPU dials down the frequency at 2200MHz at idle, whereas with your power plan i mostly see idle at 3600MHz.
Is this how it is ? or is it perhaps a reporting issue with HWinfo64 ?
Click to expand...
Because his profile is set to Min CPU power to 99% (i.e. base clock without any boost) for some reason.
You can alter it manually in advanced power plan settings to say 50% (that should allow the 2.2GHz low power state) and let me know if that does anything at all.
 
Arcátko said:
Because his profile is set to Min CPU power to 99% (i.e. base clock without any boost) for some reason.
You can alter it manually in advanced power plan settings to say 50% (that should allow the 2.2GHz low power state) and let me know if that does anything at all.
Click to expand...
it seems i cannot alter it manually, i have tried it with 5%. 30% and so on
 
Last edited:
So i tested single-t and 2t Prime95 workload after updating to Win10 v1909 which has the supposed reworked thread scheduler.
While it does use best cores in given CCX it still does not correctly hop to best CCD cores which for me is on second CCX.

Also it is doing some weird stuff with bouncing the workload between actual core and SMT thread (screenshot from single-threaded workload, does it on 2t workload as well). This is regardless of power plan being used so just some Win10 F-up.
1573308696664.png
 
Hi. Why I cant reach advertised 4600 on my 3900x, even with this power plan it is?

136024


ASUS MB CH7 1.0.0.3ABBA
CPPC = ON
CPPC Preferred Cores = OFF
 
Because 4600MHz is way too high for these silicons. Generally they capable for 4200-4300MHz max, anything is over out of real performance gain.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top