Ryzen Owners Zen Garden

[ir_cow]

Paging @ir_cow. Have you experienced this during any of your review of the board?

I haven't been following this thread, no idea whats going on. Listen to whatever @Mussels says

 

[Space Lynx]

I haven't been following this thread, no idea whats going on. Listen to whatever @Mussels says

More staff members need to reply this way. It is nice so many of you help people all the time, but its also important to keep in mind work/life balance. I feel especially bad for @unclewebb sometimes, I appreciate his help over the years as I imagine many do. On the same hand, I sometimes wonder how overwhelming it must be, day in and day out of just giivng out advice and not making any money off of that. I know it is not about money, but also it kind of is, cause time is money and with that skillset you could be making 160k a year working at a place like Signal messenger app, fully remote.

 

[AusWolf]

Was doing it on the release bios. Im on the newest. Currently using the PBO 75C Thermal limit -30mv CO preset on the motherboard. Just would be nice if i could set things myself. Ryzen Master is a bit dodgy.

Paging @ir_cow. Have you experienced this during any of your review of the board?

I dare to ask, are manual settings even worth it nowadays? I mean, if I only play with with the power and temperature limits on my 7700X, I gain huge amounts of efficiency at the cost of maybe 5% performance.

This chart represents something different, but if you decrease your temperature limit, you kind of limit the CPU the same way as with worse cooling in the review I took this from:

Is that extra 2% with manual settings worth chasing?

 

[JrRacinFan]

Is that extra 2% with manual settings worth chasing?

I like to tinker, so kind of yes. I paid for it so I should be able to utilize the feature to its fullest.

I haven't been following this thread, no idea whats going on. Listen to whatever @Mussels says

I appreciate you popping in the thread at least. Thank you.

More staff members need to reply this way

Yup, especially when overburdened.

 

[Count von Schwalbe]

Is that extra 2% with manual settings worth chasing?

I think it's great that you can get 98% performance out of the box, it sure simplifies building computers when you don't have to OC for reasonable performance.

But this is TPU, where tinkering is the fun.

 

[Arco]

The toothpaste must be squeezed. James, get me my hydraulic press.

 

[AusWolf]

I like to tinker, so kind of yes. I paid for it so I should be able to utilize the feature to its fullest.

I think it's great that you can get 98% performance out of the box, it sure simplifies building computers when you don't have to OC for reasonable performance.

But this is TPU, where tinkering is the fun.

OK, I get that. But when tinkering gives you negative results, or in better cases, nothing... is it really worth it then?

I don't want to sound anti-enthusiast or anything, but modern CPUs don't really seem to be built with tinkering in mind. They push themselves to their limits right out of the box, and you have to devote exponential amounts of time and effort into taming them just to be able to say that you've done something without negative consequences. If you're OK with that, fair enough and enjoy.

 

[JrRacinFan]

modern CPUs don't really seem to be built with tinkering in mind.

I understand that too, although if you can get that little bit extra wouldnt you want that? Aside from that, Im leaving this as is with 85C + 25 CO and +200 override. Got Fclk set to 2100 as well. Here's to waiting til 7900x3d hits.

 

[freeagent]

but modern CPUs don't really seem to be built with tinkering in mind. They push themselves to their limits right out of the box

For the X3D ones that is true. But my tweaked 5600X and 5900X are much quicker than stock, can boost further in sc and mc. But in return they use 2x the power on the box, or more.

 

[AusWolf]

I understand that too, although if you can get that little bit extra wouldnt you want that?

If it means tinkering in the BIOS for half a day, going through lots of trials and errors, then no, I wouldn't. Each to their own, I guess.

 

[Space Lynx]

If it means tinkering in the BIOS for half a day, going through lots of trials and errors, then no, I wouldn't. Each to their own, I guess.

my 5600 non-x was really easy to oc. i set it at 4.7 all core, override voltage, 1.250 volt. reboot (literally it was 4 clicks and 2 minutes and I was done), tested. worked great, but i wanted to see how low i could get voltage on 4.5 and 4.6 all cores. took me about 1 hour of testing - but she is rock solid at 4.5 all core 1.175v passes every test. and 4.6 at 1.200 volts.

xmp on ram.

took me about 1-2 hours total for this particular build, but the oc has been set and forgot for about two weeks now and I haven't had any issues. these optimized end of life silicon chips are fucking amazing on how little voltage they need.

battlefield 3 maxed out, 165 fps 165hz 1440p, i didnt break 60 celsius.

 

[AusWolf]

my 5600 non-x was really easy to oc. i set it at 4.7 all core, override voltage, 1.250 volt. reboot (literally it was 4 clicks and 2 minutes and I was done), tested. worked great, but i wanted to see how low i could get voltage on 4.5 and 4.6 all cores. took me about 1 hour of testing - but she is rock solid at 4.5 all core 1.175v passes every test. and 4.6 at 1.200 volts.

xmp on ram.

took me about 1-2 hours total for this particular build, but the oc has been set and forgot for about two weeks now and I haven't had any issues. these optimized end of life silicon chips are fucking amazing on how little voltage they need.

battlefield 3 maxed out, 165 fps 165hz 1440p, i didnt break 60 celsius.

Considering that you're only 1-200 MHz above your max. default single core turbo (and I rarely ever run into an all-core load situation), it's not something I'd want to spend time and effort on. Having a big enough cooler, raising your power limit (if your motherboard is happy doing that), and using PBO would be much easier, and come with (near) similar results.
But congrats anyway!

 

[Space Lynx]

Considering that you're only 1-200 MHz above your max. default single core turbo (and I rarely ever run into an all-core load situation), it's not something I'd want to spend time and effort on. Having a big enough cooler, raising your power limit (if your motherboard is happy doing that), and using PBO would be much easier, and come with (near) similar results.
But congrats anyway!

I tried PBO but could not figure it out. For some reason I can't find the +200 option. it would only ever boost to 4550 for some reason. i wish i could figure it out, even ryzen master only took me to 4450 when i clicked auto tune.

 

[AusWolf]

I tried PBO but could not figure it out. For some reason I can't find the +200 option. it would only ever boost to 4550 for some reason. i wish i could figure it out, even ryzen master only took me to 4450 when i clicked auto tune.

Even 4550 is impressive, in my opinion.

 

[Space Lynx]

Even 4550 is impressive, in my opinion.

just fyi, even when i do my simple 4.7 all core overclock at 1.250 volt, i disable pbo, i disable power saving, and when i play games that only use 1 core for example, only 1 of my cores is at 4700, the rest are fluctuating below that, only when i run aida64 or prime95 do all 6 cores hit 4700 in "effective clock" temps are cold when gaming, hot when stressing. so really its kind of like pbo, it only uses what it wants when it needs it regardless

 

[freeagent]

Setup right, 5600X can do 4650 with Linpack Xtreme, 10GB load with PBO and CO.

 

[AusWolf]

i disable power saving

This is the part that I really don't like. My PC spends most of its time at idle or browsing the web, so power saving is crucial (if not for saving on bills, then for temperatures). Sacrificing on idle power and temps for a couple hundred (literally) more MHz in load that I don't even feel is a bad trade-off, imo.
But like I said, each to their own.

 

[Space Lynx]

This is the part that I really don't like. My PC spends most of its time at idle or browsing the web, so power saving is crucial (if not for saving on bills, then for temperatures). Sacrificing on idle power and temps for a couple hundred (literally) more MHz in load that I don't even feel is a bad trade-off, imo.
But like I said, each to their own.

it idle powers even with it disabled in bios. I am drawing like 15 watts as I type this. honestly not sure what it even does disabled or enabled, only when my effective clock goes high does it draw more watts. /shrug

 

[Count von Schwalbe]

This is the part that I really don't like. My PC spends most of its time at idle or browsing the web, so power saving is crucial (if not for saving on bills, then for temperatures). Sacrificing on idle power and temps for a couple hundred (literally) more MHz in load that I don't even feel is a bad trade-off, imo.
But like I said, each to their own.

Power saving disabled means that the clock speed stays high, but effective clocks can be lower which saves power.

 

[AusWolf]

Power saving disabled means that the clock speed stays high, but effective clocks can be lower which saves power.

Clock speed stays high on Ryzen (especially newer generations) anyway, doesn't it?

 

[Count von Schwalbe]

Clock speed stays high on Ryzen (especially newer generations) anyway, doesn't it?

The below image was shamelessly stolen from @Space Lynx to illustrate my point:

Static All-core OC at idle - the cores are not pulling much more power than a true dynamic clock equal to the effective clock shown below the nominal clock. This is due to most of the core being shut down until needed most of the time.

Space Lynx can confirm power usage if he is feeling like it.

 

[JrRacinFan]

@Mussels instead of mucking about with CO. Ive been dialing down dram and pch voltages a little bit. So far this thing is beastly.

 

[freeagent]

The below image was shamelessly stolen from @Space Lynx to illustrate my point:
View attachment 283241

Static All-core OC at idle - the cores are not pulling much more power than a true dynamic clock equal to the effective clock shown below the nominal clock. This is due to most of the core being shut down until needed most of the time.

Space Lynx can confirm power usage if he is feeling like it.

He is not doing anything with his computer, if he loaded it up with something then his max would show as 4700.

 

[Count von Schwalbe]

He is not doing anything with his computer, if he loaded it up with something then his max would show as 4700.

That's my point - a static all-core OC doesn't always mean that the cores are running full tilt all the time, pulling the power that it would under load.

 

[freeagent]

That's my point - a static all-core OC doesn't always mean that the cores are running full tilt all the time, pulling the power that it would under load.

Yes indeed, I saw the same behavior with this program on my older Intel CPUs iirc..

I think... its been awhile since I ran them..