VRM on the new AM4 motherboards - Page 353 - Overclock.net - An Overclocking Community

Forum Jump: 

VRM on the new AM4 motherboards

Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #3521 of 3541 (permalink) Old 08-10-2019, 10:42 PM
New to Overclock.net
 
elmor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 820
Rep: 333 (Unique: 146)
Quote: Originally Posted by AlphaC View Post
At the the end of the day I don't think people care about if the die sense reading is more accurate or not because reviewers should be measuring at the back of the socket to equalize between motherboards, they do care if their temp sensors are wrong and their power readings are wrong. It seems like a cop-out for an inferior design: "our voltage reading is more accurate so our voltage is actually higher than others" and other excuses. If anything it leads to more risk from end-users because every prior platform used the "inferior way" of measuring so people will overvolt their CPUs more. We've already seen this on Z390 where people claim to have 100mV less required VCORE on ASUS boards but only due to the measurement methodology.

Measurement systems 101: measurement may change the result (observer effect), factor in measurement precision/accuracy (doesn't look like his equipment has been calibrated).

It's not really debatable which is more accurate or not, die sense is as good as it gets. Just because you're used to one way doesn't make it correct. The key here is that the error scales with output current, which has drastically increased in recent years. On the Z170/Z270 platforms people were saying Asrock boards were stable at lower voltages because they reported lower values. Getting accurate readings on all boards should be key here, no matter if it's voltage, temperature or power. Socket MLCC measurements as you say is probably the best way to normalize readings, but there are not many reviewers that would go to those lengths. Proper comparisons between boards are not being done either because the manufacturers wouldn't like it.
elmor is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #3522 of 3541 (permalink) Old 08-10-2019, 11:36 PM
⤷ αC
 
AlphaC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 11,064
Rep: 899 (Unique: 589)
Quote: Originally Posted by VPII View Post
Hi @AlphaC I'm just going to drop this here as I think it is worth a look at. A very good, friend of mine, in charge of the "The Overclocker" online magazine will put most people in the direction of the Asrock Taichi. Now from my experience, from a C7H to an MSI Meg X570 Ace, I can tell you the cooling on this board is not an issue. AT present my chipset has maxed out at 44.8C so so the chip-set fan has not seen any action yet..... seriously I think it has not run since I got the board. Now this means that the VRM are pretty cool. But I'll put it out there just to show in the screen grab below. Now coming from a C7H board I was pretty impressed and happy with this board. At present in the screen grab below while running AIDA64 stress test at 4.29Ghz on a Ryzen 9 3900X using 1.25vcore set in bios. Now I'll be honest, my system is open a Lian-Li PC T60. I prefer open as open as can be as I know airflow will not be a problem. Now this stress test is running as I'm typing.

That's not even stock power limit. I doubt it would pass [email protected] with SVM on (virtualization). I've had stuff pass Google stressapp + Prime95 + AIDA64 FPU and fail it because stress tests don't include virtualization.

► Recommended GPU Projects: [email protected] , [email protected] (FP64) (AMD moreso) ► Other notable GPU projects: [email protected] (Nvidia), GPUGrid (Nvidia) ► Project list


AlphaC is offline  
post #3523 of 3541 (permalink) Old 08-10-2019, 11:57 PM
New to Overclock.net
 
VPII's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Hout Bay, Cape Town, South Africa
Posts: 541
Rep: 6 (Unique: 5)
Quote: Originally Posted by AlphaC View Post
That's not even stock power limit. I doubt it would pass [email protected] with SVM on (virtualization). I've had stuff pass Google stressapp + Prime95 + AIDA64 FPU and fail it because stress tests don't include virtualization.
Hi @AlphaC why exactly would I run [email protected], I have no interest in joining to run it. Hell, my computer I primarily use to bench and sometimes run games. I've never stress tested my hardware until the tests I posted in the Official Ryzen 3000 thread as well as the MSI Meg X570 Ace thread. Sorry for my ignorance, but I don't really understand what you mean by virtualization. So as my system run at present, I don't really have a problem with it. It will only break into 70C when I run Aida64 stress test or IBT.

AMD
(9 items)
CPU
AMD Ryzen 2700X
Motherboard
Asus Crosshair VII Hero
GPU
GALAX RTX 2080 TI OC
RAM
G.Skill f4-3200c14d-16gtzr tridentz rgb
Hard Drive
Crucial MX300 M.2 SSD
Power Supply
Corsair HX1200i
Cooling
CoolerMaster MLW-D24M-A20PC-R1 MasterLiquid ML240L 240mm RGB Liquid CPU Cooler
Operating System
Windows 10 Pro
Monitor
Dell U2717D 27" UltraSharp InfinityEdge LED Monitor
▲ hide details ▲
VPII is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #3524 of 3541 (permalink) Old 08-11-2019, 12:58 AM
New to Overclock.net
 
cssorkinman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 9,398
Rep: 462 (Unique: 262)
Quote: Originally Posted by elmor View Post
It's not really debatable which is more accurate or not, die sense is as good as it gets. Just because you're used to one way doesn't make it correct. The key here is that the error scales with output current, which has drastically increased in recent years. On the Z170/Z270 platforms people were saying Asrock boards were stable at lower voltages because they reported lower values. Getting accurate readings on all boards should be key here, no matter if it's voltage, temperature or power. Socket MLCC measurements as you say is probably the best way to normalize readings, but there are not many reviewers that would go to those lengths. Proper comparisons between boards are not being done either because the manufacturers wouldn't like it.
In the end the cpu will tattle on the motherboard's honesty as far as what it's actually getting for power vs what it reports. It won't magically need less voltage to be stable on one board vs another. Power being drawn from the wall and cpu temps will also give it away - power supply , cpu cooling and requested v-core voltage setting being equal.
cssorkinman is online now  
post #3525 of 3541 (permalink) Old 08-11-2019, 02:50 AM
New to Overclock.net
 
elmor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 820
Rep: 333 (Unique: 146)
Quote: Originally Posted by cssorkinman View Post
In the end the cpu will tattle on the motherboard's honesty as far as what it's actually getting for power vs what it reports. It won't magically need less voltage to be stable on one board vs another. Power being drawn from the wall and cpu temps will also give it away - power supply , cpu cooling and requested v-core voltage setting being equal.
Most of the time the power reporting from the CPU is based on parameters the motherboard tells it (SVI2/SVID telemetry or BIOS constants). Similarly VRM controller readings can be various degrees of calibrated by the power engineers. Measuring power from the wall or at the 12V input doesn't account for efficiency and may include additional rails like SOC depending on the specific board design. There are error sources everywhere. Comparing power to core temperatures and at the same time measuring performance is a good way to tell if there's really a difference. If your 1.2V setting on one board results in a max core temperature of 70*C and on another 80*C, in the same benchmark with multiple cooling re-mounts there's probably a difference in power consumption and actual voltage/frequency or worst case some kind of throttling. Or stability as you say won't magically vary that much between boards in the same range.

For example as reported by The Stilt, ASUS had some of their X570 boards configured wrongly at launch which made the SMU think it was running at lower power and boosting higher.
elmor is offline  
post #3526 of 3541 (permalink) Old 08-11-2019, 10:16 AM
⤷ αC
 
AlphaC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 11,064
Rep: 899 (Unique: 589)
Quote: Originally Posted by VPII View Post
Hi @AlphaC why exactly would I run [email protected], I have no interest in joining to run it. Hell, my computer I primarily use to bench and sometimes run games. I've never stress tested my hardware until the tests I posted in the Official Ryzen 3000 thread as well as the MSI Meg X570 Ace thread. Sorry for my ignorance, but I don't really understand what you mean by virtualization. So as my system run at present, I don't really have a problem with it. It will only break into 70C when I run Aida64 stress test or IBT.
Utterly offtopic so in spoiler:

Spoiler!



If you're going to come in saying that the MSI Ace is 100% great and show an image with <142W load aka stock power limit , then expect for that to be noticed. It isn't a bad board by any means, but your reasoning for it being a good board is extremely flawed.

► Recommended GPU Projects: [email protected] , [email protected] (FP64) (AMD moreso) ► Other notable GPU projects: [email protected] (Nvidia), GPUGrid (Nvidia) ► Project list


AlphaC is offline  
post #3527 of 3541 (permalink) Old 08-11-2019, 12:00 PM
New to Overclock.net
 
VPII's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Hout Bay, Cape Town, South Africa
Posts: 541
Rep: 6 (Unique: 5)
[quote=AlphaC;28084220]Utterly offtopic so in spoiler:

Spoiler!



If you're going to come in saying that the MSI Ace is 100% great and show an image with <142W load aka stock power limit , then expect for that to be noticed. It isn't a bad board by any means, but your reasoning for it being a good board is extremely flawed.[/quote @AlphaC sorry if I came off the wrong way. My general knowledge of computers is limited so excuse my ignorance. I have a little knowledge of overclocking and having come from a C7H to the Msi X570 Ace it really felt nice having a board again that works and has a qpost lcd. This board is lacking in 2d benching but great in 3d benching.

This was primarliy why I said what I did adout the Ace board. That screeny is showing my everyday clocks, thsnks for pointing out the power draw, I did not even notice.

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

AMD
(9 items)
CPU
AMD Ryzen 2700X
Motherboard
Asus Crosshair VII Hero
GPU
GALAX RTX 2080 TI OC
RAM
G.Skill f4-3200c14d-16gtzr tridentz rgb
Hard Drive
Crucial MX300 M.2 SSD
Power Supply
Corsair HX1200i
Cooling
CoolerMaster MLW-D24M-A20PC-R1 MasterLiquid ML240L 240mm RGB Liquid CPU Cooler
Operating System
Windows 10 Pro
Monitor
Dell U2717D 27" UltraSharp InfinityEdge LED Monitor
▲ hide details ▲
VPII is offline  
post #3528 of 3541 (permalink) Old 08-11-2019, 01:25 PM
New to Overclock.net
 
cssorkinman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 9,398
Rep: 462 (Unique: 262)
Quote: Originally Posted by elmor View Post
Most of the time the power reporting from the CPU is based on parameters the motherboard tells it (SVI2/SVID telemetry or BIOS constants). Similarly VRM controller readings can be various degrees of calibrated by the power engineers. Measuring power from the wall or at the 12V input doesn't account for efficiency and may include additional rails like SOC depending on the specific board design. There are error sources everywhere. Comparing power to core temperatures and at the same time measuring performance is a good way to tell if there's really a difference. If your 1.2V setting on one board results in a max core temperature of 70*C and on another 80*C, in the same benchmark with multiple cooling re-mounts there's probably a difference in power consumption and actual voltage/frequency or worst case some kind of throttling. Or stability as you say won't magically vary that much between boards in the same range.

For example as reported by The Stilt, ASUS had some of their X570 boards configured wrongly at launch which made the SMU think it was running at lower power and boosting higher.
Same tests , same cooling ( pushed close to it's limits), same chip, same supporting cast, 8 to 10 C warmer cpu temps ( 3-4 C coolant temps) one particular board vs another on AMD 990 platform at the same reported v-core tells me something was up .

8-10C reduction in core temps = 100+ mhz added stable core clock on the cpu I was using - the result was the board sending less voltage to the cpu could actually run higher daily clocks at the same reported voltage.
cssorkinman is online now  
post #3529 of 3541 (permalink) Old 08-13-2019, 01:00 PM
New to Overclock.net
 
Heuchler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 1,870
Rep: 255 (Unique: 187)
and another channel that I unsubbed from



Affordable X570 VRM Thermal Performance


He also made the video stating Win 1903 need chipset drivers and possibly firmware updates to make Windows Schedule Ryzen Topology aware and rumors on the internet about performance improvement where wrong.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	Entry X570 board - 3900X PBO+AutoOC.jpg
Views:	31
Size:	166.6 KB
ID:	288770  

Click image for larger version

Name:	Entry X570 board - 3900X @4.3GHz 1.40v.jpg
Views:	24
Size:	149.2 KB
ID:	288772  


Overclocking History (Click to show)
Intel 386DX/16 @ 20 MHz
CX486SLC/50 @ 50 MHz
AM486DX2/80 @ 100 MHz
AM486 DX4-100 @ 120 MHz
AK5x86-P75 [email protected] 160 MHz
Pentium 90 @ 120 Mhz
IBM 6x86L P166+ [email protected] 160 MHz
Celeron 300a @ 454 MHz
Pentium 3 700 @ 933 MHz
Athlon XP 1400+ @ 1600 MHz
Athlon XP 1800+ @ 2088 MHz
Athlon XP 2500+ @ 2200 MHz
Athlon 64 3000+ @ 2603 MHz
Athlon X2 BE2300 @ 1900 MHz
Athlon X2 4200+ @ 2210 MHz
Athlon X2 5000+ @ 2600 MHz
Core 2 Duo E4300 @ 3000 MHz
Core 2 Duo E6750 @ 3600 MHz
Core 2 Duo E8400 @ 4000 MHz
Xeon C2Q L5408 @ 3200 MHz
Xeon C2Q X5450 @ 3300 MHz
Xeon C2Q E5440 @ 3400 MHz
Xeon C2Q E5450 @ 3600 MHz
Phenom2 X4 B50 @ 3700 MHz
Phenom2 X6 1045T @ 4050 MHz
Core i5-2500K Sandy @ 4500 MHz
X5650 6-Core Westmere @ 3982 MHz
AMD FX 8320E Black Edition

FX-8320E @4.5GHz, X5650 @ 4.0GHz, X6 1045T @4.0GHz, i7 [email protected]
Thinkpad T420p with i7-2720QM overclocked because this is OCN
Heuchler is online now  
post #3530 of 3541 (permalink) Old 08-13-2019, 02:18 PM
New to Overclock.net
 
os2wiz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Brooklyn, New York
Posts: 2,392
Rep: 61 (Unique: 40)
Quote: Originally Posted by AlphaC View Post
hardware info NL as well as hardwareunboxed used a fixed voltage OC. I was just putting up the PBO numbers because ASUS slides had the PBO claim that they had better PBO performance.


Hardware info NL result ; R9 3900X @ 4.1 all core:
X570 Taichi $300 board = 61.4°C rear PCB , 62°C front of PCB
X570 Aorus Elite $200 board with zero heatpipes = 64°C rear PCB while front is 66°C
MSI Ace rear PCB = 63.5°C while front is 66.1°C

Also it doesn't take a genius to figure out that having less fin area means higher thermals. It is also reflected in the Japanese review:
http://blog.livedoor.jp/wisteriear/a...075116296.html
R9 3900X @ 40.5 multiplier in AVIUTL AVX load without airflow = 74.8°C


And this greek review (65°C with R9 3900X):


https://www.hwbox.gr/reviews/motherb...w.html?start=2



I would say 3 separate datapoints is a trend.
So the analysis is that the heat sink on the vrm is not substantial enough?

Technology is NOT a liberator . Whom technology serves is a class question.
Technology wielded by the capitalist class benefits only the exploiters.
Technology wielded by the working class will serve ALL Humanity.
Ryzen 9 3900X at 4.2 GHZ, MSI X570 MEG ACE motherboard, AlphaCool Eisbaer 360 cpu AIO cooler
32GB G.Skill TridentZ DDR4 4000mhz CL-19-19-19-39 1.35v Samsung 970 EVO m.2 NVMe 1TB
AMD Radeon VII gpu
os2wiz is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Overclock.net - An Overclocking Community forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in



Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off