Overclock.net banner
21 - 40 of 330 Posts
Thanks for the guide Ichirou. Now to find the equivalent settings on Asus..

For step 5, I can set "All-core ratio limit" sync all to 54 and open up "specific performance core" and set specific ratio limit in there, per core.

Just checking this sounds right for an Asus board?
 
Discussion starter · #23 ·
Hey man! Thanks for the guide. I just got a 13700kf on the Z790 Tomahawk Wifi DDR4 board and I am trying to set a higher ring ratio after disabling the E-cores but it doesn't seem to budge from its base 4.5ghz. How do I fix this?
Raise Vcore.
 
Discussion starter · #25 ·
Tried raising Vcore from Auto to 1.3 and nothing changed. Are there any screenshots that I could post that might be helpful?

I just got the motherboard and chip yesterday and the BIOS that's on it is a few months old. Maybe try flashing to the latest and see if it's just a bug?
Yes, the latest BIOS is better for the 13th Gen. The packaged one isn't as optimized.
 
Any scripts to automate the 0-1-7 steps for y cruncher?

Also, I sometimes get 80-95 second start to end wall times then I'll change one thing (lower voltage by .1, still stable and no crashes) and it goes back to 140 seconds.. When doing this, should I take the best timing as a "better overclock" or does it not matter? There isn't this much of a range when running cb23.
 
Discussion starter · #27 ·
Any scripts to automate the 0-1-7 steps for y cruncher?

Also, I sometimes get 80-95 second start to end wall times then I'll change one thing (lower voltage by .1, still stable and no crashes) and it goes back to 140 seconds.. When doing this, should I take the best timing as a "better overclock" or does it not matter? There isn't this much of a range when running cb23.
I asked the creator of y-cruncher the same. Nope. Just gotta get used to pressing the same combination over and over again.

Some of your cores are getting parked. That's why the result gets worse. Gotta monitor the Effective Clocks in HWiNFO.
 
Hi @Ichirou, what settings need to be changed to stop the CPU from downclocking (in my case to 4.9) under some AVX2 loads? (like the last test in IPDT)

Asus boards apparently don't do it, and I've tried every combination of settings I can think of, and various BIOS versions (1.40, 1.90, etc) but it still persists.

If I recall correctly, the 1.00 BIOS didn't do it, but the RAM oc on that was so terrible there's no going back....

Thanks


EDIT: Sorry...nevermind. Turns out its throttlestop that causes it with 1.90 at least, even if its been ran on startup then closed. Hadn't thought to try disabling that until after I posted. But handily I don't need it for anything, so problem solved.
 
Discussion starter · #30 ·
@Ichirou

Any idea why my E-core frequency won't change? multiplier works on the p-cores @ 5.5ghz (13700kf) but no matter what I set the e-core it stays stuck at stock 4.2ghz. Perhaps a setting I'm missing? thanks so much. Using an MSI Z790 Tomahawk
Show me a screenshot of the multipliers section.
 
Ooo interesting VDDQ. I never explored higher than 1.45v vddq since it stabilized 4800 1.65vdimm. Is it the secret to higher gear 1 scaling?
Depends on the ram and IMC. I needed 1.4v VDDQ to boot 4000G1 on my 12600K but couldn't stabilize it with even a tiny CPU OC.

I've currently tried it all the way down to 1.25v on my 13600KF and 4300CL14 still boots, but not 100% sure if instability was due to the VDDQ or temperature as it turned out I needed a better fan even at 1.4.

Will explore further with reducing VDDQ and SA later, focusing on getting my storage drives set up currently and backups take a long time. My fault for not having backed up my game drive to HDD array sooner.
 
Discussion starter · #34 ·
Ooo interesting VDDQ. I never explored higher than 1.45v vddq since it stabilized 4800 1.65vdimm. Is it the secret to higher gear 1 scaling?
VDDQ is motherboard and BIOS dependent, as well as RAM type, timings, and capacity dependent.
A lot of factors are involved.
 
VDDQ is motherboard and BIOS dependent, as well as RAM type, timings, and capacity dependent.
A lot of factors are involved.
I know lol. I'm just curious what 1.62 vddq specifically helped you stabilize (tighter timings, higher freq, both?) since iirc it's higher than I saw anyone using a few months ago. I've been running 1.65v vdimm/1.45 vddq in this micron b-die for months now and it would be fun to push it further, just hoping for guidance on what direction it might help with.
 
I know lol. I'm just curious what 1.62 vddq specifically helped you stabilize (tighter timings, higher freq, both?) since iirc it's higher than I saw anyone using a few months ago. I've been running 1.65v vdimm/1.45 vddq in this micron b-die for months now and it would be fun to push it further, just hoping for guidance on what direction it might help with.
Well super high vddq just got me to desktop at 4200 gear 1 which thus far was an impossible feat. So thanks for the tip!
 
Discussion starter · #37 ·
I know lol. I'm just curious what 1.62 vddq specifically helped you stabilize (tighter timings, higher freq, both?) since iirc it's higher than I saw anyone using a few months ago. I've been running 1.65v vdimm/1.45 vddq in this micron b-die for months now and it would be fun to push it further, just hoping for guidance on what direction it might help with.
Well super high vddq just got me to desktop at 4200 gear 1 which thus far was an impossible feat. So thanks for the tip!
Honestly, I feel like it is 50% board and BIOS dependent. 30% CPU dependent. And 20% RAM dependent.

With the exact same 4,200 MHz CL14 config, the exact same RAM kit, and the exact same 12900K on BIOS V1.22 vs V1.91, the difference was 1.49V VDDQ to 1.59V VDDQ.
I then shuffled between some 13900K's, which caused the VDDQ to change to 1.62V and 1.59V.
Changing the board to a Z790 Edge instead of the Z690 lowered it to 1.57V.

So honestly, having a good motherboard and BIOS is key. And I think ASUS tends to use lower VDDQ in general.
The higher amount of VDDQ is probably because I use 64 GB instead of 32 GB, so there needs to be more voltage going through four DIMM slots instead of two.

At the moment, I just speak from observation, not anything scientific.
 
Honestly, I feel like it is 50% board and BIOS dependent. 30% CPU dependent. And 20% RAM dependent.

With the exact same 4,200 MHz CL14 config, the exact same RAM kit, and the exact same 12900K on BIOS V1.22 vs V1.91, the difference was 1.49V VDDQ to 1.59V VDDQ.
I then shuffled between some 13900K's, which caused the VDDQ to change to 1.62V and 1.59V.
Changing the board to a Z790 Edge instead of the Z690 lowered it to 1.57V.

So honestly, having a good motherboard and BIOS is key. And I think ASUS tends to use lower VDDQ in general.
The higher amount of VDDQ is probably because I use 64 GB instead of 32 GB, so there needs to be more voltage going through four DIMM slots instead of two.

At the moment, I just speak from observation, not anything scientific.
It's a really cool avenue to now have to explore, as I had tried every knob under the sun to attempt 4200. Barely ever posted and forget even getting to desktop. Just never considered vddq that high as conventional wisdom at the time was it didn't do much good past 1.5v at most
 
It's a really cool avenue to now have to explore, as I had tried every knob under the sun to attempt 4200. Barely ever posted and forget even getting to desktop. Just never considered vddq that high as conventional wisdom at the time was it didn't do much good past 1.5v at most
MSI board?
 
Discussion starter · #40 ·
It's a really cool avenue to now have to explore, as I had tried every knob under the sun to attempt 4200. Barely ever posted and forget even getting to desktop. Just never considered vddq that high as conventional wisdom at the time was it didn't do much good past 1.5v at most
You need enough VDDQ to boot, and then likely more to pass TM5.
 
21 - 40 of 330 Posts