Overclock.net banner
1,401 - 1,420 of 2,060 Posts
But with my current curve it is perfectly stable at Prime95 AVX2. It doesn't look broken
 
But with my current curve it is perfectly stable at Prime95 AVX2. It doesn't look broken
I think what he's saying is for getting higher clocks stable AVX2 is broken. I was giving the example earlier I can push my clocks much higher (5.9ghz) with no stability issues whatsoever. But AVX2 takes a much more higher positive CO with a much lower frequency (5.65-5.7ghz)to even get it remotely stable. Even if I just enabling default PBO, AVX2 is unstable unless I increase the positive CO.
 
That reminds me, I have set +100Mhz on maximum clocks. I've tried +0, +100 and +200. I didn't find much of a difference... it boost to 5685Mhz according to Hydra. I don't think it's temperature related, I have a 360mm AIO and this is only with 1 core loaded. Am I missing something?
 
I'm finding the exact same behavior on my 7950X3D.
Still testing the limit per core, but so far, I'm mostly finding the CPU being stable between CO -10 and -25 with Prime 95 SSE/AVX/AVX512 or Y-cruncher "22-ZN4 ~ Kizuna"
But as soon as I change the config.ini to use Prime95 AVX2 specifically, whether with Huge/Moderate/Heavy/HeavyShort FFT sizes, multiple cores instant fail at CO -5.

To be sure I checked to run the latest Prime95 without CoreCycler, manually setting the affinity to the failing cores one after another, but I had the same result -> instant/quick fail for the same cores with CO at -5.

So, wanting to know if Prime 95 had an issue or if it's AVX2 related, I tested Y-Cruncher "20-ZN3 ~ Yuzuki" instead of "22-ZN4 ~ Kizuna", so that AVX512 isn't used, with only the AVX2 tests (BBP, SFT, FFT, N32, N64, VST).
Result: even if it's more stable than Prime 95 AVX2, I did have some core crashes really fast.

BTW there's no issue whatsoever on all core CO -5 if I launch an all-core Prime 95/Y-cruncher AVX2 test.

So there's clearly a big stability issue with AVX2-specific tests during single core/low core count boosts, which make the CPU require much higher CO values.

Dunno if for everyday use I can just ignore this, or if AVX2-only stability testing is thus the way to go for Ryzen 7000X3D series (maybe all 7000 series).

Update :
So after further testing, the worst stability test offender is PRIME 95 AVX2 Smallest, and more specifically both 4K-5K FFT lengths.
If the cores do not fail the 4K-5K lengths, then they will pass all the other greater lengths with a good probability.
Also, Y-cruncher AVX2 stress test is less stable than Prime 95 AVX2 moderate, but much more than Prime 95 smallest.

I think I will base my CO values on being 20-30mn stable per core with Y-cruncher AVX2.
I've had CPU's failing Prime95 AVX (no AVX2) in less than 30mn in the past, that where rock stable for years gaming/encoding/everyday uses.

Also, I almost forgot to thank sp00n82 very much for this wonderful script with a very nice and well-commented config.ini. It's very well done and incredibly useful.
Absolutely true.. i can pass whatever i want for days but not prime 4K, didnt even try 5K since 4K made me mad. 7950x Here
 
I'm finding the exact same behavior on my 7950X3D.
Still testing the limit per core, but so far, I'm mostly finding the CPU being stable between CO -10 and -25 with Prime 95 SSE/AVX/AVX512 or Y-cruncher "22-ZN4 ~ Kizuna"
But as soon as I change the config.ini to use Prime95 AVX2 specifically, whether with Huge/Moderate/Heavy/HeavyShort FFT sizes, multiple cores instant fail at CO -5.

To be sure I checked to run the latest Prime95 without CoreCycler, manually setting the affinity to the failing cores one after another, but I had the same result -> instant/quick fail for the same cores with CO at -5.

So, wanting to know if Prime 95 had an issue or if it's AVX2 related, I tested Y-Cruncher "20-ZN3 ~ Yuzuki" instead of "22-ZN4 ~ Kizuna", so that AVX512 isn't used, with only the AVX2 tests (BBP, SFT, FFT, N32, N64, VST).
Result: even if it's more stable than Prime 95 AVX2, I did have some core crashes really fast.

BTW there's no issue whatsoever on all core CO -5 if I launch an all-core Prime 95/Y-cruncher AVX2 test.

So there's clearly a big stability issue with AVX2-specific tests during single core/low core count boosts, which make the CPU require much higher CO values.

Dunno if for everyday use I can just ignore this, or if AVX2-only stability testing is thus the way to go for Ryzen 7000X3D series (maybe all 7000 series).

Update :
So after further testing, the worst stability test offender is PRIME 95 AVX2 Smallest, and more specifically both 4K-5K FFT lengths.
If the cores do not fail the 4K-5K lengths, then they will pass all the other greater lengths with a good probability.
Also, Y-cruncher AVX2 stress test is less stable than Prime 95 AVX2 moderate, but much more than Prime 95 smallest.

I think I will base my CO values on being 20-30mn stable per core with Y-cruncher AVX2.
I've had CPU's failing Prime95 AVX (no AVX2) in less than 30mn in the past, that where rock stable for years gaming/encoding/everyday uses.

Also, I almost forgot to thank sp00n82 very much for this wonderful script with a very nice and well-commented config.ini. It's very well done and incredibly useful.
Try this please, run for example an AVX2, 4K to 1344K run manually with prime95 and set affinity to the core you desire .. it will work, at least for me just finished it with no errors.. the tool is broken thats it, thats also the reason for why been cycling avx2 with OCCT for about 15 hours and didnt get a single error, not even on my most critical cores.
 
Discussion starter · #1,410 ·
Try this please, run for example an AVX2, 4K to 1344K run manually with prime95 and set affinity to the core you desire .. it will work, at least for me just finished it with no errors.. the tool is broken thats it, thats also the reason for why been cycling avx2 with OCCT for about 15 hours and didnt get a single error, not even on my most critical cores.
It's possible that there's a problem with Ryzen 7000 that I couldn't catch because I don't own an AM5 system, but it might also be due to other reasons. Let me ask you a couple of questions to circle in on this:
Did you use the same Prime95 version for both tests?
You can also try to disable suspendPeriodically in the config.ini, this setting is intended to make the stress test more demanding specifically for CO overclocking by simulating load changes, which will not happen if you manually run Prime95.
And lastly, do you still have the CoreCycler and Prime95 log files for the failed run(s), or can create new ones?
 
It's possible that there's a problem with Ryzen 7000 that I couldn't catch because I don't own an AM5 system, but it might also be due to other reasons. Let me ask you a couple of questions to circle in on this:
Did you use the same Prime95 version for both tests?
You can also try to disable suspendPeriodically in the config.ini, this setting is intended to make the stress test more demanding specifically for CO overclocking by simulating load changes, which will not happen if you manually run Prime95.
And lastly, do you still have the CoreCycler and Prime95 log files for the failed run(s), or can create new ones?
Yeah i suspect that something is broken.. either a setting or something with ryzen 7000, i've been running a total of 23 hours of manual prime 95 on 2 different cores and didnt get any errors, i might check about logs but doubt being useful, corecycler errors those 2 cores within a minute or so, yes, prime 95 was same, i also tried latest version both in CC and manual and results were same as above, about suspendperiodically well as i said i get errors within a minute, should not be the reason and it is also engaged in OCCT with swap cores, i dont get errors there or if i get only after hours and hours cause yes my curve there was actually off.
Log, will check.. not a big deal to take a fresh one eventually, i am currently out.. need couple of days.
 
@Al75 Have you set a certain size range for Prime95 in CoreCycler? Maybe 768k-768k for ex isn't valid for AVX2 on Zen 4

Edit: never mind, I see you tried multiple different (pre)sets.
 
It's possible that there's a problem with Ryzen 7000 that I couldn't catch because I don't own an AM5 system, but it might also be due to other reasons. Let me ask you a couple of questions to circle in on this:
Did you use the same Prime95 version for both tests?
You can also try to disable suspendPeriodically in the config.ini, this setting is intended to make the stress test more demanding specifically for CO overclocking by simulating load changes, which will not happen if you manually run Prime95.
And lastly, do you still have the CoreCycler and Prime95 log files for the failed run(s), or can create new ones?
well.. i decided to dig into it a little bit cause initially i didnt, and, it seems the timing you're using to acquire cpu snapshots frequencies isn't enough or at least on my 7950x or computer, you can see it in the log.. (wich i will send you this evening) the script errors out not prime95.
I'm not a master in visual basic but i made a small mod (just for confirmation) and now its working.
Now moving to few notes not in any specific order..

  • Ctrl-c the script after the first failure leaves prime95 in the background working and also passing all tests. (not always but often).
  • One problem is that the script reports it as "not enough power or bad undervolt.. basically" and not like it couldnt retrieve cpu frequency.
  • My computer has no problems, it also runs sub 44 ycruncher 2B and a sub 9sec Pyprime
  • I really think the timer (aka the formula you used) isnt actually enough... this problem happens only on heavy FFTS, when i test lighter FFTS like moderate for example it does not happens cause the load probably is lower and the script can make it.
  • Among all the tests i did i also noticed something odd, if i launch the script while its running and i try to pop up Prime95 from the taskbar the computer starts slowing down badly, it goes near to freezing, it does not at the end eventually and prime95 keeps running no problem but clicks are like timed a under a minute or so.
  • even if my perf counters are absolutely fine.. i did a reset.
  • You know way better than me how to fix it.. i guess just giving it more time or retries will do it.

will send you a log this evening..
 
Discussion starter · #1,414 ·
about suspendperiodically well as i said i get errors within a minute, should not be the reason
The suspension happens every 10 seconds for 1 second, so it's quite possible to fail within 1 minute if that's the actual reason.


I really think the timer (aka the formula you used) isnt actually enough...
The CPU usage check also happens every 10 seconds, but is required to be failed 4 times with a wait time of 2 seconds in between, and only if all four checks have failed, the "CPULOAD" error is being thrown. There had been reports of incorrect detections before, which is why I added the additional checks.

I did add a disableCpuUtilizationCheck setting during that time as well, for cases where the CPU utilization check just won't work correctly. Maybe that's something else that you could test.
CoreCycler won't be able to detect failures for Y-Cruncher with this setting enabled though, as Y-Cruncher itself doesn't provide any feedback besides the actual window output (or the CPU utilization as read by the Windows Performance Counters).

So basically you have two options to test, the suspendPeriodically and the disableCpuUtilizationCheck setting.


Among all the tests i did i also noticed something odd, if i launch the script while its running and i try to pop up Prime95 from the taskbar the computer starts slowing down badly, it goes near to freezing, it does not at the end eventually and prime95 keeps running no problem but clicks are like timed a under a minute or so.
Yes, that can happen. By default, Prime95 sets itself to a "low" priority when being run manually, whereas with CoreCycler it's specifically set to a "high" priority instead (as is Y-Cruncher).
 
The suspension happens every 10 seconds for 1 second, so it's quite possible to fail within 1 minute if that's the actual reason.

It happens right at the beginning, does it suspends even before starting the test ?


The CPU usage check also happens every 10 seconds, but is required to be failed 4 times with a wait time of 2 seconds in between, and only if all four checks have failed, the "CPULOAD" error is being thrown. There had been reports of incorrect detections before, which is why I added the additional checks.

I did add a disableCpuUtilizationCheck setting during that time as well, for cases where the CPU utilization check just won't work correctly. Maybe that's something else that you could test.

i totally forgot about that, i modded the script.

CoreCycler won't be able to detect failures for Y-Cruncher with this setting enabled though, as Y-Cruncher itself doesn't provide any feedback besides the actual window output (or the CPU utilization as read by the Windows Performance Counters).

Didnt know about this, but as i said i won't use disableCpuUtilizationCheck


So basically you have two options to test, the suspendPeriodically and the disableCpuUtilizationCheck setting.
Yes, that can happen. By default, Prime95 sets itself to a "low" priority when being run manually, whereas with CoreCycler it's specifically set to a "high" priority instead (as is Y-Cruncher).

But that happens using corecyler, when you force quit with CTRL C, prime95 reverts priority to low ? didnt check..
 
The suspension happens every 10 seconds for 1 second, so it's quite possible to fail within 1 minute if that's the actual reason.



The CPU usage check also happens every 10 seconds, but is required to be failed 4 times with a wait time of 2 seconds in between, and only if all four checks have failed, the "CPULOAD" error is being thrown. There had been reports of incorrect detections before, which is why I added the additional checks.

I did add a disableCpuUtilizationCheck setting during that time as well, for cases where the CPU utilization check just won't work correctly. Maybe that's something else that you could test.
CoreCycler won't be able to detect failures for Y-Cruncher with this setting enabled though, as Y-Cruncher itself doesn't provide any feedback besides the actual window output (or the CPU utilization as read by the Windows Performance Counters).

So basically you have two options to test, the suspendPeriodically and the disableCpuUtilizationCheck setting.



Yes, that can happen. By default, Prime95 sets itself to a "low" priority when being run manually, whereas with CoreCycler it's specifically set to a "high" priority instead (as is Y-Cruncher).
Attached the log..
 

Attachments

Discussion starter · #1,418 ·
It happens right at the beginning, does it suspends even before starting the test ?
A log file would be really helpful then.

// Edit
Aaand you just posted it.
 
A log file would be really helpful then.

// Edit
Aaand you just posted it.
well.. whatever you know better than me, just let me know if you need more, i think many people with 16 cores or similar setup fails and may be think its CO wrong like i did initially, so could be a good chance to put a fix or workaround.
also my bad.. i mentioned cpu freq but meant usage ! sorry i was at work just got confused
 
1,401 - 1,420 of 2,060 Posts