Overclock.net banner
11521 - 11540 of 11670 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,112 Posts
No, don't worry about the newer BIOSs, they have no tangible positive effect on anything. I also use 3302, and a 5950x, and I post scores as good as the second best in this thread, as 32xxx in cinebench r23 is one hell of an achievement, but I score between 30500 and 30930 depending on temperature.
AGESA 1.2.0.7 are said to resolve the USB audio glitches once and for all though
 
  • Rep+
Reactions: the901

·
Registered
Joined
·
268 Posts
I think I've done with my 5900x curve optimization... this was the starting point:

PBO OFF:


PBO ON:


Curve optimization:


Curve settings:
EDC 220
TDC 140
EDC 160
MAX CPU BOOST CLOCK OVERDRIVE +200
CPU CORE VOLTAGE OFFSET +0.025
14-22-28-2-30-30-30-26-26-26-30-28

I think my core n. 3 is one of the worse I've ever seen.... :oops:
Any advice or comment from everyone would be very much appreciated... thanks!

Baio
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9 Posts
  • Rep+
Reactions: GRABibus

·
Registered
Joined
·
54 Posts
I think I've done with my 5900x curve optimization... this was the starting point:

PBO OFF:


PBO ON:


Curve optimization:


Curve settings:
EDC 220
TDC 140
EDC 160
MAX CPU BOOST CLOCK OVERDRIVE +200
CPU CORE VOLTAGE OFFSET +0.025
14-22-28-2-30-30-30-26-26-26-30-28

I think my core n. 3 is one of the worse I've ever seen.... :oops:
Any advice or comment from everyone would be very much appreciated... thanks!

Baio
I assume u temp limited? Cause pretty bad results even with not tuned ram.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
790 Posts
I think I've done with my 5900x curve optimization... this was the starting point:

PBO OFF:


PBO ON:


Curve optimization:


Curve settings:
EDC 220
TDC 140
EDC 160
MAX CPU BOOST CLOCK OVERDRIVE +200
CPU CORE VOLTAGE OFFSET +0.025
14-22-28-2-30-30-30-26-26-26-30-28

I think my core n. 3 is one of the worse I've ever seen.... :oops:
Any advice or comment from everyone would be very much appreciated... thanks!

Baio
Try +100 instead of +200.
With your cooling might benefit from even lower tdc and edc. R23 isn’t really heavy on amps.
 

·
Invalid Media
Joined
·
6,438 Posts
And this was meant to be Friday 13th, ha!
...24/32-core Ryzens in the future ?

Try +100 instead of +200.
With your cooling might benefit from even lower tdc and edc. R23 isn’t really heavy on amps.
...are you referring to CineR23 single core ? On CineR23, multi-core I've seen 180 A at full song...
 

·
Gamer and overclocker !
Joined
·
3,012 Posts
With my 5950X, I finally can boot at RAM 4000MHz/2000MHz.
This was impossible with my former 5900X.

I also set my best optimized primary and secondary timings in order to boot.

Aida64 (L1 + L2 HW Prefetcher disabled, which provided better latency but lower Memory Read/Write/copy values) :
Plant Nature Natural environment Terrestrial plant Font


I could pass 1 hour KArhu's (1800%), as a first shot for stability.
Of course this is not enough and I will test it overnight to confirm stability.

BUT...This is Whea 19 fest....

I installed Whea suppressor service from @ManniX-ITA.

Let's see how things go in the next days.
 
  • Rep+
Reactions: stimpy88 and J7SC

·
Registered
Joined
·
923 Posts
There are two settings in the BIOS. One is "CPPC" and the other is "CPPC Preferred Cores".
The first one informs the OS about the NUMA layout of the CPU, so that the OS can group the threads of a process on the cores that have faster access to the common cache.
The second one additionally informs the OS about the "performance potential and efficiency" of each core, and causes the OS to prioritize certain cores for most workloads.
If you disable the first one, the second one will be disabled too.
If you disable the first one, you will usually get lower framerates in videogames, and lower scores in any multicore benchmark that uses less cores than one CCX.
If you disable the second one, you will usually get mostly the same framerates in videogames, but a smoother gaming experience, because the "Preferred cores" feature is known to cause core workload contention in videogames, where the OS allocates too many tasks on one or two cores only while the other cores are left free.
By disabling the second setting, the OS doesn't know anymore which of your cores is the fastest, and so any single core benchmark will most probably be lower because the OS will place the benchmark loop on a random core instead of using the fastest one.
So, if you want to get smoother framerates in videogames you may want to disable "CPPC Preferred cores" only, but you will loose peak single core performances and score.
I can't think of any advantage in having both "CPPC" and "CPPC Preferred cores" disabled.
There's no fps difference and MT will be within run to run variance !
You need to change your boost mode.

Green is for CPPC off, Red is for CPPC on

And your CPPC preferred cores option, ON will enforce ranking reported by agesa/apic on boot. OFF windows will uses its own ranking, whatever that is.

But for testing, for sure the boost mode need to match to come to any real conclusion about MT scores & FPS.

Rectangle Font Screenshot Software Parallel


There's also scheduling target to play with... since we're on this subject :p

Product Rectangle Font Screenshot Software
 

·
Invalid Media
Joined
·
6,438 Posts
With my 5950X, I finally can boot at RAM 4000MHz/2000MHz.
This was impossible with my former 5900X.

I also set my best optimized primary and secondary timings in order to boot.

Aida64 (L1 + L2 HW Prefetcher disabled, which provided better latency but lower Memory Read/Write/copy values) :
View attachment 2560435

I could pass 1 hour KArhu's (1800%), as a first shot for stability.
Of course this is not enough and I will test it overnight to confirm stability.

BUT...This is Whea 19 fest....

I installed Whea suppressor service from @ManniX-ITA.

Let's see how things go in the next days.
Have you tried DDR4 4000 - GDM off, CL15, T2 ?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
202 Posts
There's no fps difference and MT will be within run to run variance !
You need to change your boost mode.

Green is for CPPC off, Red is for CPPC on

View attachment 2560461
I don't understand exactly which point you are referring to.

If you disable all the CPPC settings, you will get less performances because the OS doesn't know anymore which core relates to which CCX cache, so it can't group threads that work on the same set of data to the cores that use the same cache, and this will inherently slow down cpu heavy algorithms as accessing the cache of a different CCX has a big performance penalty.

The processor performance boost mode is a setting that defines the speed with which a core will increase its frequency up to the maximum turbo boost mhz when a thread with a heavy workload requires it.
When CPPC is OFF, the CPU will use the P-states to manage each core frequency, and the P-states allow only two possible frequency states: Turbo boost ON, and Turbo boost OFF. So the "Aggressive" setting will be mapped to "Turbo boost ON immediately" and the "Efficient" setting will be mapped to "Turbo boost ON only if the thread specifically ask for the turbo frequency".
When CPPC is ON, the CPU has more granularity to choose the target core frequency, so the "aggressive" setting will be mapped to "Turbo boost ON immediately" and the "Efficient" setting will be mapped to "Start at an OS-calculated frequency and progressively increase up to theTurbo boost frequency".

All the options in that list are always mapped to one of the available choices following this table:

Rectangle Font Number Parallel Circle


There isn't one of those listed choices that is not "functional" if CPPC is ON or OFF. In Windows 11 the default for both the "balanced" and "high performance" profiles is to use "Aggressive" as boost mode and I didn't get any performance increase by using a different value (I got performance increases by changing other power profile settings unrelated to CPPC).

But the performance penalty that you get if you disable CPPC is not related to the frequency of the cores. It's related to the ability of the cores on the same CCX to access the same cache instead of having to do an extra roundtrip to access the cache on the other CCX. Without knowing which cores are in which CCX , the OS can't optimize this cache access strategy.
 

·
MOD King
Joined
·
287 Posts
I wonder if this is exactly the same as the beta version which I just installed a few days ago. Anyone know?
I did a file compare using fc at the Windows command prompt and they are indeed identical files.
 
  • Rep+
Reactions: GRABibus

·
Gamer and overclocker !
Joined
·
3,012 Posts
Have you tried DDR4 4000 - GDM off, CL15, T2 ?
[email protected]
=> I pass 2 hours Karu's, ,I boot without any problem.
But each game => Crash, even by increasing latencies, voltages, etc....

I go back to 3800MHz :ROFLMAO:
 
  • Rep+
Reactions: stimpy88

·
Registered
Joined
·
268 Posts
I assume u temp limited? Cause pretty bad results even with not tuned ram.
Do you refer to CB23 scores?
I have a lot of tasks running in background, so I don't care much about that... I addec the tests just to see how much the CO mode improves performance.
I'm using a 360 AIO but with a very conservative fan curve, as I have the case on my desk.

Baio
 
11521 - 11540 of 11670 Posts
Top