Overclock.net banner
1 - 20 of 67 Posts

Registered
Joined
2,117 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 · (Edited)
TLDR
Its looking that Ryzen Gremlins are not allowing me to get consistent results, looking like just leave PBO on AUTO and tweak CO ....

:oops:

Warning, if you want to waste your time read further

:D :D
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Note:
Some info below is relevant to my CPU which is a 5600X, those who have higher core count CPUs hope you can test the methodology outlined below to see if it holds true, same goes for other 5600X users, would be great if other could validate my findings

Prerequisites
1.
Stable DRAM set
2. CO (Curve Optimiser) set to per core and each core is tuned to its most stable value while using "Boost Override" set to 200 mhz.

3a. CPU LLC: Auto
3b. CPU NB LLC: Auto

4a. vCORE: Auto
4b. vSOC/vDIMM/vDDP/vDDG: Whatever you require for your stable DRAM set

5. PPT/TDC: The maximum value your BIOS supports
5. PPT/TDC, set to AUTO, see amendment to section 7. CPU VDD Telemetry Offset Value

6.
EDC
This needs discussion, as im water-cooled im not concerned about restricting the "Thermal Design Current (TDC)" hence the reason for setting it to max value, also im not concerned about maximum power efficiency so again i set the "Package Power Total (PPT)" to its maximum value. I have found through my testing that setting these at maximum values does not negatively influence, in terms of performance, the maximal obtainable performance from my system when running x/y/x/ benchmark.

6. EDC
The above (striked out comment) is valid only if you have a specific use case scenario, though in such scenarios you would be better off using an all core overclock, not PBO.

All we need to be concerned about is tuning the right value for EDC and not worry about anything else.

:)

So we go through the process of, set an EDC value, reboot, rinse and repeat, we will use CB23 multi-core and Linpack Xtreme (selection: 1, 3, 5, enter, enter) to compare results between different EDC settings.

For the record, my optimal EDC value for my 5600X sample is 110A, there is a bit of leeway between 105 to 115 so if you have OCD you can try each increment, hahahahahaha, but it wont tell you anything so why bother

:D

7. CPU VDD Telemetry
After you got your EDC value you do the following, set EDC to double your value, yeah I can hear you thinking, "but why do we want to do that", well now we are going to use the CPU VDD Telemetry section

;)

7a. CPU VDD_SoC Current Optimisation: Custom Setting
7b. CPU VDD Full Scale Current: The optimal EDC setting for your system as previously tested.
7c. CPU VDD Telemetry Offset Value: This needs more discussion, see below...
7d. CPU Soc Full Scale Current: Im yet to play with this...
7e. CPU Soc Telemetry Offset Value: Im yet to play with this....

CPU VDD Telemetry Offset Value
Basically I found that this value effects the balance between optimal all core performance and optimal single core performance, set the value too low and multi-core will suffer but single core will boost further, if you find the right balance you can get the best of both Worlds. For the record im not yet finished tuning this value yet buts its looking to be a relatively low value (comparative of the max input value which is 10000mA), play in the range of 8mA to 30mA if on 5600X for higher core count CPU you need to raise this range
On further testing the relationship is not as above but as follows.

The VDD telemetry offset effects the maximum all core frequency achievable dependant on the load that is being requested.

For example, Prime95 Small FFTs using AVX2, is more "heavy" on the CPU than running the CPU-Z bench test.

What this means in real numbers ??

Effect on Prime 95 Small FFTs (AVX2)
Offset: 1mA, All Core Frequency is around 4430-4460 mhz
Offset: 2999mA, All Core Frequency is around 4530-4560 mhz

Ughhh, this is getting worse, after a reboot the above was no longer valid, more Ryzen Gremlins !!

As I was in the process of getting results for screenshots I was going into BIOS and changing setting to run the tests.

I had already tested 1mA offset with AUTO PBO over two reboots and it was knocking 80-100 mhz off Prime95 Small FFTs.

But now with AUTO PBO and 1mA offset it is only loosing 20 mhz from all core frequency

:mad:

Different types of loads are effected in different ways, you need to test for your specific use case.

After this amendment, I had to re-investigate on how PBO works and from preliminary testing it seems that the most flexible solution is to leave PBO on AUTO and tweak only the "CPU VDD Full Scale Current" and "CPU VDD Telemetry Offset Value" values.

:)

Think that's it, I will update this post with images and links.

For the record

CB23: Between 1215x - 122xx
Linpack Xtreme: AVG 671 Gflops (3800/1900 14-15-14-14-26-40-240-1T)

Once ive fully tested my optimal values will run more benchmarks, want to now discuss why I went down this avenue as its pretty important if you value your time :)

Because of the recent information @Veii kindly shared we now have a tool that tells us a maximum value of the most important setting that is associated with how far you can extract the maximal performance of your CPU while being confined (as we cant change these 馃が馃が馃が ) to AMD "safe" range and that is "Maximum CPU VID" and "ProcHot"

You cant aim any higher than what the maximum VID of the CPU is without loosing performance and gaining instability. You can set higher voltages, but they dont do anything to help things, just output more heat with less performance. I have not found a way to increase the maximum VID, maybe I am missing something really simple.......

Font Rectangle Material property Parallel Pattern

Id imagine if you were able to increase the max VID value you could then tweak EDC slightly higher while re-tweaking your CO values while using a small BCLK increase. You wont need much BCLK as the CPUs are already near the maximum of what can be achieved from the silicon, but there is headroom for a small increase in CPU performance using BCLK since the maximal value of the CPU "Boost Override" has been gimped to 200mhz

:(

And we must also talk about ProcHot as I saw Veii highlighted this value, at idle it is 65, but on load its limit is set to 4850 see image below there are two readings one is set to 65 (assuming thats Celcius), so I am unsure if this really is a limit to how far we can push the processor when the CPU is thermally challenged, i.e. running a standard AMD heatsink/fan.

Font Rectangle Material property Parallel Pattern
 

Registered
Joined
57 Posts
Apparently this video is really good to optimize PBO


I'm currently playing/tuning my PBO for my 5600x.

For my 5600x im using PPT 200 TDC 70 EDC 130

Core 0 and Core 1 is my best cores
 

Registered
Joined
1,529 Posts
Thanks for the guide, even though I do not agree with all points.

Unless you are going for some records you are best off leaving PBO limits at default while only trying to find good Curve Optimizer offsets. Diminishing returns kick in fast and hard, with measly performance increases relative to the increase in power consumption.

The "slowest" core(s) dictate multi-core performance, the fastest core affect single-core performance (mostly in combination with CPPC).

In my tests on a 5900X the default EDC of 140 A (maybe +-5) results in the best performance. Anything below or above that led to worse results. AMD folks seem to know what they are doing with EDC.

Here are some CB23 comparison numbers:
Stock: 21640 (134 W)
CO (PBO off!): 22220 (132 W)
4600 fixed + CO: 23450 (174 W)
 

Registered
Joined
2,117 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
Apparently this video is really good to optimize PBO


I'm currently playing/tuning my PBO for my 5600x.

For my 5600x im using PPT 200 TDC 70 EDC 130

Core 0 and Core 1 is my best cores
I dont really watch too many videos for learning about overclocking as I prefer to do my own investigation

:)

Thanks for the guide, even though I do not agree with all points.

Unless you are going for some records you are best off leaving PBO limits at default while only trying to find good Curve Optimizer offsets. Diminishing returns kick in fast and hard, with measly performance increases relative to the increase in power consumption.

The "slowest" core(s) dictate multi-core performance, the fastest core affect single-core performance (mostly in combination with CPPC).

In my tests on a 5900X the default EDC of 140 A (maybe +-5) results in the best performance. Anything below or above that led to worse results. AMD folks seem to know what they are doing with EDC.

Here are some CB23 comparison numbers:
Stock: 21640 (134 W)
CO (PBO off!): 22220 (132 W)
4600 fixed + CO: 23450 (174 W)
Yeah, ofcourse, you dont have to agree

:)

Ive made some amendments to the above, from my Belkin watt meter the changes that I have described are not increasing power consumption numbers other than a few watts at full load, instead it is maximising PBO performance without using more power that degrades performance.

The amendment ive made in my analysis is PBO is best on AUTO but still uses CPU VDD Telemetry

:)

Once ive finished testing and updated the guide if you have spare time you can test you current settings against my methodology, should not take long seeing you already have the CO setup (which is the number one way to get better all round performance).

Good post. But maybe link the tool from @Veii ?
Yes, as I said

mongoled said:
Think that's it, I will update this post with images and links.
I will update the post with further information

:)
 
  • Rep+
Reactions: pipeclock

Registered
Joined
468 Posts
Note:
Some info below is relevant to my CPU which is a 5600X, those who have higher core count CPUs hope you can test the methodology outlined below to see if it holds true, same goes for other 5600X users, would be great if other could validate my findings

Prerequisites
1.
Stable DRAM set
2. CO (Curve Optimiser) set to per core and each core is tuned to its most stable value while using "Boost Override" set to 200 mhz.

3a. CPU LLC: Auto
3b. CPU NB LLC: Auto

4a. vCORE: Auto
4b. vSOC/vDIMM/vDDP/vDDG: Whatever you require for your stable DRAM set

5. PPT/TDC: The maximum value your BIOS supports
5. PPT/TDC, set to AUTO, see amendment to section 7. CPU VDD Telemetry Offset Value

6.
EDC
This needs discussion, as im water-cooled im not concerned about restricting the "Thermal Design Current (TDC)" hence the reason for setting it to max value, also im not concerned about maximum power efficiency so again i set the "Package Power Total (PPT)" to its maximum value. I have found through my testing that setting these at maximum values does not negatively influence, in terms of performance, the maximal obtainable performance from my system when running x/y/x/ benchmark.

6. EDC
The above (striked out comment) is valid only if you have a specific use case scenario, though in such scenarios you would be better off using an all core overclock, not PBO.

All we need to be concerned about is tuning the right value for EDC and not worry about anything else.

:)

So we go through the process of, set an EDC value, reboot, rinse and repeat, we will use CB23 multi-core and Linpack Xtreme (selection: 1, 3, 5, enter, enter) to compare results between different EDC settings.

For the record, my optimal EDC value for my 5600X sample is 110A, there is a bit of leeway between 105 to 115 so if you have OCD you can try each increment, hahahahahaha, but it wont tell you anything so why bother

:D

7. CPU VDD Telemetry
After you got your EDC value you do the following, set EDC to double your value, yeah I can hear you thinking, "but why do we want to do that", well now we are going to use the CPU VDD Telemetry section

;)

7a. CPU VDD_SoC Current Optimisation: Custom Setting
7b. CPU VDD Full Scale Current: The optimal EDC setting for your system as previously tested.
7c. CPU VDD Telemetry Offset Value: This needs more discussion, see below...
7d. CPU Soc Full Scale Current: Im yet to play with this...
7e. CPU Soc Telemetry Offset Value: Im yet to play with this....

CPU VDD Telemetry Offset Value
Basically I found that this value effects the balance between optimal all core performance and optimal single core performance, set the value too low and multi-core will suffer but single core will boost further, if you find the right balance you can get the best of both Worlds. For the record im not yet finished tuning this value yet buts its looking to be a relatively low value (comparative of the max input value which is 10000mA), play in the range of 8mA to 30mA if on 5600X for higher core count CPU you need to raise this range
On further testing the relationship is not as above but as follows.

The VDD telemetry offset effects the maximum all core frequency achievable dependant on the load that is being requested.

For example, Prime95 Small FFTs using AVX2, is more "heavy" on the CPU than running the CPU-Z bench test.

What this means in real numbers ??

Effect on Prime 95 Small FFTs (AVX2)
Offset: 1mA, All Core Frequency is around 4430-4460 mhz
Offset: 2999mA, All Core Frequency is around 4530-4560 mhz

Different types of loads are effected in different ways, you need to test for your specific use case.

After this amendment, I had to re-investigate on how PBO works and from preliminary testing it seems that the most flexible solution is to leave PBO on AUTO and tweak only the "CPU VDD Full Scale Current" and "CPU VDD Telemetry Offset Value" values.

:)

Think that's it, I will update this post with images and links.

For the record

CB23: Between 1215x - 122xx
Linpack Xtreme: AVG 671 Gflops (3800/1900 14-15-14-14-26-40-240-1T)

Once ive fully tested my optimal values will run more benchmarks, want to now discuss why I went down this avenue as its pretty important if you value your time :)

Because of the recent information @Veii kindly shared we now have a tool that tells us a maximum value of the most important setting that is associated with how far you can extract the maximal performance of your CPU while being confined (as we cant change these 馃が馃が馃が ) to AMD "safe" range and that is "Maximum CPU VID" and "ProcHot"

You cant aim any higher than what the maximum VID of the CPU is without loosing performance and gaining instability. You can set higher voltages, but they dont do anything to help things, just output more heat with less performance. I have not found a way to increase the maximum VID, maybe I am missing something really simple.......

Id imagine if you were able to increase the max VID value you could then tweak EDC slightly higher while re-tweaking your CO values while using a small BCLK increase. You wont need much BCLK as the CPUs are already near the maximum of what can be achieved from the silicon, but there is headroom for a small increase in CPU performance using BCLK since the maximal value of the CPU "Boost Override" has been gimped to 200mhz

:(

And we must also talk about ProcHot as I saw Veii highlighted this value, at idle it is 65, but on load its limit is set to 4850, so I am unsure if this really is a limit to how far we can push the processor when the CPU is thermally challenged, i.e. running a standard AMD heatsink/fan.
All this for what. the "safety overclock". PBO is **** imho. Why? Well because IF it was meant to be useful to the user it would function like a gpu. You set your temp and power limit and it does the rest. And then you could have a voltage offset up or down rather then the static voltage you apply on a gpu or manual OC. But thats not what PBO does.

For my TR 3970x all core OC of 4.4ghz at a whooping 1.525vcore is cooler and there for makes less noise than STOCK operation does. And its faster with manual OC. Granted yes you lose a tiny bit of clock speed from single threaded work, but we all know clock speeds over 4.2ghz start to lose effectiveness in most work loads. I most of the time daily 4.25ghz all core for power savings and if want something done in a hurry or just to mess about i use the 4.4ghz profile.

What the stock operation DOES do well is give the user that snappy feel out of the box and boasts better benchmarks for marketing. But in all reality i dont see why anyone would rather use PBO over manual OC. unless they are just lacking any kind of OC knowledge.

(not here to ruin anyone's day and say you cant have fun talking about it or playing around with it. i just kinda wish it was better suited to users benefit)
 

Registered
Joined
2,117 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
All this for what. the "safety overclock". PBO is **** imho. Why? Well because IF it was meant to be useful to the user it would function like a gpu. You set your temp and power limit and it does the rest. And then you could have a voltage offset up or down rather then the static voltage you apply on a gpu or manual OC. But thats not what PBO does.
Huh? You can use PBO exactly for what you have described here if you set your own PPT/TDC value. A lower PPT value is the power limit while the temp limit can be influenced by TDC value ...

For my TR 3970x all core OC of 4.4ghz at a whooping 1.525vcore is cooler and there for makes less noise than STOCK operation does. And its faster with manual OC. Granted yes you lose a tiny bit of clock speed from single threaded work, but we all know clock speeds over 4.2ghz start to lose effectiveness in most work loads. I most of the time daily 4.25ghz all core for power savings and if want something done in a hurry or just to mess about i use the 4.4ghz profile.

What the stock operation DOES do well is give the user that snappy feel out of the box and boasts better benchmarks for marketing. But in all reality i dont see why anyone would rather use PBO over manual OC. unless they are just lacking any kind of OC knowledge.

(not here to ruin anyone's day and say you cant have fun talking about it or playing around with it. i just kinda wish it was better suited to users benefit)
I simply wanted to share my findings with regards to the best way to optimise PBO in its current format, thats all, feel free to post what you want

:)
 

Registered
Joined
468 Posts
Huh? You can use PBO exactly for what you have described here if you set your own PPT/TDC value. A lower PPT value is the power limit while the temp limit can be influenced by TDC value ...
But can you set it in windows with a nice GUI with sliders and values? (really dont know i dont have my TR machine running atm pump blew into a million pieces lol...) I think ryzen master has some pbo stuff but i thought i had to restart to make changes.

Also i feel like the transient voltage is very aggressive to create the heat it does on my TR chip at least. 4.4ghz was seeing around 70c max, stock was spiking to 85c! I guess i dont really trust it either. The software we have to monitor voltage only tells us so much, and also has very slow polling rate compared to the cpu voltages. i mean if my all core at 1.525v is 15c cooler. it really makes you wonder what kinda voltage the chip was seeing under stock pbo operation. Power from the Killowat meter confirmed it was pulling more juice too. Ofc i dont Truly know if i'm actually using 1.525vcore all i can do is go by HWinfo64. And what i have it set to in the bios/ryzen master. i know people saying 1.4 is way to much but it sure don't seem like it on this machine at least. maybe the worst part was how poorly it boosted even with single core tasks, it was meant to hit 4.5 and if it did it was very short lived at that speed if ever. and i think this could be partly to do with it being a TR and if any other cores do any thing the boost drops and with quad channel i feel like its activating more cores just to talk to all the channels or maybe just to share cache. So my take away wast hot loud slow lol.

i do have a 3600 ryzen 5 as well very good little cpu pull next to no power even under heavy load. and again 4.2ghz 1.35vcore is about all it wants to do. but that was still faster and quiter than stock operation. i guess it might be possible for PBO to get a little more single core out of it. but i just dont feel it matters as every game i play uses at least 2+ cores. and core usage is continuing to get more common in newer games as time go's on. Maybe the biggest problem is the limits of max all core for PBO? from what i hear is that all core PBO just wont happen like you can do on a all core manual OC? is this true? Because if you could find the correct tune for PBO then surfing and general usage would feel a bit snapper i suppose.

And then maybe the next issue is the voltage offset curve changes as load increases. That sounds good but could maybe be a slight issue at some point? maybe? idk. I guess it just feels like a whole lot more work for very limited gains. at least from what i have seen. But then again who am i to say little gain is not a worthy gain :) I do mainly daily the 3600 even tho my 7980xe is by far the fastest gaming cpu i have. but it eats power for a snack on Sunday afternoon...

And thanks for letting me post w/e i like :D <3
 

Registered
Joined
1,529 Posts
Messing with the telemetry (values measured) seems less ideal than messing with Scalar (values supplied).

This also is prone to errors, as demonstrated by my MSI BIOS. Instead of mA my BIOS applies A, so a value of 10000 does not represent 10 A, but 10000 A instead. Furthermore the offset is always positive in my BIOS (fortunately, else I would have fried my CPU using 10000).

Any offset then means that the CPU thinks it consumes more power than it really does (can be measured via "Power Reporting Deviation" in HWiNFO), which in turn reduces performance. Since your results differ this seems to be a setting that is best left untouched, use PBO Scalar instead.
 

Registered
Joined
2,117 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 · (Edited)
But can you set it in windows with a nice GUI with sliders and values? (really dont know i dont have my TR machine running atm pump blew into a million pieces lol...) I think ryzen master has some pbo stuff but i thought i had to restart to make changes.
Ahhhh, this is what you meant when you mentioned GPU, you were talking about the "whole" picture, I thought you were talking just about the functionality that is available as thats what I understood when you honed in on power limits, thermal throttle limits etc not what we can or cant tweak from a nice GUI from within Windows without rebooting.....

In that case, PBO does not "act" like a GPU, in the sense that all "bells & whistles" are available from within Windows to tweak.

Also i feel like the transient voltage is very aggressive to create the heat it does on my TR chip at least. 4.4ghz was seeing around 70c max, stock was spiking to 85c! I guess i dont really trust it either. The software we have to monitor voltage only tells us so much, and also has very slow polling rate compared to the cpu voltages. i mean if my all core at 1.525v is 15c cooler. it really makes you wonder what kinda voltage the chip was seeing under stock pbo operation. Power from the Killowat meter confirmed it was pulling more juice too. Ofc i dont Truly know if i'm actually using 1.525vcore all i can do is go by HWinfo64. And what i have it set to in the bios/ryzen master. i know people saying 1.4 is way to much but it sure don't seem like it on this machine at least. maybe the worst part was how poorly it boosted even with single core tasks, it was meant to hit 4.5 and if it did it was very short lived at that speed if ever. and i think this could be partly to do with it being a TR and if any other cores do any thing the boost drops and with quad channel i feel like its activating more cores just to talk to all the channels or maybe just to share cache. So my take away wast hot loud slow lol.
Yup, totally valid, users experience with their own system is what we want to hear and I think we all agree we want more granular control over all aspects of our CPUs though that is never going to happen.

Also as you have described, its difficult trusting whats being relayed back from the CPU regards voltage/power/frequency parameters as once you start dabbling with settings and have a power meter you will see that whats relayed in say HWInfo64 does not equate to our expectations when we look at the power meter (comes in real handy :) )

i do have a 3600 ryzen 5 as well very good little cpu pull next to no power even under heavy load. and again 4.2ghz 1.35vcore is about all it wants to do. but that was still faster and quiter than stock operation. i guess it might be possible for PBO to get a little more single core out of it. but i just dont feel it matters as every game i play uses at least 2+ cores. and core usage is continuing to get more common in newer games as time go's on. Maybe the biggest problem is the limits of max all core for PBO? from what i hear is that all core PBO just wont happen like you can do on a all core manual OC? is this true? Because if you could find the correct tune for PBO then surfing and general usage would feel a bit snapper i suppose.

And then maybe the next issue is the voltage offset curve changes as load increases. That sounds good but could maybe be a slight issue at some point? maybe? idk. I guess it just feels like a whole lot more work for very limited gains. at least from what i have seen. But then again who am i to say little gain is not a worthy gain :) I do mainly daily the 3600 even tho my 7980xe is by far the fastest gaming cpu i have. but it eats power for a snack on Sunday afternoon...
Assuming that 3600 has same functionality as 5000 series CPU, I am guessing that there is also a maximum VID limit, on the basis that this assumption is correct, your best bet is to maximise the CPU boost override for the CPU and then increase CPU voltage, but the maximum VID value is going to be the biggets obstacle if it acts like Vermeer (or at least how my CPU sample acts), I am unsure if CO is available for the 3000 series CPUs.....

And thanks for letting me post w/e i like :D <3
Yes, you cannot post in this thread without my permission, muhahahahhahahahahah (it wasnt meant to come across as I wrote it, lol)

Messing with the telemetry (values measured) seems less ideal than messing with Scalar (values supplied).

This also is prone to errors, as demonstrated by my MSI BIOS. Instead of mA my BIOS applies A, so a value of 10000 does not represent 10 A, but 10000 A instead. Furthermore the offset is always positive in my BIOS (fortunately, else I would have fried my CPU using 10000).

Any offset then means that the CPU thinks it consumes more power than it really does (can be measured via "Power Reporting Deviation" in HWiNFO), which in turn reduces performance. Since your results differ this seems to be a setting that is best left untouched, use PBO Scalar instead.
Yes, I discussed this issue with Manni-ITX around a week ago, how messed up the explanation were in the BIOS, that the settings mA, when changed results to A (how stupid), but from my investigation into optimising PBO it seems that mA become A only when you surpass a certain value of mA which I found was 2999mA on my setup.

Only after setting over 2999mA does the CPU aggressivly downclock i.e. 600 mhz all core, 80 mhz per core frequency while HWInfo relays this info as Amps.

Obviously the BIOSs we have available to us do not "properly" allow us access to this feature so its best left alone.

I set about going down this avenue as I wanted to find consistency while improving performance, unfortunately tooooo many Ryzen gremlins ...
 
  • Rep+
Reactions: Formula383

Registered
Joined
715 Posts
All this for what
You are missing the point i think.
PBO with zen3 became a "real" feature, unlike with zen2. As the owner of 1600 and 3600x, I would agree, neither PBO nor boost override (former autoOC) gave nothing for the latter.

Zen3 core design is way more scalable in frequency and voltage, so increased current and power limits, coupled with boost override and v/f tuning (PBO2), gives you real performance boost, that (unlike with my 3600x) mostly depends on a silicon quality and how decent cooling is.
 
  • Rep+
Reactions: Lionvibez

Registered
Joined
2,117 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
馃槀 You got me again. Reading everything is just not my strength.
I would say most of us are alike with regards to reading comprehension

馃榾
 
  • Rep+
Reactions: Formula383

Registered
Joined
1,529 Posts
Only after setting over 2999mA does the CPU aggressivly downclock i.e. 600 mhz all core, 80 mhz per core frequency while HWInfo relays this info as Amps.
I used values as low as 10 and 20, which then corresponded to the BIOS reporting 10/20 A more current to the CPU than what really happened. As a result the CPU downclocked due to hitting its PBO limits earlier (or rathet thinking it did when it did not).

If you want higher VID/VCore you need to use a higher Scalar. Best to leave telemetry alone.
 

Registered
Joined
468 Posts
You are missing the point i think.
PBO with zen3 became a "real" feature, unlike with zen2. I had 1600 and 3600x before, and for the latter, either PBO or boost override (former autoOC) gave me nothing.

Zen3 core design way more scalable in frequency and voltage, increased current and power limits, coupled with boost override and v/f tuning (PBO2), gives you real performance boost, that (unlike with my 3600x), depends on silicon quality and decent cooling.
I guess that is true i have not used a 5x00 chip so the boosting might have more merit. I wonder why they are able to boost so much higher with one core vs all core on the 5x00. As it would seem at least with my 3970x each core kinda has its own heat and pushing all core really has pretty little effect on other cores around them. (provided you have a good water block)

With that i have a question what is the limit with the 5x00 cpu's the total socket can only handle so much power? or is it the cores heat each other around them too much. or maybe people are just too afraid to give them the beans lol. I would like to hear some more input on this. I have been looking at possibly replacing my 3600 with a 3800x or maybe even a 5900x. but with clock speed i'm assuming comes more heat. and as of right now i really enjoy the lower power draw this 3600 system uses. around 70w idle and max cpu around 100w lol. playing a demanding game like Divison2 @ 4k ultrawide the system uses 250~350w from the wall. i currently have the game limited to 60fps so my other monitor can play video with no stuttering etc. So compairing that to my 7980xe system that idle is 300w+ and full load is well over 1400w from the wall lol. You might start to see why i enjoy the 3600 for casual gaming :)
 

Registered
Joined
2,117 Posts
Discussion Starter · #16 ·
I guess that is true i have not used a 5x00 chip so the boosting might have more merit. I wonder why they are able to boost so much higher with one core vs all core on the 5x00. As it would seem at least with my 3970x each core kinda has its own heat and pushing all core really has pretty little effect on other cores around them. (provided you have a good water block)

With that i have a question what is the limit with the 5x00 cpu's the total socket can only handle so much power? or is it the cores heat each other around them too much. or maybe people are just too afraid to give them the beans lol. I would like to hear some more input on this. I have been looking at possibly replacing my 3600 with a 3800x or maybe even a 5900x. but with clock speed i'm assuming comes more heat. and as of right now i really enjoy the lower power draw this 3600 system uses. around 70w idle and max cpu around 100w lol. playing a demanding game like Divison2 @ 4k ultrawide the system uses 250~350w from the wall. i currently have the game limited to 60fps so my other monitor can play video with no stuttering etc. So compairing that to my 7980xe system that idle is 300w+ and full load is well over 1400w from the wall lol. You might start to see why i enjoy the 3600 for casual gaming :)
My experience as well as others is more beans == worse performance.

Reasons are two fold, CPU are already binned to maximum obtainable performance and max CPU VID is fixed, the latter being fixed means (at least I believe this is the case) more beans goes into more heat instead of more performance.

The CPU max VID is a recently discovered value thats been uncovered in the tool that Veii kindly shared
 

Registered
Joined
715 Posts
I wonder why they are able to boost so much higher with one core vs all core on the 5x00
...
With that i have a question what is the limit with the 5x00 cpu's the total socket can only handle so much power? or is it the cores heat each other around them too much. or maybe people are just too afraid to give them the beans lol
Thermal limit. In OC Mode (i.e. when manually set fixed freq/vcore in bios) it's the only guard left to prevent CPU damage. Cores are interacting thermally in a certain way (posted my observations in a DDR Stability thread here), but not much I think to affect Tctl greatly, though can't say so in a 5Ghz+ allcore scenario)).
Don't know exactly when zen3 freq. stop scaling, but from my little experience it scales linearly up till 5100 in single thread.

Not sure I fully understand the "total socket" part of question though...
 

Registered
Joined
468 Posts
Thermal limit. In OC Mode (i.e. when manually set fixed freq/vcore in bios) it's the only guard left to prevent CPU damage. Cores are interacting thermally in a certain way (posted my observations in a DDR Stability thread here), but not much I think to affect Tctl greatly, though can't say so in a 5Ghz+ allcore scenario)).
Don't know exactly when zen3 freq. stop scaling, but from my little experience it scales linearly up till 5100 in single thread.

Not sure I fully understand the "total socket" part of question though...
Oh i was just saying maybe the cpu pins were too few for the power draw or something, but yea if temp limit is what your hitting adding more beans wont halp you much lol. Currious what type of cooler you are using and what the ambient temp is around. I do see your have listed EK fluid gaming a240r. Was 5ghz all core achievable on that loop? if so what type of voltage?
 

Registered
Joined
468 Posts
My experience as well as others is more beans == worse performance.

Reasons are two fold, CPU are already binned to maximum obtainable performance and max CPU VID is fixed, the latter being fixed means (at least I believe this is the case) more beans goes into more heat instead of more performance.

The CPU max VID is a recently discovered value thats been uncovered in the tool that Veii kindly shared
Very nice. i will have to read the memory stability thread when i get some more time :) So your saying even if your not temp limited (aka water/cold ambient) the voltage wont really help your clock speed? Does this mean all core overclocks are actually not viable any longer? Then the next question is can you boost one core and not the others in a manual fashion. like i can on my x299 boards. (even tho i dont do it)

I have been holding off on the 5x00 series cpu's i'm pretty happy with the 3600 for daily use. and i dont know how much more power the 5x00 acutally uses, how fast they really are overclocked and then its what chip would i even want, and the cost of buying something so late in the cycle i feel like i could just wait and pick the new rev in a few months or possibly pick up a OG for cheap if i keep my eyes peeled lol. Its not that i cant buy one... its if i should waste the money on principle more than anything. ie do i really need another cpu that performs pretty much the same as my 7980xe? nope probably not lol. but it might be ok to play around with.
 

Registered
Joined
715 Posts
I do see your have listed EK fluid gaming a240r. Was 5ghz all core achievable on that loop? if so what type of voltage?
I dont know, tbh. But extrapolating output from aforementioned asus tool, i can assume 5000 allcore may require 1.4v max, though the question is at what temps ?
As for cooler, its full aluminum setup with gpu and cpu blocks in the same loop snd with a quiet pump-res combo.
Of course, less performant compared to copper ones, but given it was ~ 2x cheaper and definitely better than most aio's, i'm fine with it.
And, no, I don't think it'll handle 5g allcore, given abient 25 deg these days.
 
1 - 20 of 67 Posts
Top