Overclock.net banner

21 - 40 of 56 Posts

·
stock...hahaha
Joined
·
1,622 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChronoBodi View Post

what would be the option to set 3.9 ghz on all cores, not just one or two at full load?
with a higher BCLK? that would be 3900Mhz/125 = 31.2

using only the multiplier with default BCLK is 3900/100=39.

Any overclock on Ryzen is currently equal on all operational cores. I dont believe they have enabled independent core overclocking as yet. You can disable cores 2 at a time to get increased overclocks on the remaining cores.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,604 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by navjack27 View Post

it goes down to 400mhz on the lowest one. you have to enable 'custom' on each one starting with p0 to see the other ones accurately.
Well, that means, that if you choose it, then most likely the CPU will idle at 400Mhz instead of whatever the default set by AMD is. That's a very good feature for undervolters. I 've read people that would resort to 3rd party programs to do that. Like, try to run Phenom or FX at lower idle P-state than the default 1400Mhz.
 

·
stock...hahaha
Joined
·
1,622 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Undervolter View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by navjack27 View Post

it goes down to 400mhz on the lowest one. you have to enable 'custom' on each one starting with p0 to see the other ones accurately.
Well, that means, that if you choose it, then most likely the CPU will idle at 400Mhz instead of whatever the default set by AMD is. That's a very good feature for undervolters. I 've read people that would resort to 3rd party programs to do that. Like, try to run Phenom or FX at lower idle P-state than the default 1400Mhz.
I think that it will use that one when it is in power saving idle mode
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,604 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by gtbtk View Post

I think that it will use that one when it is in power saving idle mode
Yes, for the P-States to work, you need Cool N Quiet enabled, or whatever name AMD has given it nowdays (PowerNow? Powersomething?). When "Cool N Quiet" is enabled, the CPU has various P-States, from the lowest (idle) to the highest (the upper turbo). If the motherboard allows to edit them, then you can change them all or if possible, only some. The only trick, is that, if you are allowed to change vcore for each one, you should be certain that the vcore you put, is enough to keep the CPU stable.
 

·
stock...hahaha
Joined
·
1,622 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Undervolter View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by gtbtk View Post

I think that it will use that one when it is in power saving idle mode
Yes, for the P-States to work, you need Cool N Quiet enabled, or whatever name AMD has given it nowdays (PowerNow? Powersomething?). When "Cool N Quiet" is enabled, the CPU has various P-States, from the lowest (idle) to the highest (the upper turbo). If the motherboard allows to edit them, then you can change them all or if possible, only some. The only trick, is that, if you are allowed to change vcore for each one, you should be certain that the vcore you put, is enough to keep the CPU stable.
It is doing exactly the same thing that GPUs do.

I cant speak for AMD GPus but Nvidia Pascal units use Pstate0 in gaming 3d loads but they use Pstate2 if you run something like lexmark to render a 3d image.

Is there a utility that monitors what Pstate the CPU us actually operating in under different loads? What settings can actually be changed with regards pstate performance? it would be interesting to compare the Pstate in cinebench and the pstate in GTA V for example. Tuning those may well be the place to find improvements
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,604 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by gtbtk View Post

It is doing exactly the same thing that GPUs do.

I cant speak for AMD GPus but Nvidia Pascal units use Pstate0 in gaming 3d loads but they use Pstate2 if you run something like lexmark to render a 3d image.

Is there a utility that monitors what Pstate the CPU us actually operating in under different loads? What settings can actually be changed with regards pstate performance? it would be interesting to compare the Pstate in cinebench and the pstate in GTA V for example. Tuning those may well be the place to find improvements
The thing is, i don't have Ryzen, so it's all guesswork. If in your BIOS, you can see somewhere the P-States, then you can understand what's running inside Windows, if you have a software that shows clock in real time. For example, the lowest P-state, corresponds to the lowest clock. The next one, to the next attainable clock and so on. AMD in FX, had released a small software called PSCheck, that was showing exactly P-States all the time. But it's of little practical use. When your CPU is at max clock, you are also at the top P-State. As about to performance, i don't know what possibilities the BIOS gives. In AM3, software like K10Stat, was allowing you to set multi (and thus clock), vcore and NB voltage. In AMDMsrTweaker (see my signature), you can adjust multi (thus clock) and vcore.
 

·
Meeeeeeeow!
Joined
·
2,229 Posts
Discussion Starter #27
There is some evidence that the bandwidth may be double, but we will need testing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by gtbtk View Post

This is the first post that is actually looking for answers in the right place.

I am really surprised that no-one else has noticed the correlation yet between CPU and GPU performance. All the CPU benchmarks that only hit the CPU seem to provide really good results that beat can Broadwell-E while All the benchmarks that rely on the CPU plus a strong GPU are under performing. GPU load impacts CPU performance.

Together with the memory clock speed limitations, Isnt it obvious to everyone that the gaming performance issue is being caused because of a weakness in performance somewhare in the interface between the CPU and GPU? The PCIe 3.0 bus is running at a fixed rate x16 so it is not the size of the pipe that is limiting things so there is only one thing left that can possibly be causing the issue and that is the part of the Chip that manages the chip IO (PCIe and Memory controllers - the fabric that you are discussing in the original post).

CPU's, and it doesn't matter if it is Intel or AMD, all have to juggle interdependent resources to get peak performance, too much strength on one side will overwhelm the other side and will reduce performance. Given that none of the Reviewer "experts" nor, apparently any of the Motherboard "engineering" Marketing people have mentioned it would seem to indicate that they don't really understand what is going on are are just trying to follow an overclocking process that they have memorized in the past.

This is just from a thought experiment but I believe that I can tell you The Solution.

I am pretty certain that the workaround to this apparent conundrum will be to use a higher BCLK frequency with a lower multiplier and fine tune the IO/SOC voltages. It will improve memory clocking limitations and will increase the the number of cycles per second that the PCIe controller can deal with data flow between the CPU and GPU allowing a better balanced system. It will also allow you to improve fast frequency memory kits ability to clock past 2933Mhz.

I would start by Setting BCLK to 125 and the CPU multiplier to around 32 or 33. Set memory to a higher bin frequency and adjust Ram timings. I don't know what the exact best multiplier/BCLK frequency combination will be, It could be 150/20 for a 4Ghz CPU frequency. That will require experimentation by the people who have the chip in hand. I suspect that the 1800X and 1700X chips, because of higher complexity at the SOC level that currently seems to be having problems, will benefit the most from this approach.
I'm not sure if that solution will work.

Keep in mind that unlike Skylake, the Base clock is not isolated from the rest of the other components. PCie signals begin to degrade after 105 MHz, like on Sandy Bridge. The overclocks to Base Clock may be limited like P67/Z68 was. To the best of my knowledge, there's nothing like the "strap" function on Intel CPUs.

We need mature BIOSes as well to see what the RAM OC is. If the RAM is the last level cache then we need all the OC to RAM that we can get.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
243 Posts
Can the SMT problem be fixed with microcode, windows update and software optimization or users should wait out till the next generation?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,029 Posts
If I had a Ryzen CPU, I would benchmark with different affinity settings, I'm fairly confident that will have a big impact in those games that perform so-so. If that's the case, an updated OS scheduler (or game) will be able to fix, or minimise, that.
 

·
Daisy Chained Dumb Switch
Joined
·
1,229 Posts
The p States have something to do with the XFR. Yes like a GPU. Each one has its own power offset settings and final clock.

I was planning on messing with process lasso and affinity settings with stuff. It's not like I haven't done that before to tighten frame times in CSGO with Intel CPUs and hyperthreading.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
714 Posts
So I guess this means ryzen laptops are going to be bad gaming machines depending on if there is a bios option to disable it. But lets face it, laptop bios's aren't that great as it is
tongue.gif
 

·
stock...hahaha
Joined
·
1,622 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrazyElf View Post

There is some evidence that the bandwidth may be double, but we will need testing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by gtbtk View Post

This is the first post that is actually looking for answers in the right place.

I am really surprised that no-one else has noticed the correlation yet between CPU and GPU performance. All the CPU benchmarks that only hit the CPU seem to provide really good results that beat can Broadwell-E while All the benchmarks that rely on the CPU plus a strong GPU are under performing. GPU load impacts CPU performance.

Together with the memory clock speed limitations, Isnt it obvious to everyone that the gaming performance issue is being caused because of a weakness in performance somewhare in the interface between the CPU and GPU? The PCIe 3.0 bus is running at a fixed rate x16 so it is not the size of the pipe that is limiting things so there is only one thing left that can possibly be causing the issue and that is the part of the Chip that manages the chip IO (PCIe and Memory controllers - the fabric that you are discussing in the original post).

CPU's, and it doesn't matter if it is Intel or AMD, all have to juggle interdependent resources to get peak performance, too much strength on one side will overwhelm the other side and will reduce performance. Given that none of the Reviewer "experts" nor, apparently any of the Motherboard "engineering" Marketing people have mentioned it would seem to indicate that they don't really understand what is going on are are just trying to follow an overclocking process that they have memorized in the past.

This is just from a thought experiment but I believe that I can tell you The Solution.

I am pretty certain that the workaround to this apparent conundrum will be to use a higher BCLK frequency with a lower multiplier and fine tune the IO/SOC voltages. It will improve memory clocking limitations and will increase the the number of cycles per second that the PCIe controller can deal with data flow between the CPU and GPU allowing a better balanced system. It will also allow you to improve fast frequency memory kits ability to clock past 2933Mhz.

I would start by Setting BCLK to 125 and the CPU multiplier to around 32 or 33. Set memory to a higher bin frequency and adjust Ram timings. I don't know what the exact best multiplier/BCLK frequency combination will be, It could be 150/20 for a 4Ghz CPU frequency. That will require experimentation by the people who have the chip in hand. I suspect that the 1800X and 1700X chips, because of higher complexity at the SOC level that currently seems to be having problems, will benefit the most from this approach.
I'm not sure if that solution will work.

Keep in mind that unlike Skylake, the Base clock is not isolated from the rest of the other components. PCie signals begin to degrade after 105 MHz, like on Sandy Bridge. The overclocks to Base Clock may be limited like P67/Z68 was. To the best of my knowledge, there's nothing like the "strap" function on Intel CPUs.

We need mature BIOSes as well to see what the RAM OC is. If the RAM is the last level cache then we need all the OC to RAM that we can get.
sorry, you are wrong, this is not sandy bridge with a 105Mhz limit. Like X99, you can run 125 BCLKs here - You also get access to memory speeds higher than 3200Mhz in the remory option list

Besides, What is there to lose? If it doesn't work, set it back to 100.

If you want better performance when you are also loading both the CPU and the GPU, Both CPU and GPU need to be able to balance out their own requirements to get best performance. The only thing that is in between those is to the integrated PCIe and memory controllers in the fabric on the chip. The controller plays the role of traffic cop in between and right now he is letting the GPU have most of the fun and backing up CPU traffic as it were.

You know the GPU is ok cause it works on other computers and the CPU calculates numbers just fine if you run any of the calculation only benchmarks. The performance is only impacted when you load both the CPU and GPU together. You give the controller a bit more voltage and frequency to do things and the performance balance moves back into balance.
 

·
⤷ αC
Joined
·
11,239 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
273 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by gtbtk View Post

The whole platforms seems to have come to market before it was ready. Deadlines from the CEO I guess.

so how have you overclocked the chip/memory?
I'm not buying that. It's not like board makers just got their hands on Zen this year. As far as MS is concerned, AMD can bribe them now to fast track a good patch with Zen money
 

·
stock...hahaha
Joined
·
1,622 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by crucifix85 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by gtbtk View Post

The whole platforms seems to have come to market before it was ready. Deadlines from the CEO I guess.

so how have you overclocked the chip/memory?
I'm not buying that. It's not like board makers just got their hands on Zen this year. As far as MS is concerned, AMD can bribe them now to fast track a good patch with Zen money
good conspiracy theory.

AMD are still talking about microcode updates to resolve some of the issues. If it was all squared away then that would not be happening at this stage to address multiple issues at once.

While engineering samples are good enough to design and test motherboards from a basic functionality level, the are not exactly the same as a retail level chip that bios firmware needs to be finalized and tested against. The mobo manufacturers had retail samples for less than a month to finalize any firmware bugs or to get features that have only recently been finalized in silicon. Asrock did not even have any product ready on release day. That is not a business choice made from choice
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,917 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quantum Reality View Post

So applications (e.g. video encoding, calculations, etc) - SMT on.

Games (esp DX12) - SMT off.

Too bad you can't have dynamic feature-disabling profiles without needing a reboot to change the setting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sterob View Post

Can the SMT problem be fixed with microcode, windows update and software optimization or users should wait out till the next generation?
This is where I think there is a lot of truth to the assertion that some big optimizations are yet to come.

The OS dispatcher and even applications themselves (through affinity and thread count choices) can make choices specific to this system as we see with Intel. Many applications will do best and do look first to the physical core count to choose the level of parallelism. How they get that information and how well the OS does at biasing its thread dispatch logic to unloaded resources (physical or otherwise) can make a big difference to the end performance.

The hype-train was at full speed, so I think people expected this sorts of entirely predictable growing pains to be resolved, but see predictable. It's impressive to start from scratch as they did and reach this level of performance out of the gate, but that's not what people had in their heads (right or wrong) judging by the death threats to reviewers pointing this out.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,917 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by gtbtk View Post

good conspiracy theory.

AMD are still talking about microcode updates to resolve some of the issues. If it was all squared away then that would not be happening at this stage to address multiple issues at once.

While engineering samples are good enough to design and test motherboards from a basic functionality level, the are not exactly the same as a retail level chip that bios firmware needs to be finalized and tested against. The mobo manufacturers had retail samples for less than a month to finalize any firmware bugs or to get features that have only recently been finalized in silicon. Asrock did not even have any product ready on release day. That is not a business choice made from choice
Not only that, MS, like Intel has long been more reactive than proactive on such things. Windows is a huge boat, they don't turn the wheel quickly (for better and for worse).

They generally know they aren't the ones that will be blamed first, so they have some time to react (and/or simply require more time owing to the logistics they face in making changes.
 

·
stock...hahaha
Joined
·
1,622 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrazyElf View Post

There is some evidence that the bandwidth may be double, but we will need testing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by gtbtk View Post

This is the first post that is actually looking for answers in the right place.

I am really surprised that no-one else has noticed the correlation yet between CPU and GPU performance. All the CPU benchmarks that only hit the CPU seem to provide really good results that beat can Broadwell-E while All the benchmarks that rely on the CPU plus a strong GPU are under performing. GPU load impacts CPU performance.

Together with the memory clock speed limitations, Isnt it obvious to everyone that the gaming performance issue is being caused because of a weakness in performance somewhare in the interface between the CPU and GPU? The PCIe 3.0 bus is running at a fixed rate x16 so it is not the size of the pipe that is limiting things so there is only one thing left that can possibly be causing the issue and that is the part of the Chip that manages the chip IO (PCIe and Memory controllers - the fabric that you are discussing in the original post).

CPU's, and it doesn't matter if it is Intel or AMD, all have to juggle interdependent resources to get peak performance, too much strength on one side will overwhelm the other side and will reduce performance. Given that none of the Reviewer "experts" nor, apparently any of the Motherboard "engineering" Marketing people have mentioned it would seem to indicate that they don't really understand what is going on are are just trying to follow an overclocking process that they have memorized in the past.

This is just from a thought experiment but I believe that I can tell you The Solution.

I am pretty certain that the workaround to this apparent conundrum will be to use a higher BCLK frequency with a lower multiplier and fine tune the IO/SOC voltages. It will improve memory clocking limitations and will increase the the number of cycles per second that the PCIe controller can deal with data flow between the CPU and GPU allowing a better balanced system. It will also allow you to improve fast frequency memory kits ability to clock past 2933Mhz.

I would start by Setting BCLK to 125 and the CPU multiplier to around 32 or 33. Set memory to a higher bin frequency and adjust Ram timings. I don't know what the exact best multiplier/BCLK frequency combination will be, It could be 150/20 for a 4Ghz CPU frequency. That will require experimentation by the people who have the chip in hand. I suspect that the 1800X and 1700X chips, because of higher complexity at the SOC level that currently seems to be having problems, will benefit the most from this approach.
I'm not sure if that solution will work.

Keep in mind that unlike Skylake, the Base clock is not isolated from the rest of the other components. PCie signals begin to degrade after 105 MHz, like on Sandy Bridge. The overclocks to Base Clock may be limited like P67/Z68 was. To the best of my knowledge, there's nothing like the "strap" function on Intel CPUs.

We need mature BIOSes as well to see what the RAM OC is. If the RAM is the last level cache then we need all the OC to RAM that we can get.
you need to take a look at this (not mine) is from Ryzenchrist here on ocn

http://valid.x86.fr/qmfrkd
 
21 - 40 of 56 Posts
Top