VoidTheWarranty

I'm still stuck on why in the world decreasing a low performing core's offset increased performance so much instead of making this thing unstable. I think I want to figure out the offsets before I get ballsy enough to try messing with my baseclock.

Oh, I think I know what you are saying. Under FCH Base clock Mhz? I couldn't do PBO +200 Mhz before hand. I would try it + PBO to just see what happens though. Pretty sure I have FCH Base clock set to auto right now is 100 stock? "It affects all clocks though, so back off your memory and fabric multipliers" I just pretty sure I just have it set to 1800/1800 unless you are not referring to UCLK/MEMCLK which is stock for my memory. Is 1800 too high?

Where now?

Well I went down another slippery slope this weekend and did something I said I wouldn't do and that was to figure out each individual cores offset. The way I'm doing things is probably ass backwards and maybe there's software that can do this for you now? So I have my CPU boost clock override to +50Mhz. So each core I bench and see if it can hit 4.7Ghz. I feel like if I'm hitting it during benching I'm at a comfortable offset/ see my scores going up. Honestly you don't want to know how many notebook pages I have used up. So right now I have core's 0, 1, 4, like nailed down with their max. 2,3, are frustrating and 5.... I figure later if I remove the +50Mhz boost clock override my cores will be able to boost high and use less power but be stable. This is where I need your advice experienced something odd Core 5 just doesn't want to boost higher than a certain point most of the time. Just 4.5XX I've tried all sorts of offsets everything from -2, -3, +5, +3, +1, +12, -1, -2, -14, etc. All over the place and it's like this thing just doesn't boost any higher. So I'm like I got cores 0,1,4, locked down Just put in something stupid in for this f'ing thing core 5 since I have to get going in 15 minutes. So I try -16 for a new baseline and I figure work my way back from there cause why the f not. Well sure enough it still doesn't boost higher than 4.5XX BUT!!!!! holy crap did it help my CPU-Z score and Tomb Raider Score. Like considerably! So what is going on? It's not to say these cores won't jump to 4.7Ghz at all it just kinda depends.. But why why did decreasing this one wonky core so much give me such a big boost? Are some cores just kinda mediocre no matter how much voltage you throw at them so reducing the offset at a much larger negative amount like you would with a better performing core make the most sense? That's what seems like has happened here. I sort of wonder when regular PBO is enabled without any tweaking how is it boosting all my cores so high 4.60/4.650 without any of this tweaking how is it getting these wonky cores especially core 5 to boost so well? Is there software that will let me see my core offsets adjusting from windows when running a benchmark? Regardless my scores are higher in the benchmarks than stock that's for sure. In the attached photos this is where's I'm at with CPU-Z. My current settings PPT 100 TDC 55 EDC 115 Scalar X1 CPU Boost Clock Override + 50Mhz Curve Optimizer: Core 0: -18* Core 1: -16* Core 2: -12 arg.. Core 3: -13 arg.. Core 4: -16* Core 5: -16 *? Big boost after this negative offset yet my boost is still whatever. CPU-Z Benchmark for AMD Ryzen 5 5600X (12T) - CPU-Z VALIDATOR VALID.X86.FR Best CPU performance - 64-bit - April 2023 Multi threads

This will also get rid of the stupid unallocated space if you try removing the 16MB (Microsoft Reserved partition) that was left over from a previous windows install during a fresh windows installation. For me the windows installer wasn't letting me remove it and I didn't want to have a fresh install with 2 separate 16MB partitions one of which just empty so I took a shot and brought up the CMD box during the windows install process and: Diskpart > Select disk 0 > Clean. No more temporary insanity. I have always hated when partitions don't do what they should even if it's 16mb... It's just there and it bugs me.

Bought my RX 6750 XT 12GB for $100 less than a RTX 3070 8GB. I have literally 0 regrets. All it had to take for me is looking at Warzone video settings which came out what 2 years ago and 6GB wasn't cutting it. Green team marketing doesn't beat common sense for me. I like AMD driver software too. It feels less like software designed for 12 year old's in the early 2000's. To be fair the last time I used it though it was trash. They've come a long way since the 7850 or whatever it was I had last.

For anyone who stumbles onto this thread as someone who jumped on a great deal for dual rank HyperX kits of 3600's just don't... For AM4 Just save your brain a lot of headaches and just get single rank 3600's hopefully on your QVL list because dual rank can be nothing more than a potential nightmare. 2 different processors 3000X and 5000X couldn't handle them. I read in the thread where I found out about the deal and other Ryzen owners were experiencing the same issues. By the way is that ram tuner for Ryzen worth using anymore? Thaiphoon burner won't work for me so I have no idea what the ram I have is. Not sure I want to mess with it since the last time I tweaked my ram for 2 weeks was 2 weeks of my life I'll never get back for a minimal performance increase in gaming. Corsair Vengeance LPX 4x8GB. CMK16GX4M2D3600C18 I have these things set to auto and for benchmarking they never hit the stock 1.35V I think usually around 1.336 and I run 4 sticks. I had to run my last 2x16GB at 1.36 or 1.38 for 3600Mhz. So I'm kind of impressed I've never owned Corsair before just G.Skill or HyperX's.

So I think you have it as 120 PPT, 77 TDC, 77 EDC. Last thing I was trying Sunday was raising TDC and EDC I had been playing around with higher maybe I'll return to reducing them again and see what happens. I'm pretty sure I've seen my 5600X only boost on it's own (stock PBO) to 4665 but usually anything I do it won't go past 4.6 I'm not sure what adds the little extra with stock settings. The chip or whatever I might be doing doesn't seem to like me adding additional Mhz on it. I've been using Tombraider as a bench because it's a CPU sided game so I figure the more frames I'm rendering the better as it seems to reflect higher multi. I'm starting to think if I should set this thing to single core and see if I can boost to 4.8+ at a lower voltage. Might feel more rewarding.

Honestly it's really not worth it I could be halfway through Spider Man or more instead. But once you start.... After hour 10 of benchmarks..

I have so many screenshots of and notes it's been a weekend of a lot of benchmarks. What did you end up sticking with? I never played with the PBO limits until I mentioned it and it just became a slippery slope.

What do you folks suggest for PPT, TDC, EDC? I've messed around with them quite a bit. Changing the scalar will get me some better benchmarks at x2 x3 but not sure I want to run with them.

This went from a saving power thread to a going down a rabbit hole. So Holy crap.... I got really bored of testing CPU Offset Voltages .075, .050, .025, .0125 which is the lowest I can go before it goes to auto, I tried auto as well.. Long story short I couldn't hit my stock scores. I added to the boost clocks and I kept falling short. I said screw it I'm going to try the PBO Curve Optimizer I haven't tried this yet. So I tried -5 allcore offset under PBO curve optimizer and I was like interesting... I just hit my highest CPU-Z multicore score but still a little short on single core. So I tested -10 under PBO multi-thread score just hit an all time high. I was like this has to be a fluke cause why would this be so much better than doing the offset voltages I was trying before. Then nope! Tomb Raider Benchmark all time high. So I'll try again tomorrow to see if I can get my single core to hit my stock settings but everything in bold below is a new high. PBO: Enabled & Curve optimizer -10 Allcore CPU Offset Voltage: Disabled CPU Boost clock override: Disabled CPU-Z: Single Thread Score 618, Multi-Thread Score: 4889 Tomb Raider: Frames Rendered 26049, Average FPS 166, GPU Bound 39%. HWINFO64 Max temp and voltage: 68C 1.346

Wraith prism rgb that I'm using from a Ryzen 7. Not using the little 5600X's stock fan + MX-4. It's a good cooler, love the look of it personally, noise is my only gripe.

Well shiii..... I really thought from watching reviews the compromise was slightly less performance but substantially better heat/voltage. I'll try a .025 offset tonight and go from there. Higher or lower voltage. As for ram timings thaiphoon burner isn't working. Trying to see what this ram is made of. Anyone know an alternative?

What are your scores under volted vs not with pbo off? I'll try a lower undervolt. But overall I guess I can't complain about my temps really even at stock. Should I expect my scores to be close even with an offset? I expected some loss.

1.2.0.7 went to 1.2.0.8. Today then ran these benchies. I didn't realize it was out but saw it had some security benefits. I had a feeling I ran these possibly with PBO set to auto before. So I ran more benchmarks see the top results # 0. I'm not sure but I think I read PBO auto = disabled for some reason but I could be wrong. It seems like disabling PBO but keeping precision boost on the default boost to maxes stock settings offers the highest performance of the day. Granted also the most heat and voltage. But I don't understand why even though it had the best performance the GPU bound is lower 33% in Tomb Raider is less than the PBO on + -.1000 offset? Which was 37%?? Isn't higher better?

Might just wait for a budget wifi 7 router what do you think? That would be backwards compatible with 6 and 6E. No idea when they are coming out though.

I think my CPU-Z benchmark scores went down with 1.2.08 BIOS. When I compare todays scores with previous they've gone down. 1.2.0.7 voltages and settings set to auto I hit 626 single and 4632.5 auto just for reference. **So let me know if this sounds about right for you folks or if you've seen similar behaviors. So running stock without a .100v decrease my CPU-Z benchmarks are significantly better. However in gaming (Tomb Raider Benchmark) it looks like performance has increased. (same with temps and voltage). For the record these aren't taken from average runs but I did restart my computer after each benchmark. 0) PBO AUTO CPU No offset CPU Boost clock override: Disabled CPU-Z: Single Thread Score 622, Multi-Thread Score: 4657 Tomb Raider: Frames Rendered 25962, Average FPS 166, GPU Bound 33%. <--- Everything is higher why is this only 33%???? HWINFO64 Max temp and voltage: 68C 1.386v 1) PBO: Disabled CPU No offset CPU Boost clock override: Disabled CPU-Z: Single Thread Score 622, Multi-Thread Score: 4657 Tomb Raider: Frames Rendered 25803, Average FPS 165, GPU Bound 34%. HWINFO64 Max temp and voltage: 67C 1.352v 1) PBO: Enabled CPU No offset CPU Boost clock override: Disabled CPU-Z: Single Thread Score 610, Multi-Thread Score: 4753 Tomb Raider: Frames Rendered 25803, Average FPS 165, GPU Bound 34%. HWINFO64 Max temp and voltage: 67C 1.352v 2) PBO: Enabled (not auto) CPU Offset Voltage: -.1000V CPU Boost clock override: Disabled CPU-Z: Single Thread Score 581, Multi-Thread Score: 4618 Tomb Raider: Frames Rendered 25811, Average FPS 164, GPU Bound 37%. HWINFO64 Max temp and voltage: 60C 1.262v 3) PBO: Enabled (not auto) CPU Offset Voltage: -.1000V CPU Boost clock override: 100 Mhz increase CPU-Z: Single Thread Score 573, Multi-Thread Score: 4586 Tomb Raider: Frames Rendered 25660, Average FPS 163, GPU Bound 32%. HWINFO64 Max temp and voltage: 59C 1.276v 4) PBO: Enabled (not auto) CPU Offset Voltage: -.1000V CPU Boost clock override: 200 Mhz increase CPU-Z: Single Thread Score 582, Multi-Thread Score: 4551 Tomb Raider: Tomb Raider: Frames Rendered 25753, Average FPS 164, GPU Bound 38%. HWINFO64 Max temp and voltage: 61.4C 1.264v I did also notice when I tested but did not include the settings where I had the .1000v offset but I left PBO as auto. My CPU-Z scores were higher but lower in Tomb-Raider. Anyone know why setting PBO to auto would have this effect? Also, I'm not really sure how to read all the info on the Tomb Raider Benchmark if anyone can help me understand that I would appreciate it. Frames Rendered and Avg FPS higher the better I'd assume. The graphs vary but I assume the higher the GPU Bound percentage the better? I did notice this though. With an offset on and CPU Boost clock override both the 100Mhz and 200Mhz look like the top chart. Things the CPU Game and Render are much closer together the rest off the charts look more like the bottom. Hopefully someone can make sense of all this for me.

Going through your settings I'll bench these this weekend. I have an XMP option in my BIOS so that is currently selected. Which I think DOCP is Gigabyte/ASUS. PBO is set to on. Processor set to all core. I'll look for the area to put the -0.100v and see where I'm hitting. Do you have: Relaxed EDC throttling: Enabled? Spread Spectrum: Disabled? Is applying a -.100v offset something I should prepare for having to refugulate my BIOS or is using an offsets easier on the system to load with if it's unstable? On a side note I upgraded my ram and left it at auto. In Aida64, Tomb Raider, CPU-Z, benchmarks HWINFO64 wasn't hitting 1.35 (default voltage) just 1.34X with the XMP Profile. Any issues with leaving it on auto or should I just set it to 1.35?

Cisco Systems pulled out of russia and destroyed $23.42m worth of equipment GAGADGET.COM Cisco Systems has left the Russian market, destroying tens of millions of dollars worth of equipment and components in the process. This is because the... This is dope. Does Cisco own any best buy level wireless router companies cause I'd support them for this.

I have a 5600X running stock right now chuggin away like a champ but I've been playing a lot of Spider-Man Remastered lately and I wouldn't mind decreasing the temps a bit while maintaining as much performance as possible. I don't expect much since I have a bronze chip. Any advice would be great. From what I can tell people with gold chips can go -20. Looking for a safe offset I can set for all cores. If I can only hit a -5 or so offset should I not even fiddle with the curve optimizer and just decrease my CPU Voltage with a manual setting instead of fussing with all this? CPU: Voltage? Is your CPU voltage set to Auto? Curve Optimizer: -5 or -10 for Allcore? Max Boost Clock Override: ????

Pretty sure the best games I've played in the last 3 years have been indies. Dredge I think just came out.

Well I passed up the Asus deal, it was good but you guys made me do some more research. Also I'm not sure how fancy of a router I need for a what speed internet provider. I think our advertised speed is around 600Mbps or something. Would an Amazon mesh eero 6 dual-band AX1800 Wi-Fi 6 (router + 1 extender) be better than the routers I listed above? I wouldn't opt for any subscriptions with Amazon or TP-Link etc. Just not doing it. Also I'm confused which features won't work exactly by not paying for them with TP-Link like QOS won't work? I'm not fully clear.

I use a Modem with wifi 5 which the speed test speeds are great but some of the network speeds are lacking. I have some wifi 6 devices. I'm thinking of utilizing bridge mode from my wifi modem to it. From what I understand I can connect a router to the modem and use that. Here are what appear to be good options? Keep in mind these are prices where I live. The less money I spend the better I feel like this stuff is depreciates faster than anything. From reading reviews and my sort of understanding I think these key things are important (I think): 160Hz???, Bridge mode, Qos for gaming, 1 USB port (I have printer I like to use through the network). 160Hz $130 TP-Link AX3000 Archer AX55 $150 Asus Wireless AX3000 (GS-AX3000) 80Hz $100 TP-Link AX1800 Archer AX20 $100 ASUS AX1800 WiFi 6 RT-AX55 Cdn prices. So if you know of something else please let me know. Is a AX1800 that much worse than a AX3000 maybe one of you could tell me. But I rather not have to upgrade for quite some time I'd also not like to spend this money in the first place but it is what it is. The less headaches the better.

Interesting. I found in the last few years the community actually grew to be pretty helpful and support centric. People would PM with advice and tips. I took a break from the forum for yeeeears because the mods were toxic as hell and would basically wait to jump on anything they could to punish you. Is that Vampire jackass here in this community cause that idiot pushed me away from wanting to go back to OCN for like a decade.