VoidTheWarranty

11 hours ago, Sir Beregond said:

Core Cycler for figuring out each individual core per curve optimizer I have heard. I've yet to try the tool though.

 

I don't know, I've heard of so many having bad effects from OCing baseclock, but it seems hit or miss. Might turn out ok.

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?

2 minutes ago, damric said:

Try a sprinkle of base clock, like 103-104

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

On 09/02/2023 at 09:42, Sir Beregond said:

Yeah worked perfectly. I used to remember all that stuff but its been like 9 years since I've done desktop support. It seems I forgot a lot of the basics I used to do a lot, like cleaning disk partitions. 

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. 
 

48 minutes ago, bonami2 said:

 

Wanted a 3080 then went 6800xt because of vram and cost. Best idea i ever had

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. 

1 hour ago, Sir Beregond said:

Ryzen really benefits. While the X3D models are very much plug n play, the regular Ryzen chips benefit a ton from tweaking both PBO to get higher boosts, and big time by having fast RAM (frequency matching FCLK) with tight timings. For Zen 3, usually a good 3600 kit.

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. 

13 hours ago, Another Crafter said:

Got TDC and EDC at 77 rn, 75-80A seems to be the sweet spot for my CPU. If I wasn't running F@H I'd probably keep it closer to 90.

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.  
 

12 hours ago, UltraMega said:

Dang, one of these days I'm going to have to stop being lazy and really tweak my system. Nice job OP. 

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..

51 minutes ago, Another Crafter said:

All scores are multicore Cinebench R23:

Stock - 14961 (83C Tdie)
PBO with max limits - 15015 (80C)

PPT max, TDC 120 + EDC 120 - 15264 (85C)
PPT max, TDC 110 + EDC 110 - 15264 (!!! 87C)
100 + 100 - 15184 (86C)
90 + 90 - 15202 (84C)
80 + 80 - 15070 (76C)

75 + 75 - 14971 (72C)
70 + 70 - 14690 (68C, EDC not allowed to go lower)

PPT 140, TDC + EDC max - 14922 (80C)
PPT 120, TDC + EDC max - 14829 (73C)
110 - 14482 (68C)
100 - 14014 (63C)

Looks like you can actually get higher performance than stock, though you can also make the temps higher oddly enough. I should probably do separate TDC testing, in all of the TDC + EDC tests it was mostly EDC that was hit. Same with single core tests but that would take forever so I might just not tbh

PPT limits are not as bad as I remembered but the margin for good performance is smaller than EDC.

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 

2 hours ago, damric said:

What is your cooling method?

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?

14 hours ago, pioneerisloud said:

I think part of what you're seeing MIGHT be an instability.  You might very well possibly be not 100% stable at -0.100v.  On mine, I tried a variety of undervolts from -0.025v all the way down to -0.25v, and settled on -0.100v on mine because that's where performance and benchmarks peaked at consistently.  If you're unstable, then stock PBO, stock voltages WILL perform better even if the clocks are lower.

 

Getting good RAM and IF clocks is honestly a lot more important.  Tweaking PBO and voltages like this is honestly about the last thing I'd worry about with a Ryzen system.  I'd be more concentrating on getting DDR4-3600 to 3800 ish, depending on what your IF clock can pull off, honestly will lead to a much snappier system overall, and it helps in a lot of gaming titles too with 1% and 0.1% lows.

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.  

6 hours ago, Sir Beregond said:

What AGESA was your old BIOS and what are you on now?

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. 

17 hours ago, pioneerisloud said:

I set PBO to enabled, +200, turn on DOCP, and a -0.100v offset on my 5800x.  Boosts to 5.1GHz single core or 4.75 all core, and runs cool and quiet.  I'd just enable PBO with a negative offset and go from there.  You can get a pretty good idea if its stable by running Cinebench R23.  If your score goes up, the negative voltage is fine.  If your score goes DOWN, use less of an undervolt.

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.

22 hours ago, acoustic said:

Honestly, the forum has become less and less enthusiast based and more of a cess-pool since even my participation began on OCN in ~2019 or whatever it is. I have no clue why community reps stick around or use OCN when the average person there is terrible at OCing. The 13th generation OC thread has disgusted me, and we have people creating over 700 posts in one month, half of which are questions that have been asked forty times over.

 

It's sad. The thread now is just about people buying binned chips, running auto voltages, and then gloating about it every three posts. Zero skill, zero passion for OCing. Just ego, and money to burn.

 

I hope this site takes off. I've found myself posting far less on OCN because it's just.. low quality. Maybe that's what happens when a site grows to the size of OCN, I don't know.

 

Thanks for all you did during the glory days that I missed out on!  Here's to EHW succeeding

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.