-
Getting 5150mhz on PBO on my 5900x - Thanks AGESA!
-
You want to look at the 'effective' clocks. These don't matter.
ID: hfgplp1ID: hfguij2If the effective clocks don't also go up, they don't.
ID: hfix6bzBoth clock readings go up and down, but the effective clocks are, obviously, what is actually doing work. Log HWInfo, and look at how power draw relates to both clocks.
-
I'd be careful dwelling too far in those numbers. What you're seeing is clock stretching - basically a small burst speed that gets recorded and rounded up. It doesn't actually give a measurable performance boost.
Look at the effective clock speeds instead. This will give you a better indication of actual sustained frequencies.
ID: hfg6cj9Oh, i know, its just a quick burst, but its very nice knowing that my golden cores get to that.
Just did an R23 bench run, and im running -20 on all my cores, just picked up 22316 points. I am quite chuffed with that!
My next plaything will be LLC, my mobo gives me 5 levels, and i want to see which one will give me a better all core boost, which currently is around 4.48gig, which is a bit low, but in saying that its pretty warm where i am now.
ID: hfg6vb5I wouldn't touch LLC with PBO. If too aggressive, you'll get worse performance. If you want to squeeze out more performance, try adjusting your PBO Power Limits in the BIOS. Keep your EDC constant but try upping your TDC and PPT. There's diminishing returns on this, though. Eventually with too high TDC and EDC, you'll get increased temperatures and degraded PBO boosting, particularly on the single-core. You have to find that fine balance between performance vs thermals.
ID: hfgl8laYou really want to avoid a too aggressive LLC setting or your CPU will recieve massive voltage spikes when switching from load to idle. This can also lead to the CPU recieving more than 1.5V in slightly threaded workloads and may harm the silicon.
Also high LLC equals higher average voltage under load, equals higher temps and higher power draw, leading to lower boosts. I'd suggest going the opposite way and trying to find a LLC setting that is as relaxed as possible, without causing a net performance loss.
-
I can do 5.2ghz on my 5950x by enabling fmax - cinebench score doesnt increase though because its clock stretching
ID: hfgv04iFmax enabled will hurt performance on Zen 3. It's designed to take advantage of a power limit bug on Zen 2.
/comments/jpxjxp/psa_for_anyone_whos_using_a_ryzen_5000_cpu_with/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share" class="reddit-press-link" target="_blank" rel="noopener">https://www.reddit.com//comments/jpxjxp/psa_for_anyone_whos_using_a_ryzen_5000_cpu_with/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share
I was more posting about AGESA tightening up ram latency, but thanks for your negative attitude.
You was more posting about tightening up ram latency, but the whole post including the screenshot somehow is about PBO boost clocks?
Dude actually made a good point, he mentioned the clock stretching which is a good thing to know about when dealing with PBO. Then you blame him for a negative attitude? Cmon man.
Installed the latest update on my Asrock Phantom Gaming 4, running 32gig of G-Skill F4-3600 dual rank. (2x16gb sticks)
I was getting the same PBO overclock with the previous bios but it wouldn't hit that 5150 unless it was dead cold first time i would turn the PC in the morning. Now im hitting it fairly often.
The other advantage of the AGESA update was memory latency. AIDA64 reported a memory latency of 70.1ns, with the second last bios, updating to the latest AGESA dropped that down to 66.5ns.
I still want to see if i can boost the IF, on the last bios it was locked hard at 1800mhz, increasing that at all, even to the next step (1833 or 1866 i think) would hard lock the machine requiring a bios reset to get back to normal.
The 1.5 volts is also fairly high at full boost, but i have a 360 AIO cooler, and the cpu and AIO block are "lapped" (yes i know its not lapped, its just been sanded to a rough idea of flat on some plate glass from the top of an old photocopier)
There's nothing in the AGESAs that would produce the results you're experiencing. I'm glad you have improved performance, but you probably had something wonky in the BIOS that a full re-flash and reset fixed. Everything for months has just been corner case stability fixes, like "XYZ capture card on ABC motherboard with DEF 3rd party companion controller" type stuff. Nothing has changed on core performance variables since we made it easier to achieve 2000 IF on capable kits/boards.
Ahh.. ok thats very odd.
All im loading with ram is the XMP setting, not tuning anything else at all.
The timings between last bios and this bios are identical, so maybe something else that i cant see has changed.
this seems like a good time and place to ask - with bios updates and new agesa code, do i need to redo my PBO testing? will the cores suddenly be able to handle a larger negative offset? or even though i did my tuning with early beta bios versions should they still be dialed in?
It wouldn't hurt to try, but I wouldn't expect big changes. One nice tool to test stability is CoreCycler. It's a custom Prime95 script that tests each core individually for errors. You can find it on GitHub.
yeah i used p95 when dialing in my pbo, but that sounds like a more useful way to do it. thank you.
If you don't monitor clocks or anything else wouldn't hurt to check every time. In my case, I'm troubleshooting why I can't seem to boost past 4.850 Ghz with the latest bios on my Asus B550-F Wi-Fi when previous versions with my CO and PBO boosted to 5 Ghz and all cores reached 4.9xx.
Idk if it's the latest Agesa, something to do with Asus or what but atm I'm at stock since CO + PBO while giving me a bit more performance increases temp without giving more performance for lightly threaded processes. Something I'm keeping an eye out on whenever there's a new BIOS since I updated to be compatible with Win11 which I installed today.
In my limited testing with game benchmarks, I get a higher fps with an all core OC than I do on PBO. It's been about 6 months so my findings may be outdated about it was measurably better. The biggest gain to my performance though was tightening all of my ram timings. Gained 20% performance increase in some games.
20 percent increase? holy shit!!!!
Yep. I went from 3200c141414 to 3600c141515 and the difference was massive. On a 3600xt
Yeah. It makes a huge difference. Ram tuning also takes a long time but it helps a TON.
In this case you lose the single-core boosting for lightly-threaded scenarios, which is one of the more useful PBO features in my opinion. At least for my 5950x, I can tweak PBO enough to give me a max all-core sustained frequency of ~4.4 Ghz, a sustained single-core boost of 5 Ghz, and lightly-threaded scenarios with sustained up to 4.8 to 4.9 Ghz.
clockstretching... i wouldn't stare myself blind at those... just run cpu-z /cinebench single thread and compare your results to other cpus, that's where you lie single thread performance wise anyway.
i could set the pbo curve to boost +200 offset and hwmonitor would show 5300 clocks at points, the results were still worse in actual real world performance.
引用元:https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/q1nr4k/getting_5150mhz_on_pbo_on_my_5900x_thanks_agesa/
But if these don't matter - why do they improve benchmark scores?