Hi team, wouldn't be better if we were to use PPT and to lower it in the precision boost option. I think its under AMD CBS (in Gigabyte BIOS) and change it to a lower stock value. I.e. change from 88W in a std value for 3700x (65w tdp chip) to 70, 65 or 60W.
Thanks for the follow up! I'm not sure at this point whether the 'clock stretching' is closer to a bug or a failsafe to keep the CPU running. Great content piece as always and hopefully we can all get some rest soon lol.
This is the result of more "smartness" in the new modern CPU world. They are behaving more like GPU's now with sophisticated firmware. When the CPU require/requests more voltage then the current value offset set in BIOS the motherboard will attempt to override the current setting and this causes strange behavior we are seeing.
It probably works on 1v because it's also optimized for servers at around 1v. A consumer board should probably chrash though. It's just not running properly
Optimum Tech, your journalism and integrity is truly commendable- and I would like to acknowledge that. Also, thank you for the rich and professional excellence of your content. Keep it up!
I just want to say thank you for all the hard work you guys do, really impressive what you managed to test so far and i really highly appreciate that. So thank you.
I see this as a good thing, instead of crashing, it slows down, which is a much better alternative for most people. They just need to implement a way for you to tell that his is happening.
I see why that can be good for many people. But, for experienced overclockers, there should really be way to disable that behaviour, because it looks like it can limit before it would actually get unstable, many say that they can get higher manual all core overclock at lower voltage than stock or PBO.
I noticed CPU utilization being capped off when undervolting using an offset (task manager showed 87% utilization on all threads). That's one way to tell I guess...
dude I don't care about stupid tests, I just want to game on a amd cpu and Nvidia gpu LAPTOP without the cpu reaching 95+ Celsius for no reason on performance mode and just destroying my laptop with thermal throttling! GET IT?
@@iliilili310 sounds like someone pretty familiar with insecurity. It was a genuine question because steve pointed them out like 4 times when they started using them but they're so subtle you could easily not notice them. I can't help it if you can't tell the difference between being condescending and genuine curiosity. Get over yourself. 😁👍🏼
Good job once again. I particularly like the way you were clear in stating this was not meant to shame the person who did the original video, and kudos to them for taking it down once they realized the data was wrong.
I've been using a -0.125 offset with an LLC of 2 on my 3900X in the Crosshair VII Hero since I got the CPU. My Cenebech scores improved slightly and I got 15c lower idle temps and 5c lower temps under full synthetic load. I started doing this because the Asus bios on the C7H seemed to be putting more voltage through the CPU (up to 1.5v at idle). AMD has since explained the high idle voltage on Reddit, but I'm happy that it allowed me to stumble into the benefits of using a negative offset on the 3900X.
One question, why are you not at a million subscribers yet GN? The quality of the data you provide and nearly flawless presentation allows for you to easily attain these viewership numbers. Like always, best of luck's and fantastic work for the entire GN team.
Even with the performance loss which looks to be 20% at 1v on the 3900x it still seems the improvement in thermals is something that in certain builds might be worth doing if you want to put it in an ITX build with limited cooling. It would be interesting to see more numbers on what the performance loss vs thermals improvement looks like at other under voltage amounts. Interesting video as always and keep up the good work.
If i recall correctly, setting a power consumption limit (PPT limit, cTDP, whatever) works better than limiting voltage, at least from what I've read from 1 or 2 reddit comments. And the thermal results are similar, without the risk of possible instability.
Far better to use a SOC which is designed to run to a low power budget, 10W passively cooled is not unreachable. Simply buy a cheaper CPU with a lower TDP rather than buy a Ryzen
I've also just been patiently waiting for memory scaling. GN's initial Ryzen Memory coverage was the best by far, and curious to see how much of that behaviour carries over to Zen2
Great set of tests. I was exactly looking for something to do with performance and temps when the Vcore is lowered for reduced power consumption. Looks like undervolting does wonders for cpu temp and power!
Kudos for the way you have the time bars on each of the slides. It helps me find the slides I am looking for when searching back. Even more important is the way you do a time bar for each question on Q&A sessions. Very helpful. Thanks
Recently I noticed this behavior while tuning my Vega 56. Voltage at 975mv p7 seemed stable, clocks were at ~1620mhz while monitoring, but during games I was actually losing 10-15 fps compared to 1075mv. Temps definitely improved but at the cost of performance, even though the numbers all looked good during stress testing.
"Its not wise to undervolt Matisse, unless you enable the OC-Mode (fixed frequency). That's because the CPU is constantly monitoring its supply voltage. When it sees the supply voltage below the desired level, it starts increasing the VID request from the VRM controller. When the VID request increases above the maximum voltage allowed by FIT, the clock stretchers will kick in. Your performance will decrease, despite the change is not visible in the frequencies diplayed by the usual monitoring software. For example on the 3900X sample I have, the default VID request during CB20 NT is 1.3125V. With the offset set to -25mV the VID request raises to 1.33125V or so. At -75mV the VID request is already 1.36875V and increasing the negative offset any further will trip the stretchers. There is an undervolting margin available, but it is tiny. The exact behavior will depend on the silicon specimen and the workload. Its also the very reason why this guy thinks he is running at > 4.2GHz with just 1.00V..." Source: www.overclock.net/forum/28044514-post7.html Here's a user's own UV testing: www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/cfdog5/realworld_3700x_analysis_and_other_ramblings/
There is one guy that ubdervolted his 3600 and is happy. He shows me benchmark results. c20. aida64... temps dropped to 55 in game and benchmark scores became bigger.
I've had the best experience limiting the watts limit. Even a small limitation of this option has a very positive effect on the temperature. Without losing much performance .
Why oh why?? Temperatures are a byproduct of doing work. Instead of limiting peak watts you should just buy a cheaper CPU or use power management to throttle the CPU. Under-volting has the potential to reduce waste heat, transistor gate leakage and improve efficiency, leading to better performance with that specific die. It all depends on the silicon quality being high enough to operate at lower V and hence reduce power consumption. But if dynamic chip management regards under-volting as an error due to bad p/s or mobo then the whole technique is invalidated.
@@RobBCactive my dude this solution / tip is over a year old. today there are good power plans or CTR that help WITHOUT any loss of performance so thank you for your time for the comment but "context" and "time" would have saved you these lines!
Just want to say thanks to the Gamers Nexus team for all the awesome detailed content you have been producing lately. Keep up the awesome work guys! It great stuff to watch a learn more from.
Yes, props to him for the quick response on the correction. He admitted he was fooled by the numbers and pulled the video as soon as realized what was going on. I'm not into SFF, but subscribed and watch his videos.
I personally have found a sweet spot for the old 2700x at 1.2v fixed voltage with 4ghz on all cores. Temps and consumption are down (the spikes of the auto boost are crazy), multicore performance slightly better, single core workload slightly worse! For me it's a win-win better performance with locked 1.2v instead of 1.45v spikee
After watching this video, I decided to do a performance validation on my undervolted Ryzen 5 2600X. Running Cinebench R20 twice with stock auto voltage and my -0.1V offset, I noticed that the undervolt led to a 2% increase in all-core performance with no change in single core (with a noticeable change in boost frequency from 3975 MHz undervolted down to 3850 MHz at stock auto voltage), a 2-4 degree reduction in CPU peak temperature, and a 3-5 watt reduction in power consumption as measured by my UPS.
You can increase efficiency further by modifying the ryzen balanced power plan to use a minimum processor state of 5% instead of 90% and raising BCLK to 102mhz or higher, however do note that this might bring potential instability.
@@b0bsaget007 Interesting, well in any case if you want to still increase performance you can try raising BCLK, however that might require a less aggressive undervolt and might not function on some boards.
I'm running my 3600 at 1.168v 4000Mhz all cores, using the Ryzen Master software. If I go one step below at 1.1624v, the system crashes Cinebench R15 Scores Stock Profile - 1577 Undervolt - 1588 I'm using a stock cooler btw My explanation would be that during stock settings, the V rises to 1.4s to touch the maximum boost clock but then it heats up the chipset instantly to 75 degrees or so and it throttles it back. Using the undervolt, the temperatures don't rise as much and that's why it's able to stick to 4000Mhz. Also that people would say the software reports incorrectly, well if I underclock it a little more it doesn't send. Which means that it is in fact sticking to the voltage I'm giving it
This is super interesting stuff! My overclocking practices generally involve simply running Prime 95 for 10-20 minutes to make sure my voltage is stable for the clocks I'm getting. I'll have to keep this in mind as I start tuning clocks on my 3600.
So decreasing it down to 1 volt lowered heat output rather dramatically, and also lowered performance as well. Though, did power efficiency improve or worsen? Taking the "CB Mark" for CineBench R20 nT score difference, where the 1 volt undervolted one performed 80.8-82.5 % of stock. And the corresponding graph for the temperature Tdie, where we can see a reduction from about 60 C down to about 30-40 C, and if we say that the ambient temperature were a constant 25C, then we could say that the power dissipation reduced to only about 30%, though extremely rough calculation based on the idea that a heatsink has a linear delta-T/watt figure through its operational range, this would mean that the CPU's power efficiency is about 2.7 times higher. (I would say that seems unrealistic.) So an actual power consumption comparison plot would have been far more interesting, then the Tdie plot in my opinion. (Since Tdie will greatly vary with what heat sink one has, the power consumption would mostly be effected by clock speed and feature utilization on the die itself. (leakage currents are though temperature dependent.)) In the end, how much did the power efficiency actually improve? If it improved at all. Could be useful to know if running these in servers or the like.
my ryzen 1700 runs at 1.08v all the time at 3.2 ghz under boost automatically and has very low temps and 45w tdp and the stock cooler thats 95w can overclock good with noctua normal silicon paste before it dries after 3 years and goes back up to 80c to 90c from 60 - 80 c and i overclock to 3.8 ghz and 3200 16 16 16 35 cas ram on 1.350 v core and 1.360 v ddr and i tested the cpu in burn benchmarks not only games where everytimes stays under 60 but crashes when the paste is dried because rhe temps rise up too fast
Best balance I've been able to find for my 3700x is setting a negative offset of 0.09 while also enabling PBO with 200mhz. As I understand it, the PBO setting kind of counters the negative offset, but not the extent that it ever really over volts like it did stock. My out of the box vcore was damn near 1.48 under load on an Asus x470 gaming-F, and temps were in the mid 80's in cinebench r20. Now my temps don't exceed 76 in the same test, and my vcore under load hovers between 1.34-1.39. My cinebench score actually slightly improved, and my multi core results are consistently between 4,865-4,900+, while my single core is 495-499. I think this slight improvement in results and thermals mirrors your results on your 3900x with negative 0.1 offset. Idle temps also dropped from mid 40's and 50's to low to mid 30's now. Gaming temps in really cpu demanding games like BFV are in the low 60's , and most games stay in the 50s.
@@KapanthPT yep. Stock cooling. Coming from a delided 4790k with a noctua I wasn't sure what to expect with the wraith, but I'm honestly impressed. It's in my old HAF 922, and that case has good airflow, so I'm sure that's helping a bit too.
Thanks for another eye opening segment . Had a strange feeling about things when a Ryzen 5 3600, already overclocked to 4.5 GHz and started at a Vcore of 1.38V, seemed to gain some serious thermal headroom with each decrease of the Vcore value. Ended up not going any lower than 1.5V ( in Override Mode) before I started having concerns and questioning a too good to be true scenario. Then I stumble upon this. Thanks for ALL the great research and crunching GN & team.
you've degraded your CPU badly if that's at a static oc. the limit for matisse is 1.32v anything over that will cause degradation. I did the same thing.
Awesome work! Love your content. I send my friends to your channel when they are looking for info on what hardware to buy. You and buildzoid are some of the hardware youtubers I actually trust.
I undervolted my rx 570 all the way down to 970mV at its stock speed of 1250MHz, and got a very, very slight possible improvement by +1 fps on average in benchmarks, but also about a 20C drop in temps, with the max temps eventually settling around 67C in furmark without even having to spin up my fan super loud. initially I'd tried overclocking it, but had pretty abysmal results, and i could barely even get it stable at 1300MHz. so i tried undervolting instead and I guess I just got a golden undervolter. I've decided im pretty happy with the stock performance at this point, given how little power its sipping and how little heat its producing.
@@Venom-gs4nz I've had it like that for over a year now and it's never had any problems. Still performing great. In any case, undervolting doesn't cause increased wear. It's generally best to run it at the lowest voltage that is still stable if you want to increase the life of a processor.
I'd like to know the real reasons the 3000 series is volted the way it is. I personally and hav seen from countless others, that lowering voltage to around 1.25-1.275 (peak) results in much lower thermals and as good or better cinebench scores +/-2%. AMD must have known this. What is going on there? Something to do with peak/consistent max clock preformance?
Seriously? Compatibility. This is why OC'ing exists at all, companies clock their CPU's conservatively so that when you drop them in a system they just work.
Factory settings have to work on every CPU in that skew, locally tuned settings only have to work for the hardware/software actually used. Seriously people oc GPU and it seems to work fine but months later a different game has crashes until the boost is turned off. People don't like dynamic CPU management because they want to say the RN YZOK has 3.7 Ghz base clock with 4.2 precision boost, with this benchmark score. Imagine if the numbers changed greatly because you dialed the a/c lower.
The best thing I got from this video was that unlike mine, your 3900X actually consistently stays at max boost clock during a 1T R20 run. Mine at default settings runs about 300 MHz lower and I can't improve on it at all. I sure hope a BIOS or X470 chipset update will fix this.
A -.13V offset bumped my single and multi core scores in C15 and Passmark on my 3900X - better than forcing a 1.352V I'm on an ASUS Crosshair VIII Hero which appeared to have high voltage at idle and load.
thats happening on others also Taichi has some voltage scaling issues at idle you would think before releasing this platform they would of figured this crap out
I've been messing with undervolting my 3900x with a negative -0.1000v offset, now while my machine's performance was sort of on par, Cinebench etc were fine, did some x264 encoding , but it was completely unstable on idle, it would bluescreen as the voltages dropped to low. That wasn't straight away, this was after a good 30 minutes of idle. A -0.050v offset is stable on both load and idle, but temps jumped up by a good 7 - 9c in Cinebench and AIDA64 stress test. Coming from Intel it's been a whole new learning curve with Ryzen 3000.
Been playing with my 3700x since getting it, I've found 2 things that have helped performance, thermals and voltage with my ASUS X470 PRO. Simply setting the vcore to an offset of -100mv kept things quieter, cooler and performance was almost identical, another way was I had it running at 4.2Ghz 1.352v, I've noticed at stock it will run at 1.331-1.362v during an all core 4.2-4.3 boost, I've never seen it actually hit 4.4 yet, I just can't stand those voltage spikes while idle which cause the fans to ramp up like crazy for no reason, even with a very strict fan curve so I think I will be keeping it running at 4.2 1.352v, I know there was a post saying Ryzen 3000 series shouldn't go further than 1.325v for all core but I honestly don't believe that at all seeing as it is doing higher than that at stock when all core boosting, also cores can still sleep and slow down even with a manual overclock which is very interesting, even though HWiNFO doesn't display that, Ryzen Master does show lower core clocks and sleeping cores even with a manual overclock set
That was my concern: cores not sleeping and always run at 4,2ghz. I will look into it, since my 3700x runs 4,2ghz on 1,25volt on aida64 90min stress run. Temps dropped 10 degrees and especially the max temp spikes didn't exceed 90 degrees celcius.
Undervolted R5 3600 with Ryzen Master 1.18125V @ 4.2Ghz and it works like a charm (air cooling). Temps down few celsius and Cinebench R20 went up 3460->3810
I tried a 3600 at 1.325V and 4.125GHz, it reaches 72°C on booster. In Stock it was 85ºC It gets 1567pts on CB15 and it was 1508pts in stock. I used AMD Ryzen Master program to test.
I maxed out PBO and put about a -.08 offset on my zen+ / 2700x system and get insane results. 4.3 ghz all core with any submaximal load. You said these tests were done with PBO off right? I'm curious if buildzoid's offset instructions still apply.
You shoudl do a test with eco mode. I changed my 5800x on the master to eco mode 65w and it still runs 15661 in cinebench and while gaming with a 3090 it runs at 5 to 10% and even lower. So for gaming eco mode is a must use in my opinion
Your mileage may vary depending on your setup. On Asus X470-F Gaming + R7 2700X + Wraith Prism combo undervolting with vcore offset is beneficial. Because on default Asus X470-F Gaming outputs ridiculously high vcore and that heats up the cpu too much with Wraith Prism boxed cooler. When setting vcore offset to -0.1 you get higher boost clocks that stay on longer and your idle/surfing temps decrease thus leading to quieter system. After vcore offset of -0.1 the CB15 score went up quite a bit.
Exactly what i done on me asus strix 470x-f hooked with Ryzen 3700x ,after i put undervoolt offset -0.10000mv, i get lower temps like 35C idlle and 65C load max,with pbo,xfr and smt all on,processor still able up on all cores 4.395 gz and that result in Cinebench r15 score=2100,wich i think is good.
So it accidentally auto-underclocks itself. I underclock all my stuff anyway to gain back efficiency. If I lose 5% performance and 20% power then I see that as an absolute win.
Indeed you under-clock a CPU from a higher bin, so you MUST under-volt to justify the more expensive CPU. Still late steppings under-volting the cheapest model likely works.
I got my AMD Ryzen 5 3600 to undervolt 1.100 volts at 3.9GHz all cores. 32GB DDR4 3200MHz to 3400MHz. No crashes stays cool and perfect performance. Thank you!
Just got a 3800X for my old B350 TUF board to replace my 2600 and noticed it was super hot in comparison - offsetting core voltage by -0.1v lost about 4% performance in Cinebench multithreaded and less than 1% single thread, but -0.075V lost no performance at all and dropped my max temps under load by 6C.
the fact these nodes can boot and be stable at 1v shows that Ryzen 3000 on mobile, is going to be pretty bad-ass... I mean, stable at that low, yes it's 3ghz, but seriously that's really decent. lock the mobile chips to 1.2v and temps and frequency probably would be pretty impressive in a mobile part.
I wonder if Steve is planning an individual ccx overclocking video. Der8auer had some success that way. Seems like the best method of overclocking so far. I'm just hoping board partners start implementing it into their bios.
Ya I believe, as of right now anyway, the x570 is stupid expensive. For the average gamer, PCIE 4 is not really a benefit. Today's gpus are unaffected. Content creation would have increased speed for NVMe drives. But for gamers, I would wait for price decreases. Just my 2 cents.
@@AxialGT I had the X570 Taichi which was only $300 which isn't to bad but it just amped up the volts even when I tried to set it to 1.35v it was going over 1.5v. I put my 3600 into my X470 Taichi and it goes to what I set it and listen to my commands haha. X570 has a lot of bugs and just didn't see $300 worth it at this point.
@@thephily7432 I've gotten the same overclocks, same cinebench scores, same fps, on my $100 x470 motherboard when compared to my $330 x570. Me as a gamer the x570 is not worth the extra cost. So for me the x570 is not worth the extra cost. And your right, chips run cooler too on the x470.
@@AxialGT Wish I only paid $100 for my X470 haha. Got a deal on the X370 I have in my son's and put a B350 in my daughters which overclock's just fine too. I'm happy Newegg took the X570 back as a return though.
interesting glad you made this video cause i planned undervolting my cpu due partly pairing with a b350 gaming f and hoping it would assist vrm temps. in the past ive undervolt fx processors but never verified if performance degraded
The takeaway for me (oddly) is that my cheap Asus Prime B450M-A allows the R5 3600 to perform just as good or better than the expensive boards used in this test. My single-core Cinebench R20 result is 486, and that's with CBR20 running in WINE on Linux, and multiple desktops loaded up with other applications, including a Windows 7 virtual machine. Unbelievable what this CPU is capable of, even when paired with a sub-$100 MB.
Thanks to playing with this I was able to set my Ryzen 5 3600 at locked 4Ghz at 1.15 volts and not only I got rid of the saw-tooth reports in monitoring software but my CPU runs stable at freaking 18'C cooler. All tests like furmark and cinebench, 3dmark report same or slightly higher values. Still worth it for almost 20'C reduction of temp. Either it actually works or I was very lucky with the chip.
I use another method, the kingdom come deliverance initial screen, in window mode at the lowest resolution possible with the lowest settings possible. This is my cpu vs my cpu in various power plans, so no problem related wit that one "shilling situation". The monitoring tool is the HWinfo. I've tried all possible overclocking scenarios and the voltage is still spikes like crazy without any meaningful effects. So the best scenario is to let everything stock in the bios and overclock only the ram and put the Ryzen power saving plan in windows. The performance is nearly the same, without seeing the voltage and temperature spikes bouncing all over the place. I use the Vega 56 and the fps is 270 with the low power and 286 with the maximum performance. Also the voltage stays at 1.31 under 100% load and 1.38v boost.
yeah, nvidia pascal did the exact same thing. Truthfully Radeons do not, but stability flies right out of the window though... even if performance 'actually' improves.
I underclocked my ryzen 3600x to 1.2375 volts and fixed the voltage to 4.125 and it’s cinabench r15 only went down 20 points and dropped 20 C, although I am bound by thermals as I have a hyper 212
What was your temps before? I have a cryorig h7 which is very comparable to the hyper 212. One prime95 small ffts I get up to 93-94c. That's with pbo and auto oc. Turning them off doesn't lower temp much.
I used an offset voltage of +0.168 (1.262v reported by cpuz) with 4.2ghz and lowered Temps by 7°, I was hitting 4.2ghz with 1.37/1.38v before using everything in auto
@@henry1477 might have to do that. I don't like mine running that hot and my cooler shouldn't have that much trouble handling it. Kept my 2600 at 4ghz under 75c on prime95. Gaming obviously doesn't make the 3600x run that hot but still
On my 3600 i locked tge voltage at 1.25v and clocks at 4ghz. Saw thermals go down by 15C and cinebench go up by 50... Stock was thermalthroteling like crazy for me
Interesting info and seems to pretty much mirror what I have seen, my 3900X was running at 1.42v out of the box (ASUS Strix-F, BIOS 4012 - still not updated). I manually set it to 1.2v - worked fine but only boosted to 4.1Ghz. Now running 1.375v (shows as 1.38v) and it boosts to 4.55Ghz - still can't get that 4.6, might have to try 1.85v. Temps at idle are around 36 now (was 49 at stock - but I also had a crap mate with the water block which did not help), but does climb into the 70's under god load - running Handbrake 1080p encoding. If I run the radiator fans at max speed it never gets above 76 though. Not going to update the BIOS till a lot of the issues are worked out - but I do wonder if most of the behaviours (temperatures, voltages, boosts etc) are all down to very immature BIOS/AGESA? Either way, the 3900X makes light work of most things :) I should also point out the the 4012 BIOS for the Strix-F mucks the RAM voltage right up, so had to fix that manually as well.
Got my 3600 at -0.625 V; any lower and CPU benchmarks start to drop. Just wish it would downclock at idle the way my 2600 did - the temps on this one bounce up and down like a flea on crack.
Hold on... I tested this and benched. I explained how and why in the video. The boost and core variance in the algorithms, works in a fashion. Now the temp and voltage are microcoded, if the temp is lower the clock will rise. Buy reducing voltage at the core, this lower temps and boosts are higher and bench results. I did not push as low as 1v. I did lock voltage at 1.225 and 1.32 and 1.35 as well as 1.37. But I let the other compensation run to allow compensation and also not. On total lock, there was no boost. (As you would expect) however due to science or ohm's law, by adding current, you could get a higher speed with lower temps. On the video I did this is shown at 0:32 showing a boost clock of 5.1ghz There should be some bench results in the video. When I did the video it was more for the lower temps and expected performance. It just so happened to jump up more than expected. Testing was performed over a week and serveral benches were ran to check the results. However. Due to the performance variable being as it's software and algorithmic, the results varied constantly. CB R15 varied by 200 points on the same clock speeds and settings. In monitoring all bench and performance results, all hardware with "energy saving" and " boost stepping" would not consistently boost or peak clocks at the same times. This resulted in a significant difference in results, by up to 4/700 points. The only thing that actually remained a constant was temperatures. (Actually was was required). However as you have said, all chips and configurations are different and you do get silicon lottery. Therefore one processors result can and do differ significantly in some cases. Therefore this result may not transfer to all CPUs or motherboards. However a key point is that the voltages on the processors is too high and is not required, this is not saying setting a low core is the right solution. But the processors need to run cooler. And it appears the stock software does not manage voltage well at all. But this maybe a glitch in mine. Hope that puts some light on the subject.
I noticed same with my 2700x before. I don't think it's a bug, more like precision boost works. Clocks are set based on actual temperature, power limits, voltage delivered! Etc. You deliver less voltage, frequency doesn't jump as hight. Same with PBO - all it does is set much higher power limits AND raise CPU voltage. Result are higher frequencies set by Precision boost. Its like that since Zen+.
I undervolted my 3800X and used PBO. It now holds 4.3ghz all core boost and scores higher in Cinebench R20. 5160 where my previous score all default was 5010 and it would hold just under 4.2ghz all core boost. Temps are never breaching 60 now at full load where as before they could go up to 70. So yes........it works.
r5 3600 owner here, my solution was to high temps and voltages (85+ and 1.4v+ on cinebench r20) after reading/watching/trying lots of online solutions was firstly replacing the awful wraith stealth with a £20 wraith prism. That dropped temps nearly 20c instantly, then, when trying lots of different bios configs I set my multiplier at 39.75 and no PBO and now my CPU does not get any hotter than 75c on 20 min run on cinebench and still scores over 3600 points consistently only a tiny bit lower than my stock scores, now the voltage never goes over 1.2v and have not noticed any degradation in performance in daily use, when I set my multiplier to 40x the voltage went up to 1.3v and the temp another 7-8c so I put it back for a cooler, quieter less hassle PC experience. R5 3600, 2 x 8 gb Viper 4 3200mhz, MSI B450M Pro VDH Max, Gigabyte GTX 1060 Mini OC 6gb, Coolermaster G650M PSU, Phantek P300 1x 120mm 3 x 140mm, Samsung 850 Evo 240gb, Seagate 7200 1TB. Built to a very tight budget, I know some stuff could be better, GPU next.
I've definitely found a small performance decrease putting my 3600 at 1.1625v, but the temperature difference is huge, in an HTPC mind you, so the temperature control is the point.
Feigel Clan what ghz do u run at 1.1625 volt? I run 3.8 ghz at 1.1000 volt. Is that safe for performance and longlasting ? Meanwhile i’m waiting for kraken x63 / z63 until it’s available in my country. Around september / october i will get the kraken and run 4.4 ghz at 1.350 volt.
I need held with mine also, I have the Ryzen 5 3600 with the stock cooler on a B450 Tomahawk Max board and my temps are high in my opinion, but this is my first build so I don’t know much. I was playing the isle last night and on HWMonitor my temps were 77cel with the highest spikes at 81-83celsius but it did say the max value was 88cel. Idk if that means it ever got at 88 or if that’s like the highest it should get.
Georgius Kevin Christian I have everything stock still. This is my first pc and I’ve never messed with them, when I first got it I wasn’t going to overclock anything or temper but idk if I should now? I’m Ryzen Master it says the peak core voltage is 1.3 and my speed I think is 2.5Mhz? I’m so lost sorry
MrYfz450Sir how can the speed is only 2.5ghz? Hmm i think you need to read the reviews for your references, and I suggest you better run all default in Bios.. run everything in auto just like new. Tell me once you done that
Could you revisit this ultra low voltage stuff but for the APUs (65W) I'm interested to see if it can be made to run stable and passively cooled. I'm talking 20-30W heatsink(s) that fit in a htpc case not massive tower coolers
It simply boils down to temperatures. If undervolt causes temps to go down enough (65-70c om 3000 ryzen) it may not loose as much performance if it's running hot. that may be called gain. If temps are decent you may or may not loose as much.
now while there is lower performance at 1v it still wasn't bad considering the huge power and heat drop it really makes the zen2 laptop processors an interesting proposition
@@madmax2069 I believe that was the voltage offset settings not setting the vcore to 1v but idk which board was which but 1 would do -0.1v the other only -0.05v and trying to push the -0.1v would blue screen
I don't get what the deal is with people here demanding to see the 0 on the vertical axis. If there is no useful data crossing the area and it's not a bar chart or a histogram there's no point in showing a blank plot. It can't be that difficult to read the scale and range from a graph. It's completely common practice to adjust the scale in order to use the plot area most effectively, there's a reason why programs adjust the scale by default.
Machine: Msi B450x Mortar Max, R5 3600, AIO CPU cooler. readings all from ryzen master. [ ryzen master manual mode, all connected 4.2GHz @ 1.1v, CB Marks 3582, FSB 1866, cpu temp max around 58c, cpu power around 45w ] [ ryzen master manual mode, all connected 4.3GHz @ 1.15v, CB Marks 3666, FSB 1866, cpu temp max around 65c, cpu power around 50w ] [ ryzen master PBO mode, voltage excluded, CB Marks 3312, FSB 1866, cpu temp max around 74c, cpu power around 78w ] (cpu frequency goes around 3.9GHz automatically) i'm really not good at playing with ryzen, i must have something set wrong since with all bios settings at default, one click PBO setting always give around only 3.9GHz and temp goes through up the roof. but now manually set a fixed cpu frequency and a lower voltage still gives better results.
i saw that video, seemed legit with all the comparison tests. but yea with new devices being tested in different configurations it can get a bit tricky to work in ways you want it to.
Severely drop the temperature without compromising stability, but at a compromise for performance? Sounds like a laptop CPU ... AMD would definitely consider this a feature
My only question is if you had someone who cared most about reducing noise, would doing this extreme Vcore voltage help them? As your results indicates a lower temperature which implies lower fan speeds needed?
So between this video and the one testing boost clocks and temperature. I finally have my 3800x boosting past advertised max. Before I couldn't get it to boost over 4.3 on any core. Even under water cooling CTR identifies my chip as a bronze sample, it doesn't OC well at all. I picked up a Freezer II 420 and fitted it in my case with some modification. Then started playing with PBO and voltage offset. Now I'm running a -0.1250v offset and hitting 4.6GHz on any given core. Holding 4.4GHz in a 20min CB20 loop never going of 61°c. Not only are my benchmark scores finally equaling the 3800x averages they're even a little bit above average. Finally feel like I'm getting what I'm supposed to out of my CPU.
Did you try only using Ryzen Master to adjust and measure voltages and peak limitations? Because it seems Ryzen Master gives a better representation of you CPU status then other tools because of the observer effect it might trigger. Especially when cores are in its idle / sleep state.
I dropped 5 degrees from my idle temps with an undervolt to 1.35, from 1.45 on my 3900. Also took the system to 4200mHz all core, and saw a 200point cinebench improvement. Will try with the voltage at 1.45 4200mHz just to see.
Article here! www.gamersnexus.net/guides/3494-amd-ryzen-3000-undervolting-offset-override
Watch our AMD R7 3800X review here: ua-cam.com/video/PAGQwWDyURI/v-deo.html
Do a
Ryzen 9 3900x SMT ON VS
Ryzen 9 3900x SMT OFF VS
Intel I9 9900k Hyperthreading OFF VS
Intel I9 9900k Hyperthreading ON
would be interesting!
Could it be that the infinity fabric frequency in zen 2 is affected negatively by undervolting in a way that affects performance in AMD case.
Steve, If the clocks do stabilize with u/v I suppose there can be a benefit to .1% lows in games from a mild u/v, any thoughts?
Hi team, wouldn't be better if we were to use PPT and to lower it in the precision boost option. I think its under AMD CBS (in Gigabyte BIOS) and change it to a lower stock value. I.e. change from 88W in a std value for 3700x (65w tdp chip) to 70, 65 or 60W.
Now with PBO and Loadline Calibration: ua-cam.com/video/YQ8zdprzEjI/v-deo.html
Thanks for the follow up! I'm not sure at this point whether the 'clock stretching' is closer to a bug or a failsafe to keep the CPU running.
Great content piece as always and hopefully we can all get some rest soon lol.
This is the result of more "smartness" in the new modern CPU world. They are behaving more like GPU's now with sophisticated firmware. When the CPU require/requests more voltage then the current value offset set in BIOS the motherboard will attempt to override the current setting and this causes strange behavior we are seeing.
I love your channel! :D Such high-quality content backed by someone not willing to publish false results.
It probably works on 1v because it's also optimized for servers at around 1v. A consumer board should probably chrash though. It's just not running properly
What i have heard, it is not biosbug but a processor AVFS feature
Optimum Tech, your journalism and integrity is truly commendable- and I would like to acknowledge that. Also, thank you for the rich and professional excellence of your content. Keep it up!
I just want to say thank you for all the hard work you guys do, really impressive what you managed to test so far and i really highly appreciate that.
So thank you.
Thank you!
This and a "Thank You".
Agreed. The Steve is LEGEND
I see this as a good thing, instead of crashing, it slows down, which is a much better alternative for most people. They just need to implement a way for you to tell that his is happening.
That would be a good idea.
so do overvolting too, detecting micro stutter is a bit annoying
I see why that can be good for many people. But, for experienced overclockers, there should really be way to disable that behaviour, because it looks like it can limit before it would actually get unstable, many say that they can get higher manual all core overclock at lower voltage than stock or PBO.
@@Ph42oN ya it would be nice to have it both ways. But I doubt it ever happens.
I noticed CPU utilization being capped off when undervolting using an offset (task manager showed 87% utilization on all threads). That's one way to tell I guess...
2019 Belle Delphine sells bath water
2020 Steve sells GN overclocking water
"GN overclocking water" doesn't sound bad for an open loop liquid.
Hell yeah!
She got murdered for that😂
If you look on the ingredients, the bottle is filled with the tears of JayzTwoCents after loosing the OC battle.
Steves hair sold as a compounded thermal pad. We know he shampoos with Grizzly Kryonaut anyway. Would buy.
We're like cavemen poking and prodding alien tech monoliths in trying to figure out how these Ryzen chips behave.
appreciate the movie ref
@@fredEVOIX Talking monkeys are real, dude.
@@CapaNoisyCapa nope 2001: A space odyssey
Not really, the CPU has some throttling status registers that are not being reported by most tools - but are documented in CPU documentation.
@@metacritical42 Indeed.
I just watched this whole video and didnt understand one thing! So proud of myself lol.
I only understand that if I slightly undervolt it the temps go down and my junction temp isnt going BAT $H!T MAD!! 😆👍
dude I don't care about stupid tests, I just want to game on a amd cpu and Nvidia gpu LAPTOP without the cpu reaching 95+ Celsius for no reason on performance mode and just destroying my laptop with thermal throttling! GET IT?
The blue bars on the side are a nice touch.
People are just now picking up on those?
@@SirNickyT I think it's a GN meme now... (goes out to shout at the clouds)
@@SirNickyT Being condescending just makes you sound insecure.
@@iliilili310 sounds like someone pretty familiar with insecurity. It was a genuine question because steve pointed them out like 4 times when they started using them but they're so subtle you could easily not notice them. I can't help it if you can't tell the difference between being condescending and genuine curiosity. Get over yourself. 😁👍🏼
@@SirNickyT Desperately attempting to be condescending, again. You really are insecure, huh?
Good job once again. I particularly like the way you were clear in stating this was not meant to shame the person who did the original video, and kudos to them for taking it down once they realized the data was wrong.
One of the few no bulshit channels on UA-cam
I've been using a -0.125 offset with an LLC of 2 on my 3900X in the Crosshair VII Hero since I got the CPU. My Cenebech scores improved slightly and I got 15c lower idle temps and 5c lower temps under full synthetic load. I started doing this because the Asus bios on the C7H seemed to be putting more voltage through the CPU (up to 1.5v at idle). AMD has since explained the high idle voltage on Reddit, but I'm happy that it allowed me to stumble into the benefits of using a negative offset on the 3900X.
One question, why are you not at a million subscribers yet GN? The quality of the data you provide and nearly flawless presentation allows for you to easily attain these viewership numbers. Like always, best of luck's and fantastic work for the entire GN team.
@Blokka Nokka ikr? it is well deserved
Even with the performance loss which looks to be 20% at 1v on the 3900x it still seems the improvement in thermals is something that in certain builds might be worth doing if you want to put it in an ITX build with limited cooling. It would be interesting to see more numbers on what the performance loss vs thermals improvement looks like at other under voltage amounts. Interesting video as always and keep up the good work.
If i recall correctly, setting a power consumption limit (PPT limit, cTDP, whatever) works better than limiting voltage, at least from what I've read from 1 or 2 reddit comments. And the thermal results are similar, without the risk of possible instability.
@Advocatus Diaboli I'm sure they hate you too.
Far better to use a SOC which is designed to run to a low power budget, 10W passively cooled is not unreachable.
Simply buy a cheaper CPU with a lower TDP rather than buy a Ryzen
@@RobBCactive Nah, that's shit.
I can't believe that Ryzen 3000 has been around for so long, holy crap.
Same, already 1 year... not long from now it’s gonna be suddenly 8 years ago
I see 4 and 3 as of 2024 dec
@@Player_g1 Holy crap.
Could you please do a deep dive into memory Frequency & Latenzy scaling inkl. IF OC too - that would be so awesome!
I've also just been patiently waiting for memory scaling. GN's initial Ryzen Memory coverage was the best by far, and curious to see how much of that behaviour carries over to Zen2
Ya, new too. GN does great coverage on the original Ryzen memory frequency vs latency. Like to see if Zen 2 follows in the same way.
lab501.ro/procesoare-chipseturi/amd-ryzen-3000-part-iv-ddr4-scaling-english-version
Best article I have seen so far.
Pls
I'm sure hes working on it though it seems obvious
www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-zen-2-memory-performance-scaling-benchmark/
Great set of tests. I was exactly looking for something to do with performance and temps when the Vcore is lowered for reduced power consumption. Looks like undervolting does wonders for cpu temp and power!
Just make sure your getting proper rest. your smashing it out of the park and really dig deep. cheers mate.
Power figures would have been nice so we could see how the performance per watt changes when severely undervolted.
Kudos for the way you have the time bars on each of the slides. It helps me find the slides I am looking for when searching back. Even more important is the way you do a time bar for each question on Q&A sessions. Very helpful. Thanks
Recently I noticed this behavior while tuning my Vega 56. Voltage at 975mv p7 seemed stable, clocks were at ~1620mhz while monitoring, but during games I was actually losing 10-15 fps compared to 1075mv.
Temps definitely improved but at the cost of performance, even though the numbers all looked good during stress testing.
"Its not wise to undervolt Matisse, unless you enable the OC-Mode (fixed frequency).
That's because the CPU is constantly monitoring its supply voltage.
When it sees the supply voltage below the desired level, it starts increasing the VID request from the VRM controller.
When the VID request increases above the maximum voltage allowed by FIT, the clock stretchers will kick in. Your performance will decrease, despite the change is not visible
in the frequencies diplayed by the usual monitoring software.
For example on the 3900X sample I have, the default VID request during CB20 NT is 1.3125V.
With the offset set to -25mV the VID request raises to 1.33125V or so. At -75mV the VID request is already 1.36875V and increasing the negative offset any further will trip the stretchers.
There is an undervolting margin available, but it is tiny.
The exact behavior will depend on the silicon specimen and the workload.
Its also the very reason why this guy thinks he is running at > 4.2GHz with just 1.00V..."
Source: www.overclock.net/forum/28044514-post7.html
Here's a user's own UV testing: www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/cfdog5/realworld_3700x_analysis_and_other_ramblings/
Nice copy pasta
There is one guy that ubdervolted his 3600 and is happy. He shows me benchmark results. c20. aida64... temps dropped to 55 in game and benchmark scores became bigger.
@@Kern1909 and who's that guy?
@@syedsaadnasim You can count me as well.
@@Kern1909 tell me your settings in detail please
I got 3900x with a x570 taichi at -160mv offset completely stable, my temps decreased about 10-15° and i haven't noticed any performance loss
Optimum Tech is a great channel! You guys would love working with him!
This is very interesting, I honestly never really thought about it like this. I want AMD's explanation follow up for sure.
I've had the best experience limiting the watts limit. Even a small limitation of this option has a very positive effect on the temperature. Without losing much performance .
Why oh why?? Temperatures are a byproduct of doing work.
Instead of limiting peak watts you should just buy a cheaper CPU or use power management to throttle the CPU.
Under-volting has the potential to reduce waste heat, transistor gate leakage and improve efficiency, leading to better performance with that specific die.
It all depends on the silicon quality being high enough to operate at lower V and hence reduce power consumption.
But if dynamic chip management regards under-volting as an error due to bad p/s or mobo then the whole technique is invalidated.
@@RobBCactive my dude this solution / tip is over a year old.
today there are good power plans or CTR that help WITHOUT any loss of performance
so thank you for your time for the comment but "context" and "time" would have saved you these lines!
Thanks for the explanation! As always, I love the deep, realistic done into the performance hinders the CPU BIOS changes. Thanks!
Just want to say thanks to the Gamers Nexus team for all the awesome detailed content you have been producing lately. Keep up the awesome work guys! It great stuff to watch a learn more from.
This is entirely over my head, but fascinating to watch anyhow 😁
Optimum Tech, the KING of compact builds!!! Excellent youtuber.
Yes, props to him for the quick response on the correction. He admitted he was fooled by the numbers and pulled the video as soon as realized what was going on.
I'm not into SFF, but subscribed and watch his videos.
I personally have found a sweet spot for the old 2700x at 1.2v fixed voltage with 4ghz on all cores. Temps and consumption are down (the spikes of the auto boost are crazy), multicore performance slightly better, single core workload slightly worse!
For me it's a win-win better performance with locked 1.2v instead of 1.45v spikee
Same thing on my 3600 :)
My sweet spot for my R5 3600 was 1.275Vcore, 1.25 VID, runs stable it seems at 4300Mhz
@@jay-d8g3v hilarious how loads of 3600 chips clock another than my 3600x
@@notaflyy I couldn’t get mine to go over 4050Mhz, these guys’ chips are just built different
After watching this video, I decided to do a performance validation on my undervolted Ryzen 5 2600X. Running Cinebench R20 twice with stock auto voltage and my -0.1V offset, I noticed that the undervolt led to a 2% increase in all-core performance with no change in single core (with a noticeable change in boost frequency from 3975 MHz undervolted down to 3850 MHz at stock auto voltage), a 2-4 degree reduction in CPU peak temperature, and a 3-5 watt reduction in power consumption as measured by my UPS.
You can increase efficiency further by modifying the ryzen balanced power plan to use a minimum processor state of 5% instead of 90% and raising BCLK to 102mhz or higher, however do note that this might bring potential instability.
@@thetrashman5252 I don't have a Ryzen Balanced power plan, even after installing the latest chipset drivers.
@@b0bsaget007 Strange, try making the same modification on the regular balanced plan instead i guess, the results should be similar.
@@thetrashman5252 it seems to already be set to 5% minimum by default.
@@b0bsaget007 Interesting, well in any case if you want to still increase performance you can try raising BCLK, however that might require a less aggressive undervolt and might not function on some boards.
I'm running my 3600 at 1.168v 4000Mhz all cores, using the Ryzen Master software. If I go one step below at 1.1624v, the system crashes
Cinebench R15 Scores
Stock Profile - 1577
Undervolt - 1588
I'm using a stock cooler btw
My explanation would be that during stock settings, the V rises to 1.4s to touch the maximum boost clock but then it heats up the chipset instantly to 75 degrees or so and it throttles it back.
Using the undervolt, the temperatures don't rise as much and that's why it's able to stick to 4000Mhz. Also that people would say the software reports incorrectly, well if I underclock it a little more it doesn't send. Which means that it is in fact sticking to the voltage I'm giving it
This is super interesting stuff! My overclocking practices generally involve simply running Prime 95 for 10-20 minutes to make sure my voltage is stable for the clocks I'm getting. I'll have to keep this in mind as I start tuning clocks on my 3600.
20 minutes of stability testing isnt enough...
So decreasing it down to 1 volt lowered heat output rather dramatically, and also lowered performance as well.
Though, did power efficiency improve or worsen?
Taking the "CB Mark" for CineBench R20 nT score difference, where the 1 volt undervolted one performed 80.8-82.5 % of stock.
And the corresponding graph for the temperature Tdie, where we can see a reduction from about 60 C down to about 30-40 C, and if we say that the ambient temperature were a constant 25C, then we could say that the power dissipation reduced to only about 30%, though extremely rough calculation based on the idea that a heatsink has a linear delta-T/watt figure through its operational range, this would mean that the CPU's power efficiency is about 2.7 times higher. (I would say that seems unrealistic.)
So an actual power consumption comparison plot would have been far more interesting, then the Tdie plot in my opinion. (Since Tdie will greatly vary with what heat sink one has, the power consumption would mostly be effected by clock speed and feature utilization on the die itself. (leakage currents are though temperature dependent.))
In the end, how much did the power efficiency actually improve? If it improved at all. Could be useful to know if running these in servers or the like.
extremely likely that efficiency improved, most consumer chip products are on the upper end of the scale, around the nosedive in efficiency
my ryzen 1700 runs at 1.08v all the time at 3.2 ghz under boost automatically and has very low temps and 45w tdp and the stock cooler thats 95w can overclock good with noctua normal silicon paste before it dries after 3 years and goes back up to 80c to 90c from 60 - 80 c and i overclock to 3.8 ghz and 3200 16 16 16 35 cas ram on 1.350 v core and 1.360 v ddr and i tested the cpu in burn benchmarks not only games where everytimes stays under 60 but crashes when the paste is dried because rhe temps rise up too fast
Hey guys sorry to nitpick, but volts * amps = watts (power). You have it messed up in the description.
Best balance I've been able to find for my 3700x is setting a negative offset of 0.09 while also enabling PBO with 200mhz. As I understand it, the PBO setting kind of counters the negative offset, but not the extent that it ever really over volts like it did stock. My out of the box vcore was damn near 1.48 under load on an Asus x470 gaming-F, and temps were in the mid 80's in cinebench r20. Now my temps don't exceed 76 in the same test, and my vcore under load hovers between 1.34-1.39. My cinebench score actually slightly improved, and my multi core results are consistently between 4,865-4,900+, while my single core is 495-499. I think this slight improvement in results and thermals mirrors your results on your 3900x with negative 0.1 offset.
Idle temps also dropped from mid 40's and 50's to low to mid 30's now. Gaming temps in really cpu demanding games like BFV are in the low 60's , and most games stay in the 50s.
That's great! Are you using the prism cooler?
@@KapanthPT yep. Stock cooling. Coming from a delided 4790k with a noctua I wasn't sure what to expect with the wraith, but I'm honestly impressed. It's in my old HAF 922, and that case has good airflow, so I'm sure that's helping a bit too.
Thanks for another eye opening segment . Had a strange feeling about things when a Ryzen 5 3600, already overclocked to 4.5 GHz and started at a Vcore of 1.38V, seemed to gain some serious thermal headroom with each decrease of the Vcore value. Ended up not going any lower than 1.5V ( in Override Mode) before I started having concerns and questioning a too good to be true scenario. Then I stumble upon this. Thanks for ALL the great research and crunching GN & team.
My 3600 is a dud. It can barely handle 4200ghz at 1.38v on a tuf x570 plus MOBO, seems to be a bronze sample 😂
you've degraded your CPU badly if that's at a static oc. the limit for matisse is 1.32v anything over that will cause degradation. I did the same thing.
Awesome work! Love your content. I send my friends to your channel when they are looking for info on what hardware to buy. You and buildzoid are some of the hardware youtubers I actually trust.
I undervolted my rx 570 all the way down to 970mV at its stock speed of 1250MHz, and got a very, very slight possible improvement by +1 fps on average in benchmarks, but also about a 20C drop in temps, with the max temps eventually settling around 67C in furmark without even having to spin up my fan super loud. initially I'd tried overclocking it, but had pretty abysmal results, and i could barely even get it stable at 1300MHz. so i tried undervolting instead and I guess I just got a golden undervolter. I've decided im pretty happy with the stock performance at this point, given how little power its sipping and how little heat its producing.
and ur gpu die very fast;p
@@Venom-gs4nz I've had it like that for over a year now and it's never had any problems. Still performing great. In any case, undervolting doesn't cause increased wear. It's generally best to run it at the lowest voltage that is still stable if you want to increase the life of a processor.
I'd like to know the real reasons the 3000 series is volted the way it is. I personally and hav seen from countless others, that lowering voltage to around 1.25-1.275 (peak) results in much lower thermals and as good or better cinebench scores +/-2%. AMD must have known this. What is going on there? Something to do with peak/consistent max clock preformance?
Seriously?
Compatibility. This is why OC'ing exists at all, companies clock their CPU's conservatively so that when you drop them in a system they just work.
What you're doing is just dropping the voltage to match their conservative clocks.
Factory settings have to work on every CPU in that skew, locally tuned settings only have to work for the hardware/software actually used.
Seriously people oc GPU and it seems to work fine but months later a different game has crashes until the boost is turned off.
People don't like dynamic CPU management because they want to say the RN YZOK has 3.7 Ghz base clock with 4.2 precision boost, with this benchmark score.
Imagine if the numbers changed greatly because you dialed the a/c lower.
The best thing I got from this video was that unlike mine, your 3900X actually consistently stays at max boost clock during a 1T R20 run.
Mine at default settings runs about 300 MHz lower and I can't improve on it at all.
I sure hope a BIOS or X470 chipset update will fix this.
Is your cooling solution working correctly? Might be thermals that hold it back from boosting
@@asmodin88 I have a Noctua NH-D15 and my case has very good airflow.
it seems a board problem rather than cooling problem. Maybe VRMs overheating?
@@劉奕彤-q6g X470 Aorus Gaming 7 Wifi. VRMs not getting above 50 degrees.
why use default settings? set vcore 1.35v and run again everything. Also you can try to use Asus tool to CCX OC check der8auer video.
A -.13V offset bumped my single and multi core scores in C15 and Passmark on my 3900X - better than forcing a 1.352V
I'm on an ASUS Crosshair VIII Hero which appeared to have high voltage at idle and load.
thats nice, but try stability testing instead
@@jscb7003
How much more stable do you need it?
thats happening on others also Taichi has some voltage scaling issues at idle you would think before releasing this platform they would of figured this crap out
And I thought I was cool with my 102mhz BCLK -0.1v 2700X.
Yep, undervolting outsmarts the pbo, because temperature becomes at some point most important factor on boost
Do DDR4 speed dependancy benchmarks next
I've been messing with undervolting my 3900x with a negative -0.1000v offset, now while my machine's performance was sort of on par, Cinebench etc were fine, did some x264 encoding , but it was completely unstable on idle, it would bluescreen as the voltages dropped to low.
That wasn't straight away, this was after a good 30 minutes of idle.
A -0.050v offset is stable on both load and idle, but temps jumped up by a good 7 - 9c in Cinebench and AIDA64 stress test.
Coming from Intel it's been a whole new learning curve with Ryzen 3000.
i got a 3900x too and I'm missing my 4790k. Intel just works rock solid. I'm regretting not building a system with 9900k.
Been playing with my 3700x since getting it, I've found 2 things that have helped performance, thermals and voltage with my ASUS X470 PRO. Simply setting the vcore to an offset of -100mv kept things quieter, cooler and performance was almost identical, another way was I had it running at 4.2Ghz 1.352v, I've noticed at stock it will run at 1.331-1.362v during an all core 4.2-4.3 boost, I've never seen it actually hit 4.4 yet, I just can't stand those voltage spikes while idle which cause the fans to ramp up like crazy for no reason, even with a very strict fan curve so I think I will be keeping it running at 4.2 1.352v, I know there was a post saying Ryzen 3000 series shouldn't go further than 1.325v for all core but I honestly don't believe that at all seeing as it is doing higher than that at stock when all core boosting, also cores can still sleep and slow down even with a manual overclock which is very interesting, even though HWiNFO doesn't display that, Ryzen Master does show lower core clocks and sleeping cores even with a manual overclock set
That was my concern: cores not sleeping and always run at 4,2ghz. I will look into it, since my 3700x runs 4,2ghz on 1,25volt on aida64 90min stress run. Temps dropped 10 degrees and especially the max temp spikes didn't exceed 90 degrees celcius.
I have the same processor but a different asus motherboard , how do i set the offset in mv instead of v? I can only do 0.0625 adjustments
Look at derBauer his video on CCX-overclocking. Interesting stuff, especially for the 3900X and 3950X.
Repost
This
Der8auer I think not derBauer
@@HappySlappyFace
The 8 is some weird SMS-substitute for the b. Bauer is a German name.
Nice to see everyone is enjoying their AMD experience.
Navi power-play tables!!!
Give them some time to breath - im sure they will do it! :)
Yeah im sure they will.. just eager to see results and they always do a thorough job! 👍🏽
@@lovendhranaidu5606 yeah, you are charging an open door here... :D
Undervolting Navi ? Yes please.
@@dongurudebro4579 You mean overvolting the door ;)
7:45 -- 5 gold stars 🌟 🌟 🌟 🌟 🌟 for understanding and pointing out a non-zero axis.
Undervolted R5 3600 with Ryzen Master 1.18125V @ 4.2Ghz and it works like a charm (air cooling). Temps down few celsius and Cinebench R20 went up 3460->3810
AMAZING! The new Ryzen CPU's are really Cool for all Tech Nerds. Every Day we find some new things
I tried a 3600 at 1.325V and 4.125GHz, it reaches 72°C on booster. In Stock it was 85ºC
It gets 1567pts on CB15 and it was 1508pts in stock.
I used AMD Ryzen Master program to test.
I maxed out PBO and put about a -.08 offset on my zen+ / 2700x system and get insane results. 4.3 ghz all core with any submaximal load. You said these tests were done with PBO off right? I'm curious if buildzoid's offset instructions still apply.
You shoudl do a test with eco mode. I changed my 5800x on the master to eco mode 65w and it still runs 15661 in cinebench and while gaming with a 3090 it runs at 5 to 10% and even lower. So for gaming eco mode is a must use in my opinion
Your mileage may vary depending on your setup. On Asus X470-F Gaming + R7 2700X + Wraith Prism combo undervolting with vcore offset is beneficial. Because on default Asus X470-F Gaming outputs ridiculously high vcore and that heats up the cpu too much with Wraith Prism boxed cooler. When setting vcore offset to -0.1 you get higher boost clocks that stay on longer and your idle/surfing temps decrease thus leading to quieter system. After vcore offset of -0.1 the CB15 score went up quite a bit.
Exactly what i done on me asus strix 470x-f hooked with Ryzen 3700x ,after i put undervoolt offset -0.10000mv, i get lower temps like 35C idlle and 65C load max,with pbo,xfr and smt all on,processor still able up on all cores 4.395 gz and that result in Cinebench r15 score=2100,wich i think is good.
So it accidentally auto-underclocks itself. I underclock all my stuff anyway to gain back efficiency. If I lose 5% performance and 20% power then I see that as an absolute win.
Indeed you under-clock a CPU from a higher bin, so you MUST under-volt to justify the more expensive CPU.
Still late steppings under-volting the cheapest model likely works.
Optimum Tech rulez dude.
I got my AMD Ryzen 5 3600 to undervolt 1.100 volts at 3.9GHz all cores. 32GB DDR4 3200MHz to 3400MHz. No crashes stays cool and perfect performance. Thank you!
Just got a 3800X for my old B350 TUF board to replace my 2600 and noticed it was super hot in comparison - offsetting core voltage by -0.1v lost about 4% performance in Cinebench multithreaded and less than 1% single thread, but -0.075V lost no performance at all and dropped my max temps under load by 6C.
the fact these nodes can boot and be stable at 1v shows that Ryzen 3000 on mobile, is going to be pretty bad-ass... I mean, stable at that low, yes it's 3ghz, but seriously that's really decent. lock the mobile chips to 1.2v and temps and frequency probably would be pretty impressive in a mobile part.
my 1700 on 14nm can play games on 1.08v and 3.2ghz and thats the automatic boost on all cores and it has a tdp of around 40 w
I wonder if Steve is planning an individual ccx overclocking video. Der8auer had some success that way. Seems like the best method of overclocking so far. I'm just hoping board partners start implementing it into their bios.
Yeah, but this tool Roman used to CCX-OC isnt widely avalaible.
Thanks for this video
I have my 3600 set at 4Ghz on 1.3v and returned my X570 board and kept my X470 as it doesn't use as much energy and less heat.
Ya I believe, as of right now anyway, the x570 is stupid expensive. For the average gamer, PCIE 4 is not really a benefit. Today's gpus are unaffected. Content creation would have increased speed for NVMe drives. But for gamers, I would wait for price decreases. Just my 2 cents.
@@AxialGT I had the X570 Taichi which was only $300 which isn't to bad but it just amped up the volts even when I tried to set it to 1.35v it was going over 1.5v. I put my 3600 into my X470 Taichi and it goes to what I set it and listen to my commands haha. X570 has a lot of bugs and just didn't see $300 worth it at this point.
@@thephily7432 I've gotten the same overclocks, same cinebench scores, same fps, on my $100 x470 motherboard when compared to my $330 x570. Me as a gamer the x570 is not worth the extra cost. So for me the x570 is not worth the extra cost. And your right, chips run cooler too on the x470.
@@AxialGT Wish I only paid $100 for my X470 haha. Got a deal on the X370 I have in my son's and put a B350 in my daughters which overclock's just fine too. I'm happy Newegg took the X570 back as a return though.
interesting glad you made this video cause i planned undervolting my cpu due partly pairing with a b350 gaming f and hoping it would assist vrm temps. in the past ive undervolt fx processors but never verified if performance degraded
The takeaway for me (oddly) is that my cheap Asus Prime B450M-A allows the R5 3600 to perform just as good or better than the expensive boards used in this test. My single-core Cinebench R20 result is 486, and that's with CBR20 running in WINE on Linux, and multiple desktops loaded up with other applications, including a Windows 7 virtual machine. Unbelievable what this CPU is capable of, even when paired with a sub-$100 MB.
Thanks to playing with this I was able to set my Ryzen 5 3600 at locked 4Ghz at 1.15 volts and not only I got rid of the saw-tooth reports in monitoring software but my CPU runs stable at freaking 18'C cooler. All tests like furmark and cinebench, 3dmark report same or slightly higher values. Still worth it for almost 20'C reduction of temp. Either it actually works or I was very lucky with the chip.
Ok this is driving me nuts. Why does that one Ryzen CPU always have what looks like tape over its number? What's up with that?
Yea I wanna know too!
Thats the model youtubers get before product launch for testing.
Because he didn't get they CPUs from AMD and he got them before launch, he doesn't want AMDs to see the serial numbers, so they can't track the leak.
I use another method, the kingdom come deliverance initial screen, in window mode at the lowest resolution possible with the lowest settings possible.
This is my cpu vs my cpu in various power plans, so no problem related wit that one "shilling situation". The monitoring tool is the HWinfo.
I've tried all possible overclocking scenarios and the voltage is still spikes like crazy without any meaningful effects.
So the best scenario is to let everything stock in the bios and overclock only the ram and put the Ryzen power saving plan in windows. The performance is nearly the same, without seeing the voltage and temperature spikes bouncing all over the place.
I use the Vega 56 and the fps is 270 with the low power and 286 with the maximum performance.
Also the voltage stays at 1.31 under 100% load and 1.38v boost.
yeah, nvidia pascal did the exact same thing. Truthfully Radeons do not, but stability flies right out of the window though... even if performance 'actually' improves.
I underclocked my ryzen 3600x to 1.2375 volts and fixed the voltage to 4.125 and it’s cinabench r15 only went down 20 points and dropped 20 C, although I am bound by thermals as I have a hyper 212
What was your temps before? I have a cryorig h7 which is very comparable to the hyper 212. One prime95 small ffts I get up to 93-94c. That's with pbo and auto oc. Turning them off doesn't lower temp much.
I used an offset voltage of +0.168 (1.262v reported by cpuz) with 4.2ghz and lowered Temps by 7°,
I was hitting 4.2ghz with 1.37/1.38v before using everything in auto
Larkin Matteson my temps were hitting upper 80s mid 90s now they are at 65 ish
@@henry1477 might have to do that. I don't like mine running that hot and my cooler shouldn't have that much trouble handling it. Kept my 2600 at 4ghz under 75c on prime95. Gaming obviously doesn't make the 3600x run that hot but still
On my 3600 i locked tge voltage at 1.25v and clocks at 4ghz. Saw thermals go down by 15C and cinebench go up by 50...
Stock was thermalthroteling like crazy for me
this is good to know, thanks. I have a -100mV offset for my 1600 and I believe I'll need to remove or reduce that when I plan to upgrade to a 3700X
I started messing with Vcore on my 3700X literally a day ago, this is precisely the video I needed.
whats the best settings for cool temp n Voltage for anything above 4ghz on all core
Interesting info and seems to pretty much mirror what I have seen, my 3900X was running at 1.42v out of the box (ASUS Strix-F, BIOS 4012 - still not updated). I manually set it to 1.2v - worked fine but only boosted to 4.1Ghz. Now running 1.375v (shows as 1.38v) and it boosts to 4.55Ghz - still can't get that 4.6, might have to try 1.85v.
Temps at idle are around 36 now (was 49 at stock - but I also had a crap mate with the water block which did not help), but does climb into the 70's under god load - running Handbrake 1080p encoding. If I run the radiator fans at max speed it never gets above 76 though.
Not going to update the BIOS till a lot of the issues are worked out - but I do wonder if most of the behaviours (temperatures, voltages, boosts etc) are all down to very immature BIOS/AGESA? Either way, the 3900X makes light work of most things :) I should also point out the the 4012 BIOS for the Strix-F mucks the RAM voltage right up, so had to fix that manually as well.
1.85v? are you trying to cause a house fire or something? we're not on 32nm anymore my guy
And that is why you should always proof read before posting ;) I meant 1.38 naturally ;)
Got my 3600 at -0.625 V; any lower and CPU benchmarks start to drop.
Just wish it would downclock at idle the way my 2600 did - the temps on this one bounce up and down like a flea on crack.
How do you set an offset ?
@@alexjs2383 *How do you set an offset ?*
I've since gone to a fixed voltage because it minimizes load/unload temperature bouncing.
Hold on...
I tested this and benched. I explained how and why in the video.
The boost and core variance in the algorithms, works in a fashion.
Now the temp and voltage are microcoded, if the temp is lower the clock will rise.
Buy reducing voltage at the core, this lower temps and boosts are higher and bench results.
I did not push as low as 1v.
I did lock voltage at 1.225 and 1.32 and 1.35 as well as 1.37.
But I let the other compensation run to allow compensation and also not.
On total lock, there was no boost. (As you would expect) however due to science or ohm's law, by adding current, you could get a higher speed with lower temps.
On the video I did this is shown at 0:32 showing a boost clock of 5.1ghz
There should be some bench results in the video.
When I did the video it was more for the lower temps and expected performance. It just so happened to jump up more than expected.
Testing was performed over a week and serveral benches were ran to check the results.
However. Due to the performance variable being as it's software and algorithmic, the results varied constantly.
CB R15 varied by 200 points on the same clock speeds and settings.
In monitoring all bench and performance results, all hardware with "energy saving" and " boost stepping" would not consistently boost or peak clocks at the same times. This resulted in a significant difference in results, by up to 4/700 points.
The only thing that actually remained a constant was temperatures. (Actually was was required).
However as you have said, all chips and configurations are different and you do get silicon lottery. Therefore one processors result can and do differ significantly in some cases. Therefore this result may not transfer to all CPUs or motherboards.
However a key point is that the voltages on the processors is too high and is not required, this is not saying setting a low core is the right solution. But the processors need to run cooler.
And it appears the stock software does not manage voltage well at all. But this maybe a glitch in mine.
Hope that puts some light on the subject.
I noticed same with my 2700x before. I don't think it's a bug, more like precision boost works. Clocks are set based on actual temperature, power limits, voltage delivered! Etc. You deliver less voltage, frequency doesn't jump as hight.
Same with PBO - all it does is set much higher power limits AND raise CPU voltage. Result are higher frequencies set by Precision boost.
Its like that since Zen+.
"Poking them with sticks and throwing rocks at them." 😆😁😂
I undervolted my 3800X and used PBO. It now holds 4.3ghz all core boost and scores higher in Cinebench R20. 5160 where my previous score all default was 5010 and it would hold just under 4.2ghz all core boost. Temps are never breaching 60 now at full load where as before they could go up to 70. So yes........it works.
An unholy number of charts continues.
r5 3600 owner here, my solution was to high temps and voltages (85+ and 1.4v+ on cinebench r20) after reading/watching/trying lots of online solutions was firstly replacing the awful wraith stealth with a £20 wraith prism. That dropped temps nearly 20c instantly, then, when trying lots of different bios configs I set my multiplier at 39.75 and no PBO and now my CPU does not get any hotter than 75c on 20 min run on cinebench and still scores over 3600 points consistently only a tiny bit lower than my stock scores, now the voltage never goes over 1.2v and have not noticed any degradation in performance in daily use, when I set my multiplier to 40x the voltage went up to 1.3v and the temp another 7-8c so I put it back for a cooler, quieter less hassle PC experience.
R5 3600, 2 x 8 gb Viper 4 3200mhz, MSI B450M Pro VDH Max, Gigabyte GTX 1060 Mini OC 6gb, Coolermaster G650M PSU, Phantek P300 1x 120mm 3 x 140mm, Samsung 850 Evo 240gb, Seagate 7200 1TB. Built to a very tight budget, I know some stuff could be better, GPU next.
I've definitely found a small performance decrease putting my 3600 at 1.1625v, but the temperature difference is huge, in an HTPC mind you, so the temperature control is the point.
Feigel Clan what ghz do u run at 1.1625 volt? I run 3.8 ghz at 1.1000 volt. Is that safe for performance and longlasting ? Meanwhile i’m waiting for kraken x63 / z63 until it’s available in my country. Around september / october i will get the kraken and run 4.4 ghz at 1.350 volt.
I need held with mine also, I have the Ryzen 5 3600 with the stock cooler on a B450 Tomahawk Max board and my temps are high in my opinion, but this is my first build so I don’t know much. I was playing the isle last night and on HWMonitor my temps were 77cel with the highest spikes at 81-83celsius but it did say the max value was 88cel. Idk if that means it ever got at 88 or if that’s like the highest it should get.
@@MrYfz450Sir what Ghz do you run??? and what voltage do you use for that clock? i run 3.8 ghz at 1.1000 volt. max. degree only 60 cel. awesome!!
Georgius Kevin Christian I have everything stock still. This is my first pc and I’ve never messed with them, when I first got it I wasn’t going to overclock anything or temper but idk if I should now? I’m Ryzen Master it says the peak core voltage is 1.3 and my speed I think is 2.5Mhz? I’m so lost sorry
MrYfz450Sir how can the speed is only 2.5ghz? Hmm i think you need to read the reviews for your references, and I suggest you better run all default in Bios.. run everything in auto just like new. Tell me once you done that
Could you revisit this ultra low voltage stuff but for the APUs (65W) I'm interested to see if it can be made to run stable and passively cooled.
I'm talking 20-30W heatsink(s) that fit in a htpc case not massive tower coolers
isnt there a tdp setting instead? or maybe it would just auto throttle
It simply boils down to temperatures. If undervolt causes temps to go down enough (65-70c om 3000 ryzen) it may not loose as much performance if it's running hot. that may be called gain. If temps are decent you may or may not loose as much.
now while there is lower performance at 1v it still wasn't bad considering the huge power and heat drop it really makes the zen2 laptop processors an interesting proposition
wasn't bad until they blue screened because it was unstable
@@madmax2069 according to the video it didn't blue screen when set to 1v which was what was expected but it did take a noticeable hit to performance
@@shaynegadsden maybe you need to rewatch the video then, because they said it blue screened and was unstable
@@madmax2069 I believe that was the voltage offset settings not setting the vcore to 1v but idk which board was which but 1 would do -0.1v the other only -0.05v and trying to push the -0.1v would blue screen
you should also try the positive offset to compare, it will show how the cpu behave in certain condition
How is 1.5 volts safe on a 7nm manufacturing process?
Henru Dorsey as long you keep it cool and not reaching 65 and above. Thats my personal rule.
But use low amp i guest...so still safe
I don't get what the deal is with people here demanding to see the 0 on the vertical axis. If there is no useful data crossing the area and it's not a bar chart or a histogram there's no point in showing a blank plot. It can't be that difficult to read the scale and range from a graph. It's completely common practice to adjust the scale in order to use the plot area most effectively, there's a reason why programs adjust the scale by default.
Machine: Msi B450x Mortar Max, R5 3600, AIO CPU cooler. readings all from ryzen master.
[ ryzen master manual mode, all connected 4.2GHz @ 1.1v, CB Marks 3582, FSB 1866, cpu temp max around 58c, cpu power around 45w ]
[ ryzen master manual mode, all connected 4.3GHz @ 1.15v, CB Marks 3666, FSB 1866, cpu temp max around 65c, cpu power around 50w ]
[ ryzen master PBO mode, voltage excluded, CB Marks 3312, FSB 1866, cpu temp max around 74c, cpu power around 78w ] (cpu frequency goes around 3.9GHz automatically)
i'm really not good at playing with ryzen, i must have something set wrong since with all bios settings at default, one click PBO setting always give around only 3.9GHz and temp goes through up the roof. but now manually set a fixed cpu frequency and a lower voltage still gives better results.
This is the same with me I don't understand these videos cause since I undervolted and set my clock speeds to 4.2 I gained performance
i saw that video, seemed legit with all the comparison tests. but yea with new devices being tested in different configurations it can get a bit tricky to work in ways you want it to.
I undervolt my R5 3600 at 1.225V with 4ghz. Finally, my idle temperature is stable at 38°C~41°C. Running smoothly
-.1v offset looks really good, not a fan of 1v though, thanks for the work!
I flashed the latest MSI B450 Tomahawk bios for 3000 chips even though I have a 2700x.
I gained 500 points in Firestrike and system is very stable.
Severely drop the temperature without compromising stability, but at a compromise for performance? Sounds like a laptop CPU ... AMD would definitely consider this a feature
optimum tech is a good channel
My only question is if you had someone who cared most about reducing noise, would doing this extreme Vcore voltage help them? As your results indicates a lower temperature which implies lower fan speeds needed?
So between this video and the one testing boost clocks and temperature. I finally have my 3800x boosting past advertised max. Before I couldn't get it to boost over 4.3 on any core. Even under water cooling CTR identifies my chip as a bronze sample, it doesn't OC well at all.
I picked up a Freezer II 420 and fitted it in my case with some modification. Then started playing with PBO and voltage offset. Now I'm running a -0.1250v offset and hitting 4.6GHz on any given core. Holding 4.4GHz in a 20min CB20 loop never going of 61°c. Not only are my benchmark scores finally equaling the 3800x averages they're even a little bit above average. Finally feel like I'm getting what I'm supposed to out of my CPU.
Did you try only using Ryzen Master to adjust and measure voltages and peak limitations? Because it seems Ryzen Master gives a better representation of you CPU status then other tools because of the observer effect it might trigger. Especially when cores are in its idle / sleep state.
But did you set a fixed CPU Speed or did you leave the speed at auto? Im thinking that the cpu speed adjusts to the voltage..
I dropped 5 degrees from my idle temps with an undervolt to 1.35, from 1.45 on my 3900. Also took the system to 4200mHz all core, and saw a 200point cinebench improvement. Will try with the voltage at 1.45 4200mHz just to see.