I just got a new MSI Pro Z690-A+12900k, and I want to know which option will give me the best performance.
I'm asking here because Google won't give me any good answers.
I want to maximise my gaming performance on my 13700k and I can get 5.3Ghz down to 1.32v and 5.4Ghz at 1.3275, and was wondering if it would be more beneficial to overlock less of the cores to a higher boost since games tend to use the first few cores more. Am I right, if so what realistic OC should I expect to get (dont want to go above 1.33v)?
Videos
I am just wanting a bit of a boost to my cpu and I was wondering if in Ryzen masters basic view, should I choose the per core or all core option for the curve optimizer mode? What is the difference with them? I don't video edit or do graphics or anything, I just use my pc to play games if that helps.
Hi,
So running my 5600x curve optimizer all cores to negative 22, I saw some videos running negative per core with much lower numbers (5, 10, 15, 5, 10, 5), not sure what I'm doing is right or wrong? should the preferred core have the lowest negative or the highest?
GB Aorus Elite X570.
thanks,
I have a 3060 Ti coming soon and I'd like to overclock my R5 2600 to reduce bottlenecking because I play at 1080p. I want to know how to maximise my results. AFAIK there's 2 ways to go about overclocking, through the BIOS or through Ryzen Master. I also know that if I go through the BIOS (B450 Tomahawk MAX) then it'll be an all core oc but with RM I can do per core overclocks as well as all core.
If I was to do it with RM could I achieve a higher performance boost to gaming with a Per Core OC by setting the clock for 'best' cores higher and then lower the others? Say 4.2GHz for the best and then 4GHz for the weaker cores? If that's even possible.
Or would it be better to do an All core OC through BIOS?
Also about RM, do I need to start it every time I launch windows because I have siblings who also use the same PC for gaming and I'd like the overclock to be there even for their user accounts (non admin accounts)?
Hello,
I recently bought a ryzen 7800x3d with a Gigabyte Gaming X AX mobo. Since benchmark results are quite low wrt to the average results I see online, together with core clock, I tried some undervolt with Curve Optimizer. I got some nice results with a -30 allcore CO. Trying to further optimize, I went with the per-core CO. And I am getting some strange results. To give you the general idea, these are the results with different profiles I tried (best cores are 2 and 4, index from 1 to 8):
-30 all core: stable with prime95, stable with Cinebench 23 (18300 points), 4.83 ghz allcore frequency during C23.
2) -45 all core: core 5 and 7 crashing with prime 95, stable with C23 (18800 points), 4.95 ghz allcore frequency during C23.
3) -35 core 5, -30 core 7, -45 the others: stable with prime 95, stable with C23 (18300 points), 4.83 ghz allcore frequency during C23.
As you can notice, profile 3 gives me the same results of profile 1, in terms of both sustained frequencies and achieved points. My expectations for profile 3 during C23 was to have the 6 good cores at -45 running at 4.95 ghz, core 7 at 4.83, and core 5 slightly faster.
It is like if the per-core voltage offset adapts to the worst one. I thought this might apply only to heavy multi-thread loads, so I tried to run C23 with 8 threads and 4 threads, but I got exactly the same behavior.
However, something even more strange is what I found after trying to further validate my theory with this profile:
4) -30 core 1, -45 the others: core 7 crashing with prime 95, stable with Cinebench 23 (18300 points), 4.83 ghz allcore frequency during C23.
This invalidates my theory, since I was expecting that a -30 CO were applied to each core and, consequently, to be stable with prime 95. So looks like profile 3 and 4 are actually different from profile 1. However, measured frequencies for multi-thread loads are exactly the same. I know that ryzen frequency reads can not be trusted so much due to short boost, but benchmarks results are also the same (I tried cpu-z multi-thread benchmark as well).
Anyone has an idea of how this work? It is quite annoying to see that core 7, together with the slightly better core 5, is dragging down all the other cores which would perform way better otherwise. What's the point of per-core CO then?
Thank you for all the clarifications!
I'm new to overclocking and have noticed something I think is strange with my system. I get better stability with my i9 9900K and MSI Z390 Gaming Edge AC motherboard using per-core frequency overclocking than with all-core synced frequency. To be more specific my system was unstable at 5.0GHz all-cores at 1.35V and wasn't stable until 1.38V. However, using the same settings with per-core (still 5.0GHz on all cores), I was able to achieve stability at 1.35V and was able to even push beyond 5.0GHz. Is there any reason this might be? My ring frequency has been 4.7GHz for all testing. Thanks in advanced for your input!
Something's not right here.
Does your MSI have access to "VR VOUT" voltage sensor ? (Power Pout and Current iOUT are even better bonuses). Check the VRM lablel in HWinfo64.
if you do, please do a test at the unstable 5 ghz at 1.35v with the exact same loadline calibration and other settings with cores synched, that you were otherwise stable at with per core, and check those voltage and power output and amps output areas and post what they say with your unstable settings (if you can get a screen shot before you crash).
Then do the same thing for the per core setting and post the same voltages, power and amps.
Make sure you run the same tester on both examples to keep it apples to apples (power draw and VR VOUT and amps should be identical).
Also make SURE you have all CPU Current limits and power limits maxed out in the bios (Current limit should be 255 amps, power limits can be anywhere between 500 watts to 4095 watts; I just cap it at 300 watts to be mentally sane). AND ***MAKE SURE IN BOTH CASES*** you have CPU Current protection (or CPU Vcore current protection) maxed out as well if it's available in your bios.
I'm guessing there's going to be a difference. If there isn't, then I have no words...
And what exactly do you mean "per core overclocking"?
Can you explain this?Do you mean you have the intel turbo boost ratios for 1 core to 8 core all set to "Auto" and the CPU set to x50 globally?
And then you have the intel turbo boost ratios all set to 50/50/50/50/50/50/50/50 manually?
That's the only way you would get all cores at 5 ghz without the speeds dropping to the 8 core multiplier...
Maybe your doing some auto all core OC thing and setting it to 5GHz? Theres probably a different all core setting that isn't some auto motherboard OC where it fucks with voltages and other shit. Just a guess.
I have an 8700k that hits 4.9 ghz at 1.31 volts. I can't get a higher overclock without hitting really high temps or failing (delidding kit doesn't arrive for another week).
I mainly use my pc for gaming and understand that most games use 3-4 cores. I was thinking about using per core and trying to get the first few cores at a higher clock rate.
I haven't heard of any downsides to per core overclocking, but I've never really heard anyone talk about it.
Are there any downsides to what I want to do? Any tips?
I have Ryzen 9 7950X3D (I am new to OC) is it a bad idea to go Curve Optimizer "All Cores" only or should I go "Per Core"? Do you have any procedure, how to find the best settings Per Core and test it? I was thinking Prime95 or OCCT, dunno which one is better.
Hello,
My server has 4 cpu cores do i need to purchase a 4 core SQL License or i can purchase 1 core license and use the 1 core out of 4 ?
Thank you
Hi!
I'm fairly noob at OC. I am trying to overclock my i5-8600k, as of now I got oc of 4.7 ghz at 1.28 I believe. What's holding me back is that one of my cores (Core 1) has about 20 degrees higher temps than the rest and is around 95 under load if I put more volts to the cpu. In this case is it possible to go higher with the other cores, and let that single core stay? But I guess that odd core will still get hotter when I upper the volt for the rest to go to a higher clock.
Help
EDIT: Yesterday I switched cooler from h412r to a AG400, is something wrong? Is these temps crazy? (prime95 for stress test with avx off)
Hi guys,
I'm fairly new to CO per core (on previous 5700X3D I've just pull -25 all cores, got 9800X3D now, won't be changing it for years so I want to find perfect settings once and keep it like that for years).
In my new cpu core 0,1 are the best, cores 6,7 are the worst. I've followed below guide and ended up with -1, -0, -7, -6, -6, -12, -11 with voltages ~1.190V and -16, -15, -24, -23, -23, -22, -32, -29 with voltages ~1.120V
https://www.overclock.net/threads/amd-ryzen-curve-optimizer-per-core.1814427/#replies
If I understood correctly, in case of multicore computing, all cores get same voltage (of the core with highest voltage needed), so if I put CO -32 all cores, in ie. cine, all cores would run ~1.120V due to core 6 running 1.120V with -32 offset. But in case of single core workload, voltage will very (ie. between 1.080V on C0 to 1.120V on C6).
With CO per core (-16, -15, -24, -23, -23, -22, -32, -29), cores will run ~1.120V regardless if it's single or multicore workload.
questions:
-
if C0 and C1 are better (meaning that in stock conditions they can run 5.2ghz clock with lower voltage) than the rest, wouldn't they be better off with even higher offset (ie. -20 making them run ~1.100V during singlecore workloads) since they are better so they can be pushed harder?
-
if C6 and C7 are crap and amd/board deducted they need higher voltage to be stable, isn't offsetting them harder to keep same voltage as best cores, effectively undermining whole concept of best/worst core as we effectively ignore that and equalize their voltages?
Each CCD sharesone voltage rail for all the cores within that ccd. Most people assume that since curve optimizer allows per core offsets then each core has its own dedicated voltage rail for each specific core however this is NOT the case. If 1 or more cores are active (not parked) and they have a different offsets then the SMU will pick the lowest offset of the group and that’s what you will run at. It doesn’t care that every other core is at -60, if you have one core at -5 and all cores are active then the cpu will effectively run as a -5 offset cpu.
Per-core CO helps single/light-thread boost. (Think single core benchmarks, marketing) no modern AAA game runs on 1 or 2 cores, the year is not 1999)
TL/DR: Worst core dominates anything beyond ideal single threaded conditions.
I decided to do per core CO journey and started with -30 on all cores. On y-cruncher vt3 test i was getting errors in the first minutes and there always says which core fails and then i was adding +2 on that core and test again after. I was doing this several times since i got this results -30 -30 -26 -30 -22 -18 -28 -30 and now i am passing vt3 without any errors. Now i tested with aida64 (cpu/fpu/cache/system mem) and it throws errors after seconds. Now i does not know how to find which core fails on this test... On y cruncher was easy for me because there says which core fails and i know what to adjust next, but on aida it does not show which core fail and for now i cant do anything... i only know that system is not stable. I read about corecycler here and there but i am not sure what this is and how to use... does i need to run this script with prime95 or ycruncher running parallel or ??
I've noticed that the latest M series chips from Apple still contain relatively few CPU cores for example, such as 12. I haven't seen any mention of hyper threading or anything like that either.
And yet these CPUs have a higher multicore performance score on PassMark than some pretty powerful Intel CPUs with more cores.
Is it because the cores are faster? Is low core count an immediate deal breaker for heavy multithreading workloads? Or should I pay more attention to benchmarks and less attention to core count?