the preferred core is generally the one that fails first, if you keep it at 22 and put the others at 30, it will probably work Answer from HoneyEnvironmental49 on reddit.com
Tom's Hardware Forum
forums.tomshardware.com › home › overclocking
Discussion - Per Core vs All Core when overclocking ? | Tom's Hardware Forum
November 11, 2023 - I'm pretty sure this is still how it works, and is why in TPU's 14900K review the 5.5ghz all core OC never has a meaningful victory over the power limits removed (usually loses to stock too) for games. ... Someone who's spent more time on 12th gen+ can feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but historically Intel per core clocks tend to have ratios set for a certain number of cores being used.
Reddit
reddit.com › r/overclocking › all core vs turbo ratio vs turbo ratio offset vs per core
r/overclocking on Reddit: All Core vs Turbo Ratio vs Turbo Ratio Offset vs Per Core
July 3, 2022 -
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.
Top answer 1 of 5
6
Overclocking Per Core yields highest performance, also takes the longest to OC since you have to find the max stable ratio for every individual core at a given voltage, then see if slightly more voltage can get you higher ratios on any. Optimizing this kind of overclock is tedious, but honestly it's still easier than RAM OC. (not to be confused with per core usage, which does not yield much better performance than an all-core OC since Windows balances load across cores by design)
2 of 5
3
If you have adequate cooling, start by raising the short and long duration power limits to their maximum. Then work on memory overclocking, this usually results in significant gains to minimum FPS, which is the most impactful for real world experience. https://github.com/integralfx/MemTestHelper/blob/oc-guide/DDR4%20OC%20Guide.md (MSI has a setting called "CPU cooler tuning" which will raise the power limit) If you want to overclock the CPU cores, I would start by putting a fan on the VRM, raising the switching frequency, and using LLC mode 4 for good voltage stability. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q56HeWwI2qQ Lock the E cores to 3.9Ghz, then set a per core ratio for the P cores. For 1-2 cores, you should be able to 5.3 or 5.4 with good cooling
Videos
r/overclocking on Reddit: Your experiences with undervolt per core?
06:00
Ryzen 7 5700X || PBO Curve Optimizer All-CORE VS Per-CORE || ...
20:09
AMD Overclocking - Curve Optimizer Explained - YouTube
09:24
Curve Optimizer - Ryzen 5000 / 7000 per-core "smart" undervolting ...
09:25
PBO 2.0 VS All Core Overclock Gaming Performance | Ryzen 9 5950X ...
Overclockers
overclockers.com › home › forums › hardware › cpus › general cpu discussion
What is better? Per-Core or All Core overclocking? | Overclockers Forums
October 13, 2017 - Eh, well... I would say all cores at the same speed would be 'better'. There isn't really any noticeable harm in doing it that way where two cores are less. I would also get off the auto overclocking and do it manually at 5 ghz.
Overclock.net
overclock.net › home › forums › intel › intel cpus
Static all-core OC vs per-core OC for gaming latency? | Overclock.net
August 26, 2021 - I as many have allways heard over the years, is that a static all-core OC is better for latency in games. Better for the 1% and 0.1% low framerates. But is that really true anymore with newer processors like the 10900K? And what about the impact of C-states and other power savings we use with a...
PCPartPicker
pcpartpicker.com › forums › topic › 295090-all-core-vs-turbo-ratio-vs-per-core
All Core VS Turbo Ratio VS Per Core - PCPartPicker
I have my voltage settings on Adaptive Mode as well. I switched it from overriding the Vcore to 1.26 because I thought that might send that voltage all the time to all cores not allowing them to clock down ever.
Linus Tech Tips
linustechtips.com › computer hardware › cpus, motherboards, and memory
Curve Optimizer. All Core vs Per Core? - CPUs, Motherboards, and Memory - Linus Tech Tips
October 26, 2021 - 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. side ques...
Reddit
reddit.com › r/amdhelp › curve optimizer. all core vs per core?
r/AMDHelp on Reddit: Curve Optimizer. All Core vs Per Core?
October 26, 2021 -
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,
Top answer 1 of 4
3
All core negative 22 is a great undervolt. The "per core" undervolting is a much more in depth process (and slightly more time consuming) to target each core for a specific undervolt. The ratio between time spent fine tuning and performance benefits are negligent imo. Especially in your case when you get a stable -22 value. If you were unlucky and get a chip that couldn't go past -10 sure, per core might be the best solution to get everything out of said chip. But since it's not your case, i wouldn't bother with the headache tbh.
2 of 4
1
the preferred core is generally the one that fails first, if you keep it at 22 and put the others at 30, it will probably work
Reddit
reddit.com › r/overclocking › ryzen master: all core or per core?
r/overclocking on Reddit: Ryzen master: All core or per core?
March 25, 2024 -
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.
Reddit
reddit.com › r/overclocking › all core oc vs some core for gaming
r/overclocking on Reddit: All core OC vs some core for gaming
September 15, 2023 -
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)?
Top answer 1 of 4
3
Your oc on that voltage quite much depends on your cpu binning. 1.33v is safe enough and going a bit higher should actually be a problem (unless you confront throttling or instability). But sticking to this particular voltage you’ll have to find clock limits yourself. Most of 13700k should be able to get up to 5.5-5.6ghz p-core but without such vcore limits.
2 of 4
2
In my experience you will almost always be on your all core boost limit during 99% of gaming loads. Try it for yourself - use something like HWinfo64, refresh the statistics after starting a game you play and take a look at the frequencies you hit and the averages. There's no downside to tuning 1,2,4 core boost targets, though.
SkatterBencher
skatterbencher.com › home › intel per core ratio limit
Intel Per Core Ratio Limit - SkatterBencher
April 7, 2024 - Second, it allows users to set an aggressive by core usage overclock while constraining the worst cores. Note that while each of the CPU cores now has its own PLL (and its own V/F curve), for processors without FIVR and where the cores share a single VccIA or VccCore voltage rail, only one voltage is applied across all cores.
Supermicro
supermicro.com › en › glossary › performance-per-core
What Is Performance Per Core? | Supermicro
The number of cores does not directly affect the performance per core, as performance per core measures the efficiency of an individual core. However, increasing the number of cores can enhance overall system performance by allowing more tasks to be processed simultaneously, provided that the ...
Linus Tech Tips
linustechtips.com › computer hardware › cpus, motherboards, and memory
Overclocking - 'all core' vs 'by core usage' for daily use? - CPUs, Motherboards, and Memory - Linus Tech Tips
November 16, 2019 - Hey guys this is something that I've never seen a discussion on so I'm curious what the community thought is. Nearly all the overclocking guides, articles, videos etc around are all about 'max stable all-core overclock' settings which makes sense for highest benchmark scores etc, and even back wh...
Facebook
facebook.com › groups › PcBuildersCommunity › posts › 3431515987131758
Should I toggle curve optimizer to all core or per core?
We cannot provide a description for this page right now
Linus Tech Tips
linustechtips.com › computer hardware › cpus, motherboards, and memory
All Core VS Turbo Ratio VS Per Core ? - CPUs, Motherboards, and Memory - Linus Tech Tips
January 14, 2022 - Which one should i use for lower temps and max perfomance (i7 9700).
Reddit
reddit.com › r/overclocking › what is the difference between per ccx and all cores?
r/overclocking on Reddit: What is the difference between Per CCX and All cores?
April 1, 2021 -
So I'm new to overclocking and I saw two separate options for a CPU OC, per ccx and all cores,? what is the difference between them? I just wanted to be safe and not pull the trigger on something that I don't even know about.
Top answer 1 of 2
3
Cpu are divided in ccx with infinity fabrics between each, ccx contain some cores (3600 contain 3 actives core per ccx as example) and all cores means every ccx
2 of 2
1
I am guessing that you are talking about Precision Boost Overdrive 2 (PBO2) with curve optimizer. Its and easy way to overclocking by undervolting. You can choose to set all cores at same level or if you are a bit more advanced you can run tools like 1Usmus https://www.guru3d.com/files-get/clocktuner-for-ryzen-download,1.html tool for identifying which cores can take which level. You should safely be able to set an all-core negative 10 scalar 5 and 100 Mhz above stock limit and be good with a relatively decent air cooler. If you want to go higher, it's the tool above and a LOT of tinkering. Especially beware of not trying to scalar to x10 and throwing all core negative 30 (max) and 250 above. If you are on a 5950 you will be playing around 10-20 depending on cooling on best cores and 15-30 on worst cores.
Linus Tech Tips
linustechtips.com › computer hardware › cpus, motherboards, and memory
Sync All Cores VS Per Core - CPUs, Motherboards, and Memory - Linus Tech Tips
April 19, 2016 - So I managed to get 4.6GHz stable on my i7-4790K at 1.36 volts with all cores synced. Lucky me! However, I can get 4.7GHz and upward stable on all but one core. I'm debating setting the forth core to 4.6GHz but I'm not sure. Thoughts and advice?
Reddit
reddit.com › r/intel › performance p-cores vs e-cores
r/intel on Reddit: Performance P-cores vs E-cores
November 15, 2022 - At this point, the adding E cores boosts full load performance more than the performance equivalent in P cores. Simplistically, if the E core power is lower enough, benchmark is improved because TDP is reached at higher benchmark. Maybe at lower areal cost too. Of course, this all depends on the thread usage of the application code, workload and the scheduler.
Reddit
reddit.com › r/overclocking › how does per core overclocking actually works on intel mainstream cpu runs on windows os.
r/overclocking on Reddit: How does PER CORE overclocking actually works on Intel mainstream CPU runs on Windows OS.
January 19, 2020 -
Well it I tried to do per core oc on my 9900K to maximize whatever headroom it still has left. Not that I really need to do that but it is for my own satisfaction and of course every little bit boost will still be appreciated.
However it doesn’t seems working as expected. For example running prime95 and set 14 threads instead of 16 threads doesn’t maxed out 14 threads to 100% and left another 2 threads free. Another simple example is to run 1 copy of memtest only which supposedly means we only use 1 threads but it doesn’t load the cpu in such a way that 1 thread (whichever it is) to run at 100%.
So how does per core oc works or even how does Intel stock clock works since the stock clock for 9900K is 4.7 GHz for 8, 7 and 6 cores then 4.8 for 5 and 4 next is 4.9 for 3 cores and finally 5.0 for 2 and 1 core.
I have stress tested and found out stability at 5.2 GHz for 5 to 8 cores and 5.5 GHz for 1 to 4 cores which for me doesn’t seems right as I did not expect the jump on the frequency and expecting more gradual clock speed difference similar as Intel stock. Besides with this settings when I stress tested less than all number of cores together it is never show 100% utilization which it seems to me that the idle core is helping the others (not really sure on this though).
So how do I set per core oc and stress test per core oc properly?
Top answer 1 of 2
2
Personally I'd skip per core OCing, between Windows scheduler rotating load between available cores, the fact that Windows will often partially utilize 1-2 cores with background tasks and the fact that it can end up requiring more voltage when used with adaptive or offset voltage (due to the way VIDs increase with frequency), it is not really worth it. If you can get close to 300-400MHz difference then you may see a measurable (but still minimal) difference in low thread benchmarking but in real world tests it likely wont be much. Intel uses per core behavior for stock, not because its a better way of doing it, but because it allows them to advertise high boost clocks while keeping TDP requirements low and yields high. They used all sync all cores on the KS because that's generally the best way to go.
2 of 2
1
I don't use it but if you use it with turbo boost ratios, it determines which core gets which ratio. For example at something like 52/52/51/50/49/49/48/47 for your turbo boost ratios (1 core load, 2 cores load, 3 cores load, 4 cores load, etc), you can set core #7 and #8 for example, to be the x52 cores, core #1 and #2 to be the x51 and x50 cores, etc, core #3 to be the x47 core, core #4 to be the x48 core, etc. However remember that with a max core load, all the cores will still run at the lowest turbo core multiplier. You can't control windows allocation of the loads that go on multiple cores, however. tl;dr: Turbo Per core limit control, if you're referring to the Gigabyte bios, simply lets you specify which physical core gets the specific turbo multiplier. So it has to be used with turbo boost ratios. This isnt my information as I never tested this.
HP
hp.com › us-en › shop › tech-takes › cpu-cores-how-many-do-i-need
CPU Cores Explained: How Many Do You Need? | HP® Tech Takes
July 31, 2024 - Software needs to be optimized to take advantage of multiple cores, and other factors like clock speed also impact performance. Understanding core count meaning can help you make better decisions when choosing a CPU: When a CPU has multiple cores, it can handle multiple threads, allowing it to ...
Top answer 1 of 4
2
I prefer a balanced overclock like PBO using offset voltage adjustments: it assures all the cores are free to boost eagerly under both heavy threaded workloads and light threaded, needed most for gaming. It also leaves the processor to protect itself since it does not prevent the boost algorithm from working. With fixed, all-core overclocking you have to carefully manage voltage and thermals to avoid degradation. For that, most people manage to get similar to slightly improved multi-threaded performance in non-AVX workloads at the expense of degraded single threaded performance. It's rarely able to handle any AVX workload with a low enough voltage to remain stable and acceptable thermals.
After all is said and done, it's rarely worth it. But go ahead and try it out as tweaking with hardware can be massively fun way to spend your spare time. While it seems to be able to degrade 7nm Ryzen I think it's pretty well established that it's robust enough it won't do it quickly, probably due to it's built-in thermal limits at 90C, 110C and 115C (I think).
2 of 4
0
I see it this way if you have cooling solution that can do crazy low temps and you need single core performance as well as multicore then PBO and curve optimisation.
...
That's a good point. The boost algorithm is so temperature sensitive putting really good cooling on a Ryzen CPU is just as good as overclocking on it's own.