Ryzen Owners Zen Garden

[Chrispy_]

Hey guys, been a member officially for about 3 years now but been browsing TPU long before that, recently I took my first step towards building an AMD system since using Intel since the x386/x486 days, gonna retire my i7 6th gen 6700 system, I got the 9600x Ryzen 5 cpu, Gigabyte Aurous Ice B850 mb, 2X16Gb Adata Lancer DDR5, unable to assemble due to waiting on Arctic LF3 ARGB cooler which should come by tomorrow. System will be used for gaming mostly. Just wanted a heads up as to bios configuration for this cpu and ram to have it running optimally as a everyday driver.

Update your BIOS. Newer AGESA does a lot for AM5 if your board has been sat on a shelf since Ryzen 7000 days.

Set XMP/EXPO - the sweet spot is low-latency DDR5-6000. If you have a faster kit you might be better off trying to tune it for the lowest stable latency at 6000-6200MT/s as the minute you go above that you're going to have to change the memory clock to a 2:1 divider which tanks performance with the added latency. You need to hit ~DDR5-8000 speeds to offset the performance penalty of the 2:1 divider vs a DDR5-6000 kit running at 1:1

Set your fan curve to be at a sane speed at 95C. These CPUs will actively try to hit 95C if there's power/voltage headroom to keep boosting. They run hot, they're supposed to run hot, don't worry about it - but just turn your fans so that they're not an unbearable jet engine at 95C. My curve for AM5 is typically 100% fan at 100C, but 70%ish at 95C because it's likely to get there in some workloads regardless of how good your cooling is, unless you've really blown the budget on cooling.

Call it a day there, or if you want more than the 65W TDP, then probably +20% TDP makes sense - Enable Precision Boost Overdrive (PBO) set it to advanced, then manually enter the following values:
PPT = 105W
TDC = 72W
EDC = 108W

You can go up to a 142W PPT with a 9600X while remaining in-warranty, but those 6-cores really don't need it. Unless you were very unlucky with the silicon lottery, you are already into diminishing returns at a 105W PPT, which is equivalent to about an 80W "TDP" instead of the default 65W.

 

[AusWolf]

Set your fan curve to be at a sane speed at 95C. These CPUs will actively try to hit 95C if there's power/voltage headroom to keep boosting. They run hot, they're supposed to run hot, don't worry about it - but just turn your fans so that they're not an unbearable jet engine at 95C. My curve for AM5 is typically 100% fan at 100C, but 70%ish at 95C because it's likely to get there in some workloads regardless of how good your cooling is, unless you've really blown the budget on cooling.

Personally, I'd rather target just below 95 ˚C - 90, or even 85 if cooling allows. If the CPU hits 95, it'll dial back its boost. If that's an acceptable thing, fair enough.

Call it a day there, or if you want more than the 65W TDP, then probably +20% TDP makes sense - Enable Precision Boost Overdrive (PBO) set it to advanced, then manually enter the following values:
PPT = 105W
TDC = 72W
EDC = 108W

You don't need PBO for that - most motherboards let you adjust your TDP (which involves pre-defined PPT, TDC and EDC values) with just one click.

Other than that, I agree.

 

[Chrispy_]

You don't need PBO for that - most motherboards let you adjust your TDP (which involves pre-defined PPT, TDC and EDC values) with just one click.

That's news to me. Is it on the Easy BIOS page (that I always immediately change to Advanced BIOS)? I don't remember seeing it and I must have used a dozen different AM5 boards now.

 

[freeagent]

You need to enable PBO to touch anything related to power other than vcore..

 

[AusWolf]

That's news to me. Is it on the Easy BIOS page (that I always immediately change to Advanced BIOS)? I don't remember seeing it and I must have used a dozen different AM5 boards now.

I'm not sure where it is on other boards. It's in the advanced CPU settings in mine:

You need to enable PBO to touch anything related to power other than vcore..

No you don't. See my screenshot above - PBO is in "AMD Overclocking". I don't need to touch that to adjust my TDP. AMD calls this "eco mode", it's available on every board one way or another.

 

[igormp]

But with a 45 W Eco mode, ever Watt matters. Since running 6000 MHz needs higher SoC voltage, more of that power budget goes to the IO die, and less is left for the cores to work with, resulting in lower core clocks in all-core use.

But is there a significant Wattage change when moving your RAM from 4800 to 6000MHz?
I'd assume it'd be something like a couple Watts, but I haven't tested it myself. If it's indeed a couple watts, then it shouldn't really impact much on the actual CPU clocks.
I can see it causing an impact if the power consumption delta ends up at over 5W.

I could test it myself, but I'm lacking enough free time for such experiments

 

[AusWolf]

But is there a significant Wattage change when moving your RAM from 4800 to 6000MHz?
I'd assume it'd be something like a couple Watts, but I haven't tested it myself. If it's indeed a couple watts, then it shouldn't really impact much on the actual CPU clocks.
I can see it causing an impact if the power consumption delta ends up at over 5W.

I could test it myself, but I'm lacking enough free time for such experiments

It's about a 10 W difference.

With 6000 MHz RAM and 1.2 VSOC, the CPU runs at 4.0-4.3 GHz all-core with a Cinebench R23 score of 16.5k.
With 4800 MHz RAM and 1.0 VSOC, the CPU runs at 4.3-4.5 GHz all-core with a Cinebench R23 score of 17.2k.

All this with a 45 W TDP (61 W PPT) of course.

 

[freeagent]

No you don't.

Gotcha. Looks like its in some kind of overclocking section on your board, there are 2 places to access PBO on my boards, the AMD section is actually broken for me on my 9000. It literally locks clocks to like 600MHz.. still way faster than my old P3 though.

 

[igormp]

It's about a 10 W difference.

With 6000 MHz RAM and 1.2 VSOC, the CPU runs at 4.0-4.3 GHz all-core with a Cinebench R23 score of 16.5k.
With 4800 MHz RAM and 1.0 VSOC, the CPU runs at 4.3-4.5 GHz all-core with a Cinebench R23 score of 17.2k.

All this with a 45 W TDP (61 W PPT) of course.

If you have enough time/like to mess around, what about trying out manually setting up 6000MHz with a lower VSOC?

 

[AusWolf]

Gotcha. Looks like its in some kind of overclocking section on your board, there are 2 places to access PBO on my boards, the AMD section is actually broken for me on my 9000. It literally locks clocks to like 600MHz.. still way faster than my old P3 though.

That's weird. I remember the AMD section being broken on my TUF B550M. That's why I went with MSi this time. It looks like Asus still couldn't be asked to lift a finger to fix it.

My TUF B560-M is a great board, though. Maybe they only give love to Intel.

If you have enough time/like to mess around, what about trying out manually setting up 6000MHz with a lower VSOC?

I've tried lowering the VSOC before. It kinda works with 1.1-1.15 V, but it gives me occasional USB dropout sounds, so I'm not sure how stable it is long-term.

It's not a perfect solution, though, because the memory controller speed is tied to RAM as well, so with higher RAM speed, you're running your MC faster, too. There's only so much power your VSOC saves for you.

 

[Macro Device]

I'm just thinking whether letting the CPU cores use more power by restricting RAM speed, and thus, IO die power use, would be beneficial.

If your main concern is gaming then it won't be beneficial. If your main concern is apps that don't depend on RAM speed it mostly won't be beneficial either because the IO die will mostly be standby. Only a very limited number of applications has CPU+RAM requirements set the way it makes sense to unleash the CPU but hinder the RAM. I wouldn't bother.

 

[AusWolf]

If your main concern is gaming then it won't be beneficial. If your main concern is apps that don't depend on RAM speed it mostly won't be beneficial either because the IO die will mostly be standby. Only a very limited number of applications has CPU+RAM requirements set the way it makes sense to unleash the CPU but hinder the RAM. I wouldn't bother.

That makes sense. I guess games won't benefit as long as they're not hitting the 61 W PPT limit, which they never do anyway.

 

[mtosev]

AMD's Threadripper 9000 "Shimada Peak" Workstation CPU Lineup To Feature a 12-Core Variant; New SKUs Spotted In Shipping Manifests

AMD Zen5-based Threadripper "Shimada Peak" CPUs have been spotted in shipping manifests, revealing 64-core, 16-core, and 12-core variants.

wccftech.com

AMD’s Threadripper 9000 “Shimada Peak” Workstation CPU Lineup To Feature a 12-Core Variant; New SKUs Spotted In Shipping Manifests


Looks like that zen 5 threadripper CPUs are coming out soon. I'm already interested in building a threadripper PC. Guessing I won't have to wait for much longer.

 

[Chrispy_]

Looks like that zen 5 threadripper CPUs are coming out soon. I'm already interested in building a threadripper PC. Guessing I won't have to wait for much longer.

I'm budgeting to replace the 8 oldest CPU nodes in the company renderfarm in Q3, At present a power/space/licensing/density cost analysis favours eight Ryzen 9 9950X nodes, but it's only barely more viable than three TR 7980X nodes because the additional licensing/power/platform costs do eat into their raw CPU performance per dollar.

One of the best things about Zen5 compared to Zen4 is its efficiency, which we don't really see much on AM5 but caught a glimpse of it when the 9700X was released with a 65W TDP, where it basically matched the 7700X at 105W. I'm hoping this bodes well for Zen5 ThreadRipper, especially since the all-core clocks on the 4xCCD and 8CCD models were hamstrung by the 350W socket limit. More efficiency will help those higher CCD-count models the most.

 

[freeagent]

It looks like Asus still couldn't be asked to lift a finger to fix it.

My other 3 Asus AM4 boards don’t have the problem, but it doesn’t matter because I just use the one on the main page, I get good results.

 

[AusWolf]

One of the best things about Zen5 compared to Zen4 is its efficiency, which we don't really see much on AM5 but caught a glimpse of it when the 9700X was released with a 65W TDP, where it basically matched the 7700X at 105W.

That's not really about Zen 5's efficiency, but the fact that 105 W CPUs are terribly inefficient. The 7700 non-X also matches (is within 5% of) the 7700X. Zen 4 is just as efficient as Zen 5 if tuned properly.

 

[Chrispy_]

That's not really about Zen 5's efficiency, but the fact that 105 W CPUs are terribly inefficient. The 7700 non-X also matches (is within 5% of) the 7700X. Zen 4 is just as efficient as Zen 5 if tuned properly.

Agreed, but the relevant chart for me (cropped here) is the VRAY one:

That's the 65W 9700X outperforming the 65W 7700 by 21%. Some of that efficiency gain if from going from TSMC 5FF to N4, and the other part of that is architectural improvements.

Also, Threadrippers are already effectively operating in ECO mode with 87.5W per CCD on the lower 4CCD models, which is exactly what "65W" desktop chips draw, or 105W desktop chips in ECO mode. That efficiency will really matter for the 8CCD and 12CCD models, which only manage 2.5GHz and 3.2GHz respectively for the current Zen4 generation - The WX7995 is running about 28W per CCD, which isn't much - you should understand that as someone running a single CCD processor on just 61W - imagine how much performance you'd lose at ~38W PPT (I added 10W for the IO die )

There's the efficiency sweet spot, and then there's just throwing away gobs of potential performance by starving cores of power and thus clockspeed. Those very expensive ~$825-each CCDs in the $10000 12CCD WX7995 are running at 2.5GHz simply because they're power limited. This is why many of our boxen are AM4 and AM5 Ryzens rather than EYPC or Threadripper; The performance per dollar simply isn't there for workloads that can be readily distributed to the same CCDs running 50-100% faster.

 

[AusWolf]

Agreed, but the relevant chart for me (cropped here) is the VRAY one:

View attachment 396202

That's the 65W 9700X outperforming the 65W 7700 by 21%. Some of that efficiency gain if from going from TSMC 5FF to N4, and the other part of that is architectural improvements.

Ah I see. I guess the advantage of Zen 5 over Zen 4 is highly workload specific, then.

 

[Chrispy_]

Ah I see. I guess the advantage of Zen 5 over Zen 4 is highly workload specific, then.

Yeah, Zen5 was a bit of a wet fart for gaming, outside of the X3D models which got a physical difference to the Zen4 X3D models, not just an architectural one.

It's why I still recommend the 7500F and 7600 for gaming, there's really not a huge amount of point spending extra for Zen5.

 

[Zach_01]

9700X here
By default the CPU is 65W TDP, 88W PPT.
Power is not really my concern and so I’ve set through PBO settings manually PPT at 150W which the CPU never reaches under my normal daily usage. Also I’ve set max temp at 85C which never reaches either. Spikes around 120-125W and under gaming its average power is ~85W at worst case. Curve Optimizer is set to -25 steps, +100MHz on the max boost (overdrive).
With cooling provided by LF-II 420 the temp under gaming is around 65C (25-26C room) and its speed reaches the max setting of 5.65GHz with an average of 5.5~5.55GHz on the 2 “best” cores. Another 2 cores hover around 5.3~5.35 and the rest of them between 5.0~5.2.
For testing purposes the CPU max temp under full load reaches around 78~80C at 145~150W and its avg all core speed is 5.45~5.5GHz (CB-R23/24).

Having RAM clocked at 3100MHz (6200MT/s) and FCLK at 2067MHz with 1.18V Vsoc has raised SoC power at 12~13W. I think it was under 10W with 4800MT/s. All power saving features regarding SoC have been disabled.

 

[AusWolf]

After all this talk about efficiency, I'm tempted to get a 7950X just to see how far I'd have to limit it to work under my LP cooler without overheating, and what performance it would offer with such a limit.

If Zen 6 really comes with 12-core CCDs like rumour says, I might actually do that.

 

[freeagent]

No regrats..

Except that the 9950 does like 100Mhz more lol..

 

[Zach_01]

After all this talk about efficiency, I'm tempted to get a 7950X just to see how far I'd have to limit it to work under my LP cooler without overheating, and what performance it would offer with such a limit.

If Zen 6 really comes with 12-core CCDs like rumour says, I might actually do that.

A 12core Zen6 is my target for next CPU if really exists…

 

[AusWolf]

No regrats..

Except that the 9950 does like 100Mhz more lol..

View attachment 396215

I only said 7950X because it's cheaper. I really don't need a new CPU, but the temptation is there.

Anyway, nice results.

 

[freeagent]

7950X is still a nice CPU. 9000 series is good too, maybe a bit better once you give it a tune. Wish I could comment further on 7000 series.. I was stuck on AM4 lol..