AMD Curve Optimizer any guides / experience

[Taraquin]

I did a bit of testing yesterday with stock 76W limit. In cinebench 23 I get 11043p stock and 11647p (5.5%) with +200 pbo and -29x2/-30x4 cores. Clockspeed stock is 4300 avg stock (1162mv avg) and 4550 using CO (1131mv avg).

In SOTTR I get 236fps avg cpu in 1080p low with the above CO-setting and 225fps stock so about 5% performance.

Idlevoltage sits around 950mv stock abd 850mv CO.

Overall a fair 'free' improvement that produces similar heat.

My allcore 4.8GHz got 2% more fps in SOTTR, but got thermal throttling in CB23 (using 115W+) and requires 1.32V so I would say CO is superior. If I up PPT-limit a bit (90-100W) I bet I could see close to 4.7GHz allcore at around 1.2-1.25V.

 

[droopyRO]

So, 4 days later and it is stable. No more WHEA or errors, or lockups at idle or sleep. I suspect it is a combination of motherboard and/or the RX 6600 XT. As others have found out. You would think that AMD tests their products on their own hardware:
Reddit

The "drama" has ended. They said that they can't be fixed. And i had to choose between a new 5600X or my money back. I took the money. I am now on my 8600K and pondering what to do next. Stay on Ryzen 5000 series, go on Intel 11 or wait untill 2022. Thanks again to all who offered help.

iirc you had an early production Ryzen 5000 right? I figure with the way 5000 prices are coming down now, you could just go for a newer production 5600X. I'm not even joking, 99% of the problem threads I've ever seen regarding Vermeer CPUs concerned chips made before January 2021. Or if you want to wait for the new generation of V-cache you could do that too, 8600K is still solid.

If you're going to the store to pick one up, look at the CPU through the box's side window to make sure the batch code starts with 21. I don't see how it could possibly be anything else, but to be sure for August or September production the number should be 2131 or greater.

Alder Lake is coming, could wait for further price adjustments since you have a temporary solution. As for Intel, I would just take either a 10900K or wait for Alder Lake if you're air cooling.

Yeah it was bought at launch in November. I delided my 8600K last year, but did not play with it since i bought the 5600X. I am now at 5.1Ghz with it and it is R23 stable for 20 minutes. It gets to 75ºC, crazy how much that liquid metal lowers the temps. I think i will wait to see what Alder Lake delivers and the decide. Thanks.

 

[tabascosauz]

The "drama" has ended. They said that they can't be fixed. And i had to choose between a new 5600X or my money back. I took the money. I am now on my 8600K and pondering what to do next. Stay on Ryzen 5000 series, go on Intel 11 or wait untill 2022. Thanks again to all who offered help.

iirc you had an early production Ryzen 5000 right? I figure with the way 5000 prices are coming down now, you could just go for a newer production 5600X. I'm not even joking, 99% of the problem threads I've ever seen regarding Vermeer CPUs concerned chips made before January 2021. Or if you want to wait for the new generation of V-cache you could do that too, 8600K is still solid.

If you're going to the store to pick one up, look at the CPU through the box's side window to make sure the batch code starts with 21. I don't see how it could possibly be anything else, but to be sure for August or September production the number should be 2131 or greater.

Alder Lake is coming, could wait for further price adjustments since you have a temporary solution. As for Intel, I would just take either a 10900K or wait for Alder Lake if you're air cooling.

 

[Mussels]

I'll also add in that i've never even heard of these dud CPU's outside of tech forums, and maybe seen 5 different users with the issue

the odds of getting another faulty chip are basically nil (there was a lot of people blaming chips with incompatible RAM, mostly odd numbered CAS latency, dual rank corsair LPX)

 

[Ibizadr]

I was dealing with CO with the last days everything went fine till the moment I have random reboots. This reboots its related to a higher value in my prefered core? Today it happens when I open bf4 but happens this morning after 8h of pc turned on with mining program open.

 

[Taraquin]

I was dealing with CO with the last days everything went fine till the moment I have random reboots. This reboots its related to a higher value in my prefered core? Today it happens when I open bf4 but happens this morning after 8h of pc turned on with mining program open.

Have you run corecycler? Check windows event viewer, see if you have whea 18 when reboot occured, lower negative value by 1 or 2 on affected core.

 

[freeagent]

I will tinker with core cycler today.. I had a couple of reboots last night doing 11 stuff.. ahh well.

 

[tabascosauz]

I will tinker with core cycler today.. I had a couple of reboots last night doing 11 stuff.. ahh well.

Aren't you running the max +200 5150MHz global limit? I had to scale back my curves a bit on some cores going past 4950MHz. Otherwise they worked just fine at the stock global limit.

 

[outpt]

I was dealing with CO with the last days everything went fine till the moment I have random reboots. This reboots its related to a higher value in my prefered core? Today it happens when I open bf4 but happens this morning after 8h of pc turned on with mining program open.

Also look for event id 41. These can point to ram/power supply problems as a general rule

 

[purecain]

I have one of the original 5000chips made. I'm definitely considering getting a 2021 model after reading this thread.

That or wait for the next production update or new cpu's. Cool thread!

 

[Ibizadr]

Have you run corecycler? Check windows event viewer, see if you have whea 18 when reboot occured, lower negative value by 1 or 2 on affected core.

Yes in last 24h I have whea 18 - 8 erros. I lower the value in SC this should be enough?

Also look for event id 41. These can point to ram/power supply problems as a general rule

I have on id 41 in last 24h 8, but my supply it's enough for my system and ram runs at original speeds no overclock till now

 

[freeagent]

Aren't you running the max +200 5150MHz global limit? I had to scale back my curves a bit on some cores going past 4950MHz. Otherwise they worked just fine at the stock global limit.

Yes I was running at the tippy top and all was well until 11 crossed my path lol.. I knocked 50MHz off and it seems ok, I know it won’t pass core cycler as is.. or maybe it will I will have to play with it.. hopefully the cpu and I can come to some sort of understanding

 

[Ibizadr]

I don't use core cycle what I use it's some games and daily use and cinebench r23 and cpu z combined with hwinfo

 

[tabascosauz]

I don't use core cycle what I use it's some games and daily use and cinebench r23 and cpu z combined with hwinfo

Corecycler is not an application. It's a testing script specifically geared towards testing single-core PBO and Curve Optimizer stability.

Without corecycler or OCCT or a similarly appropriate test, you're left without any way of properly verifying CO stability. Cinebench R23 and CPU-Z are next to useless for the fact that they will only ever stress your CPPC preferred boost cores, and mildly at that.

 

[Ibizadr]

Corecycler is not an application. It's a testing script specifically geared towards testing single-core PBO and Curve Optimizer stability.

Without corecycler or OCCT or a similarly appropriate test, you're left without any way of properly verifying CO stability. Cinebench R23 and CPU-Z are next to useless for the fact that they will only ever stress your CPPC preferred boost cores, and mildly at that.

I downloaded corecycler and opened that. It's running now, what I need to take a look at event viewer or the log corecycler makes?

 

[tabascosauz]

I downloaded corecycler and opened that. It's running now, what I need to take a look at event viewer or the log corecycler makes?

The script is governed by the config script in the folder. By default it runs 6 minute cycles per core, running Prime95 Large FFT, going through all the cores. This is fine for general testing and seeing if anything is blatantly unstable.

It's good to run with the default config for at least 3 iterations (each iteration means it has gone through all the cores once). The script output will tell you.

Later on you can fine tune your testing by editing config:

• Number of iterations to run
• Which cores to run (helpful for narrowing down cores that matter)
• Which order to run the cores
• How long to run each core
• What to run (FFT size for Prime95, AVX or SSE, other tests)
• What to do upon error (stop or continue)
• Take breaks between cores

I run the default config first. Later I move on to my final config which is 1h8m per core, All FFT, SSE.

 

[Ibizadr]

The script is governed by the config script in the folder. By default it runs 6 minute cycles per core, running Prime95 Large FFT, going through all the cores. This is fine for general testing and seeing if anything is blatantly unstable.

It's good to run with the default config for at least 3 iterations (each iteration means it has gone through all the cores once). The script output will tell you.

Later on you can fine tune your testing by editing config:

• Number of iterations to run
• Which cores to run (helpful for narrowing down cores that matter)
• Which order to run the cores
• How long to run each core
• What to run (FFT size for Prime95, AVX or SSE, other tests)
• What to do upon error (stop or continue)
• Take breaks between cores

I run the default config first. Later I move on to my final config which is 1h8m per core, All FFT, SSE.

Yeah I'm on default config for now I watch a video on YouTube and see when errors happen it will appear on corecycler cmd window so for now 4 cores tested and no errors. If my cpu runs without errors that means I can push more in CO like 15 to 16?

 

[tabascosauz]

Yeah I'm on default config for now I watch a video on YouTube and see when errors happen it will appear on corecycler cmd window so for now 4 cores tested and no errors. If my cpu runs without errors that means I can push more in CO like 15 to 16?

Stop everything you're doing while the test is running. In order for it to work properly it needs to be able to achieve the highest clocks possible, meaning minimal load on the system. Close all background apps you don't need and let it do its thing, go do something else for a while.

 

[Ibizadr]

Stop everything you're doing while the test is running. In order for it to work properly it needs to be able to achieve the highest clocks possible, meaning minimal load on the system. Close all background apps you don't need and let it do its thing, go do something else for a while.

For now only have hwinfo running in background but I have it opened when I start corecycler so for this run I will let it open and in next adjustments I will close everything and try

Yes I was running at the tippy top and all was well until 11 crossed my path lol.. I knocked 50MHz off and it seems ok, I know it won’t pass core cycler as is.. or maybe it will I will have to play with it.. hopefully the cpu and I can come to some sort of understanding

What you do it's what I do, I try to do it without corecycler but after that I think corecycler it's a better way to see if core have errors. I only do one turn at 6min per core and all went fine tomorrow will do it some more tests

 

[freeagent]

I went to run it but it wont run because RM is not installed..

Maybe I will quit being soft, I am pretty sure 5125 is good.. but then again I thought 5150 was good. i will just leave it +150 for now.

I quit using Asus Performance enhancement, maybe that's why I have an issue.. that setting is full on cheater mode

Edit:

She is boosty

 

[Taraquin]

Yes in last 24h I have whea 18 - 8 erros. I lower the value in SC this should be enough?


I have on id 41 in last 24h 8, but my supply it's enough for my system and ram runs at original speeds no overclock till now

Yeah, lower value on affected core. Check core number in the whea. You should run core cycler first though, much faster to eliminate errors, use event viewer to adjust the cores core cycler eliminate.

 

[Deleted member 212040]

So you completely disregard the differences between cores and just blindly punch in some numbers. That's not how overclocking is done.

My guy. I spent time doing per core and the resulting performance gain compared to -15 all core was fuck all anything, 25 MHz more on the best core at best. -15 all core is good enough for me, because it makes my 5900X reach 5.2 GHz single thread (on almost every core - not just the best ones) and 4.65 GHz all core, on Linux at least, using Htop which shows effective clocks - compared to the stock 5 GHz single thread & 4.15 GHz all core. Don't know about Winblows. If all core Curve Optimizer wasn't a passable choice then why would they even implement it as an option?

I can hardly get people to set a quick negative all core Curve Optimizer offset and increase PBO limits a bit on their Zen 3 CPUs so they don't leave performance on the table, let alone convince them to go through all that rigorous testing for no real discernible benefit in the end.

Though I stopped caring about OC in general, it's about time I start using this machine instead of tuning and upgrading it ever since I built it. The ""performance"" ""differences"" were not worth the time. If that's your thing, go ahead. But don't act like doing a quick overclock by setting an all core number isn't a passable thing to do either, some people just don't have the time or care enough to go through all that crap with no real benefit. It's why I stopped caring about RAM OC as well and just halved my tRFC, fixed tRC and called it a day. Literally the same latency improvements as manually optimizing each timing with the added bonus of being stable and not requiring 24h worth of testing after setting each timing. Same goes for the all core option in the Curve Optimizer.

 

[Taraquin]

My guy. I spent time doing per core and the resulting performance gain compared to -15 all core was fuck all anything, 25 MHz more on the best core at best. -15 all core is good enough for me, because it makes my 5900X reach 5.2 GHz single thread (on almost every core - not just the best ones) and 4.65 GHz all core, on Linux at least, using Htop which shows effective clocks - compared to the stock 5 GHz single thread & 4.15 GHz all core. Don't know about Winblows. If all core Curve Optimizer wasn't a passable choice then why would they even implement it as an option?

I can hardly get people to set a quick negative all core Curve Optimizer offset and increase PBO limits a bit on their Zen 3 CPUs so they don't leave performance on the table, let alone convince them to go through all that rigorous testing for no real discernible benefit in the end.

Though I stopped caring about OC in general, it's about time I start using this machine instead of tuning and upgrading it ever since I built it. The ""performance"" ""differences"" were not worth the time. If that's your thing, go ahead. But don't act like doing a quick overclock by setting an all core number isn't a passable thing to do either, some people just don't have the time or care enough to go through all that crap with no real benefit. It's why I stopped caring about RAM OC as well and just halved my tRFC, fixed tRC and called it a day. Literally the same latency improvements as manually optimizing each timing with the added bonus of being stable and not requiring 24h worth of testing after setting each timing. Same goes for the all core option in the Curve Optimizer.

Although I understand your reasoning, I think the most gain can be had by doing little. Curve optimizer is generally tuned in after an hour of core cycler. If you are lucky you can run single core 200MHz higher and all core 200-300MHz higher, if unlucky you still get 200 single core and 100-200 allcore.

As for ram timings, just find your highest working frequency and do som basic tuning. It doesn`t take that long. If you are on B-die just set 1.45V, flat first 3, tras first + second and tRC tras + tRP. tRFC = tRC x 6 on B-die, tRC x 8 on Hynix and tRC x 10 on Micron. The other ones that matter is tFAW which always work at 24, trrds at 6, trrdl at 8, tWR at same as CL, tRTP at half tWR, WTRS 4, WTRL 12. Rest can stay on auto. You gain 80% of the performance potential by doing that and it doesn`t take long. If you use Micron or Hynix things are a bit more complex, but setting tRCD and tRP +4 above tCL and using the rest of the rules tends to work fine there aswell

If you are okay with 5-10% better peformance your approch is good, if you want 15-20% try mine, if you want 25% you need to spend a lot of time

 

[bubbleawsome]

Started getting random BSODs way more often than before. Starting to wonder if my RAM OC is not as stable as previously thought and it's messing with my tuner results.

 

[freeagent]

I thought it was my ram too, but its @ stock

I haven't installed Ryzen Master, and probably wont.. but I did back it off that 50MHz and I haven't had a problem so far, my usual arsenal seems to be good.. but is it?

maybe.. probably.. possibly.. better be..