• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

AMD Releases AM5 AGESA 1.0.0.3, Reintroduces C-State Boost Limiter with >4 Cores Loaded

btarunr

Editor & Senior Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 9, 2007
Messages
44,349 (7.92/day)
Location
Hyderabad, India
System Name RBMK-1000
Processor AMD Ryzen 7 5700G
Motherboard ASUS ROG Strix B450-E Gaming
Cooling DeepCool Gammax L240 V2
Memory 2x 8GB G.Skill Sniper X
Video Card(s) Palit GeForce RTX 2080 SUPER GameRock
Storage Western Digital Black NVMe 512GB
Display(s) BenQ 1440p 60 Hz 27-inch
Case Corsair Carbide 100R
Audio Device(s) ASUS SupremeFX S1220A
Power Supply Cooler Master MWE Gold 650W
Mouse ASUS ROG Strix Impact
Keyboard Gamdias Hermes E2
Software Windows 11 Pro
AMD released the latest version of the AGESA microcode for Socket AM5 platform. The new version 1.0.0.3 most notably reintroduces a Precision Boost C-state limiter that [accidentally?] got removed with version 1.0.0.2. This limiter prevents the CPU cores from boosting above 5.50 GHz when more than 4 cores are active (i.e. experiencing heavy workload). SkatterBencher demonstrated how this affects performance on Ryzen 7000-series desktop processors.

NopBench, a utility developed by ElmorLabs, lets you figure out the maximum boost frequency obtainable as workload scales across available CPU cores (i.e. starting from 1-thread, to n-thread). NopBench invokes the NOP instruction, and measures the number of NOP instructions can be processed per second. To make the NOP throughput comparable among processors of different microarchitectures, an architecture-specific factor is used, which for "Raphael" is 2.5x. By comparing the NOP throughput of a Ryzen 9 7950X processor tested with AGESA 1.0.0.2 to 1.0.0.3 (ASUS ROG Crosshair X670E Extreme BIOS versions 0611 vs. 0705); SkatterBencher was able to confirm that that the boost limiter is back in place, and limits Precision Boost frequency to 5.50 GHz when the NopBench load exceeds 4 cores.



View at TechPowerUp Main Site | Source
 
Joined
Jan 14, 2019
Messages
4,797 (3.23/day)
Location
Midlands, UK
System Name Nebulon-B Mk. 4
Processor AMD Ryzen 7 7700X
Motherboard MSi PRO B650M-A WiFi
Cooling be quiet! Silent Loop 2 280 mm
Memory 2x 16 GB Corsair Vengeance EXPO DDR5-6000
Video Card(s) AMD Radeon RX 6750 XT
Storage 1 TB Crucial P5 Plus, 2 TB Corsair MP600 R2
Display(s) Samsung C24F390, 7" Waveshare touchscreen
Case Kolink Citadel Mesh black
Power Supply Seasonic Prime GX-750
Mouse Cherry MW 8 Advanced
Keyboard MagicForce 68
Software Windows 10 Pro
Benchmark Scores Unigine Superposition 1080p Ultra: 7150, Cinebench R23 multi: 19250, single: 1975.
What's the purpose of this limiter? Can it be disabled?
 

farmertrue

New Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2022
Messages
8 (0.05/day)
I've noticed this issue with my ASUS X670E Hero mobo and 7950X ever since updating to BIOS 0705 a couple weeks ago.

Do I just update the 0705 bios that I currently have and added weeks ago, to the 0705 bios that is now on their website? Or does the AGESA automatically update in the BIOS itself somehow?
 

Chry

New Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2022
Messages
10 (0.08/day)
I've noticed this issue with my ASUS X670E Hero mobo and 7950X ever since updating to BIOS 0705 a couple weeks ago.

Do I just update the 0705 bios that I currently have and added weeks ago, to the 0705 bios that is now on their website? Or does the AGESA automatically update in the BIOS itself somehow?
AGESA is updated automatically with a BIOS update.
 
Joined
Sep 23, 2022
Messages
289 (2.16/day)
System Name Windows | Linux
Processor 7700X | 5800X3D
Motherboard Pro X670-P | B550 Unify
Cooling NH-D15 | NH-D15s
Memory 32GB 6000 CL30 | 32GB 3200 CL14
Video Card(s) PNY RTX 4080 | Red Devil 6900 XT Ult.
Power Supply Prime TX-850 | Prime GX-1000
Software Win 11 Pro 22H2 | Debian Bookworm
The question is why did AMD provide an AGESA with limits removed to reviewers and then quietly add the limits back in for release. Doesn't pass the smell test.
 
Joined
Jun 21, 2021
Messages
1,898 (3.20/day)
System Name daily driver Mac mini 2018
Processor Intel 3.2 GHz Core i7 (I7-8700B Coffee Lake - 6 cores, 12 threads)
Motherboard Apple proprietary (with Apple T2 Security Chip)
Cooling Apple proprietary
Memory 16GB 2666 MHz DDR4 PC4-21300 SDRAM
Video Card(s) integrated Intel UHD Graphics 630 + Sapphire Pulse Radeon RX 580 8GB (via Sonnet eGPU Thunderbolt 3)
Storage Apple proprietary 1TB SSD + various external HDDs
Display(s) LG 27UL850W (4K@60Hz IPS)
Case Apple proprietary
Audio Device(s) Apple proprietary
Power Supply Apple proprietary
Mouse Apple Magic Trackpad 2
Keyboard Keychron K1 tenkeyless (Gateron Reds)
Software macOS Monterey 12.6 (including latest patches)
Benchmark Scores (I have a number of desktop Windows PC builds but I use the Mac the most.)
The question is why did AMD provide an AGESA with limits removed to reviewers and then quietly add the limits back in for release.

For better benchmarks at launch. Unfortunately this is a well-worn practice dating back decades.

Benchmarking is executed before release and the publications' reviews are under embargo until a certain date.

Sleazy? Yes. Uncommon? No. They have all done this at one time or another.

Some reviewers who value integrity/transparency mention that they used pre-release review code for their benchmarking. Others do not.
 
Joined
Jan 24, 2011
Messages
243 (0.06/day)
Processor AMD Ryzen 5900X
Motherboard MSI MAG X570 Tomahawk
Cooling Dual custom loops
Memory 4x8GB G.SKILL Trident Z Neo 3200C14 B-Die
Video Card(s) AMD Radeon RX 6800XT Reference
Storage ADATA SX8200 480GB, Inland Premium 2TB, various HDDs
Display(s) MSI MAG341CQ
Case Meshify 2 XL
Audio Device(s) Schiit Fulla 3
Power Supply Super Flower Leadex Titanium SE 1000W
Mouse Glorious Model D
Keyboard Drop CTRL, lubed and filmed Halo Trues
Performance is actually better with 1003A, so there's nothing to get your torches and pitchforks out about...
1666802741537.png
 
Joined
Feb 21, 2006
Messages
1,610 (0.26/day)
Location
Toronto, Ontario
System Name The Expanse
Processor AMD Ryzen 7 5800X
Motherboard Asus Prime X570-Pro BIOS 4403 AM4 AGESA V2 PI 1.2.0.7
Cooling Corsair H150i Pro
Memory 32GB Gskill Trident RGB DDR4-3200 14-14-14-34-1T
Video Card(s) AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT 16GB
Storage Corsair MP600 1TB PCIe 4 / Samsung 860Evo 1TB x2 Raid 0 / Asus NAS AS1004T V2 14TB
Display(s) LG 34GP83A-B 34 Inch 21: 9 UltraGear Curved QHD (3440 x 1440) 1ms Nano IPS 160Hz
Case Fractal Design Meshify S2
Audio Device(s) Creative X-Fi + Logitech Z-5500
Power Supply Corsair AX850 Titanium
Mouse Corsair Dark Core RGB SE
Keyboard Corsair K100
Software Windows 10 Pro x64 22H2
Benchmark Scores 3800X https://valid.x86.fr/1zr4a5 5800X https://valid.x86.fr/2dey9c
I've noticed this issue with my ASUS X670E Hero mobo and 7950X ever since updating to BIOS 0705 a couple weeks ago.

Do I just update the 0705 bios that I currently have and added weeks ago, to the 0705 bios that is now on their website? Or does the AGESA automatically update in the BIOS itself somehow?

This bios you are using is already on 1.0.0.3 so you shouldn't need to do anything.

1666802917342.png
 
Joined
Sep 23, 2022
Messages
289 (2.16/day)
System Name Windows | Linux
Processor 7700X | 5800X3D
Motherboard Pro X670-P | B550 Unify
Cooling NH-D15 | NH-D15s
Memory 32GB 6000 CL30 | 32GB 3200 CL14
Video Card(s) PNY RTX 4080 | Red Devil 6900 XT Ult.
Power Supply Prime TX-850 | Prime GX-1000
Software Win 11 Pro 22H2 | Debian Bookworm
For better benchmarks at launch. Unfortunately this is a well-worn practice dating back decades.

Benchmarking is executed before release and the publications' reviews are under embargo until a certain date.

Sleazy? Yes. Uncommon? No. They have all done this at one time or another.

Yes, I know. My question was rhetorical.

Some reviewers who value integrity/transparency mention that they used pre-release review code for their benchmarking. Others do not.

Technically, 1.0.0.2 was release code. My MB vendor had a beta release of '1.0.0.3 Patch A' on release day, but it's still there as the latest release, as beta.

Performance is actually better with 1003A, so there's nothing to get your torches and pitchforks out about...

They're still unlit and in the tool shed. I read the article as well, and yes, overall the performance is better in multi-thread. It's the lower thread count loads that saw a small regression in that chart. Results that people reading single thread performance benchmarks might see.
 
Joined
Jan 24, 2011
Messages
243 (0.06/day)
Processor AMD Ryzen 5900X
Motherboard MSI MAG X570 Tomahawk
Cooling Dual custom loops
Memory 4x8GB G.SKILL Trident Z Neo 3200C14 B-Die
Video Card(s) AMD Radeon RX 6800XT Reference
Storage ADATA SX8200 480GB, Inland Premium 2TB, various HDDs
Display(s) MSI MAG341CQ
Case Meshify 2 XL
Audio Device(s) Schiit Fulla 3
Power Supply Super Flower Leadex Titanium SE 1000W
Mouse Glorious Model D
Keyboard Drop CTRL, lubed and filmed Halo Trues
They're still unlit and in the tool shed. I read the article as well, and yes, overall the performance is better in multi-thread. It's the lower thread count loads that saw a small regression in that chart. Results that people reading single thread performance benchmarks might see.
I don't think you know how to read charts.
 
Joined
Sep 23, 2022
Messages
289 (2.16/day)
System Name Windows | Linux
Processor 7700X | 5800X3D
Motherboard Pro X670-P | B550 Unify
Cooling NH-D15 | NH-D15s
Memory 32GB 6000 CL30 | 32GB 3200 CL14
Video Card(s) PNY RTX 4080 | Red Devil 6900 XT Ult.
Power Supply Prime TX-850 | Prime GX-1000
Software Win 11 Pro 22H2 | Debian Bookworm
I don't think you know how to read charts.

Very possible.

Is the 2 thread performance of 1.0.0.2 not higher than 1.0.0.3A default?

1666803935091.png
 
Joined
Jun 21, 2021
Messages
1,898 (3.20/day)
System Name daily driver Mac mini 2018
Processor Intel 3.2 GHz Core i7 (I7-8700B Coffee Lake - 6 cores, 12 threads)
Motherboard Apple proprietary (with Apple T2 Security Chip)
Cooling Apple proprietary
Memory 16GB 2666 MHz DDR4 PC4-21300 SDRAM
Video Card(s) integrated Intel UHD Graphics 630 + Sapphire Pulse Radeon RX 580 8GB (via Sonnet eGPU Thunderbolt 3)
Storage Apple proprietary 1TB SSD + various external HDDs
Display(s) LG 27UL850W (4K@60Hz IPS)
Case Apple proprietary
Audio Device(s) Apple proprietary
Power Supply Apple proprietary
Mouse Apple Magic Trackpad 2
Keyboard Keychron K1 tenkeyless (Gateron Reds)
Software macOS Monterey 12.6 (including latest patches)
Benchmark Scores (I have a number of desktop Windows PC builds but I use the Mac the most.)
Yes, I know. My question was rhetorical.

Okay. I can't tell how much any given person here knows. I read a lot online and while some handles and avatars seem familiar I just can't remember who most people are, not just here at TPU but pretty much everywhere online.

Maybe that's why some people throw in an emoji, the /s tag, or actually explain where their comment is coming from in situations like this one. Also there are non-native English speakers here as well as newcomers every day.

I certainly don't expect any of those people (or anybody else for that matter) to remember what I previously wrote.

Anyhow companies provide benchmark optimized code to juice performance results for launch day reviews. I don't run beta software anywhere these days so I don't really see these performance fluctuations in my daily usage.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jan 24, 2011
Messages
243 (0.06/day)
Processor AMD Ryzen 5900X
Motherboard MSI MAG X570 Tomahawk
Cooling Dual custom loops
Memory 4x8GB G.SKILL Trident Z Neo 3200C14 B-Die
Video Card(s) AMD Radeon RX 6800XT Reference
Storage ADATA SX8200 480GB, Inland Premium 2TB, various HDDs
Display(s) MSI MAG341CQ
Case Meshify 2 XL
Audio Device(s) Schiit Fulla 3
Power Supply Super Flower Leadex Titanium SE 1000W
Mouse Glorious Model D
Keyboard Drop CTRL, lubed and filmed Halo Trues
Very possible.

Is the 2 thread performance of 1.0.0.2 not higher than 1.0.0.3A default?

View attachment 267345
You mean by less than half of one percent in a scenario where the C-state limiter doesn't affect anything? It's convenient that you cropped out the 1 thread data point since the discrepancy would be even larger in favor of the new AGESA. So it's either that you can't read charts, that you don't understand what constitutes an actual performance difference, or that you're being intentionally disingenuous. None of them is a great look, honestly.
 
Joined
Jan 22, 2007
Messages
748 (0.13/day)
Location
Round Rock, TX
System Name Teh Beast
Processor AMD R9 7950X
Motherboard Asus STRIX X670E-E
Cooling Noctua U12A Chromax
Memory 32GB G.Skill Flare X5 6000Mhz
Video Card(s) RTX 4080 Founders Edition
Storage 2 X Samsung 980 Pro 2TB
Display(s) LG 38" 38GL950G
Case Corsair 4000D Airflow
Power Supply EVGA 850W
Software WIndows 11 Pro
The "workaround" for this is enable "Medium Load Boostit" from PBO menu.. May not be on ALL boards though.
 
Joined
Jan 14, 2019
Messages
4,797 (3.23/day)
Location
Midlands, UK
System Name Nebulon-B Mk. 4
Processor AMD Ryzen 7 7700X
Motherboard MSi PRO B650M-A WiFi
Cooling be quiet! Silent Loop 2 280 mm
Memory 2x 16 GB Corsair Vengeance EXPO DDR5-6000
Video Card(s) AMD Radeon RX 6750 XT
Storage 1 TB Crucial P5 Plus, 2 TB Corsair MP600 R2
Display(s) Samsung C24F390, 7" Waveshare touchscreen
Case Kolink Citadel Mesh black
Power Supply Seasonic Prime GX-750
Mouse Cherry MW 8 Advanced
Keyboard MagicForce 68
Software Windows 10 Pro
Benchmark Scores Unigine Superposition 1080p Ultra: 7150, Cinebench R23 multi: 19250, single: 1975.
The "workaround" for this is enable "Medium Load Boostit" from PBO menu.. May not be on ALL boards though.
Does this mean that you need PBO to see the 7950X's max boost clock of 5.7 GHz?
 
Joined
Jan 24, 2011
Messages
243 (0.06/day)
Processor AMD Ryzen 5900X
Motherboard MSI MAG X570 Tomahawk
Cooling Dual custom loops
Memory 4x8GB G.SKILL Trident Z Neo 3200C14 B-Die
Video Card(s) AMD Radeon RX 6800XT Reference
Storage ADATA SX8200 480GB, Inland Premium 2TB, various HDDs
Display(s) MSI MAG341CQ
Case Meshify 2 XL
Audio Device(s) Schiit Fulla 3
Power Supply Super Flower Leadex Titanium SE 1000W
Mouse Glorious Model D
Keyboard Drop CTRL, lubed and filmed Halo Trues
Joined
Nov 13, 2007
Messages
9,475 (1.70/day)
Location
Austin Texas
System Name Keep Flying
Processor 13700KF @ 5.7 / 5.5 GHZ (230W PL)
Motherboard MSI 690-I PRO
Cooling Intake 280MM NZXT X63 (fan curve based on coolant temp)
Memory 64 GB DDR5 6666 MHZ 38-40-40-40
Video Card(s) RTX 4090 FE
Storage 2x 2TB WDC SN850, 1TB Samsung 960 prr
Display(s) Gigabyte MU 32" 4k 144hz
Case SLIGER S620
Audio Device(s) Bose Solo
Power Supply Corsair SF750
Mouse Superlight wireless
Keyboard 65% mini hyperspeed wireless
Software Windows 11
Benchmark Scores They're pretty good, nothing crazy.
this seems like a downgrade.
 
Joined
Jan 14, 2019
Messages
4,797 (3.23/day)
Location
Midlands, UK
System Name Nebulon-B Mk. 4
Processor AMD Ryzen 7 7700X
Motherboard MSi PRO B650M-A WiFi
Cooling be quiet! Silent Loop 2 280 mm
Memory 2x 16 GB Corsair Vengeance EXPO DDR5-6000
Video Card(s) AMD Radeon RX 6750 XT
Storage 1 TB Crucial P5 Plus, 2 TB Corsair MP600 R2
Display(s) Samsung C24F390, 7" Waveshare touchscreen
Case Kolink Citadel Mesh black
Power Supply Seasonic Prime GX-750
Mouse Cherry MW 8 Advanced
Keyboard MagicForce 68
Software Windows 10 Pro
Benchmark Scores Unigine Superposition 1080p Ultra: 7150, Cinebench R23 multi: 19250, single: 1975.
Literally read the article...
Well, there's a "default" and a "C-state dis" result for both AGESA versions, so I assume there is a switch somewhere in the BIOS. I just don't want to assume - knowing for sure is better.
 
Joined
Jan 24, 2011
Messages
243 (0.06/day)
Processor AMD Ryzen 5900X
Motherboard MSI MAG X570 Tomahawk
Cooling Dual custom loops
Memory 4x8GB G.SKILL Trident Z Neo 3200C14 B-Die
Video Card(s) AMD Radeon RX 6800XT Reference
Storage ADATA SX8200 480GB, Inland Premium 2TB, various HDDs
Display(s) MSI MAG341CQ
Case Meshify 2 XL
Audio Device(s) Schiit Fulla 3
Power Supply Super Flower Leadex Titanium SE 1000W
Mouse Glorious Model D
Keyboard Drop CTRL, lubed and filmed Halo Trues
Well, there's a "default" and a "C-state dis" result for both AGESA versions, so I assume there is a switch somewhere in the BIOS. I just don't want to assume - knowing for sure is better.
It only affects the clock limit when four or more cores are loaded.
 
Joined
Jan 14, 2019
Messages
4,797 (3.23/day)
Location
Midlands, UK
System Name Nebulon-B Mk. 4
Processor AMD Ryzen 7 7700X
Motherboard MSi PRO B650M-A WiFi
Cooling be quiet! Silent Loop 2 280 mm
Memory 2x 16 GB Corsair Vengeance EXPO DDR5-6000
Video Card(s) AMD Radeon RX 6750 XT
Storage 1 TB Crucial P5 Plus, 2 TB Corsair MP600 R2
Display(s) Samsung C24F390, 7" Waveshare touchscreen
Case Kolink Citadel Mesh black
Power Supply Seasonic Prime GX-750
Mouse Cherry MW 8 Advanced
Keyboard MagicForce 68
Software Windows 10 Pro
Benchmark Scores Unigine Superposition 1080p Ultra: 7150, Cinebench R23 multi: 19250, single: 1975.
It only affects the clock limit when four or more cores are loaded.
I know that, but can it be disabled? There's no reason to limit yourself to 5.5 GHz if your cooling could allow for more.
 
Joined
Dec 25, 2020
Messages
1,342 (1.74/day)
Location
São Paulo, Brazil
System Name Project Kairi v0.5 (temporary downgrade)
Processor Intel Xeon E5-4669 v3
Motherboard Gigabyte X99-Ultra Gaming rev 1.0
Cooling id-Cooling Frostflow X 360 + Gelid GC-Extreme
Memory 64 GB (4x 16) Corsair Dominator Platinum DDR4-2133 @ 9-11-11-21 1.35v
Video Card(s) ASUS TUF Gaming OC GeForce RTX 3090 24 GB GDDR6X
Storage WD Green SN350 480 GB
Display(s) Samsung The Frame 2022 32-inch (1080p60)
Case Cooler Master MasterFrame 700
Audio Device(s) EVGA Nu Audio (classic)
Power Supply EVGA 1300 G2 1.3kW 80+ Gold
Mouse Logitech G305 Lightspeed K/DA + Logitech G840 XL K/DA
Keyboard Logitech G Pro K/DA with GX Brown switches
Software Windows 11 Pro for Workstations 22H2
Benchmark Scores Older build pic (with R9 5950X installed): https://i.imgur.com/yxc0HrZ.jpg
Where's the fix for the PBO EDC bug on AM4?
 
Joined
Jun 10, 2021
Messages
14 (0.02/day)
System Name KAAN
Processor AMD 5950X B2
Motherboard Asus Crosshair VIII Formula
Cooling ARCTIC Liquid Freezer II 280
Memory G.SKILL 4000C16 @3666C14 - 4x16GB - Samsung B-Die
Video Card(s) MSI GeForce RTX 3080 SUPRIM X 10G
Storage Kingston KC3000 2TB
Display(s) ASUS ROG Swift PG279Q 27"
Case Phanteks ECLIPSE P600s
Audio Device(s) Audeze Mobius
Power Supply Corsair HX750i
Mouse Logitech G604 LIGHTSPEED
Keyboard Logitech G815
Software Windows 11 (VBS)
I built in golang something similar to the NopBench mentioned in the initial post, as I was not able to find and download anything similar from the internet.

For anyone curious, instead of directly accessing the smu hardware registers to get the current frequency of each core, that would have required creating a signed driver, I just used the HwINFO feedback produced by adding each core clock to the gadget reporting feature and then monitoring each core frequency, from the reporting hwinfo registry keys in the windows registry, while running a floating-point intensive load on an increasing amount of threads locked on each core in CPPC order. This reduced the code complexity tenfolds (and this is why I am posting this here).

The results for my 5950X (B2), are:
01 cores got 5099mhz
02 cores got 5097mhz
03 cores got 5090mhz
04 cores got 5072mhz
05 cores got 5036mhz
06 cores got 4991mhz
07 cores got 4973mhz
08 cores got 4961mhz
09 cores got 4930mhz
10 cores got 4908mhz
11 cores got 4874mhz
12 cores got 4853mhz
13 cores got 4824mhz
14 cores got 4806mhz
15 cores got 4794mhz
16 cores got 4785mhz
5950X_Freqs.png
 
Last edited:
Joined
Dec 25, 2020
Messages
1,342 (1.74/day)
Location
São Paulo, Brazil
System Name Project Kairi v0.5 (temporary downgrade)
Processor Intel Xeon E5-4669 v3
Motherboard Gigabyte X99-Ultra Gaming rev 1.0
Cooling id-Cooling Frostflow X 360 + Gelid GC-Extreme
Memory 64 GB (4x 16) Corsair Dominator Platinum DDR4-2133 @ 9-11-11-21 1.35v
Video Card(s) ASUS TUF Gaming OC GeForce RTX 3090 24 GB GDDR6X
Storage WD Green SN350 480 GB
Display(s) Samsung The Frame 2022 32-inch (1080p60)
Case Cooler Master MasterFrame 700
Audio Device(s) EVGA Nu Audio (classic)
Power Supply EVGA 1300 G2 1.3kW 80+ Gold
Mouse Logitech G305 Lightspeed K/DA + Logitech G840 XL K/DA
Keyboard Logitech G Pro K/DA with GX Brown switches
Software Windows 11 Pro for Workstations 22H2
Benchmark Scores Older build pic (with R9 5950X installed): https://i.imgur.com/yxc0HrZ.jpg
I built in golang something similar to the NopBench mentioned in the initial post, as I was not able to find and download anything similar from the internet.

For anyone curious, instead of directly accessing the smu hardware registers to get the current frequency of each core, that would have required creating a signed driver, I just used the HwINFO feedback produced by adding each core clock to the gadget reporting feature and then monitoring each core frequency, from the reporting hwinfo registry keys in the windows registry, while running a floating-point intensive load on an increasing amount of threads locked on each core in CPPC order. This reduced the code complexity tenfolds (and this is why I am posting this here).

The results for my 5950X (B2), are:
01 cores got 5099mhz
02 cores got 5097mhz
03 cores got 5090mhz
04 cores got 5072mhz
05 cores got 5036mhz
06 cores got 4991mhz
07 cores got 4973mhz
08 cores got 4961mhz
09 cores got 4930mhz
10 cores got 4908mhz
11 cores got 4874mhz
12 cores got 4853mhz
13 cores got 4824mhz
14 cores got 4806mhz
15 cores got 4794mhz
16 cores got 4785mhz
View attachment 267708

What AGESA are you running? My 5950X (B0 stepping) can't come close to those frequencies on all-core even with simple instructions with AGESA 1.2.0.7 thanks to the EDC bug. It's like 4900 > 4600 with simple instructions, around 4450 MHz with AVX code on 1.2.0.3 C, 4150 at best with AVX on 1.2.0.7, it throttles for the hell of it.

That and it is not very adjustable, I really can't get it stable with more than -2 all-core curve optimizer. So far I'm in a VERY annoying position, I have to choose between my processor performing as intended and my computer starting on the first try because memory training is broken in AGESA earlier than 1.2.0.5, and anything later than 1.2.0.3 C has the EDC bug in it. Man, AMD things. I'll keep this in mind when my next (Intel) processor comes by.
 
Joined
Jun 10, 2021
Messages
14 (0.02/day)
System Name KAAN
Processor AMD 5950X B2
Motherboard Asus Crosshair VIII Formula
Cooling ARCTIC Liquid Freezer II 280
Memory G.SKILL 4000C16 @3666C14 - 4x16GB - Samsung B-Die
Video Card(s) MSI GeForce RTX 3080 SUPRIM X 10G
Storage Kingston KC3000 2TB
Display(s) ASUS ROG Swift PG279Q 27"
Case Phanteks ECLIPSE P600s
Audio Device(s) Audeze Mobius
Power Supply Corsair HX750i
Mouse Logitech G604 LIGHTSPEED
Keyboard Logitech G815
Software Windows 11 (VBS)
What AGESA are you running? My 5950X (B0 stepping) can't come close to those frequencies on all-core even with simple instructions with AGESA 1.2.0.7 thanks to the EDC bug. It's like 4900 > 4600 with simple instructions, around 4450 MHz with AVX code on 1.2.0.3 C, 4150 at best with AVX on 1.2.0.7, it throttles for the hell of it.

That and it is not very adjustable, I really can't get it stable with more than -2 all-core curve optimizer. So far I'm in a VERY annoying position, I have to choose between my processor performing as intended and my computer starting on the first try because memory training is broken in AGESA earlier than 1.2.0.5, and anything later than 1.2.0.3 C has the EDC bug in it. Man, AMD things. I'll keep this in mind when my next (Intel) processor comes by.

I am on Agesa 1.2.0.7 on a Crosshair VIII Formula, and I am pretty happy on Amd Zen3, it may depend from a lucky bin too.
For comparison, you can consider that when running CBR20 MT all my cores run at roughly 4330MHz in HwINFO.
Anyway I use PPT:180W, TDC:125A, EDC:140A (to avoid the undervolt with EDC>140), Boost +50MHz (and obviously the PBO curves).
Consider that I am using a simple floating-point load on those cores. If I used the AVX or SSE2 instruction sets, or a CBR20 benchmark load, the peak frequency would have been a bit lower.
The NopBench used by SkatterBencher used the NOP instruction, that is probably slightly better to top up the peak frequency of each core, but I couldn't simulate it in golang without it being optimised and removed, so I used floating-point operations instead.
 
Last edited:
Top