Is that overclocked?
Mine isn't, 4.915Ghz, which is actually X49.25 so 4.925Ghz.
I have +75 on it, which makes sense, i remember out of the box it was 4.85Ghz. I could go higher, i guess, i just haven't had time yet to see how far it will go...
-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
Is my 5950x a dud?
- Thread starter Heofz
- Start date
Is that overclocked?
Mine isn't, 4.915Ghz, which is actually X49.25 so 4.925Ghz.
I have +75 on it, which makes sense, i remember out of the box it was 4.85Ghz. I could go higher, i guess, i just haven't had time yet to see how far it will go...
Is that overclocked?
Mine isn't, 4.915Ghz, which is actually X49.25 so 4.925Ghz.
I have +75 on it, which makes sense, i remember out of the box it was 4.85Ghz. I could go higher, i guess, i just haven't had time yet to see how far it will go...
Yes Marginally. I'm sure it could go further but I just don't need to, plus the thing is warm enough, it's hitting about 76c max and that's with a beefy cooler, I know reading from others it can go much higher, and others do but I don't like the idea of the large thermal fluctuations.
5ghz is a nice target to hit I think.
Ok, i need a better cooler too, 84c in R23, Deepcool Gammaxx L120, thinking about an ARCTIC Liquid Freezer II 240.
I got an NZXT Kraken x73 360mm rad and general case cooling is good, I think it all helps.
turning ICue off in HWBot safe mode helped with the readings and I was getting up to 5.2ghz on best cores on gaming loads, but haven’t really worked on CO for awhile now as I’m waiting for a better Bios.
Thanks for sharing this, will take a look. As I understand it however (and from the results I am seeing), you want a higher negative offset on your strongest cores to allow the core to boost higher, not the other way around as you suggest? A higher positive offset/low negative would be used for weaker cores that require additional voltage to hit the same frequency.
This is maybe a bit of humble bragging! I'm not usually lucky when it comes to silicon lottery but (touch wood) I seem to have done well this time.
To OP, I would give it a bit more time and observation. Maybe check cooling - I originally had higher temps like you towards high 80's / low 90's. Gave my PC a good clean out and temps dropped significantly and then saw much better boosting.
How have you 48 gig of RAM in your sig?
Ryzen operates differently. The higher the voltage the more heat / Power limit is caused which can in fact reduce clock speeds. Your weakest cores are probable weak due to high heat, reaching power limit quicker so reducing this allows more headroom for a higher clock. By decreasing voltages on your weaker cores you are reducing the power limit and temps which give more headroom to reach higher core clock. Its like you have to think the opposite when it comes to Ryzen.
Voltage creates heat regardless of core performance. A weak core and a strong core create the same heat at the same voltage. Lowering the voltage on the strong core which doesn't need the same voltage as the weak core lowers temp and power draw which helps the weaker core.
If dropping weaker cores more were true, then why on some chips can't you set - 30 all core and run....
One thing that is curious though is CTR2.0 shows curve offset (I'd imagine native) and also individual core strength. Strongest cores have the greatest (negative) offset.
If dropping weaker cores more were true, then why on some chips can't you set - 30 all core and run....
One thing that is curious though is CTR2.0 shows curve offset (I'd imagine native) and also individual core strength. Strongest cores have the greatest (negative) offset.
Last edited:
I feel like we are saying the same thing but maybe mixing terminology...
A negative offset means you are reducing the voltage curve = less heat = more performance. AMD themselves state to focus on the strongest cores first as they will have most to give when it comes to applying a negative offset. The weaker cores will have less to give and there a reduced negative offset will be applicable.
Hope that makes sense.
By the way, that app your shared has helped tweak the curve optimiser but I find the best application at the moment for testing stability when tweaking curves is PC Mark as it hits a wide range of resource demand that no other stress tester or benchmark tool does.
Associate
- Joined
- 9 Sep 2020
- Posts
- 147
I think my 5950x is a dud too. I feel it was confirmed by a classification in Clock Tuner for Ryzen of 'bronze sample'.
Out of the box results in Cinebench R23 testing Single Core max is 4.7, multi core max is 4.06.
Adjusted PPT, TDC and EDC in Ryzen Master with PBO + Auto OC 200 + Curve Optimizer I get 4.825 max single core and 4.14 multi core.
This is on a closed custom loop when CPU temperature never exceeds 69 degrees on either benchmark.
I feel that the CPU is not delivering to spec and when I see some of the postings here of 4.9 or even 5.2, mine is way off. It doesn't really matter as I game in 4K but I still paid a lot of money for this CPU and expect it to be exceptional.
Out of the box results in Cinebench R23 testing Single Core max is 4.7, multi core max is 4.06.
Adjusted PPT, TDC and EDC in Ryzen Master with PBO + Auto OC 200 + Curve Optimizer I get 4.825 max single core and 4.14 multi core.
This is on a closed custom loop when CPU temperature never exceeds 69 degrees on either benchmark.
I feel that the CPU is not delivering to spec and when I see some of the postings here of 4.9 or even 5.2, mine is way off. It doesn't really matter as I game in 4K but I still paid a lot of money for this CPU and expect it to be exceptional.
That is quite low but not necessarily a dud. That cpu should be able to manage 4.9ghz even just for a second - put it back to stock, run hwinfo - browse some youtube, do a virus scan, run r23, r20 and play games for 5 minutes then check hwinfo, whats the highest clock speed recorded?
So.... here I am now, wishing I never RMA'd my original 5950x, ended up waiting 3 months for a replacement (after waiting I somehow managed to get 3 at the same time), and after testing all three, I can tell that the newer 5950X's seem to be binned like absolute crap (at least in comparison to the first batches). Pretty sure AMD lowered their standards at the factory to increase their yield, which wouldn't be surprising given the recent shortage situation. Still seems a bit cheeky considering those "golden samples" are the ones the reviewers etc got their hands on and gave everyone a false sense of consistent chip quality.
The one I'm running now (best of the three) is still significantly worse than my first one. Damn shame tbh.
Tempted to get rid of the 5950X and switch to the 5900X. Do we know if the binning criteria for those are higher? I.e. is it still pretty common to see all the cores individually capable of PBO boosting to >5GHz (let alone the advertised 4.9Ghz)? Because these new 5950X's sure as hell can't, apart from like maybe 1 or 2 cores out of 16, which absolutely sucks.
The one I'm running now (best of the three) is still significantly worse than my first one. Damn shame tbh.
Tempted to get rid of the 5950X and switch to the 5900X. Do we know if the binning criteria for those are higher? I.e. is it still pretty common to see all the cores individually capable of PBO boosting to >5GHz (let alone the advertised 4.9Ghz)? Because these new 5950X's sure as hell can't, apart from like maybe 1 or 2 cores out of 16, which absolutely sucks.
At at this point I would just be enjoying the CPU rather than worrying about a 100 MHz or so on the max boost clock, the difference between running my 5800X @5050 or leaving stock 4850 was literally zero so unless you're gaming at 1080p low settings I doubt you're losing out.
i'm running my 5950x at 4.65ghz all core with 1.248v's manual vcore and llc of 5 on my asus board, found it to be the best ground reall for speed and temps, max in games is around the low 60's and in 3dmark and cinebench r23 max temps just hit around 80 degrees, i'm on a custom 2*360mm loop which has a rtx 3090 fe included too.
i could run 4.7ghz all core when i first got it but if i try now temps go nuts and i can easily hit 90+ if i try, amazing how much lower temps go with a -50mhz drop in all core frequency, so i called it a day 4.65ghz with smt enabled is still a really good result
i could run 4.7ghz all core when i first got it but if i try now temps go nuts and i can easily hit 90+ if i try, amazing how much lower temps go with a -50mhz drop in all core frequency, so i called it a day 4.65ghz with smt enabled is still a really good result
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 4 Oct 2017
- Posts
- 1,320
Sorry to revive an old thread but I'm facing the EXACT same issue on a dark hero motherboard. The interesting thing is the same CPU was boosting to over 5000Mhz on all cores on an MSI Unify board.
I replaced the motherboard for the Dynamic OC features which isn't even all that.
I got that desperate I even re-installed windows and it's made no difference. I've tried countless settings in the motherboard and still no dice.
Even if I use ridiculous curve like -30 on cores they still don't hit 5000Mhz.
The second chiplet hits 4700mhz.
I know it likely won't make much difference when gaming but it just irritates me, especially when most cores were hitting 5050Mhz on the Unify.
I replaced the motherboard for the Dynamic OC features which isn't even all that.
I got that desperate I even re-installed windows and it's made no difference. I've tried countless settings in the motherboard and still no dice.
Even if I use ridiculous curve like -30 on cores they still don't hit 5000Mhz.
The second chiplet hits 4700mhz.
I know it likely won't make much difference when gaming but it just irritates me, especially when most cores were hitting 5050Mhz on the Unify.
Have you tried adding a +200mhz boost offset as the more recent agesa have effected boost clocks, alternatively you could always try using an older bios.
Associate
- Joined
- 4 Oct 2017
- Posts
- 1,320
Yes I've tried various boost offsets but they only seem to effect my best cores on the main chiplet, and the most my best two cores will do is 5100Mhz. I've also experimented with different ppt, tdc and edc settings. I just can't get the cores to get over 4700Mhz on light loads/gaming etc.
I've been using the advanced/amd overclocking section.
Should I be using the AI tweaker setting? I'm not sure why there's two different areas with the same options?!
i upgraded to the asus maximus extreme x570 and now have a all core 4.7ghz core clock on my 5950x, i still run into problems if i try and push more, the all core clock of the cpu anyway is 4.9ghz with single core boost upto 5ghz, to get a all core 5ghz you need some massive cooling running, the cpu stock will drop clocks anyway to around 4.1-4.2ghz under full load.
dont feel too bad if your cpu is stuck at 4.7ghz, a all core oc at that still nets huge performance vs stock, the 5ghz is nice but that is only 1 core maybe 2 if you get a good chip, and if temps are too high it will drop back.
dont feel too bad if your cpu is stuck at 4.7ghz, a all core oc at that still nets huge performance vs stock, the 5ghz is nice but that is only 1 core maybe 2 if you get a good chip, and if temps are too high it will drop back.