[der8auer] The most amazing feature of RYZEN 3000 - Power Saving (and some CCX OC)

aduljr

aduljr

n00b
Joined
Jan 25, 2017
Messages
29
Anyone watch this video yet. Seems like you get more out of your 3900x if you manually overclock per ccx instead.



The tool he used (run as admin)
CCX OC Tool: http://bit.ly/30zhbMz

Not sure if I will get much out of a 3600, but 3900x users should be able to get more.
 
You still have two ccx in a 3600, maybe one is holding your all core back? Will be interesting to see results
 
Rockenrooster said:
I think a new way of overclocking Ryzen CPUs is in order...
Click to expand...


Well yeah, but when you're already splitting the difference between 100-200 MHz higher than stock all-core turbo (5% max), it's already pretty pointless to overclock

You're not suddenly going to hit The Lottery with some dream CCX running at 6ghz, so why would anyone except a perfectionist care? Even with the per-CCX tweaking added in, your total overclock is under 10% increase.
 
Last edited:
defaultluser said:
Well yeah, but when you're already splitting the difference between 100-200 MHz higher than stock all-core turbo (5% max), it's already pretty pointless to overclock

You're not suddenly going to hit The Lottery with some dream CCX running at 6ghz, so why would anyone except a perfectionist care? Even with the per-CCX tweaking added in, your total overclock is under 10% increase.
Click to expand...

It's basically something for benchmark chasers.
 
defaultluser said:
Well yeah, but when you're already splitting the difference between 100-200 MHz higher than stock all-core turbo (5% max), it's already pretty pointless to overclock

You're not suddenly going to hit The Lottery with some dream CCX running at 6ghz, so why would anyone except a perfectionist care? Even with the per-CCX tweaking added in, your total overclock is under 10% increase.
Click to expand...
Why is finding a way to squeeze out another couple hundred MHz a bad thing? Granted its not all core but its still an interesting tweak.
 
I'm waiting for a dumb as dirt method for an extra 5 to 10% speed. I'd be happy with that.
 
gerardfraser said:
I got two words for yeah,30 year old wrestling term .Ryzen Master
Click to expand...

I checked it out. To be able to overclock it made a legacy request and rebooted. When it rebooted, no changes in settings otherwise, performance was half of what it was stock. Dunno what's up.
 
defaultluser said:
Well yeah, but when you're already splitting the difference between 100-200 MHz higher than stock all-core turbo (5% max), it's already pretty pointless to overclock

You're not suddenly going to hit The Lottery with some dream CCX running at 6ghz, so why would anyone except a perfectionist care? Even with the per-CCX tweaking added in, your total overclock is under 10% increase.
Click to expand...

Well if you don't do CCX overclocking then it's not a MAX OC is it............
When people want to compare MAX OC to MAX OC, then they will have to do CCX overclocking with the Ryzen.
Its not AMD's fault that Intel didn't include per core overclocking or equivalent of "CCX" overclocking...

Remeber you are on [H]... We live to overclock anything lol.
 
IdiotInCharge said:
They do allow per-core overclocking and they don't have CCXs to overclock...?
Click to expand...

Oh really?
So you can have one 5.2Ghz core and the rest be 5GHz? I never knew Intel had that.

As for the CCX thing I put it in quotes and said "equivalent" reading comprehension is fundamental.
Why hasn't this been a thing in CPU OC comparisons??? I understand the time, but still. Makes sense to tune individual cores to get the Max OC possible.
 
Last edited:
In my quick googling, Intel doesn't let you choose the cores you want to overclock, it randomly selects 1/2/3/4 cores to boost to the specified clock.
Not the same as the approach this thread points out...

It would be cool to specify what core the "Master Game thread" runs on as to maximize performance on Intel and AMD CPUs.
The master thread can run on the 5.2GHz core and the rest on the 4.7 cores. Same with AMD, Lock main thread to one Core at 4.6-4.7 and the rest can be lower.
 
Rockenrooster said:
In my quick googling, Intel doesn't let you choose the cores you want to overclock, it randomly selects 1/2/3/4 cores to boost to the specified clock.
Not the same as the approach this thread points out...
Click to expand...

You set the max, but you don't get to pick which cores to push to what level, but:
Rockenrooster said:
It would be cool to specify what core the "Master Game thread" runs on as to maximize performance on Intel and AMD CPUs.
The master thread can run on the 5.2GHz core and the rest on the 4.7 cores. Same with AMD, Lock main thread to one Core at 4.6-4.7 and the rest can be lower.
Click to expand...

You can see which cores boost higher, and you can set the main thread of an application to use that core.

Rockenrooster said:
As for the CCX thing I put it in quotes and said "equivalent" reading comprehension is fundamental.
Click to expand...

There's nothing close to equivalent.
 
Rockenrooster said:
Per core overclocking would be pretty close.
but yeah Intel has nothing close to equivalent...
Click to expand...

They really don't have a breakdown like AMD's CCX that affects performance. And this is only a question / issue because AMD tied inter-CCX communication to memory speed and then totally borked memory compatibility for the first few years, so enthusiasts are paying close attention to something that just shouldn't matter (but does).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top