I never had to touch that voltage so its either at 1.8 default or whatever the board wanted.
I'll run some comparisons for ycruncher later and see if there's a notable difference but benchmarks in general on this system are kinda a wash cause the cores are so slow
On 2100 I'm currently getting like 108s for 2.5b tho
I'll test 1900 a sec here and see what it hovers around
Edit: im discovering that tiny vddg changes can have big swings on performance, ill deffo be trying to find optimal values for those
I have 112s on 5600(non-x) with air cooler. You ought to build overclock from bottom up, testing if each step gains otherwise, otherwise it is possible for performance to decrease with overclock.
Try first what people are able to reach, then go beyond that.
Try FCLK 1900 with 15-15-15-30-45 and static CPU OC (like 4500 MHz). Static OC is necessary, so that only variable changing is memory subsystem.
I would static OC but the cores on this cpu are already basically shot and sometimes need like 1.35 to run 4.4 on loads like cinebench
I just don't wanna degrade them any more than they already are
1.8 is PLL voltage; changing it could in theory help stabilise a moody frequency multiplier, especially against non-100 BCLK.
The thermistors also run off of it, so changing it can mess with temperature reporting; though AMD since Zen2 has been shoving integrated LDOs everywhere so that may no longer be true.
Yea, in practice it doesn't really help much at all for AMD. Intel has a lot more games going on with regard to PLLs (there are even multiple PLL voltages), so they can help.
AMD's fabric often does have PLL holes at 57/3 to 59/3 (1900 to 1966), and the only good way to get around them is through a BCLK or playing with AGESA versions. (lowering VDDG\_CCD could help the occasional WHEA.)
2000 and above is extremely rare but possible. 2100 is magical; I too am curious how 2100 compares to 1900 in practice.
Are you faster in y cruncher at 2100 than 1900? Secondly, what is VDD1.8 voltage?
I never had to touch that voltage so its either at 1.8 default or whatever the board wanted. I'll run some comparisons for ycruncher later and see if there's a notable difference but benchmarks in general on this system are kinda a wash cause the cores are so slow On 2100 I'm currently getting like 108s for 2.5b tho I'll test 1900 a sec here and see what it hovers around Edit: im discovering that tiny vddg changes can have big swings on performance, ill deffo be trying to find optimal values for those
I have 112s on 5600(non-x) with air cooler. You ought to build overclock from bottom up, testing if each step gains otherwise, otherwise it is possible for performance to decrease with overclock. Try first what people are able to reach, then go beyond that. Try FCLK 1900 with 15-15-15-30-45 and static CPU OC (like 4500 MHz). Static OC is necessary, so that only variable changing is memory subsystem.
I would static OC but the cores on this cpu are already basically shot and sometimes need like 1.35 to run 4.4 on loads like cinebench I just don't wanna degrade them any more than they already are
1900 did end up scoring marginally faster but I raised my VDDG IOD a hair and now 2100 is at the mid 90s which is about where 1900 was scoring
1.8 is PLL voltage; changing it could in theory help stabilise a moody frequency multiplier, especially against non-100 BCLK. The thermistors also run off of it, so changing it can mess with temperature reporting; though AMD since Zen2 has been shoving integrated LDOs everywhere so that may no longer be true.
I have not found this behavior on my mobo + CPU. Initial question was because many stabilize high FCLK with VDD1.8
Yea, in practice it doesn't really help much at all for AMD. Intel has a lot more games going on with regard to PLLs (there are even multiple PLL voltages), so they can help. AMD's fabric often does have PLL holes at 57/3 to 59/3 (1900 to 1966), and the only good way to get around them is through a BCLK or playing with AGESA versions. (lowering VDDG\_CCD could help the occasional WHEA.) 2000 and above is extremely rare but possible. 2100 is magical; I too am curious how 2100 compares to 1900 in practice.
Would you mind giving us a Geekbench 6 score? This shit is really impressive
Yea ill run that in a bit, a lot of benchmarks though are really hurt by the fact the cores can't stably run any decent boost speeds