you should try running some inbuilt game benchmarks it if you have a fixed OC with custom voltage applied atm.
i just ran a repeat of 5 benchmark runs for each setting with rainbow six siege and saw a noticable difference in FPS, reproducable...
Posted Apr 24, 2018, 8:57 PM UTC
I'm manually overclocked to 4.275GHz with 3200Mhz 16-16-16-32. I get a decent boost over xfr like this, but overclocking to the limit isn't for everybody. XFR2 is really awesome for those who don't want to worry about overclocking and stability
Do you have the 1600X ?
What Vcore do you need for that?
I am curious because I need ~1.38V for 4.0Ghz and I don't know if it is "worth" to go higher on all cores if it means putting through 1.4xV 24/7
Sorry thought I had it in there. I'm using the 2700x
I just tested this with the CSGO benchmark on my 1700X under water. Did 3 runs of each, picked the lowest of the 3 runs. Cleared CMOS after OC test so the other results are 100% stock other than setting XMP.
OC vs XFR
OC 3925MHz 1.4v fixed + 1600MHz RAM
- Average framerate: 286.46
High Perf Power Plan (Did not XFR once) Stock 3500MHz + 1600MHz RAM
- Average framerate: 269.49
Ryzen Balanced Power Plan (Did not XFR once) Stock 3500MHz + 1600MHz RAM
- Average framerate: 269.75
I assumed that it wasn't XFR boosting because i wasn't using the Ryzen plan but that obviously didn't matter at all. Even the best runs had nearly the exact same FPS. CPU was below 60c while running both stock tests.
Going to test Siege next.
*Edit Siege didn't show much of a difference for me. I suppose my settings don't CPU limit me.
Interesting.
I just tested CSGO and got similar results as you. (the ulletical workshop benchmark that is)
avg. 325.xx @ auto + xfr
avg. 358.xx @ 4.0 fixed
I'm actually really disappointed it doesn't boost at all while in a game. I thought it would try to boost two cores regardless of load.
that could be engine related, source engine is quite old (12 years) and may have internal constraints as to why it doesn't push the CPU to certain limits which would make the senseMI activate XFR...
because that would actually perfectly explain why a forced 4.0 is as much as 20-30 fps faster in our two cases...
As far as I understand for first gen ryzen presiocion boost and xfr only kick on two cores only when those two cores are being used . If the application or game is multithreaded so all cores are used, xfr and precision boost won't come in effect due to already high power consumption by the CPU hence overclocking provides better performance on 1st gen especially non X parts as their clocks are lower even with xfr
Of course it will not xfr.1 gen ryzens xfr in 2 cores only when the application is more threads it will drop to standard clocks on all cores.This will benefit only on very old tasks or games that are for dual core.
and tested FC5 now.
min - avg - max
78 - 88 - 104 -> fixed
79 - 89 - 105 -> xfr
i ran that 2 times each. exactly these results. i'd say margin of error, but if it points to something it is that it may affect graphically heavy (?!) engines more than older ones. because cs:go is source engine and that's ~12 years old.
i own GTA V too but i would have to download it first. maybe i'll do that next days. just to see if siege - for me - is an outlier or if multiple modern AAA titles may show the behaviour.
That's kinda low for 1080p with a Vega 56. Does Ryzen bottleneck Vega for FC5?
No, for performance, OC the 1st gen, the 2nd gen wont need OC the X models imo most people as it OC itself. However the 1st gen does not boost if it uses more than 2 cores so if 3>= then it runs at stock speed.
oh shit whaaaaaaaaat I had no idea!!!
Yea, basically for 1st gen boost is non existant, but 2nd gen Ryzen got really great boost, as I see its a lot better functionally than intels fixed boost
My issue is that my 1950X never hits full XFR, yet I can overclock well above what XFR can hit. Ryzen is likely different, but with core performance boost/xfr enabled, the most I get is around 4050-4150 MHz. Manually overclocking gets me a guaranteed 4.2 GHz stable @ 1.425 I'vr never had any luck with stock settings, however, overclocking the 1950X and tuning things a bit turns the machine into a beast.
What board and BIOS version? Sounds like the bug in later BIOS versions introducing lower memory bandwidth when manually overclocked on some ASRock boards.
I have the ASUS Prime B350 with 16 GB RAM @ 3000Mhz , 1.35V But I have the RAM manually overclocked in both cases!
The point you bring up is interesting in general though, because it could be very much mainboard dependent.
That being said, when overclocked manually my clocks are spot on and since i do water cool my CPU there is no fluctuation / downclocking etc. happening... CPU temps are ~55°C under full load if I do 6 cores @ 4.0Ghz fixed.
ASRock claims it's an AGESA issue, so it may not be limited to ASRock boards and is why BIOS version may matter. It's not a memory timings issue exactly, but that bandwidth is reduced despite being at the same settings. You can test yourself with the AIDA64 Cache and Memory benchmark.
This is reason I regret getting non X 1600. But hey I'm stable at 3.9 all core oc
XFR boosts vcore to 1.55 on Gigabyte boards so I am not that sure about using it. (1600x)
Same on MSI, it's fine, the chips can take 1.55, just not running it 24/7. They only hold 1.55 v for seconds at a time.
you can still overclock via bclk. as long as you keep it below 105 the cpu is still using xfr. This way I got my 1700x to boost up to 4Ghz+.
Maybe your manual volting is not entirely stable.
What I found with mine (before I lost pins on it) is Ryzen doesn't crap itself and throw a blue screen like Intel chips, it either freezes, black screens or chucks up calculation errors/crashes the program and finding true stability can be a more finicky process.
I've had OC's that I thought were stable past hours of various stress tests only to crash a game a few days later.
I keep telling friends/family this, but they have all been made into idiots by "overclocking" videos/posts and the sexiness of it all.
With Ryzen people can just focus in tweaking the shit out of their RAM and cooling solutions. Which I find to be way more fun because it's less stressful when you aren't worried about ruining your CPU/motherboard. Extreme cooling has even been made more accessable to the avg user, with the glorious return of the soldered heatspreader, and not having to worry about murdering your CPU while voiding the warranty deliding it.
Leave figuring out the safest/smartest way to push the highest clocks to AMD's XFR... Just focus on stuff like cooling and tightening to memory timings to give the CPU more headroom/bandwidth to work with.
Extreme overclocking is cool, but it's not for CPUs that are going to actually be used to computer. With people I have been comparing it to the car audio competitions. Extreme overclockers are like the people pushing car audio to the point of blowing out windows and car panels, in order to set world records. What they are doing is useless for listening to music, but pretty badass to watch.
Yeah!
To be honest, I wouldn't have imagined it until I tried it some hour ago and just because I was like... okay what is a single core XFR boost going to give me compared to fixed 4.0Ghz ... because I was actually thinking that fixed may only be a little bit faster and then it turned out to be the other way round ... for Siege at least. I may test with some more titles and report back.
Of course, it can be depending on the game engine in some cases. But I believe and it seems in general it is a tadbit faster to have a boosting core.
The downside is that you will have higher voltage jumps... Or lets say a larger interval between which the Vcore will move around.
If you can keep your CPU's thermals down and your motherboard has the power delivery, it will do those boosts at over 4 ghz on ~6-8 cores... People have been posting wtf screenshots asking if it is supposed to be doing this, lol.
But the thing is, its not working in moderngames for the 1st gen ryzen, like the 1600X that you have.
When i'm playing it never goes above 3.7GHz but when im doing cinebench single core benchmark it goes up to 3.9 - 4.1 GHz. (I got Ryzen 1600X aswell)
If you do get it to work in games, please post your energy/powerplan settings and show us some more benchmarks please :)
It completely depends on the game you play to be honest. And how much work you do on the side or not. In my case i play different games here and there, but i also need a high Mhz on 1 core. So a high overclock allows me to render out stuff faster, in a stable way, while also getting the best frames i am looking for i for example CS:GO.
Then again i am not doing anything extreme. To overclock isn't extreme anyways by the way dude, and not nearly as dangerous as it was 12 years ago also.
Just know your use-case, grab good cooling, and do what seems right. That is all.