• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

AMD Ryzen 5000 Builders Thread

Page 48 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Kenmitch

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 1999
8,458
2,188
136
Yes, and both your PPT and "CPU Package Power" are 20 watts higher than your "CPU core + SoC Power". You will also notice that these extra 20 watts are always present, both at peak load and full idle load.

So there is no meter telling us where these 20 watts went, which would be nice to know more about.
HWiNFO's author Martin replied:

I will discuss with him if said "estimation" may be too high when it regularly exceeds the VRM's own POUT/PIN measurement (which cannot fully be trusted neither).
No idea what's included in the PPT in the end, but the readings aren't consistent as far as the difference goes. I'm leaning towards something else lops into the PPT's reading that isn't viewable?

Here's some snaps of my B550/5900x running in different clocks, ECO modes, etc. You can see the value isn't fixed at all.

default.PNG

ECO_35w.PNG

ECO_65w.PNG

ECO_95w.PNG

CTR_profile.PNG


All of the above readings were running CBr20 with the same memory clocks/timings/voltage.

Edit: Dropping my memory clocks down from 3600MHz to 3200Mhz with the same timings while dropping the memory voltage from 1.46v's to 1.36v's increases the gap for some reason? Use the image just above this one to compare the results.

CTR_profile_3200MHz.PNG

Conclusion? Further testing required.
 
Last edited:

Timur Born

Member
Feb 14, 2016
122
71
101
I looked further. Package/PPT delta decreases to about 14 watts when C-states (sleep) are active, aka idle time for cores. Under load I get 20 watts. According to HWiNFO's Martin "it's usually VDDIO_MEM, VDD18 and RoC. "

I asked about the memory controller being part of the cIOD, he answered "SoC power covers the VDDCR_SOC rail only, VDDIO_MEM is a separate rail. ROC = Rest-of-Chip - a pre-calculated sum of all minor rails. "
 
  • Like
Reactions: lightmanek

Timur Born

Member
Feb 14, 2016
122
71
101
To underline, the drop from 20 watts to 14 watts is induced by C-states, not by the CPU having no load to process. I find this rather strange, since I would expect all C-state related power readings to fall under the Core or SoC moniker?!
 

B-Riz

Golden Member
Feb 15, 2011
1,463
568
136
To underline, the drop from 20 watts to 14 watts is induced by C-states, not by the CPU having no load to process. I find this rather strange, since I would expect all C-state related power readings to fall under the Core or SoC moniker?!
In general, to answer your question about "where is the extra power used" go back and read all the Zen1 - Zen3 reviews, plus the server part reviews. Ian does a very good job of showing power usage; what is probably happening is the "missing" power is used for Infinity Fabric and the like; I believe the Zen2 / Zen3 server chip reviews go into great detail about it.

Here is the Zen3 desktop review power usage page, just for easy clicking.

 
  • Like
Reactions: Tlh97 and bigboxes

Timur Born

Member
Feb 14, 2016
122
71
101
Thanks, I will read the linked article.

Albeit with infinity fabric being part of the IO chip I would have expected it to be part of SoC power. I noticed from another user's screenshot that his 3600 only measures 10 watts Package/PTT over Core + SoC despite the IO chip being the same.
 
Last edited:

B-Riz

Golden Member
Feb 15, 2011
1,463
568
136
Thanks, I will read the linked article.

Albeit with infinity fabric being part of the IO chip I would have expected it to be part of SoC power. I noticed from another user's screenshot that his 3600 only measures 10 watts Package/PTT over Core + SoC despite the IO chip being the same.
I believe the 3600 silicon are selected for efficiency over performance, where the X CPU's are selected for performance over efficiency.

When you get to the server reviews, the more cores, the more power the "un-core" power usage goes up, Threadripper vs regular AM4 are interesting reads too.

The bad thing about Zen3 server, is there was a regression in power usage compared to how Zen2 improved from Zen1.


 

Timur Born

Member
Feb 14, 2016
122
71
101
The change from Intel GB Master based system to a AMD MSI Creation on definitively included more power consumption and more heat generation. The VRM of the MSI board might be worse than the (very good) GB one, too, with VRM idle temperatures being about 20°C higher (low 50s). On the other hand my current impression is that the MSI VRM is quieter, maybe even considerably. This is worth a lot.

Yesterday I noticed that despite 75% idle times my 5900X never enters C6 during a gaming session of TW:WH2. Now, C1 on AMD seems to encompass stages that mimic C3 on Intel and often I turn off anything higher than C3 anyway. I will have to test that on the Intel system again.
 

JoeRambo

Golden Member
Jun 13, 2013
1,119
979
136
The change from Intel GB Master based system to a AMD MSI Creation on definitively included more power consumption and more heat generation. The VRM of the MSI board might be worse than the (very good) GB one, too, with VRM idle temperatures being about 20°C higher (low 50s). On the other hand my current impression is that the MSI VRM is quieter, maybe even considerably. This is worth a lot.

Yesterday I noticed that despite 75% idle times my 5900X never enters C6 during a gaming session of TW:WH2. Now, C1 on AMD seems to encompass stages that mimic C3 on Intel and often I turn off anything higher than C3 anyway. I will have to test that on the Intel system again.

Frankly 5950x is a bad chip if You are after desktop efficiency. It has ~2010 era hardware characteristics in low load situation due to design and AMD boosting algorithms trying to reach 5ghz on ridiculous voltages even without PBO, on motherboard defaults.
All that can be seen in Anandtech review of 5950x:


1 core load power - 50W,
4 core load power - 110W

At idle and low load this chip is outright horrible choice for efficiency. AMD does not shy away from burning dozens of watts for extra 5% or so of performance and benchmark wins.
 

B-Riz

Golden Member
Feb 15, 2011
1,463
568
136
Frankly 5950x is a bad chip if You are after desktop efficiency. It has ~2010 era hardware characteristics in low load situation due to design and AMD boosting algorithms trying to reach 5ghz on ridiculous voltages even without PBO, on motherboard defaults.
All that can be seen in Anandtech review of 5950x:


1 core load power - 50W,
4 core load power - 110W

At idle and low load this chip is outright horrible choice for efficiency. AMD does not shy away from burning dozens of watts for extra 5% or so of performance and benchmark wins.
And that is why Eco Mode exists, try it out, is great!
 
  • Like
Reactions: prtskg

B-Riz

Golden Member
Feb 15, 2011
1,463
568
136
The change from Intel GB Master based system to a AMD MSI Creation on definitively included more power consumption and more heat generation. The VRM of the MSI board might be worse than the (very good) GB one, too, with VRM idle temperatures being about 20°C higher (low 50s). On the other hand my current impression is that the MSI VRM is quieter, maybe even considerably. This is worth a lot.

Yesterday I noticed that despite 75% idle times my 5900X never enters C6 during a gaming session of TW:WH2. Now, C1 on AMD seems to encompass stages that mimic C3 on Intel and often I turn off anything higher than C3 anyway. I will have to test that on the Intel system again.
What do your VRM readings look like in HWinfo?

I set my PBO to + 125 Mhz and PPT to 130W.

Below is just regular idle stuff, nothing running / processing in the background, like 3% cpu usage right now.

1621263122747.png
 
Last edited:

JoeRambo

Golden Member
Jun 13, 2013
1,119
979
136
And that is why Eco Mode exists, try it out, is great!
Thanks but no, I took the matter into my own hands and properly undervolted the chip
1621266186083.png


As You can see my chip is using ~half* of the power versus stock tested by Anandtech. All cause I don't think pumping 1.5V to achieve >4.4ghz is only good for AMD marketing department.

* different load, no HT, different mobo etc
 

Attachments

Kenmitch

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 1999
8,458
2,188
136
Thanks but no, I took the matter into my own hands and properly undervolted the chip
View attachment 44475


As You can see my chip is using ~half* of the power versus stock tested by Anandtech. All cause I don't think pumping 1.5V to achieve >4.4ghz is only good for AMD marketing department.

* different load, no HT, different mobo etc
What is the above trying to show us? Viewing the readings it's looking like your using 1.119v's while you have your CPU gimped to 1143.2MHz running Cinebench?
 

B-Riz

Golden Member
Feb 15, 2011
1,463
568
136
Thanks but no, I took the matter into my own hands and properly undervolted the chip
View attachment 44475


As You can see my chip is using ~half* of the power versus stock tested by Anandtech. All cause I don't think pumping 1.5V to achieve >4.4ghz is only good for AMD marketing department.

* different load, no HT, different mobo etc
So what do you expect out the the 5950X?

An efficient CPU or a performant CPU?

Why no HT?

AMD already has said, touching Zen3 beyond a few fiddly bits with PBO / PPT etc. can not beat their baked in auto on the fly adjustments...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tlh97

JoeRambo

Golden Member
Jun 13, 2013
1,119
979
136
What is the above trying to show us? Viewing the readings it's looking like your using 1.119v's while you have your CPU gimped to 1143.2MHz running Cinebench?
Gimped to 4.4ghz static OC @ 1.13V. AMD marketing department shoves 1.5V to achieve 4.75Ghz freq @ 110W with 4C load. Average effective clock = 4C 100% load, 12C 0% load results in ~1.1Ghz average.


So what do you expect out the the 5950X?

An efficient CPU or a performant CPU?

Why no HT?
I expect an efficient CPU, one that does not use 110W under light load of 4 cores, cause that is what my i7 920 was using in 2009.
I don't care about HT, cause my workloads don't really play well with HT, not everything is Cinebench.

AMD already has said, touching Zen3 beyond a few fiddly bits with PBO / PPT etc. can not beat their baked in auto on the fly adjustments...
Sadly my practice with 3950X and now 5950X has found that both stock and those PBO/PPT things are plain retarded both in low load regime, and when under or near full load.

Low load regime is already obvious - using 50W extra to gain less than 10% extra clock.
Under full load the "almighty" stock either drops clocks to ~3.8Ghz, or with PBO and expanded power limits goes ballistic with power to achieve the all core clocks of my undervolted setups.
 

B-Riz

Golden Member
Feb 15, 2011
1,463
568
136
Gimped to 4.4ghz static OC @ 1.13V. AMD marketing department shoves 1.5V to achieve 4.75Ghz freq @ 110W with 4C load. Average effective clock = 4C 100% load, 12C 0% load results in ~1.1Ghz average.




I expect an efficient CPU, one that does not use 110W under light load of 4 cores, cause that is what my i7 920 was using in 2009.
I don't care about HT, cause my workloads don't really play well with HT, not everything is Cinebench.



Sadly my practice with 3950X and now 5950X has found that both stock and those PBO/PPT things are plain retarded both in low load regime, and when under or near full load.

Low load regime is already obvious - using 50W extra to gain less than 10% extra clock.
Under full load the "almighty" stock either drops clocks to ~3.8Ghz, or with PBO and expanded power limits goes ballistic with power to achieve the all core clocks of my undervolted setups.
So why did you get this if a 4C load and no HT is the most important thing?

How does the chip down clock if you have a static OC? Isn't that a fixed frequency it is constantly running at?

Do you have posts about testing with a negative offset, or did you just go for a fixed voltage when you started the under-clock tuning?

I did negative offset with Ryzen 7 1700 and Ryzen 7 2700X, but have left Zen2 and Zen3 largely to their own devices as all the under-clock testing posts resulted in reduced performance versus leaving most things on auto.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tlh97

JoeRambo

Golden Member
Jun 13, 2013
1,119
979
136
It was in response to another user complaining about AMD system with 5950x using a ton more watts versus his Intel one on idle and "gaming" load.
So i have looked up data from Anandtech testing, that had 4C load point with wattage north of 100W ( no need to rely on Anandtech either, our own Det0x has screenshots with CB power / threads scaling in this thread) and provided my own data for my static overclock of 4.4Ghz.
And my power usage is actually overstated already, due to memory OC and non stock voltages to support it. The cores are using ~5.5W @4.4ghz when fed with 1.13V, the rest of the chip chews 30W, would go down with casual 3200 mem.

I did try negative offsets, PBO, CTR 2.1 and so on. The result is always the same, horribly inefficient compared to under volt to the region where the chip is still efficient.
Offsets or not, AMD is showing 1.4-1.5V to rise frequency, per core wattage goes to 12-18W to extract 10-15% more clock. Then either PPT limit is hit and downclocking/downvolting gradually starts, or if limits allow, chip goes ballistic to 300W.
 

DrMrLordX

Lifer
Apr 27, 2000
17,268
6,267
136
Not gonna lie, if I had a 5950X burning 110W on a ~4c workload I would not really be complaining much, especially since I know the chip can't pull more than 32W on top of that as the workload intensifies (assuming I'm running stock).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tlh97

Timur Born

Member
Feb 14, 2016
122
71
101
5900X, not 5950X. I made another interesting observation: Running few threads of high load increases CPU temperature when C-states (sleep) are enabled vs. disabled, despite wattage being lower.
 
Last edited:

JoeRambo

Golden Member
Jun 13, 2013
1,119
979
136
Not gonna lie, if I had a 5950X burning 110W on a ~4c workload I would not really be complaining much, especially since I know the chip can't pull more than 32W on top of that as the workload intensifies (assuming I'm running stock).
I would not mind either, if they had anything to show for it. According to Anandtech testing, at 4c load they are achieving 4.725Ghz at the cost of 20W per core and 110W total.
While with undervolt and fixed OC i am achieving 4.4Ghz at the cost of 5.5W per core and 55W total. All cause of AMD marketing department deciding it is OK to shove 1.5V into the chip and hit as high freqs as possible.
Btw 5.5*16 => 88W, so ~ 120W of peak power usage when all cores are active.

AMD has incredible chips in 3950x and 5950x. Just that if left to default behavior they have atrocious power usage when left to the mercy of stock algorithms. The trade off seems to be 15W per core for maybe 5% more performance @stock.
Combine such nasty power usage with overhead of IOD and you end up with CPU, that competes with Intel's "finest" in burning power and only become efficienty in throughput/power mid-late in load regime.

Of course i understand AMD's position, more Mhz is good for marketing, and they need high voltages to have enough safety margin to account for load transients, frequency ramp from power saving, users running 16C on that motherboard with 2 phase VRM and so on. + my stability is without HT and probably would not hold Prime testing. Would it burn 15W more per core for 4.4? Nope.

I am running 3950X @4.05Ghz since last February, now 5950x joined compute resources @4.4ghz, very happy with these CPUs. Not happy with their brain dead hunt for mhz way out of efficient region.
 
  • Like
Reactions: B-Riz

DrMrLordX

Lifer
Apr 27, 2000
17,268
6,267
136
While with undervolt and fixed OC i am achieving 4.4Ghz at the cost of 5.5W per core and 55W total. All cause of AMD marketing department deciding it is OK to shove 1.5V into the chip and hit as high freqs as possible.
You do realize that was a response to everyone complaining that Matisse could not sustain max boost on more than one core, and not in any realistic scenario? It is exactly what AMD's critics wanted from them. Also, I see no indicator that the voltages required to achieve boost in excess of 4.7 GHz on four cores are at all dangerous at those current levels.
 

B-Riz

Golden Member
Feb 15, 2011
1,463
568
136
So the current topic of 4C load usage made me test my 5900X at current settings of 130W PPT and +125Mhz PBO, I ran 4T mixed testing on prime95 and pinned them to the first 4 physical cores in task manager; my test run errored out, so I need to change settings.

But the chip used up to the 130W PPT limit on those 4 cores on load, so, if you want a low power chip, set a lower target C temp or a lower PPT and leave PBO off.

I am going to test a target C of 70 now and leave everything else stock, to see how it does in prime95 mixed 4C load.
 

JoeRambo

Golden Member
Jun 13, 2013
1,119
979
136
But the chip used up to the 130W PPT limit on those 4 cores on load, so, if you want a low power chip, set a lower target C temp or a lower PPT and leave PBO off.
With PBO off it will still use 20W per core, not much improvement. The only way to have efficient 12-16C CPU is to manual OC in efficient voltage range and giving up last 5% of ST performance.
 

Kenmitch

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 1999
8,458
2,188
136
With PBO off it will still use 20W per core, not much improvement. The only way to have efficient 12-16C CPU is to manual OC in efficient voltage range and giving up last 5% of ST performance.
What is going to be the main use of your 5950x? There's nothing wrong with tweaking it to your liking as long as your using loads that will be similar to your use case scenarios.

I have a 5900x and am currently experimenting with clocks/voltages as the summer months are coming up quickly. I recently found out that my current uEFI doesn't generate WHEA errors when I run my memory at 3800MHZ with 1900FCLK so I've been side tracked stress testing for WHEA errors.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Tlh97 and B-Riz

JoeRambo

Golden Member
Jun 13, 2013
1,119
979
136
What is going to be the main use of your 5950x? There's nothing wrong with tweaking it to your liking as long as your using loads that will be similar to your use case scenarios.
Same as 3950x and 9980XE, they sit in the corner of my working room, a compute pool of DYI sort, running specialized software. The load varies with time, but after adding such monster as 5950X they spend even more time in low load regime.
I have put my "review" of 5950x @4.6ghz here:

but i have since settled on 4.4ghz since it required almost 0.1V less.
 

B-Riz

Golden Member
Feb 15, 2011
1,463
568
136
So the current topic of 4C load usage made me test my 5900X at current settings of 130W PPT and +125Mhz PBO, I ran 4T mixed testing on prime95 and pinned them to the first 4 physical cores in task manager; my test run errored out, so I need to change settings.

But the chip used up to the 130W PPT limit on those 4 cores on load, so, if you want a low power chip, set a lower target C temp or a lower PPT and leave PBO off.

I am going to test a target C of 70 now and leave everything else stock, to see how it does in prime95 mixed 4C load.
4C, mixed prime95, 70 C max temp test started.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY