Question Is a steady, high voltage better than fluctuating voltage Ryzen?

[Thunderbird_eagle]

Hi I'm on Zen+ (a ryzen 3400G to be precise) yet I seem to have the same problem as this guy:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/phf4kj/why_is_my_idle_voltage_so_high

I made a thread on it in a different forum: https://forum.level1techs.com/t/cpu-suddenly-locked-at-a-high-voltage/215366 however that was my mistake I guess, level1techs probably focuses on different things.
So my voltage is stuck at 1.36 V (Ryzen master reports slightly different values), but if I enable global C state control in UEFI it does fluctuate (ranging from ~400 to 1.36 V). So, which is better for the CPU longevity-wise? Until I can solve that problem (I don't have high hopes), I've resolved to enabling global C-state control, setting a more aggressive fan curve in the BIOS and hibernating my PC when I'm not using it.
Also is it ok if it idles at 1.36 V but the temps are low (like, 43 to 53 degrees celsius)?

 

[Shmee]

While I haven't messed with Zen+ in some time, in general I don't think 1.36V is too high, though obviously lower at idle would be better. Some things to look into would be Windows power plans/options, and possibly UEFI settings, you may be able to undervolt depending on your board. Keep in different UEFI revisions may also fix or change things, so you may want to look into an update there, or possibly even a downgrade.

 

[Thunder 57]

That doesn't sound like a problem. Did you mean 400mV to 1.36V? Sounds fine. How low do your clocks get at idle? You may need to go into your power plan and set a lower minimum as a percentage like this:



Also remember Zen+ is on an older node so normal voltages are higher than say RPL where 1.5V seems to be a problem.

 

[eek2121]

Are you running at stock? Did you update to the latest BIOS and reset to Optimized defaults with no other settings changed?

If so, Install the latest AMD drivers and reboot. Install HWinfo64, run it, and monitor voltages that way. Finally, change the power plan to “Balanced”

Your voltage should never be static. If your system is working properly, voltages will bounce between under 1V and up to 1.595V. This is normal. A fixed, unchanging voltage is not.

If nothing I mentioned works, do a CLEAN install of Windows and do the steps in the second paragraph again.

 

[Thunderbird_eagle]

Are you running at stock? Did you update to the latest BIOS and reset to Optimized defaults with no other settings changed?

If so, Install the latest AMD drivers and reboot. Install HWinfo64, run it, and monitor voltages that way. Finally, change the power plan to “Balanced”

Your voltage should never be static. If your system is working properly, voltages will bounce between under 1V and up to 1.595V. This is normal. A fixed, unchanging voltage is not.

If nothing I mentioned works, do a CLEAN install of Windows and do the steps in the second paragraph again.

Thank you so much! I did nothing except use the 'Load UEFI defaults' option in my UEFI (and of course changed my primary video adapter so that my PC would still boot), and it worked! My cpu now idles at ~0.7-0.8 V. Some observations:
Before in Ryzen Master basic view the maximum voltage was 1.375 V, now it's auto.
Secondly by loading the UEFI defaults I've seemed to unlock extra options in my UEFI, such as load line calibration and voltage offset (not that I've touched them). These didn't exist before.

I would mark this as solved, but I suppose the original question hasn't been answered : ) It's more of an academic question now, but exactly why is a static voltage worse than a fluctuating one (or vice-versa) ?

 

[Thunder 57]

Thank you so much! I did nothing except use the 'Load UEFI defaults' option in my UEFI (and of course changed my primary video adapter so that my PC would still boot), and it worked! My cpu now idles at ~0.7-0.8 V. Some observations:
Before in Ryzen Master basic view the maximum voltage was 1.375 V, now it's auto.
Secondly by loading the UEFI defaults I've seemed to unlock extra options in my UEFI, such as load line calibration and voltage offset (not that I've touched them). These didn't exist before.

I would mark this as solved, but I suppose the original question hasn't been answered : ) It's more of an academic question now, but exactly why is a static voltage worse than a fluctuating one (or vice-versa) ?

Because you only want as to supply as much voltage as necessary. No point in having a high voltage that is necessary for max performance when you are idle. Lowering the voltage reduces power use, heat, and is generally better for the CPU.

 

[coercitiv]

It's more of an academic question now, but exactly why is a static voltage worse than a fluctuating one (or vice-versa) ?

I'm not sure you were running a static voltage before, there's a high chance you were running a fixed clock and the voltage oscillated around 1.36V. To answer your question though, using dynamic clocks/voltage vs. "static" clocks/voltage is a not a choice between something better and something worse, they should both be equally safe. The real choice is made around power savings and responsiveness, and it's a tradeoff. I'll describe a few scenarios below so you can understand how they interact with each-other:

• CPU stays at max clocks, has C states disabled (a.k.a sleep states) - this configuration is the most responsive, since the cores are always available and running at max speed. Downside is the CPU uses more power than it should under very light loads and also at idle.
• CPU stays at max clocks, has C states enabled - this configuration is a bit less responsive, but uses considerably less power when idle (to give you a sense of scale think about 6-10W less at idle, exact value is very dependent on CPU model)
• CPU changes clocks dynamically, has C states disabled - this config is likely even less responsive, but uses considerably less power under light load (because it runs at lower speeds when there's little to do) and somewhat less power during idle
• CPU changes clocks dynamically, has C states enabled - least responsive config, maximum power saving under both light load and idle.

Last thing you should know, is that even if this responsiveness I'm talking about is objectively measurable, modern CPUs are reacting very fast at increasing clocks or exiting sleep states, to the point where most users won't notice a difference between a system optimized for lower power usage and one optimized for performance. Users should chose to have both features enabled, and maybe optimize later if they feel like experimenting while learning more about the tradeoffs.

 

[eek2121]

I'm not sure you were running a static voltage before, there's a high chance you were running a fixed clock and the voltage oscillated around 1.36V. To answer your question though, using dynamic clocks/voltage vs. "static" clocks/voltage is a not a choice between something better and something worse, they should both be equally safe. The real choice is made around power savings and responsiveness, and it's a tradeoff. I'll describe a few scenarios below so you can understand how they interact with each-other:

• CPU stays at max clocks, has C states disabled (a.k.a sleep states) - this configuration is the most responsive, since the cores are always available and running at max speed. Downside is the CPU uses more power than it should under very light loads and also at idle.
• CPU stays at max clocks, has C states enabled - this configuration is a bit less responsive, but uses considerably less power when idle (to give you a sense of scale think about 6-10W less at idle, exact value is very dependent on CPU model)
• CPU changes clocks dynamically, has C states disabled - this config is likely even less responsive, but uses considerably less power under light load (because it runs at lower speeds when there's little to do) and somewhat less power during idle
• CPU changes clocks dynamically, has C states enabled - least responsive config, maximum power saving under both light load and idle.

Last thing you should know, is that even if this responsiveness I'm talking about is objectively measurable, modern CPUs are reacting very fast at increasing clocks or exiting sleep states, to the point where most users won't notice a difference between a system optimized for lower power usage and one optimized for performance. Users should chose to have both features enabled, and maybe optimize later if they feel like experimenting while learning more about the tradeoffs.

Not really. 1.35v and above was shown to cause degradation in Zen 1/Zen+.

Someone had a static overclock set on that system with a voltage that will gradually (and probably did) degrade the chip.

 

[Thunderbird_eagle]

Not really. 1.35v and above was shown to cause degradation in Zen 1/Zen+.

Someone had a static overclock set on that system with a voltage that will gradually (and probably did) degrade the chip.

Doesn't it depend on the temperature as well? Like 1.35 V should be ok if temperatures are like 45 degrees C ?

 

[coercitiv]

Doesn't it depend on the temperature as well? Like 1.35 V should be ok if temperatures are like 45 degrees C ?

Yes, it depends on temperature, and 1.35V is normal as long as it's used by the boost algorithm (which takes into account temperature and load). However, if for whatever reason your system was configured with a manual speed multiplier and manual/static voltage, 1.35V is close to danger territory for 24/7 operation on Zen 1 / Zen+ as @eek2121 described.