That MT efficiency at 65W TDP is insane.
For an ASRock board/bios, all that I can find is if you use the max temp feature. No TDP setting or ECO mode that I can find (or anybody has told me about) Tight now I an running 90c, but might lower that later. I would LOVE to have that TDP feature ! It did lower the wattage, and I see no difference in times, but I am still at 35k on cb23.That MT efficiency at 65W TDP is insane.
ST efficiency increasing at lower TDP shows that it's constantly boosting well beyond the efficiency infliction point. I guess only a fixed frequency could avoid that. (Or possibly a low temperature limit?)
You should have something like this in/around your PBO settingsFor an ASRock board/bios, all that I can find is if you use the max temp feature. No TDP setting or ECO mode that I can find (or anybody has told me about) Tight now I an running 90c, but might lower that later. I would LOVE to have that TDP feature ! It did lower the wattage, and I see no difference in times, but I am still at 35k on cb23.
Not on my screen... It was only the beta bios even had the throttle limit. I am on the latest beta bios.You should have something like this in/around your PBO settings
View attachment 69008
If you have no eco mode you can set manually PBO PPT limit to 88w
View attachment 69009
If you don't have any PBO settings in your ASRock part of the bios, you should find this in the AMD part of the bios (advanced)
View attachment 69010
Hope this helps![]()
Ignoring the uncore overhead (so these will likely be worse in reality) 7900X should achieve a similar MT efficiency at around 49W, likewise 7700X at around 33W and 7600X at around 24W, lol...at 65W the 7900X does almost as well despite the core count deficit.
A -25 offset is pretty large across all cores. It might not be really stable with that large an offset but who knows, maybe you got a top chip.I found a setting that I like ! I tried PBO and 170 watt, and somehow when I booted it was very slow and said 0 is the PPT. So on a different screen I found something that said offset, (negative) and I set that to 25. When I booted and I run cb23, it says 142 watt and 13 watt SOC, so less than 170 ! And the temp at 90. cb23 still running, I will update when it finishes !
Edit: First run 35k and change. So it did not affect performance at all and uses the same as a 5950x now !
Well, after prliminary tests, it looks fine, so I rebooted linux, and now am running 30 WCG tasks and the 3090TI is running F@H, so its maxed. We will see how it does.A -25 offset is pretty large across all cores. It might not be really stable with that large an offset but who knows, maybe you got a top chip.
No, but I will add the 105w and 65w cTDP numbers of @Det0x shortly. In the past I tried to only include stock results in order not to clutter the rankings. But I have a feeling that with this generation from both vendors the interest regarding performance and efficiency under limited TDPs has been growing lately.I just realized. My new 7950 at 142 watts, is it on your chart ? I normally let it run linux, but I could install office and try it at 142 watts, but didn't detox do this at all sorts of wattage settings with his 7950x ?
BTW, my results were from setting PBO(some sub-option) to -25 and max temp to 90. Its just so happens that Ryzen master now says 142 watt cpu and 13 watt SOC. You might want to put that in your notes.So after having been some days off, quite some catching up to do...
@Det0x
These are some quite impressive results. Your 65w cTDP numbers are a bit better than the ones I got from Andreas Schilling - so you might have a Golden SampleAside from changing the cTDP did you tune something else as well? What kind of RAM do you have (although CB23 should not be very sensitive in this regard)?
No, but I will add the 105w and 65w cTDP numbers of @Det0x shortly. In the past I tried to only include stock results in order not to clutter the rankings. But I have a feeling that with this generation from both vendors the interest regarding performance and efficiency under limited TDPs has been growing lately.
So I will also re-add the 12900K@125w TDP for the sake of comparison.
/edit:
@Det0x
Would you mind doing another run with stock settings? Your 105w TDP run was already faster than the only stock-run I have of the 7950X until now.
BUT, my motherboard has NO ECO setting. Obviously the bios are very different. But any sane person would not leave bios at stock for Alderlake, Zen4 or Raptorlake IMO. So we really need to figure out the best way to determine efficiency, and wattage at full load would seem to be it.@Markfw
Yep, understood. That is why I refrain from putting them in the rankings. When we start chasing down that rabbit hole of max. temp settings, Vcore offsets and stuff, we will never see the light of day again - I hope you understand
So I just updated the rankings and included the results from @Det0x with 65w and 105w cTDP as well as @.vodka 's 3900X (to my own surprise we did not have a sample of that before).
Runs were done with PBO CO enabled, handtuned for my cpu with golden CCD0 (SP121) and below average CCD1 (SP112).So after having been some days off, quite some catching up to do...
@Det0x
These are some quite impressive results. Your 65w cTDP numbers are a bit better than the ones I got from Andreas Schilling - so you might have a Golden SampleAside from changing the cTDP did you tune something else as well? What kind of RAM do you have (although CB23 should not be very sensitive in this regard)?
Yes i can do a new run at "optimized bios settings" (all stock) in the next few days@Det0x
Would you mind doing another run with stock settings? Your 105w TDP run was already faster than the only stock-run I have of the 7950X until now.