cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

X670 resource

Shamino
Moderator

ill use this thread to collect some new test bioses for the boards, maybe also to explain some less understood options

to disable cores ccd go here and choose ccd xx bit map down core.
each ones stand for an enabled core
best to disable from the back, ie:
110000
instead of 0011000
after selection press downcore apply changes or discard if made mistake

ocpak/octools

FAQ:
7950x not boosting pass 5.5G -> check that CStates is not disabled
Detailed Explanation on CState Boot Limiter


Test BIOSes:

new:
X3D OC Preset for those MB with asynch BCLK Support: (for simple slight perf boost for X3D)
97792

DOCP/EXPO Tweaked: (for simple timings tightening)
97793

strixe-e 1515 

strixe-f 1515 

strix e a 1515 

crosshair hero 1515 

crosshair gene 1515 

crosshair extreme 1515 

creator 670 1515

creator b650 1515

strix 650E I

strix 670 itx

 

 

for crosshair and strix e-e:

explanation of segment2 Loadline:

dualseg.jpg

customize a heterogenous loadline for a dual segment workload range.

example above shows loadline=L6 when current is in range of 0~40A, and Level4 when current is above 40A.

 

 

 


Adds for x3d

dynamic ccd priority switch with core flex, os / driver agnostic so win10 win11 ok

97403

97404

Algo as follows:
If condition reached and ccd0 specified, then check current mem/cache activity > threshold and hysteresis reached, if fulfilled then switch
If condition reached and ccd1 specified, then check current mem/cache activity <=threshold and hysteresis reached,, if fulfilled then switch
Default hysteresis =4

Can combine multiple algos for ccd priority so combinations are wide

works on non x3d too but of course senseless on it. detailed explanation here.

500,533 Views
2,295 REPLIES 2,295

pz123456
Level 10

Bios 1202 - just installed and tested Memory Context Restore and Power Down 
on Crosshair X670E-extreme, 6000MhZ C36, G.Skill on QVL

I enabled it on all level in the BIOS not only in DRam TIming Control

DOCP II / I - PD MCR Enabled Boottime to Win 30 sek - but first Errors in Karhu at around 120% - ...

When MCR and PD is disabled no Errors on Karhu until 1200% ( I canceld after) - Boottime is 1:30 Min -.-

"Same procedure as last patch Mrs. Sophie?"
-"Same procedure as every Patch Mr. Winterbottom!" 


zbugrkx
Level 8

Anyone could point me where to set GDM (GearDownMode) to DISABLED on these boards? I cannot seem to find it for the life of me 😄

Go to Extreme Tweaker\DRAM Timing Control.

Scroll down to ADDR_CMD_MODE and set to Buf. 😉

230422104342.jpg

kamyk155
Level 10

Just tried the newest bios 1202 with this info:

1.Update AGESA version to ComboAM5PI 1.0.0.6
2.TPM 2.0 security update
3.Recommended for optimum performance with AMD Ryzen™ 7000X4D series processors

and........what optimum performance we are talking about ? I have lowest scores in every benchmarks.

Quick example - cpu-z test - single - 715 max, multi - max 15000. Before with 1004 bios - 730/15400.

Cinebenchs - about 100-150 points less. All 3DMarks worst scores ever.

The worst thing is that before with 1004 bios I tried expo optimized and have great gain of performance vs normal expo. Now with this 1202 bios expo it totally bad and scores I wrote above are even with expo optimized.....so.....drama performance.

I think this bios is basically to fix the fact that X670E boards were killing 7000X3D chips, hence why all the other bioses have been pulled as they wouldnt want you to back flash to them and take the risk of killing your chip, probably through over volting, so you can expect a slightly reduced performance as the chip probably isnt getting the volts it used too, so wont boost as high or as long.

I know which one I would rather have out of the option of having an expensive working system with a slight reduced performance which I wouldnt notice in everyday use as I dont spend all my time running synthetic benchmarks or a fried CPU with cooked pins in the socket making both useless.

yeah - i read it too today . 

I guess we dont pay 2000$ to run stuff on stock settings right?


these Bios Versions dont run like they should 

NOT ONE SINGLE VERSION. and i tried them all. Either you boot for 2 min or you crash in Aida, Prime, Gaming, or even before Windows is loaded. 

When can we expect next Agesa?

 

Agreed we dont pay £2000 to run things on stock setting, but lets face it, AMD pretty much killed the need for overclocking, ive not overclocked an AMD chip since ryzen 3000.

Doesnt matter who you go with, Intel, AMD, they all have teething problems with a new system, do you remember x370 with Ryzen 1000, they were a nightmare too with loads and loads of bios updates to fix different issues, them came X470 with Ryzen 2000 and everything was pretty much ironed out.

As for your crashing, the only thing that makes my system act like that is Memory context restore, try and disable it.

you are absolute right - the classic overclocking is dead on amd. 
I like the new AM5 Platform for its new Features like AsyncBCLK, CoreFlex (Temperature depending settings like PPT, BCLK, etc. )
But im not really testing it, because every change in the BIOS needs 2 Min until you can test it. I did minor Ram Timing changes - which were 100% stable on 0805 - 1101 not even close possible. 

Then out of nowhere my GPU was not initialised, i had no sensor data and only 16x1.1 speed. Turned out 1004  was  not stable with the ram timings which were tested before with Karhu 5000%, Aida64, Prime, etc. Im not a beginner. 

The Point is, its not fun at all with that long boot times to "improve" your system with CoreFlex, ABCLK, Ram OC, PBO, CO etc, - since i have this plattform - i run it stock with MCR PD on Auto (Disabled) and the rest is also on Stock (only D.O.C.P II) is enabled, because you have crashes where you dont know they come from on new "better" bioses or 2 Min boot times, and i payed a lot money for an experience i could have with an 250$ ASRock B650. And dare you touching FCLK to raise for only 33Mhz
.
Im not Mad  -  just saying.


@pz123456 wrote:

I guess we dont pay 2000$ to run stuff on stock settings right?


Actually that's EXACTLY what you do.

In early days of computing overclocking was exactly meant to do the opposite. The intention was to spend less on a cheap rig and then operate it outside specifications to reach performance of a more expensive rig. So you could run a Pentium 60MHz at 90MHz adding more voltage and cooling. Risking stability or even hardware failure. But if you're lucky in the silicon lottery you might end up with a cheap system providing the same performance as a system which is nearly double the price.

Also back then a Pentium 90 and a Pentium 60 might have been manufactured on the same wafer right next to each other and just during test it was declared 60 or 90 MHz based on validation results. So it might either just have failed the upper specs closely or it might have barely met the lower specs. So it's a lottery of some kind. If you are lucky the lower spec CPU might just have failed because it got slightly too hot and therefore cannot be operated with the stock cooler. Slamming another cooler on it mitigates this problem and therefore operating at higher spec might be acceptable.

Nowadays things are different. Manufacturers are in a more competitive environment and start to use those "safety margins" in their products for their own purpose. Even "hand"-selecting silicon (i9-13900KS for example) is done by manufacturers to provide the last bit of performance uplift. AMD AM5 CPUs will also always try to operate at maximum performance at the edge of physical limits. Since the introduction of boot clocks these boots were typically used to make use of every headroom you got in thermals including cooling an chip power distribution. This is why applying power-savings like PBO curve optimizer with negative values is potentially increasing the performance. As power consumption lowers the chips will automatically keep boost clocks for longer and therefore perform better. No need to change fixed multipliers and similar parameters as in the past. There is no real "overclocking" headroom any more. Manufacturers simply found technical possibilities to make use of these safety margins themselves.So the overclocking scene is more about trying to optimize or force the hardware to shift the limits of this headroom. So overclocking focusing on increased power targets and similar options as well as improved cooling.

Despite the hunt for better benchmark scores these optimizations are of course totally killing the efficiency. Best seen with top of the line CPUs like 7950X and i9-13900KS. They do operate way beyond their sweet spot. My 7950X is performing about 38000 CB23 score at stock and burning about 250W on full load. Running it with PBO 105W power limit lowering power consumption to about 170W (roughly 66%) still delivering about 36500 CB23 score (roughly 96%). So from the PBO optimized standpoint (170W, 36500 CB23) it's taking a 47% increase of power to get 4% of performance uplift (250W, 38000 CB23). And I haven't seen any extreme overclocker results going way beyond that except for extreme systems using liquid nitrogen or similar. Nobody is asking then if those systems can be used in day-by-day operation or about power efficiency as the target is always the highest possible clock - even if it's just for a split-second.

Having said that there is of course still some (small) headroom in safety margins provided by chip manufacturers. The goal is of course still to provide a 100% stable platform when operated at stock specs. You certainly don't want OEM systems to randomly crash, garble scientific data in the field or just randomly reset or bluescreen. Having said that you can still eat up those margins to gain a bit of performance at risk of g getting an unstable system. And this is exactly what people here do and they call it "overclocking" - which is sort of true but you have to be realistic here. All you do is to remove safety margins.

The uplift you gain typically is within a single-digit percentage between a fully tuned and a stock system if you still want your system to be usable in a day-by-day basis. You might go beyond that and even get it POST and do a stable CB23 run to get a nice screenshot of your tune to complete a benchmark before it crashes again. You always need to consider that most people (including famous overclockers) hunting for a benchmark score. I guess none of them is operating such a system for daily use. Even the article-writings, video-editing and post-processing/publishing is typically not done on overclocked systems.

Stability also depends on the workloads. I know system configurations for my rig which perfectly boot into windows and complete CB23 with no issue. However they are crashing with an MCE immediately if I try to run the Firefox installer or on other specific workloads. I was operating my system at settings where it seemed to be stable but occasionally I got Firefox tabs crashing. Sure I can blame this on Firefox and I can claim bluescreens to be Microsofts fault and blame it on bad drivers or bad code. The truth however is that a bluescreen often is related to bad memory lines caused by out-of-spec hardware.

Gamers might accept some instabilities as they typically always run the same games for quite a while. So as long as their favorite game does not crash they are happy. Even if it occasionally does nobody will be able to tell if it is crap code (which unfortunately is the case in many games) or denuvo going nuts or any other reason. Most people are not able to hunt down a bug to even find out if it's faulty hardware or out-of-spec-hardware or a real software bug.

When I see some people here reporting to run a 7950X with PBO curve optimizer -30 I am quite sure this system will not be stable under all conditions. From what I researched and my own experience there is barely any 7950X out there which can do more than -20 while being stable on all workloads. Yes I can perfectly boot mine with -32 but occasionally getting hard system resets during some workloads (my workloads typically being VirtualBox, Windows, Linux, Software development, some gaming, 3D modeling etc.). So I found it to be stable up to -18 only. Same goes for memory. Some aggressive timings will just boot fine and I will see some occasional Firefox tab crashes or program/game failures but only very occasionally seeing some bluescreen. So I can of course blame it on the software. Or just accept that I need to tune down my settings a little to complete a night of memtest86+ without any single error.

Things are not black-and-white any more. In early days you would change your Pentium 60 multipler from 60MHz x1 to 60MHz x1.5 and either it would boot or it won't boot at all. Nowadays you might get a bootable system which occasionally facing internal errors. Some of which might be correctable and some won't and case crashes and reboots.

At the end you have to ask yourself the question if you want to get the last 2-5% performance gain and potentially sacrificing stability. But one thing is for sure. It does not make sense to buy a $2000 righ just for overclocking just to gain another 2% of performance. In this case you would be better off investing this money into a dual-socket system or (if not already looking for top-of-the-line) just step up to the next higher tier hardware (e.g. go from 7600X to 7900X).

I am aware that this is probably not what one wants to hear in an overclocking forum. Specifically not from ASUS as they want to sell you $1500 "overclocking"-mainboards which provide features only handy for extreme (liquid-nitrogen level) overclocking. I personally went for one of the most cheap X670 (non-E) boards and not missing out on anything. Sure some extreme boards might have more board layers and therefore could (potentially, no warranties) be stable at slightly higher out-of-spec configuration but still you won't gain substantially.

Personally I am more disappointed at the mainboard lineup these days. I mean you cannot even find any entry-level mainboard with POST-code display - even when speaking about $250 entry level. Seriously a feature which is almost for free for the manufacturer. But not as fancy as 20 ARGB headers. And this is what they sell nowadays. Overclocking boards which feature OLED screens, RGB all over and fancy looking heatsinks. Sure heatsinks at least have a value unless they are purely decoreative and I would rather prefer functional ones with actuall dissipation fins rather than flat ares to print advertisements on it. Overclockers need stable and beefy hardware to run out-of-spec hardware. So for sure good VRM is a nice plus, but let's face it... 24 or more 60A stages are just overkill despite extreme liquid nitrogen cooling. And if I want to do this kind of extreme overclocking I am not looking for fancy OLED but rather want to have a bare-bones board. So I would put this in a fancy "home gamer" line for people not really willing to do any kind of serious overclocking but rather make things look fancy only.

So actual overclocking in that sense is dead. Long live the efficiency tuning and optimization.

F1Aussie
Level 11

I am glad I got in before they removed the 1101 bios yesterday then. It is the first time I have updated the bios for my 7700X from the original 0805. It seems to be stable at this point so far.