And my point is people are comparing PBO voltages versus manually tuned voltages. One can easily get 100+mV undervolts even starting from stock settings, on all platforms.
Here's the same story happening on Intel 9th gen:
View attachment 32939
Stock 4.6Ghz 124W and Blender done in 305 seconds.
Manual 5Ghz 128W and Blender done in 280 seconds. Lower temps too.
Intel power management must be retarded, they're essentially leaving 10% performance on the table. Or could it be there's more to this than just comparing automated systems that must compensate for tolerance across thousands of products with values tuned for one chip only?
PBO is overclocking for the masses. Stock is settings for the masses. Anybody who wants to extract full performance out of their PC needs to tune it on a chip by chip basis.
And I never claimed you did. Read a few posts back, you'll understand the context.Apart from the unnecessary snark in your post, I'd like to add that I never said it was "retarded".
I loled so hard, on suicide watch . Has 5600X dropped somehow lower since we last saw the numbers or am I just tripping?
Probably the average score changed due to more entries.I loled so hard, on suicide watch . Has 5600X dropped somehow lower since we last saw the numbers or am I just tripping?
You mean someone at Userbench underclocked Ryzen 5 5600X and posted scores to make 6-core AMD CPU slower than 10-core Intel based one on their worlds best CPU performance formula?Probably the average score changed due to more entries.
Userbenchmark on suicide watch
Damn! How many volts did that take?3800C12
All of themDamn! How many volts did that take?
Now in 7th place, AVG bench dropped to 97%Userbenchmark on suicide watch
Value and sentiment bad, there we go.
It'll also end up at 93-98% after adjustments on release day. Similar fate for the other parts.
And I never claimed you did. Read a few posts back, you'll understand the context.
Thats what im also thinking. Maybe 14:00 CET when 15:00 CET is Launch...My guess would be around this time tomorrow, a few hours before launch.
Apart from the unnecessary snark in your post, I'd like to add that I never said it was "retarded".
I'm just interested why a piece of software can't test frequency and voltage, taking notes of when there's a failure and reach the best performance settings based on parameters set for users?
Honestly unfathomable to me how AMD still hasn't hired 1usmus/Yuri Bubliy yet for the excellent work he does on both DRAM Calculator and ClockTuner for Ryzen.Ryzen CTR does. Made it easier to arrive at a balanced frequency/voltage, because the manual set frequency/test/crash/reboot loop is annoying.
Honestly unfathomable to me how AMD still hasn't hired 1usmus/Yuri Bubliy yet for the excellent work he does on both DRAM Calculator and ClockTuner for Ryzen.
That may be well the case, but with Ryzen Master AMD itself maintains software in exactly this niche as well.Probably because only enthusiast and people like us on this forum uses these tools. General users wouldn't use them or even be aware of them.
That may be well the case, but with Ryzen Master AMD itself maintains software in exactly this niche as well.
There are two sides to every transaction.Honestly unfathomable to me how AMD still hasn't hired 1usmus/Yuri Bubliy yet for the excellent work he does on both DRAM Calculator and ClockTuner for Ryzen.
Honestly unfathomable to me how AMD still hasn't hired 1usmus/Yuri Bubliy yet for the excellent work he does on both DRAM Calculator and ClockTuner for Ryzen.