I believe at that point it wouldn't be XFR, just normal Turbo range.I'm guessing 100-200mhz additional with XFR.
It's interesting to speculate about that blue line, which also goes below the red line, suggesting that XFR can also hold clock speeds below PBR.
Presumably if the cooling is poor? Or other conditions are poor?
Quoting the paper numbers:
For reliability tracker: "Thus, by dynamically monitoring the processor cores voltage and temperature, the overwhelming majority of users can realize an extra 100 MHz increase in FMAX while staying within long-term reliability targets, by allowing lower operating temperatures to enabled higher VMAX. In addition, even heavy users can realize an extra frequency boost with customized product cooling solutions. This increase is on top of the 4%–9% improvement in VMAX as afforded by the use of the static usage model."
On Digital LDO: "Summarizing, Pmin can be used to provide similar power savings as conventional CC6 but faster exit latency and cache/core state retention, reducing idle transition latency by removing the need to flush the cache. The DVR system enables maximum residency in Pmin, raising the performance of lightly threaded workloads, since more time is spent in the C-state boost state, resulting in net performance gain of ∼6% in these scenarios."
For BTC: "As a result, we can reduce the explicit aging guard band resulting in ∼20 mV of additional savings."
For shadow p-states: "In BR, shadow P-States enable peak boost frequencies, on average, to increase by 100 MHz over conservative traditional binning."
For STAPM: "Fig. 17 shows how the benefits from STAPM varies across workloads. We included measured data from the CineBench, 3-DMark, and PCMark suites, and have demonstrated energy savings in the range of 5%–13% made possible by STAPM. Fig. 18 outlines the underlying principle of STAPM. Essentially, by allowing the core(s) to run at boost frequencies for short periods of time, we can reduce the “time to completion,” The additional power from running the CPU faster is easily compensated, since it enables other system and SoC components to be put into low power sleep modes sooner. Thus, net platform energy savings are obtained overall from enabling STAPM."
CPCHardware said:Strange point concerning Ryzen: "XFR" only appears in the marketing docs and never in the technical docs...
Well, XFR is said to be above PB Max. I assume PB Max is close to max already, given the name.I believe at that point it wouldn't be XFR, just normal Turbo range.
So what happens when you suddenly heat up your LN2 chilled cpu? Seems like that might be dangerous to start the CPU up after it is cooled to LN2 like temps?Moreover, from the description of shadow p-states, the frequency voltage table and maximum frequency, is computed at boot, supposedly with the coolest CPU. This is almost true, except when you use LN2 or helium or phase change. So it seems that for maximum frequency, you should turn on (or pour) special cooling BEFORE turning on the system...
So what happens when you suddenly heat up your LN2 chilled cpu? Seems like that might be dangerous to start the CPU up after it is cooled to LN2 like temps?
I'm not clear on the intent of XFR. Is it to get higher ST performance with one core boosting above Precision Boost?
It was always Precision Boost, the max is only on the XFR slide indicating the max level of precision boost.On the other hand, "max" seems to have disappeared, and it's now just Precision Boost?
http://www.amd.com/en-us/innovations/software-technologies/zen-cpu
I meant damaging the CPU physically with the temperature changes.It calculates a voltage frequency temperature table, but i suppose that it will compensate only for higher thatn boot temperature. But AMD could surprise us calculating the table in both higher and lower temperature.
But anyway the farther you are from the operating condition at boot, the less precise the calculations will be. I suppose that for far temperature from boot, the values will be more conservative.
So if you use the system with LN2 at -190C, it's advisable to boot with this temperature so that the VFT are the most accurate possible...
The increase is not istantaneous. Moreover at -190C the CPU will draw much less power: leakage nearly zero, greater transconductance... It's difficult to damage the CPU...I meant damaging the CPU physically with the temperature changes.
we just tested a 1700, it hit 4.0GHz stable in everything, but ONLY in the Crosshair mainboard, the lower-end boards it was hovering around 3.80GHz as the VRM's were cooking with extra voltage. It however was maxing around 4050MHz, so I'd say 1700 can do 3.9-4.1GHz, of course the 1800X will probably do 4.1-4.3 as no doubt better binned, but if your clocking the motherboard has a big impact on the overclock and so far Asus Crosshair and Asrock Taichi seem the best two
I mean, if every other VRM starts to cook by just pushing 1700Y to 4Ghz, then what kind of power does it consume at that frequency?As expected, the Crosshair's VRM looks to be built like a tank and it shows.
Yup, I tam seriously considering waiting a month and get the taichi and 1600x.As expected, the Crosshair's VRM looks to be built like a tank and it shows.
Still from 3 GHz base to 3.8GHz on all eight cores for $320 it's not bad at all, but then you need a motherboard that can sustain that 24/7 without blowing the VRM up...
The cheaper boards shouldn't have problems dealing with 6 core Ryzen, even less with 4 core models.
I wonder if some manufacturer will release a no frills motherboard with a monster VRM without any of the extra bells and whistles that aren't needed...
Well, Ryzen has no high power chips. Wait, thought you were expecting 4.5Ghz?Usually the low power chips are the one with low mean leakage. In turn those are the ones with weaker transistors (in terms of transconductance), that requires more volts for the same frequency. I am not surprised it overclocks only 1GHz from base...
As expected, the Crosshair's VRM looks to be built like a tank and it shows.
Still from 3 GHz base to 3.8GHz on all eight cores for $320 it's not bad at all, but then you need a motherboard that can sustain that 24/7 without blowing the VRM up...
The cheaper boards shouldn't have problems dealing with 6 core Ryzen, even less with 4 core models.
I wonder if some manufacturer will release a no frills motherboard with a monster VRM without any of the extra bells and whistles that aren't needed...