GigaByte brought out a revised version of their AGESA 1.0.0.4 B (F10c) for my GigaByte X570 AURUS XTREME motherboard which still falls short of the previous 1.0.0.3 ABBA version in that the memory clock can only be set to a maximum of 3600 (MCLK 1800, FCLK 1800) whereas in the prior BIOS version there was no problem running the RAM at 3733 (MCLK 1866, FCLK 1866).
It is however an improvement over the prior AGESA 1.0.0.4 B (F10a) version which would not even run at 3600.
That being said, I decided that I would spend an entire day (from 10AM to 10PM) yesterday finding out the state of play with regard to my system and the configuration options offered by Ryzen Master Version 2.0.2.1271.
For this test I decided that I should do a completely clean installation of Windows 10 Enterprise, with only the latest patches for the OS, drivers and Ryzen Master installed and running and using CineBench R20 as the benchmark for all the tests.
Here is my Windows version:
The following Ryzen Master parameters were the same for all the tests:
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
I followed the same testing methodology for each of the options offered by Ryzen Master - Eco-Mode, Default, Precision Boost Overdrive, Auto Overclocking and Manual - which consisted of running CineBench twice before recording the CineBench Score (if there was a discrepancy between the first and second run I would do a third one) in both All-Core and Single core.
After this I would run the All-Core and Single-Core tests again but this time I would screenshot Ryzen Master whilst the test was running and for each screenshot I chose the same part of the Benchmark run for all the different options to show the system load.
The only thing running on the system for the score was CineBench R20 and Ryzen Master, whereby CineBench was always in the foreground (focussed) and Ryzen Master was behind that window.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
The first test up was Eco-Mode and the Cinebench score was:
The system load during the single core run was:
The system load during the all-core run was:
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
The second test was the Default mode, the benchmark score was:
The system load during the single core run was:
The system load during the all-core run was:
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
The third test was the Precision Boost Overdrive mode, the benchmark score was:
The system load during the single core run was:
The system load during the all-core run was:
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
The fourth test was the Auto Overclock mode, the benchmark score was:
The system load during the single core run was:
The system load during the all-core run was:
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
What is beyond my ken is that in all four of the above scenarios, there is next to no difference between the various CineBench results, but what flabbergasts me entirely is that in the First and Second scenarios I am running my system "In Spec" according to AMD; however in the Third and Fourth scenarios, I am, according to AMD, voiding my warranty on my CPU by implementing them.
There is however next to no difference in the exorbitant amount of voltage being applied - especially the single core CineBench runs result in voltages being applied to the CPU cores which I would consider to be reckless.
TSMC - the creators of the 7nm Node and the people who should know what they are talking about - have, according to reports I have read, specified a maximum voltage of 1.30 to other reports I have seen 1.325 Volts for that Node.
Under no circumstances in the scenarios above are any of those maximums even remotely adhered to.
What is worse in my view is that not only is a ridiculous amount of voltage being pumped into the CPU, but the results, in terms of CineBench results does not even remotely justify it, as can be seen when I manually configure Ryzen Master to remain within specs:
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
The fifth test was the Manual Mode, the benchmark score was:
The system load during the single core run was:
The system load during the all-core run was:
By manually clocking the cores to 4.225 GHz and setting the Peak Core(s) Voltage to 1.325V I do take a performance hit on the single core score of around 3.5% I do however gain over 2.6% in the all-core score.
And this at significantly less voltage and temps.
Aside from synthetic benchmarks, how often are single core workloads applied to the CPU, let me think now, ah yes, that would be NEVER.
All things considered, any Ryzen Option aside from manual configuration results running the CPU in what AMD itself considers an unsafe and potentially damaging way.
The thing is that applying too much voltage over time will not normally suddenly kill the CPU, but rather degrade the performance, and then, if AMD is lucky, not kill off the CPU that people have spent quite a lot of money on within the three year warranty.
The Default amount of voltage will be applied whether Ryzen Master is loaded or not, and the so-called "Eco-Mode" can only be considered a sick joke on the part of AMD.
I had not noticed that, but I just activated Eco-Mode once more, and here are the two screenshots from the actual profile and then the home page where the various readouts are shown:
Here is how the Profile page is displayed:
And this is how it is displayed on the Home Page:
So unless "Eco-Mode" is completely bogus, it could well be that it hasn't been linked to the Home Page readouts.
I would strenuously warn against setting values in BIOS for two reasons:
1) It interferes with the working of Ryzen Master (the one exception to this that I have found is setting the LLC - Load Line Callibration) in my experience. The reason for this is that you will have noticed that changes you can make in the BIOS section involving tweaking is mirrored in the "AMD Overclocking" and "AMD CBS" sections of the BIOS, the actual changes you make however does not seem to be reflected there.
From what I have seen, it appears that Ryzen Master is unaware of the setting entered into the "AI Tweaker" area of the BIOS and if the settings you enter into the Ryzen Master software conflicts with what you have entered into the Tweaker area of the BIOS then you are going to be entering a world of pain.
2) Some changes you can make in in the "AMD Overclocking" and "AMD CBS" section of the BIOS cannot be undone with a "Clear CMOS" and if you screw something up by putting in a wrong value, it can brick your system and then you better hope that you have a mobo that has a flashback function to reflash the BIOS.
If you are going to be using Ryzen Master, then, in my experience, it is imperative that you activate "Load Optimised BIOS Defaults" and then only change the the LLC (Load Line Calibration) values for the CPU and Vcore SOC.
The AGESA versions are shipped to the motherboard manufacturers as a binary, and not as source code, so the other parts of the BIOS have to treat the AGESA portion as a "Black Box" and see what changes in their BIOS values have on whatever the hell is going on in the AGESA portion. The ironic saying, "What could possibly go wrong", comes to mind 
In my case I have set the Vcore LLC to "Turbo" which is the third highest value and for the Vcore SOC I have set it to "High" which is also the third highest value. The rule of thumb for setting these values has always been never to set the highest or next highest value, unless you have a really good reason for doing so.
This generation of Ryzen CPUs is my first experience with an AMD Ryzen BIOS and it has been a steep learning curve compared to the Intel BIOSes I have become used to over the decades (I have been a computer techie now for 37 years and am 60 years old) so it quite literally has been a case of "Teaching an old dog new tricks" 
My experience has been with the GigaByte Ryzen BIOS; however I am confident that my experience is applicable to your ASUS BIOS. It has taken me days/weeks of trial and error to come to the conclusions I have shared with you.
The bottom line is, that you can either set the values in the BIOS by hand and avoid Ryzen Master, or load the BIOS defaults, set LLC and nothing else and then control the BIOS via Ryzen Master. Any other combination has resulted in my system reacting erratically and unpredictably.
I wrote something else which you may find interesting here:
Definitive guide to configuring the Ryzen 3900X
P.S. If you want to format something from Reddit to post here, then just copy the text and then and paste it into Notepad, turning "Word Wrap" off under the option "Format", then copy that and paste it here. It takes a lot of the hassle out of the whole procedure.
So I decided to play the game, "How low can you go" with regard to the voltage and still be able to do multiple Cinebench runs without crashing.
The lowest it would run at stably after multiple reboots and Cinebench R20 runs was 1.275 Volts at an all core of 4.225 GHz, going down to 1.26875 Volts resulted in an almost immediate crash, as in black screen and reboot.
Here is the Cinebench score at 1.275 Volts
The system load during the single core run was:
The system load during the all-core run was:
The ambient temperature was 25° C as measured by the thermistor that came with my new motherboard and that is the normal ambient temperature which is applicable to the results I got in the first post of this thread.
I realised that posting the results with no indication of the ambient temperature made the results somewhat ambiguous. The results were, and are, valid with regard to each other in my own environment, but not comparable with results others have when benchmarking in a different environment.
When I get the 3950X (hopefully at the end of this month if there are no shortages) I will be supplementing this post with those results conducted in the same way.
This is interesting stuff. On my system, I've only followed the 1usmus settings for overclocking my memory and setting up his power plan (which I'm not even running any more). I've changed the settings in the BIOS, not Ryzen Master. Besides the actual memory timings, here's what I've changed:
Global C-state Control = Enabled (from Auto)
CPPC = Enabled (from Auto)
CPPC Preferred Cores = Enabled (from Auto)
| Voltage Block (voltage range) | 3200 FAST Rec |
| DRAM Voltage | 1.365 |
| SOC Voltage | 1.025 |
| cLDO VDDP Voltage | 0.9 |
| Misc Items | 3200 FAST Value |
| Power Down mode | Disabled |
| Gear Down mode | Disabled |
| Command Rate | 1T |
| BGS | Disabled |
| BGS alt | Enabled |
| FCLK | 1600 |
| Termination Block Omega | 3200 SAFE/FAST Rec |
| procODT | 34.3 |
| RTT_NOM | OFF |
| RTT_WR | OFF |
| RTT_PARK | RZQ/5(48) |
| CAD_BUS Block Omega | 3200 SAFE/FAST Rec |
| CAD_BUS ClkDrv | 24 |
| CAD_BUS AddrCmdDrv | 20 |
| CAD_BUS CsOdtDrv | 20 |
| CAD_BUS CkeDrv | 24 |
I don't THINK I've changed anything which would change the peak core voltages, but I'm seeing the same kind of thing you are. Here's Ryzen Master during a run of Cinebench single core:
So, single core is showing a Peak Core Voltage of 1.43v.
And, here's one during all core:
Multi-core shows a Peak Core Voltage of 1.34v.
And, just for grins, here's Ryzen Master while my system is "idle:"
Idle Peak Core Voltage is 1.17v
The resulting 3700X Cinebench Scores:
EDIT: Never mind the following. Apparently, the 3600X is supposed to have higher numbers here than the 3700X. Sorry.
OP: But, I also wanted to bring up the differences between your 3600X and my 3700X in Ryzen Master's reported PPT, TDC, and EDC:
| Your 3600X (low) | Your 3600X (high) | My 3700X | |
| PPT | 128W | 1300W | 88W |
| TDC | 80A | 700A | 60A |
| EDC | 125A | 840A | 90A |
Even with your lowest numbers, my 3700X's are lower. Your high numbers are probably because PBO is on. But, have you changed something to make the low version of those numbers higher?
As another update.
I was speaking with someone from an overclockers Discord and invited to join.
In the discussions I was having someone told me that Ryzen 3000 could not be clocked to 4.1 GHz when running Prime95 with small FFTs (which produces more heat than smallest FFTs according to them), so I did the experiment and as you can see from the screenshot I have my Ryzen 3600X running Prime95 with small FFTs at 4.125 GHz
The screenshot was made over three hours into the Prime95 run as you can see from when it was started and if you look down at the bottom right of the screenshot you can see my current time.
The cooler I am using for this test is the Noctua NH-U12A.
The ambient temperature was 26°C, in case someone is wondering if I was conducting this test in a chilled room (aka "Doing an Intel" )
Also notice that MCLK and FCLK are clocked to 1867 for this run and at no point was there any throttling.
One more thing that I considered was the positioning of the fans on the cooler.
Out of the box the fans were configured that they were poking above the cooler.
This does not make sense to me, and the cooler itself has absolutely no problems with RAM clearance so I have placed the fans so that they are poking below the actual cooler as you can see in this photo:
My thinking is that by having the fans positioned as they are I prevent a dead space between the cold plate and the actual cooler which could function as a heat-trap
