It has taken me this long to write this guide because I don't get free stuff sent to me so I had to wait until I was able to get hands on experience with this CPU and its two chiplet design.
So I am sorry if you have been having a bad experience trying to make sense of what "influencers" who do get free stuff have confused you with regard to the ultimately pretty simple task of configuring your system for optimal stable performance.
I hope this now makes up for my tardiness.
Today someone approached me on Discord who was confused about configuring his 3900X system and asked me to help. He knows me and was thus willing to allow me to use Teamviewer to access his system, and was willing to spend the time with me to allow me to do the job right (which took over six hours of configuring and testing).
First of all any and all settings in Ryzen Master under the heading "Default", "Precision Boost Overdrive" and "Auto Overclocking" are useless.
The other thing is that although the cooler that comes with the 3900X is actually not bad, it is however useless if you want to optimise your system because the Ryzen 3900X is very sensitive to temps and even a difference of 2° C makes a difference with regard to how high you can go with your clockspeeds
This is not to say that Ryzen Master is useless and it is a useful tool.
Forget about trying to set up your system in the BIOS because that is a total mess and you are best off just leaving most of it set to auto (unless of course Auto does something silly such as setting the BCLK above 100).
So here we go, and when I am done you will say, "This is obvious, how come nobody else has told me about this".
The very first thing to do is in Ryzen Master go to "Profile 2" (I will explain why Profile 2 further down) and set the Control Mode to "Manual".
After doing this, go to "Voltage Control" and set "Peak Core(s) Voltage to 1.3 Volts.
Next go to "Memory Control" click on "Included" and make sure that he slider is set to half of the rated value of you RAM (that is, if you have 3200 RAM you set the slider to 1600).
The next part is now really easy. Click on all the cores in CCD0 and CCD1 and set them to a speed and test that.
I started off with 3900 and worked my way up, because this was my first ever experience with a dual chiplet Ryzen CPU.
When you have set the value then go into Cinebench R20 and under "File" then "Preferences" set the "Minimum Test Duration" to 300 seconds. This will run through the Cinebench test multiple times.
Now gradually increase the clockspeed of the cores and test, until it becomes unstable and Cinebench won't complete the test run.
Congratulations, you have found the sweet-spot for your CPU and what is more, that clockspeed will give you a higher single core score than setting Ryzen master even to "Auto Overclock".
With regard to the system I was configuring today the sweet spot was at 4250 MHz for all the cores. I did manage to do a couple of single runs of Cinebench at 4300 MHz on all cores, but it was not stable over the 300 second run, even when I punted in higher voltage and the Cinebench score at 4300 was only about 100 more than the score at 4250.
So that was easy right?
But wait, there's more.
Remember when I said that you were to configure "Profile 2" and I would explain why? What follows will be the reason.
For gaming performance clockspeed is important. Most games don't use more than four cores and very few games use more than six cores.
So now that you have configured "Profile 2" you take those values and apply them to "Profile 1" and then the only thing that you change is under "Additional Control" you set "Simultaneous Multithreading" to "Off".
After you reboot you will have a straight 12 Core/12 Thread system.
The first thing that you will notice when you run Cinebench is that your temps will be a lot lower - and this is what we will exploit (in the system I was working with this was a difference of 10° - 13° C).
Now you can find the sweetspot for this configuration - in the case of the system I was working with today it was stable at an all-core speed of 4.35 GHz.
So now you have the best of both worlds, a 12 Core/12 Thread "Profile 1" for gaming and a 12 Core/24 Thread "Profile 2" for production work where you need the extra threads.
You can get even more gaming performance out of your system than this if you follow another guide I wrote which you can find here:
If anything is unclear then please feel free to ask.
I will then use your feedback to update this post.
I am not trying to be snide or make fun of you, and I will delete this reply, but could you please make your question a bit clearer, because for the life of me I can't work out what you mean.
Could you please edit your post to clarify it.
Edit action is not available.
"So now you have the best of both worlds, a 12 Core/12 Thread "Profile 1" for gaming and a 12 Core/24 Thread "Profile 2" for production work where you need the extra threads."
What is the single threaded Cinebench R20 score of "profile 1" configured as you described?
What is the multi threaded Cinebench R20 score of "profile 2" configured as you described?
I am curious how the aggregate results compare to allowing just allowing precision boost to handle everything.
The single core result for "Profile 2" was 480 which was exactly the same as using the Auto Overclock option on Ryzen Master, the big difference however it achieved that score at 1.3 Volts (whereas the Auto Overclock resulted in the CPU having 1.45 Volts shoved into it) and the PPT (CPU) value was at around 16% whereas with the Auto Overclock the PPT (CPU) wall all the way in the red at 100%
For "Profile 1" the single core result was a bit over 490 (can't remember exactly) but again the voltage was at 1.3 Volts and the PPT was again at around 16%
Especially with the single core results in Cinebench both Precision Boost Overdrive and Auto Overclocking options were punting ridiculous amounts of volts into the CPU for an inferior score.
With regard to the all core results, with PBO and Auto Overclock the CPU had an all core boost of just a bit over 4.0 GHz and a score of 6385. Manually on "Profile 2" at an all-core of 4.25 it got 7028 and on "Profile 1" it got an all core score of 5143 at 4.35 GHz
Interesting. Thanks for the info. Which cooler were you using for the testing? I noticed you said it was not the stock cooler.
Your single core score is lower than what i see (~520) which is expected since you are limited to 1.3V and a lower clockspeed.
It is a bit strange that you only managed 6385 multicore with boosting? The score is typical of what I see if my processor isn't boosting at all, but just running 3.8GHz.
Just letting precision boost do its thing works pretty well for me. Results are below.
That is without PBO or auto-overclocking enabled. Like you, I don't really find that they do anything for Ryzen 3000 series processors. I think I am slightly EDC bound, and with PBO enabled multicore goes to 7550. Single core scores are unaffected.
He has a Corsair H100i 240mm AIO.
The thing was that I set the limit to 1.3 Volts and then moved the all-core clockspeeds up until Cinebench would no longer do multiple runs.
This way he has pretty much all the performance he needs and the temps are under control and I feel good about the longevity of his CPU.
With PBO or especially with Auto Overclocking the CPU gets way too much voltage whacked into it, and TSMC recommends 1.3 Volts as a maximum for its 7nm node and that's where I drew the line.
Above that you just run into ever diminishing returns and you end up with a lot more heat than a higher score can justify.
You also have to realise that silicon lottery is a thing, and I would be interested how far you could push your CPU manually if you limited it to 1.3 Volts.
The thing is that I have gotten really cheesed off with so-called Ryzen configuration articles that are based on specific motherboards and BIOS and decided to write something that is useful to EVERYONE.
Ryzen already has a built in silicon fitness monitoring feature (FIT) which prevents voltages that AMD feels would reduce the expected life of the processor. "The Stilt" discusses it at length in his "Matisse, strictly technical piece" over on Overclock.net. Here are a couple excerpts.
This actually works in practice. If I allow precision boost to do it's thing, I hit a voltage of about 1.3 (CB20 score ~7400) but EDC maxes at 100%. If I enable PBO, my EDC only makes it to 63% of the new limit, (CB20 score ~7500). Once It hit 1.325V or so on my processor, it stops boosting. Doesn't matter if I haven't hit PPT, TDC, EDC or temp limits, it just stops.
Same with the low current boosts, I can be well below the PPT, TDC, EDC and temp limits but my processor stops boost at Fmax (4.6Ghz) like it should. So I auto-overclock, and raise Fmax to 4.8 gHz. I still boost to 4.6 GHz, because I'm at 1.48V, which FIT will not allow my processor to pass.
So long story short, you don't really need to worry about silicon reliability, the processor is already doing that for you.
There's an old saying, "The large print giveth and the small print taketh away".
If AMD were so confident in the pronouncements you describe then could you also explain to me why the very use of PBO voids the AMD warranty for their CPUs?
So the statement you are referring to on the part of AMD is a meaning of the word "safe" that I was heretofore completely unaware of.
$500 or so for a CPU may not be a lot to AMD but to my friend, who is a vet in the US who has a pension and has had a stroke which has crippled one side of his body - so he cannot earn any supplemental income - it is a massive investment in a computer system which he expects to outlast the expiry of the normal warranty by quite a lot.
I cannot in good conscience recommend the AMD statement to him which, to me, appears to be a self-serving document allowing for a hypothetical over-volting of the system, to reach clock-speeds allowing it to be competitive, whilst at the same time stating that if you trust these documents and run your system in accordance with them then you void your warranty and if something goes wrong then you are SOL.
Why would anyone trust the AMD document when AMD itself will not support that document in the form of a warranty in alignment with what is stated there? The warranty tells me that AMD has absolutely no confidence in its statement with regard to the silicon fitness monitoring of its CPUs.
This was my reason for limiting the performance of my friend's CPU to be in line with the spec of the 7nm node as expressed by TSMC and this allows me - and of course others - to configure the CPU optimally whilst remaining within that spec, whereas any and all methodologies supplied by AMD in the form of PBO and Auto Overclocking voids the warranty of their CPUs.
"If AMD were so confident in the pronouncements you describe then could you also explain to me why the very use of PBO voids the AMD warranty for their CPUs?"
Because AMD has no idea which processor you are using. While enabling PBO and auto-overclock is useless on the 3000 series due to FIT, the 2000 series will not be limited in that capacity.
" cannot in good conscience recommend the AMD statement to him which, to me, appears to be a self-serving document allowing for a hypothetical over-volting of the system, to reach clock-speeds allowing it to be competitive, whilst at the same time stating that if you trust these documents and run your system in accordance with them then you void your warranty and if something goes wrong then you are SOL."
To be clear, the score I posted above (529, 7451) was run with precision boost only, not PBO. As I said, in the 3000 series enabling PBO and auto-overclock doesn't do much as the CPU is already FIT bound. Running without PBO does not void warranty, so no problem there.
"Why would anyone trust the AMD document when AMD itself will not support that document in the form of a warranty in alignment with what is stated there? The warranty tells me that AMD has absolutely no confidence in its statement with regard to the silicon fitness monitoring of its CPUs."
Again, the run I presented was not with PBO as I stated right below the Cinebench run. No warraties need to be voided.
"This was my reason for limiting the performance of my friend's CPU to be in line with the spec of the 7nm node as expressed by TSMC and this allows me - and of course others - to configure the CPU optimally whilst remaining within that spec, whereas any and all methodologies supplied by AMD in the form of PBO and Auto Overclocking voids the warranty of their CPUs."
Again, you don't need to use PBO and Auto-overclocking, in fact I recommended not using them as they do nothing in the 3000 series. An excerpt from above in caxse you missed it.
"That is without PBO or auto-overclocking enabled. Like you, I don't really find that they do anything for Ryzen 3000 series processors. I think I am slightly EDC bound, and with PBO enabled multicore goes to 7550. Single core scores are unaffected."
Do you have the white paper from TSMC? Is there 1.3V spec for high curent or low current loads? Both? I personally haven't seen it, so I was curious if you could forward a copy.