Question I am a little confused about what to make of my system performance ?

[HOLDMYPC]

Can anyone please tell what needs improvement (this is my custom build from 2020 - i got it for 700$)

Userbenchmark Full rig summary

 

[Lafong]

What doesn't it do as well as you'd like.....what are your complaints?

Can you spend more money on it?

 

[HOLDMYPC]

What doesn't it do as well as you'd like.....what are your complaints?

Can you spend more money on it?

My cpu doesnt boost above 3.87 GHz its rated for 4.1 - i tried over/undervolt - (my other post) performance difference was decent from that but the clocks still capped at 3.87GHz in Task mgr and 3922MHz in HW

 

[Bob.B]

My cpu doesnt boost above 3.87 GHz its rated for 4.1 - i tried over/undervolt - (my other post) performance difference was decent from that but the clocks still capped at 3.87GHz in Task mgr and 3922MHz in HW

Consider updating the bios your a little behind also the chipset driver if it is also old.

 

[HOLDMYPC]

Consider updating the bios your a little behind also the chipset driver if it is also old.

Updated today 5 mins ago - literally got resize bar support on a system that's running an A320 board and RTX 2070S 😭 -im more confused than ever

 

[Phaaze88]

My cpu doesnt boost above 3.87 GHz its rated for 4.1

https://www.amd.com/en/product/8981
That's only when a single core is active. Max turbo scales with the number of active cores; the more that are active, the lower the max boost is, and vice versa - Intel chips do the same thing.

 

[HOLDMYPC]

https://www.amd.com/en/product/8981
That's only when a single core is active. Max turbo scales with the number of active cores; the more that are active, the lower the max boost is, and vice versa - Intel chips do the same thing.

Im not so dumb man - i did the single core run on cinebench to get that 3.87 - it's 3.8 with multi-core load and single core load is 3.87 - i ran everything after killing every background process possible

 

[ohio_buckeye]

Not sure what cooler is being used but may consider upgrading that. Also that board should accept zen 3 cpus(ryzen 5000 series) after the bios updates. A cpu like a 5700x or 5600x should give a nice upgrade.

 

[NerdyVixen]

Have you made sure everything is mounted correctly ? When installing a part you must hear the "click" otherwise you might encounter issues down the line.

 

[HOLDMYPC]

Consider updating the bios your a little behind also the chipset driver if it is also old.

v

Not sure what cooler is being used but may consider upgrading that. Also that board should accept zen 3 cpus(ryzen 5000 series) after the bios updates. A cpu like a 5700x or 5600x should give a nice upgrade.

Stock cooler 😅... But temps r 80 degrees in all core and 67 in single core . . .

 

[HOLDMYPC]

Have you made sure everything is mounted correctly ? When installing a part you must hear the "click" otherwise you might encounter issues down the line.

100% properly mounted since 3 years... I have removed it many times to repaste it too ... Updated all chipset drivers and bios - the issues persists anyways ... Undervolting eased it a little - now HW info shows occasional 4025MHz while game is running

 

[drivinfast247]

v

Stock cooler 😅... But temps r 80 degrees in all core and 67 in single core . . .

Try enabling PBO.

 

[HOLDMYPC]

Not sure what cooler is being used but may consider upgrading that. Also that board should accept zen 3 cpus(ryzen 5000 series) after the bios updates. A cpu like a 5700x or 5600x should give a nice upgrade.

Yea i wanna upgrade but i don't have any performance issues - pc runs without bottlenecks gaming and video editing (i do some editing yes) so no complaints there with r5 3500 n 2070 super pairing but it just bugs me that it's not running at its rated speed ... And is basically only a 200 points ahead of 7700K after all tuning in multi-core while 7700k beats it out by 70-80 points in single core

 

[drea.drechsler]

Yea i wanna upgrade but i don't have any performance issues - pc runs without bottlenecks gaming and video editing (i do some editing yes) so no complaints there with r5 3500 n 2070 super pairing but it just bugs me that it's not running at its rated speed ... And is basically only a 200 points ahead of 7700K after all tuning in multi-core while 7700k beats it out by 70-80 points in single core

Your system seems to be performing well for what it is, which is to say built from low-to-mid-tier components. CPU, system drive, memory specifically, but then they're performing well enough for you it seems.

If you want to upgrade these would be where I'd throw money at first: Ryzen 5600 (X version optional) CPU, 3600 memory and an NVME system drive, in that order. If you wanted to tweak CPU performance even more with PBO and Curve Optimizer then a new motherboard is needed (suggest a B550 model) and that would slot in ahead of the NVME.

Oh yes, do not use the stock cooler, especially with a 5600X. Get a decent one for best performance yet still be quiet and do so even if you do nothing else. It's almost like overclocking Ryzen when cooling is improved enough beyond stock because of how temperature sensitive the boost algorithm is.

 

[Bob.B]

Updated today 5 mins ago - literally got resize bar support on a system that's running an A320 board and RTX 2070S 😭 -im more confused than ever

Now that you have updated the bios and chipset driver.

Reboot.
Wait a few mins.
Run ubm with the browser closed.
Post a link to the results page.

 

[Phaaze88]

Im not so dumb man - i did the single core run on cinebench to get that 3.87 - it's 3.8 with multi-core load and single core load is 3.87 - i ran everything after killing every background process possible

Wasn't calling you dumb or anything. Some users have no idea that boost scales with active cores.
We have no idea what all you know. We are not there with you - we have to look at the situation through a screen.

By the way, even if you only do the single core Cinebench run, other apps and services can still run, waking up sleeping cores. You can't kill the OS.
Try disabling 5 of the 6 cores instead.

 

[helper800]

In HW info increase the poling rate to 100 ms. Monitor the CPU multipliers for cores 0 or 1. The 3000 series CPUs only hit their max boost is very lightly threaded tasks and extremely briefly. You need a faster polling rate to pick up on the small amount of time these CPUs actually hit these boost clocks. I had a 3900x that only ever hit these clocks max boost clocks on 2 cores with a 360mm AIO in light tasks when I had the polling rate in HW info set to 100ms.

 

[drea.drechsler]

...Monitor the CPU multipliers for cores 0 or 1...

I completely agree with most of your post...but don't mean to monitor the highest performing core clocks in HWInfo64? They would have something like (perf #1/1), or (perf #2/3) after the core number. At least for my 3700X and 5800X these cores get the highest boosts, most frequently, and are also the "gold star" cores as shown in RyzenMaster. They are not Core 0 or Core 1 though.

 

[helper800]

I completely agree with most of your post...but don't mean to monitor the highest performing core clocks in HWInfo64? They would have something like (perf #1/1), or (perf #2/3) after the core number. At least for my 3700X and 5800X these cores get the highest boosts, most frequently, and are also the "gold star" cores as shown in RyzenMaster. They are not Core 0 or Core 1 though.

The fastest core is almost always core 0 or 1 from CCD 1. It was the same on my 3900x and my 5800X3D. From anandtech;

The Clarification Between Ryzen Master "Best Cores" and CPPC2 "Preferred Cores"
To start off, the whole situation can be summed up with the following quote from AMD’s blog post today:

“This [Ryzen Master] star does NOT necessarily mean it is the fastest booster”

 

[drea.drechsler]

The fastest core is almost always core 0 or 1 from CCD 1. It was the same on my 3900x and my 5800X3D.

hah...not true on my 5800X where it's core 2 and core 5. I can't remember the 3700x precisely, I think maybe 3 and 8, but now I'm mixing up numbering schemes (0-7, or 1-8 depending on what's numbering the cores).

Point is: it's not necessarily 0 and 1 as it depends on silicon quality as manufactured. It might also depend on factors like die location for thermal effects or cache access. Someone may know just what factors govern how AMD selects gold star and silver star cores.

 

[Phaaze88]

hah...not true on my 5800X where it's core 2 and core 5. I can't remember the 3700x precisely, I think maybe 3 and 8.

Point is: it's not necessarily 0 and 1 as it depends on silicon quality as manufactured. It might also depend on factors like die location for thermal effects or cache access reasons. Someone may know just what factors govern it.

But those are single CCD cpus. 3900X has 2, so perhaps not a like for like comparison?

 

[helper800]

hah...not true on my 5800X where it's core 2 and core 5. I can't remember the 3700x precisely, I think maybe 3 and 8, but now I'm mixing up numbering schemes (0-7, or 1-8 depending on what's numbering the cores).

Point is: it's not necessarily 0 and 1 as it depends on silicon quality as manufactured. It might also depend on factors like die location for thermal effects or cache access. Someone may know just what factors govern how AMD selects gold star and silver star cores.

Reread my post, I edited it with a reference.

 

[drea.drechsler]

But those are single CCD cpus. 3900X has 2, so perhaps not a like for like comparison?

Quite true, and I'm sure that does affect things. But the fact should remain it relies heavily on silicon quality which makes any core in the die a possible 'best core'.

 

[drea.drechsler]

Reread my post, I edited it with a reference.

I do remember now...that's also why the (pref #1/1) type notation is the way it is. I believe the first number is the "core ranking" by AMD, the second number is the CPPC, preferred core order. CPPC order takes into account CPU architecture so shared resources such as caches will be of concern I'd imagine.

Perhaps calling it gold star isn't right but it does correlate to boosting ability as they are clearly the better boosters in my case, and in neither processor are they core 0 or 1.

 

[helper800]

in neither processor are they core 0 or 1.

I know its a cop out but, in my defense, I did say 'almost' though I could be conflating something... I am frequently wrong, this wont be the last time either.