Timespy

 I'm editing this down from a real-time blog to more of a summary, so it might look disjointed, and the tenses, wrong.

Quick notes:

"Lclk DPM" is some trendy tool to save power on PCIE buses, and overclockers netwide say to disable it. *MY* setup seems to like it, so it stays on.

TRFC is way too high here, it's set for cheapo Hynix, not Samsung B-Die, but Those guys might not boot at all, should they change memory...plus, it's set too low per spec. "416" or 8*TRC.
Someone somewhere has a fragmented sentence about auto-correction in BIOS, and in fact when I changed it from 312 or so, BIOS spontaneously rebooted! Or my finger slipped.

You'd run xtra-fast too if your butt was burning
(and no one is even sure they *have* "B-Die")
I might, IDK

(fock) "DOCP?" "Auto CAS"? (ble?)
(fock)

(link)

I wonder if the whole RAM "Training" thing is like those biggie prize-wheels in fairs...I can't account for fast-as-lightning vs dog-slow after changing a gnat's-butt setting.
I'm beginning (or it's just gas) to feel like a person should tweak for less vaunted memory, *just in case*, or in other words, use more sensible settings.

The problem with scouring the garbage-cans of the internet is, People who dump their shit without much verification.

My BIOS says "Chipset SOC" defaults to "1.0" so WHY did I have it at "1.1"?

I don't know, can't find out why.

Fucket, back to 1.0 (actually "0.990") it goes, um, hmm.

It's totally true there's some AMD guy in a video who says SOC should be "1.1" for overclocking, but

(1) I don't overclock,

(2) he doesn't say WHICH SOC he's talking about, (there are two)

(3) I totally forgot. Oh, yeah, good luck finding that video.

midnight run (idling for an hour)

This next bit tries to prove a point, that disabling logical cpu-cores, makes the REAL cores run faster, and I'm not sure I typed it very well:

---

This next bit borders on Twilight-zone (or is it "Outer Limits")

"Active CCD Mode:1"
Please ignore that gray color-scheme (for now)
So (to explain) I'm down from 32 thingies, down from sixteen cores,
To a very modest *eight* cores, and NOW I will run Timespy.

Nnnnnope
CPU-score is real pissed off, benchmark kept halving the score, until it ended at a weak 25fps (as opposed to 42-fps)
Let's hope it has a short memory or I'm in deep doo doo

So, OK, short of overclocking, there isn't much (besides SMT-disable) that helps.

Note a month later:

I *still* do not know which tweaks make 3DMark happiest, although disabling All startup apps may have helped.

For example, disabling All AMD stuff ("noise suppression"??) and a "universal" HD-audio startup app from Realtek, may have helped my CPU a tad.
I am especially ignorant of any GPU tweaks (IOW I'd rather not mess with the video card's voltages etc.) 

So anyway, stuff is better but nearly the same:

December 3rd

And I thought I'd try "Radeon Super resolution," but it did not seem to do much:

I thought it raised frame rates.
Apparently 3DMark needs to be set up too but that would invalidate any past results, forget that.

Related subject, related writing style (with pictures and tons of disclaimers)

https://www.gamersnexus.net/guides/3494-amd-ryzen-3000-undervolting-offset-override 

a minus0.05 offset is fine, but looky, they managed minus0.1 on the "Godlike" and said it ran lots cooler but with a minor DEcrease in performance, I'm stumped.

(Ya see, *I* thought if a CPU ran cooler, it had more overhead to overclock itself (PBO) but I was wrong.)

So the mediocre "0.05" offset seems best, hmm (I *think* that's what they said)

It might be a good thing to temporarily increase my offset to 0.1 to see what timespy does?

You see, (uhm) clock-stretching might possibly occur, making everything *appear* better while actually running slower, but....it's no biggie to change it, assuming stuff still runs reliably.

And what of any settings between 0.05 and 0.1?

No one is all THAT interested, it being a transitory thing (New processors, new motherboards exist, why bother)

minus 0.1 offset appears to have pleasing results.

WTH, IDK, YMMV

My PC froze while typing this!!

So minus 0.1 offset is too extreme... what about 0.0875?

I'll let ya know.

-0.0875=negligible benefits, I'm inclined to stick to the well-publicized 0.05.

0.0875 doesn't freeze (not yet...) well actually, yes it did eventually, so 0.0625.

I maybe should follow my own advice and use 0.05, because once I start changing *other* settings, I'll forget.

The whole Lclk-thing is in forums only and uses tons of clubby-lingo...it Could, Might be a power-saving thing, which is why I had it on "disabled-fixed" but I'm branching out.

eg, CPU/NB and "chipset" which are two different SOC voltages. Right?

And finding an official place to set them isn't possible, you must scour fossilized pontificators in forums.

But They list exact voltages, sometimes narrow ranges, but NEVER this:

Offset? Oshit, and me being bad at math

Well, &%$#, forgetaboutit.

I mean, My-GAWD, if Auto isn't good enough (they say it isn't.)
1.05 to 1.15, and my "Auto" is 1.094, nearly in the middle, so #@!% Fucket!!

Apparently *my* auto is smarter than theirs.

Plus no one expounds upon the TWO "SOC's", one in the CPU-NB and the other in the Chipset.

Well screw the terminology (Assuming you're giving me a tongue-lashing,) there are TWO voltages it wants.

(How did I step into this dog-doo quagmire? 

Uhm, Voltages, uh, zzzzzzzz)

Video-caption should read, "Ble"? Because this guy uses ridiculously overclocked settings BUT explains the CPU SOC (in 0.5 seconds,) overriding it to 1.05

*his* auto is not *my* auto.
Plus, isn't his CPU running a tad high?

Soooo...uhm, ??? (Ble?) 1.05 to 1.094 isn't a super-huge difference, why mess with it. IDK

NON overclocking schlubs might run something else besides "Timespy" and get very obfuscated results.

https://www.anandtech.com/show/16817/testing-the-new-3dmark-cpu-benchmark-for-the-boids

They couldn't just list some CPUs and their score, ohoho, nooooo, they have to obfuscate the subject to the max.

But *anyway*,

Do you think that recording this video penalized the guy? 
Anyway the sparse non-overclocked sites seem to be saying I'm doing OK, 
But

There could be a philosophical discussion on settings, some for people who run way too fast, and settings for those who want stock speeds but exacting settings that make the CPU and memory happier, and put out.

(wine & dine, ply with gifts, etc)

So then, poring over which motherboard is the most sumptuous, which memory the speediest @stock, etc.

My cas 14 memory...my "Godlike" mobo, are efforts in that direction.

My bottom line a day after I wrote this, with endless stability-tweaks and sage advice, is,

my whole system is running *slower*, according to benchmarks (not something anyone would actually notice)

And I've gotta *settle* on that, knowing that it's supposed to be more stable (or the system is drunk)

I'm done.

(I think.)

well, except memory-Z says my (I hate acronyms) 

"TRFC" should be "630" which translates to 350ns.

The XMP values aren't some theoretical thing based upon some webpage, they're baked into the DIMMs. OTOH uhm, why? Was it a legacy figure from "Yoda" in 1997, or what?
Damn near everyone you meet on the internet says it should be lower (faster), except then why should the Dimm tell you otherwise.

OK 630 it is, damn the derisive scores in 3dmark.

"Tfaw", according to careful calculations (ax2+bx+c etc) should be "20" but they've got it at "40", hmm.

Yay, not *terrible*, not *ghastly*, fucket.

I started this long evening wondering why "cpu profile" dipped below 10,000

and I still don't know, but apparently me changing stuff is for naught

(In other words, slow works as well)

This whole "tessellation" thing I don't unnerstan, PLUS, the damn "Timespy" works tons better without it! But turning it off pisses off Timespy, although it gives a score anyway (a better one)

But you'll make 3DMark mad if you Do disable it.

"graphics driver is not approved"
But no bitching about tessellation, OTG

2nd run

"ble?"
Movie/video players (in theory) *COULD* tessellate a movie,
but google is being coy.
So (uhm) hmm my 5-second impression is, you'd need directx11 and some game, not a movie (but that's an impression and a wild guess)

yeahbutt...the completed "Film"/Video/whatever PLAYER doesn't need tessellation, or it's a closely kept secret.
AKA it's a plot by Nvidia to take over the world, etc
I was just, WONDERing in what situations Tessellation is really needed, or is it a technology in search of a purpose.

Lump it on the heap of pretty but useless things such as "anisotropic Filtering", or have I gone too far

This day sucks for a big-ass reason I can't get into, 

Cheap bastards don't mention this in any commercial.
pedantic POS story-ruining commercials.
"Attention!!" seeking fucking commercials,
I'm sooo pissed.
Here's a clue:
Standalone medicare (without insurance) pays 80%, so that means...You guessed it...This "insurance" scrooge doesn't pay diddly.
Farking Bastages

Hardship and indigence are allowed.
Anything else is a kickback (So full of horseshit, they covered "Dexcom", how does It rate?

but things are looking up for my PC.

Which I borrowed on; then THIS happened.