Good undervolt?
Good undervolt?
So I chose to undervolt my 5600g and achieved a stable configuration of 30-20-30-30-20, is that acceptable?
It's challenging to define what is "good" without clear goals. You might consider any reduction in power usage while maintaining performance as positive, even if it's a modest 5-10% decrease.
These must be PBO2 configurations per core, but their effectiveness varies based on the specific CPU model. For 500 series MB systems, you can enable Core Optimizer in BIOS under "Per core" settings. If the BIOS supports it, you can apply a negative offset across the entire processor.
Configuring PBO Curve Optimizer for undervolting only lets you input numbers, which only represents some bucket of sorts. I'm sure you could translate it into a physical value somehow, but basically you're typically limited to -30 to 0.
Though I think OP is missing a number because you can do this per core.
If that's the lowest you can go, then sure, it's good.
If you're after getting the lowest values possible, you'd have to win the silicon lottery.
Prime 95 isn't an ideal benchmark for testing curve optimizer undervolt stability. This is because the undervolt level sits at the upper part of the V/F performance curve. The issue lies in the fact that the CPU only applies a reduced voltage at very high frequencies during intensive tasks, such as when processing light, intermittent workloads and when temperatures are low. P95 causes the processor to overheat, preventing it from attempting high-frequency boosts, which means your CO settings aren't being properly evaluated.
You might want to try an application named Core Cycler. It executes stress tests in a minimal mode, cycling through just one core at a time while keeping the workload light. According to its description, it's somewhat inconsistent—despite my 5800X completing around six full cycles across all cores, it still experienced crashes in games. I had to adjust the CO settings on some cores to stabilize performance.
Overall, your configuration seems reasonable; it could even be slightly too aggressive. Many users I know typically set their 'Gold Star' cores to -10 to -15, which are already optimized for lower boost voltages by AMD during production. Reducing the voltage further often leads to instability.
I've noticed that each adjustment in the setting corresponds to a change of about 2 to 3 mV. Since this is being tested on a curve, it likely only reflects the maximum achievable boost frequency (5100-5150Mhz for Ryzen CPUs) and then decreases accordingly. This information appears to come from enthusiast forums, possibly HotHardware.com.
It just completely confused me about what he was talking about with those numbers. It really didn<|pad|>, you know? I’m sorry if it didn’t make sense.
According to drea.drechsler, maybe the answer is a bit too simple.
I believe the real issue starts with the first question—why are you undervolting?
Are you noticing a lack of steady performance due to thermal problems?
Are you experiencing thermal issues with the standard or PBO setup?
Are you adjusting manually or using PBO?
There’s not much concrete info from your post, and what everyone else has said seems like guesswork or assumptions about what you’re doing. When you ask specific questions, you should share all details—your setup, hardware specs, any conditions, maybe some sensor readings (HWinfo), and your overall background. Otherwise, people might jump to conclusions that don’t fit your case. That’s just my take.
In my experience, I didn’t prioritize maximum performance, so I focused on efficiency. Reducing power use by around 10-15% (roughly 10W) during a full workload might seem small, but it saves on cooling costs and lessens the strain on your cooling system. That’s definitely a win.