People apply an offset for AVX during OC to align the data correctly.
People apply an offset for AVX during OC to align the data correctly.
other guides recommend using an AVX offset of -2 or -3 during OC. This adjustment ensures the offset matches what the CPU needs for tasks involving AVX instructions, even though it reduces the overall offset by that amount when handling workloads that require those sets.
Ralph,
stress tests differ greatly and fall into two groups; stability tests involve changing workloads, while thermal tests use constant loads. Intel performs its evaluations at a consistent 100% TDP workload to confirm Thermal Specifications.
Prime95 version 26.6 Small FFT's is perfect for CPU thermal analysis since it maintains a steady 100% load with core temperatures that stay within a few degrees of TDP. No other tool matches Intel’s conditions closely.
Tools that don’t overload or underuse your processor will provide a reliable thermal baseline. Here’s a comparison...
Due to the constraints of AVX instructions and the software that relies on them, the CPU must handle a significant workload, generating a lot of heat. Reducing the load slightly is necessary to maintain stability, avoid excessive voltage demands, and prevent overheating beyond what even a high-end processor like a 9900k can manage.
AVX is quite demanding on the CPU, so a high workload that already strains the processor would be even more affected by an AVX task. Adjusting the offset can reduce the strain slightly, letting the workload push the CPU without reaching thermal or physical boundaries.
Your regular overclock remains active, but when a core has AVX instructions to compute, it will reduce the clock speed based on the AVX offset only while those calculations occur. Once the core handles additional instructions, it will return to the standard overclock rate.
Math Geek & exroofer: What you guys are saying just helped me understand something (i think). Right now, i haven't gone above 4.8 OC (waiting on a PSU cable to come in). But when i was burning in the new CPU, i ran P95 v26.6 small FFTs, so no AVX instruction sets. Temps were ranging 82-88 after 5 or so minutes of running, with two cores that would occasionally spike to 91 or 92C and core usage was showing 100%
Then,
still without any AVX offset
, i ran Handbrake compressing a large video file - it normally & predictably runs the CPU load or usage at 97-100%, but at 4.8 OC, it didn't go above 83-87% load max. Was that the CPU throttling? Temps were actually much cooler than when i ran P95, to the order of mid/high 70s to low 80s so it wasn't thermal throttling. I've got Vcore set at 1.240V and Fixed - think i'm going to run XTU to monitor and see what's happening while rendering
The Original Ralph shared his observations on AVX offset settings. He notes that adjusting the offset can improve performance in certain scenarios.
Prime 95 definitely puts more strain on your CPU. It forces it to work extremely hard, making it a solid test for stability. Your temperatures on Prime 95 probably won’t occur during regular gaming or everyday tasks. If you’re stable and temperatures are normal, you should be fine for most applications. AVX is the only component that really increases CPU usage, though not as much as Prime 95. When temperatures reach those levels in Prime 95, you’ll likely need better cooling or a performance boost to avoid throttling.
From above: Without any AVX offset, I processed a big video file using Handbrake. Normally the CPU usage stays around 97-100%, but at 4.8 OC it stayed below 83-87% of its max. Could current throttling make the CPU lower the load or usage? My Vcore is fixed at 1.240V and not adaptive. I haven’t tried lowering it further, only checked what MSI suggested. The system ran smoothly during three one-hour tests, achieving P95 performance.