Jump to content

Updated - Dr. Ian Cutress weighs in - HWInfo's Power Reporting Deviation Sensor Reveals CPU Lifespan-Reducing AMD Motherboard Enhancements

Pickles von Brine
Quote


Motherboard vendors have allegedly figured out a way to trick the processor into thinking its power consumption is within normal parameters (when it's not), and HWInfo's developer has determined a way to calculate the deviation between power consumption value reported to the CPU, against that measured by the VRM controller. This sensor is called "Power Reporting Deviation," and is an integer percentage value. 95-105% deviation can be interpreted as normal behavior, where the motherboard is respecting AMD specs. Anything outside this range could indicate a motherboard-level power enhancement designed to maximize performance of even processors that users prefer to run at stock speeds, reducing their lifespan. Overclocking legend "The Stilt" wrote a detailed essay on Power Reporting Deviation, which can be read here.
 

 

Quote

As stated before, this metric is only valid during a relatively stable near-full-load condition. That is due to the typical measurement accuracy of the VRM controller telemetry, and also due to the highly advanced and fast power management on Ryzen CPUs, that not only result in extremely low idle, but also in extremely rapidly changing power consumption. A suggested workload to get a stable and reproducable deviation metric is Cinebench R20 NT, with the HWiNFO sample rate set to less or equal to 1000ms.

HWiNFO will display "Power Reporting Deviation" metric under the CPUs enhanced sensors. The displayed figure is a percentage, with 100.0% being the completely unbiased baseline. When the motherboard manufacturer has both properly calibrated and declared the reference value, the reported figure should be pretty close to 100% under a stable, near-full-load scenario. A ballpark for a threshold, where the readings become suspicious is around ±5%. So, if you see an average value that is significantly lower than ~ 95% there is most likely intentional biasing going on. Obviously, the figure can be greater than 100%, but for the obvious reasons it rarely is 

 

Quote

As of now, outside of certain MSI motherboards, the biasing isn't end-user controllable. In case there is clear evidence of biasing taking place on certain motherboards or their bios versions, please contact the manufacturer and ask them to remove the telemetry biasing from the bios. The biasing can be implemented in different ways, it can be tied to a specific setting(s) (known as an "auto-rule") in the bios or be fixed in a certain bios version or in all available bios versions.

Quote

In short: Some motherboard manufacturers intentionally declare an incorrect (too small) motherboard specific reference value in AGESA. Since AM4 Ryzen CPUs rely on telemetry sourced from the motherboard VRM to determine their power consumption, declaring an incorrect reference value will affect the power consumption seen by the CPU. For instance, if the motherboard manufacturer would declare 50% of the correct value, the CPU would think it consumes half the power than it actually does. In this case, the CPU would allow itself to consume twice the power of its set power limits, even when at stock. It allows the CPU to clock higher due to the effectively lifted power limits however, it also makes the CPU to run hotter and potentially negatively affects its life-span, same ways as overclocking does. The difference compared to overclocking or using AMD PBO, is that this is done completely clandestine and that in the past, there has been no way for most of the end-users to detect it, or react to it.


Source
Post from The Stilt
Reddit


Well... This would probably explain why my processor died a month back and I had to send it in for RMA. It is great and all to get some extra performance, but is really necessary to do this without telling anyone? The other fact is that you cannot even change it via bios sucks too... I just checked my system.I am running an X570 Aorus Elite and here are my results:
 

 

Spoiler

SbQl28X.png


Under full load it should be around 100% (±5%) Mine is below that at 89%. :/

Update:


Dr. Ian Cutress has responded to this. 

 

Quote

Where there is a will to get extra performance out of a CPU, there is often a way. Either through end-user overclocking or motherboard vendors tweaking settings to improve their stock performance, at the end of the day everyone wants better performance, and for a multitude of reasons. This insatiable drive for peak performance, however, means that some of these tweaks and adjustments can start to skirt the lines of what is ‘in specification’. And as a result, we sometimes see methods of increasing processor performance that clearly deliver on their promises, but perhaps at the expense of thermals or longevity.

To this end, it has recently come to light that motherboard vendors have been taking advantage of a setting on AMD motherboards to misrepresent the current delivered to the CPU. By doing so, they are able to increase the processor's power headroom, and ultimately allowing for higher performance at the cost of higher thermals. To be sure, this kind of tweaking isn’t new, but recent events have lead to no shortage of confusion over what exactly is going on, and what the ramifications are for AMD Ryzen processors. So to try to clarify matters, here’s our take on the situation...
 

What Are My Options?

If your motherboard is juicing the processor, but you are happy with the thermal performance of your cooler and the power draw at the wall, then enjoy the extra performance. Even if it is only 75 MHz.

AMD doesn’t necessarily need to comment on the matter, as this is an issue with the motherboard manufacturers. Users might want to probe their motherboard manufacturer, and ask for a BIOS update. Users who want to return their motherboards will have to check on their retailer, as it might depend on where it was purchased.

Given that while it appears to break PPT specifications, it doesn’t actually go beyond any frequency specifications (which are ill defined), it may be similar to how motherboard manufacturers play with power limits on Intel systems, which is to say that it's something that's "just there". Though it would probably be handy to get a BIOS option to enable/disable it.

It looks this was more sensationalism than anything else. Sorry for all the trouble guys. 
Source

 

Dr. Ian Cutress's twitter response. 

Spoiler

sjz0w49lau351.png&key=fd5147a374e22e82ba



@D13H4RD Thanks for finding the info. I updated the First post with the article you found and the twitter post. 

@leadeater Thank you for the video. 

 

Be sure to @Pickles von Brine if you want me to see your reply!

Stopping by to praise the all mighty jar Lord pickles... * drinks from a chalice of holy pickle juice and tossed dill over shoulder* ~ @WarDance
3600x | NH-D15 Chromax Black | 32GB 3200MHz | ASUS KO RTX 3070 UnderVolted and UnderClocked | Gigabyte Aorus Elite AX X570S | Seasonic X760w | Phanteks Evolv X | 500GB WD_Black SN750 x2 | Sandisk Skyhawk 3.84TB SSD 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Pickles - Lord of the Jar said:

Under full load it should be around 100% (±5%) Mine is below that at 89%

What? Under full load, it shows the deviation at 199%, not 89%.

Hand, n. A singular instrument worn at the end of the human arm and commonly thrust into somebody’s pocket.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, WereCatf said:

What? Under full load, it shows the deviation at 199%, not 89%.

That's just maximum at any point since software was run, maximum power reported could happen at idle. Edit: Each measurement and value are independent from each other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, leadeater said:

That's just maximum at any point since software was run, maximum power reported could happen at idle.

Well, I guess.

Hand, n. A singular instrument worn at the end of the human arm and commonly thrust into somebody’s pocket.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, leadeater said:

That's just maximum at any point since software was run, maximum power reported could happen at idle. Edit: Each measurement and value are independent from each other.

Yep.Also the most important measurement is what is under load. 

 

Quote

As stated before, this metric is only valid during a relatively stable near-full-load condition. That is due to the typical measurement accuracy of the VRM controller telemetry, and also due to the highly advanced and fast power management on Ryzen CPUs, that not only result in extremely low idle, but also in extremely rapidly changing power consumption. A suggested workload to get a stable and reproducable deviation metric is Cinebench R20 NT, with the HWiNFO sample rate set to less or equal to 1000ms.

 

Be sure to @Pickles von Brine if you want me to see your reply!

Stopping by to praise the all mighty jar Lord pickles... * drinks from a chalice of holy pickle juice and tossed dill over shoulder* ~ @WarDance
3600x | NH-D15 Chromax Black | 32GB 3200MHz | ASUS KO RTX 3070 UnderVolted and UnderClocked | Gigabyte Aorus Elite AX X570S | Seasonic X760w | Phanteks Evolv X | 500GB WD_Black SN750 x2 | Sandisk Skyhawk 3.84TB SSD 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

I want to check this when I get home if I remember on my MSI B450m Mortar Max, of I remember.

“Remember to look up at the stars and not down at your feet. Try to make sense of what you see and wonder about what makes the universe exist. Be curious. And however difficult life may seem, there is always something you can do and succeed at. 
It matters that you don't just give up.”

-Stephen Hawking

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

I skimmed through the sources materials but didn't see a list of which motherboard manufacturers are doing this, did I miss it or is there not a list? Very interesting overall especially since the post says, "Compared to the worst violators (up to 50%) this is minor infraction". With a 50% difference that could be a pretty big difference in performance, as well as the resulting lowered life span. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

So, basically I should run OCCT large data set with avx instruction for an hour or so and see what occurs?   My minimum is at 98.7 and my max is at 120.1 atm.   I do know on my asus maximus hero viii wifi that the voltage goes rather high on auto.   Which is something Jay called ASUS out on.

Under load as long as you are +/- 5% from 100% you are fine. Since you did 98% or so under load you are fine. 

My board does 89%...

Be sure to @Pickles von Brine if you want me to see your reply!

Stopping by to praise the all mighty jar Lord pickles... * drinks from a chalice of holy pickle juice and tossed dill over shoulder* ~ @WarDance
3600x | NH-D15 Chromax Black | 32GB 3200MHz | ASUS KO RTX 3070 UnderVolted and UnderClocked | Gigabyte Aorus Elite AX X570S | Seasonic X760w | Phanteks Evolv X | 500GB WD_Black SN750 x2 | Sandisk Skyhawk 3.84TB SSD 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, valdyrgramr said:

Well, currently with OCCT large data set with avx2 being thrown at my 3900x in the board mentioned my low is 93.5, max is 122.5%, average is 107.9, and currently it won't budge off 98.4.

Stated the article The Stilt recommends cinebench R20 But what you have is fine. 

Be sure to @Pickles von Brine if you want me to see your reply!

Stopping by to praise the all mighty jar Lord pickles... * drinks from a chalice of holy pickle juice and tossed dill over shoulder* ~ @WarDance
3600x | NH-D15 Chromax Black | 32GB 3200MHz | ASUS KO RTX 3070 UnderVolted and UnderClocked | Gigabyte Aorus Elite AX X570S | Seasonic X760w | Phanteks Evolv X | 500GB WD_Black SN750 x2 | Sandisk Skyhawk 3.84TB SSD 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean, most motherboards do state they have some sort of turbo performance enhancer on the packaging. 

Power does come with a price.

Specs: Motherboard: Asus X470-PLUS TUF gaming (Yes I know it's poor but I wasn't informed) RAM: Corsair VENGEANCE® LPX DDR4 3200Mhz CL16-18-18-36 2x8GB

            CPU: Ryzen 9 5900X          Case: Antec P8     PSU: Corsair RM850x                        Cooler: Antec K240 with two Noctura Industrial PPC 3000 PWM

            Drives: Samsung 970 EVO plus 250GB, Micron 1100 2TB, Seagate ST4000DM000/1F2168 GPU: EVGA RTX 2080 ti Black edition

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Generally speaking processors have a 5% TDP swing, Sounds to me like someone was taking advantage of that... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a cool feature if it's under full user control. Not liking it if vendors fake it themselves to raise score in benchmarks. Frankly, motherboard benchmarks shouldn't even exist outside of testing if motherboard is doing anything funky (like above thing) or what feature set it offers. Nothing else. Ever single motherboard benchmark I've seen involved performance differences so small it literally didn't matter.

 

So, when I'm picking motherboards, features are the only thing I look for, NEVER performance. It's pointless anyway, no motherboard can ever make a big difference unless it's designed badly and underperforms compared to the rest or it lacks features that I want (like arrangement, cooling design, slots on it, IO ports, fan headers etc).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

@Pickles - Lord of the Jar Well it finished with a 99.9% average which I believe is the key feat here.   The min and max didn't change at all, and under heavy load was not going under 97.

Then that means your board isn't doing anything stupid with power delivery. 

Be sure to @Pickles von Brine if you want me to see your reply!

Stopping by to praise the all mighty jar Lord pickles... * drinks from a chalice of holy pickle juice and tossed dill over shoulder* ~ @WarDance
3600x | NH-D15 Chromax Black | 32GB 3200MHz | ASUS KO RTX 3070 UnderVolted and UnderClocked | Gigabyte Aorus Elite AX X570S | Seasonic X760w | Phanteks Evolv X | 500GB WD_Black SN750 x2 | Sandisk Skyhawk 3.84TB SSD 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

So this is why the VCore was so high on my home server. It has an 1700x and it was getting ~1.4V or something crazy like that. Lowered it manually and set amultiplier instead of auto and it now runs dead silent at light loads and idle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

So, if I am reading this right,  figures above 100% mean the motherboard is causing the CPU to throttle itself and figures below 100% are causing the CPU to draw more power than it should be?

 

Mine  are all above 100%.

 

 

Grammar and spelling is not indicative of intelligence/knowledge.  Not having the same opinion does not always mean lack of understanding.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just going through this now. It raises a LOT of questions, but it'll also take time to get through that...

 

3 hours ago, jagdtigger said:

So this is why the VCore was so high on my home server. It has an 1700x and it was getting ~1.4V or something crazy like that. Lowered it manually and set amultiplier instead of auto and it now runs dead silent at light loads and idle.

That's probably unrelated. The high voltage is needed to support the higher boost clocks during lightly threaded workloads. If all cores are in use, the clocks are lower to control total power, and thus a lower voltage is seen.

 

54 minutes ago, mr moose said:

So, if I am reading this right,  figures above 100% mean the motherboard is causing the CPU to throttle itself and figures below 100% are causing the CPU to draw more power than it should be?

 

Mine  are all above 100%.

Did you test under a stable load? That was given as a requirement. I can get values >1000% at idle which is meaningless.

 

Only tested one system so far, an Asrock B450 Gaming-ITX/ac bios P3.70 with 3600. Get 88% under Prime95 128k FFT. Haven't tried Cinebench yet as it is not on that system.

Main system: i9-7980XE, Asus X299 TUF mark 2, Noctua D15, Corsair Vengeance Pro 3200 3x 16GB 2R, RTX 3070, NZXT E850, GameMax Abyss, Samsung 980 Pro 2TB, Acer Predator XB241YU 24" 1440p 144Hz G-Sync + HP LP2475w 24" 1200p 60Hz wide gamut
Gaming laptop: Lenovo Legion 5, 5800H, RTX 3070, Kingston DDR4 3200C22 2x16GB 2Rx8, Kingston Fury Renegade 1TB + Crucial P1 1TB SSD, 165 Hz IPS 1080p G-Sync Compatible

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, porina said:

Just going through this now. It raises a LOT of questions, but it'll also take time to get through that...

 

That's probably unrelated. The high voltage is needed to support the higher boost clocks during lightly threaded workloads. If all cores are in use, the clocks are lower to control total power, and thus a lower voltage is seen.

 

Did you test under a stable load? That was given as a requirement. I can get values >1000% at idle which is meaningless.

 

Only tested one system so far, an Asrock B450 ITX with 3600. Get 88% under Prime95 128k FFT. Haven't tried Cinebench yet as it is not on that system.

I did read that, I tested at average stable workloads.  the minimum reported figure was 107%.

 

I will try something a bit heavier.

 

 

Grammar and spelling is not indicative of intelligence/knowledge.  Not having the same opinion does not always mean lack of understanding.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, mr moose said:

I did read that, I tested at average stable workloads.  the minimum reported figure was 107%.

 

I will try something a bit heavier.

What were you using as load?

 

I just tried cinebench R20. This is very interesting... the Prime95 6x128k FFT result was pretty stable from the start and hovered around 88% +/- 1. Cinebench R20 started around 91% and crept up to 94% during the run. If I had to guess, something was adjusting within the CPU during the run as it heated up. I didn't look at clocks, so that might have given a clue.

 

It would seem if we want to compare values, the load used will also have to be taken into consideration.

Main system: i9-7980XE, Asus X299 TUF mark 2, Noctua D15, Corsair Vengeance Pro 3200 3x 16GB 2R, RTX 3070, NZXT E850, GameMax Abyss, Samsung 980 Pro 2TB, Acer Predator XB241YU 24" 1440p 144Hz G-Sync + HP LP2475w 24" 1200p 60Hz wide gamut
Gaming laptop: Lenovo Legion 5, 5800H, RTX 3070, Kingston DDR4 3200C22 2x16GB 2Rx8, Kingston Fury Renegade 1TB + Crucial P1 1TB SSD, 165 Hz IPS 1080p G-Sync Compatible

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

So in essence, this is a Pre-OC that is not user controllable in any way? 

 

I'm all for better performance but I would rather have this be something that can be toggled properly. 

The Workhorse (AMD-powered custom desktop)

CPU: AMD Ryzen 7 3700X | GPU: MSI X Trio GeForce RTX 2070S | RAM: XPG Spectrix D60G 32GB DDR4-3200 | Storage: 512GB XPG SX8200P + 2TB 7200RPM Seagate Barracuda Compute | OS: Microsoft Windows 10 Pro

 

The Portable Workstation (Apple MacBook Pro 16" 2021)

SoC: Apple M1 Max (8+2 core CPU w/ 32-core GPU) | RAM: 32GB unified LPDDR5 | Storage: 1TB PCIe Gen4 SSD | OS: macOS Monterey

 

The Communicator (Apple iPhone 13 Pro)

SoC: Apple A15 Bionic | RAM: 6GB LPDDR4X | Storage: 128GB internal w/ NVMe controller | Display: 6.1" 2532x1170 "Super Retina XDR" OLED with VRR at up to 120Hz | OS: iOS 15.1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, porina said:

What were you using as load?

 

I just tried cinebench R20. This is very interesting... the Prime95 6x128k FFT result was pretty stable from the start and hovered around 88% +/- 1. Cinebench R20 started around 91% and crept up to 94% during the run. If I had to guess, something was adjusting within the CPU during the run as it heated up. I didn't look at clocks, so that might have given a clue.

 

It would seem if we want to compare values, the load used will also have to be taken into consideration.

Just running all my usual programs, but given I am no longer running a prehistoric 4 core i5 I decided to download prime95.  Running it on default settings caused all 6 cores to run at 4Ghz utilizing 90% of the CPU (according to windows). I managed to get the PRD down to 93% (which was very momentary at the start) whilst under load it bounced between 98% and 103%.  This is on an Asus prime B350. 

Grammar and spelling is not indicative of intelligence/knowledge.  Not having the same opinion does not always mean lack of understanding.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, porina said:

Cinebench R20 started around 91% and crept up to 94% during the run. If I had to guess, something was adjusting within the CPU during the run as it heated up. I didn't look at clocks, so that might have given a clue.

2nd run watching clocks. Initially most cores were 4075, quickly dropping to 4050, then onto 4025 by the end of the run. 

 

Repeating Prime95 6x128k FFT, initial clocks were 4000 quickly dropping to 3950 where it pretty much remained. Value was around 88% initially, crept up slightly to 89% before stabilising in between.

 

7 minutes ago, D13H4RD said:

So in essence, this is a Pre-OC that is not user controllable in any way? 

 

I'm all for better performance but I would rather have this be something that can be toggled properly. 

According to the post by The Stilt on hwinfo forums, only some MSI boards allow user control of this value.

 

1 minute ago, mr moose said:

I managed to get the PRD down to 93% (which was very momentary at the start) whilst under load it bounced between 98% and 103%.  This is on an Asus prime B350. 

That would seem within tolerance of a non-cheating design.

Main system: i9-7980XE, Asus X299 TUF mark 2, Noctua D15, Corsair Vengeance Pro 3200 3x 16GB 2R, RTX 3070, NZXT E850, GameMax Abyss, Samsung 980 Pro 2TB, Acer Predator XB241YU 24" 1440p 144Hz G-Sync + HP LP2475w 24" 1200p 60Hz wide gamut
Gaming laptop: Lenovo Legion 5, 5800H, RTX 3070, Kingston DDR4 3200C22 2x16GB 2Rx8, Kingston Fury Renegade 1TB + Crucial P1 1TB SSD, 165 Hz IPS 1080p G-Sync Compatible

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, porina said:

That would seem within tolerance of a non-cheating design.

I bought the 3600 almost out of the gate when it was released and this is the first time I have actually given it any real test to see where it's clocks go.  With all the shit about clocks and throttling earlier on , the fact I am getting just over 4Ghz on all cores is actually quite pleasing.

Grammar and spelling is not indicative of intelligence/knowledge.  Not having the same opinion does not always mean lack of understanding.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I've gathered on that Reddit thread, seems that the ASUS TUF X570 Gaming Plus (the board I've gotten) is apparently pretty much bang-on with its power calibration 

ZomboDroid 09062020172948.jpg

The Workhorse (AMD-powered custom desktop)

CPU: AMD Ryzen 7 3700X | GPU: MSI X Trio GeForce RTX 2070S | RAM: XPG Spectrix D60G 32GB DDR4-3200 | Storage: 512GB XPG SX8200P + 2TB 7200RPM Seagate Barracuda Compute | OS: Microsoft Windows 10 Pro

 

The Portable Workstation (Apple MacBook Pro 16" 2021)

SoC: Apple M1 Max (8+2 core CPU w/ 32-core GPU) | RAM: 32GB unified LPDDR5 | Storage: 1TB PCIe Gen4 SSD | OS: macOS Monterey

 

The Communicator (Apple iPhone 13 Pro)

SoC: Apple A15 Bionic | RAM: 6GB LPDDR4X | Storage: 128GB internal w/ NVMe controller | Display: 6.1" 2532x1170 "Super Retina XDR" OLED with VRR at up to 120Hz | OS: iOS 15.1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, something from Ian Cutress from Anand

 

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/711917347933519884/719846034729074728/sjz0w49lau351.png

The Workhorse (AMD-powered custom desktop)

CPU: AMD Ryzen 7 3700X | GPU: MSI X Trio GeForce RTX 2070S | RAM: XPG Spectrix D60G 32GB DDR4-3200 | Storage: 512GB XPG SX8200P + 2TB 7200RPM Seagate Barracuda Compute | OS: Microsoft Windows 10 Pro

 

The Portable Workstation (Apple MacBook Pro 16" 2021)

SoC: Apple M1 Max (8+2 core CPU w/ 32-core GPU) | RAM: 32GB unified LPDDR5 | Storage: 1TB PCIe Gen4 SSD | OS: macOS Monterey

 

The Communicator (Apple iPhone 13 Pro)

SoC: Apple A15 Bionic | RAM: 6GB LPDDR4X | Storage: 128GB internal w/ NVMe controller | Display: 6.1" 2532x1170 "Super Retina XDR" OLED with VRR at up to 120Hz | OS: iOS 15.1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Some random further thoughts on this:

 

If the mobo is supplying false information to manipulate the CPU's behaviour by misrepresenting current/power, does that mean the CPU reported power/current (TDC/EDC) are all affected? I had used these previously to do a power comparison between AMD and Intel CPUs. This effect could alter those results somewhat. Of course, I don't know the Intel CPUs are reporting accurately either. I don't have the capability to verify that in any sane way.

 

If the CPU is operating outside AMD's wishes, would that count as warranty voiding? If a user were to intentionally do it themselves, that would be the case. But this is happening not at the decision of the user. Note a difference here between AMD and Intel. AMD do enforce a power limit at stock, and relaxing that e.g. through enabling PBO or manual overclocking, is warranty voiding. Intel don't consider adjusting power limits to be overclocking.

 

Is there an impact to stability here? I'm guessing no, as I assume power is not used but it is voltage vs clock. Other limiters such as the thermal should be ok. I assume even if TDC/EDC are impacted by the mobo misreporting, the mobo manufacturer would know what their board limits are and not exceed that.

Main system: i9-7980XE, Asus X299 TUF mark 2, Noctua D15, Corsair Vengeance Pro 3200 3x 16GB 2R, RTX 3070, NZXT E850, GameMax Abyss, Samsung 980 Pro 2TB, Acer Predator XB241YU 24" 1440p 144Hz G-Sync + HP LP2475w 24" 1200p 60Hz wide gamut
Gaming laptop: Lenovo Legion 5, 5800H, RTX 3070, Kingston DDR4 3200C22 2x16GB 2Rx8, Kingston Fury Renegade 1TB + Crucial P1 1TB SSD, 165 Hz IPS 1080p G-Sync Compatible

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×