Agharta wrote:I noticed years ago that some motherboards were over-volting the CPU even if you didn't manually over overclock.
This was Asus or Gigabyte and you had to manually change a BIOS setting from Auto to Stock or some such.
Yeah, frequently annoying. A lot of the time you can still drop various voltages at stock, shave off 10 degrees and still pass a 24-hour burn test. Talk about them playing it safe with the factory settings.
Also for a period, those same firms used to boost the default buss clock ratio to 103:100 for no real reason, other than it put them a fraction ahead of other firms in various mag benchmarks. The number of early PCIe cards it used to trip up was painful for a time given they didn't give any real warning of this anywhere.
I noticed that AVX512 can process 32-bit data types so in theory it could be used to accelerate audio tasks.
I am not clear what type of operations it works with though so do you know if it handles those that are relevant to a DAW?
Afraid not, my knowledge of that is a little scant.
After seeing AVX testing cook my desk during the initial round of testing, I really wanted to know if running real-time code would hammer the rig in the same fashion as the synthetics. I made contact with Melda over it who have always noted that they use the extra instruction sets where performance can be leveraged and tried to suss out with them if anything in the real world was likely to hit that sort of level.
The conclusion was that the code runs in bursts as and when it's needed, so no, at this point heavy continuous use of it wasn't really something we'd see in the audio field, at least in the short term and that it shouldn't be a concern outside of those synthetics.
So far that has proven true, although that's not to say it won't change in the future and of course if anyone knows of a package out there that will take advantage of it in a more demanding fashion, I'm all for giving it another thrashing!
job wrote:For example, the requested Vcore on one of my 7900x's cores under turbo boost was 1.37V. However, it can run 4.5GHz at 1.15V and 4.8GHz at 1.25V, which is currently where it's at with adaptive voltage. So it's running at a higher speed and at a lower voltage than it would be if the user wasn't in charge.
As for motherboards auto-overclocking the hardware as some kind of feature, I would agree that the default setting should be off, not on.
Can't agree enough with the auto overclocking needing to be off at default. You've also nailed the Vcore voltages that tripped me up initially. As you say, when you run the voltage measurements at stock and see 1.35v, you really don't tend to expect it to be running stable at 1.15v after clocking it upwards!
mozart999uk wrote:Thanks Pete. Really interesting. All sounds good. Can I get in touch with you via email when I'm ready to order ...to thrash out the spec?
Sure, my mail hasn't changed if we exchanged them last time, otherwise, nudge me over PM and I'll update you with my latest when the time comes.
Agharta wrote:I like to see under-volting but there isn’t the interest in it that is seen with over-clocking so you rarely see it in reviews.
There is one way to sometimes get a sense of how well a chip might under-volt by looking at how it over-clocks.
Some chips are binned very aggressively meaning that they ship with very little headroom for over-clocking.
To be fair thats pretty much covered by the "S" and "T" editions of the chips to some degree as those tend to offer lower voltage editions of popular chips.
7700K = 91w
7700 = 65w
7700T = 35w
You could grab the "k" and undervolt, but then the "T" edition is normally cheaper anyway.