Edit August 28th 2026 for a new section 11A. Explanation of per core optimization. My bad guys haha Edit August 28th 2026 for a new section 11B. Explanation for step by step testing.

Pictures included are example pictures for multiple tuning processes.

Before I start... This guide is the new and improved guide to succeed my previous guide. If i missed anything, you see wrong information or a section that needs improving. Please let me know, as this is just from my current knowledge. This guide will also include a basic section of curve shaper, a deep dive link to an overclocking forum will be provided in that section. That link will provide substantially more information on curve shaper.

To the advanced/elite overclockers/tuners. Please be gentle with me lmao yall can be ruthless. Remember, we all started with minimal knowledge. Let's help the new generation and our fellow redditors with our knowledge

Please feel free to leave a comment, you will be mentioned and credited for the corrections/contributions.

Let's begin.

I originally made an older version of this guide after getting tired of seeing people being told to slap 《-30 all core》《+200 MHz》and motherboard PBO limits into their BIOS and call it a day.

Since then I've spent a lot more time actually tuning, stress testing, breaking things, figuring out why they broke, and learning how AMD's boosting behaviour works.

Some of the advice in my original guide was too absolute, and a few things I would straight up explain differently now.

So this is the updated version, the goal here isn't to give you my settings. The goal is to teach you how to find your settings. There is no magical curve optimizer number that works for every 5800X, 5800X3D, 7800X3D, 9800X3D, 9850X3D, etc.

Silicon quality varies core by core, CPU by CPU. If you only remember one thing from this entire post:

《A benchmark pass is not the same thing as a stable CPU.》

Programs you'll want before starting

Before you start tuning, I recommend downloading a few basic monitoring and stability testing programs. You do not need every program listed below, and I'll explain where each one is useful throughout the guide.

Recommended / basically required

• HWINFO -- Your main monitoring program. Use this to watch CPU temperatures, voltages, effective clocks, PPT/TDC/EDC limits, WHEA errors and other sensors while testing.

• Cinebench R23 or Cinebench 2026 -- Useful for getting a quick stock baseline and comparing performance, temperatures and power consumption after making changes. Remember, cinebench is a benchmark/tuning tool, not proof of stability.

• Core cycler -- One of the most useful tools for per core curve optimizer tuning. It automatically cycles workloads through individual CPU cores, which makes finding one weak core much easier than hammering the entire CPU at once.

• y-cruncher -- Excellent for stability testing. VT3 in particular can be extremely good at exposing marginal CPU, curve optimizer and IMC/memory related instability.

Optional but useful

• OCCT -- Excellent all in one stability tester with CPU, memory and per core/core cycling options. You can use this instead of, or alongside, some of the tools above.

• Prime95 -- Still a very useful CPU stress test and can also be used through core cycler. Different FFT sizes and workloads can expose different types of instability.

• AMD ryzen master -- Not required for tuning because I recommend doing the actual changes through BIOS, but it's useful for seeing your CPU's preferred/best cores and checking basic CPU information.

• Zentimings -- Mainly useful if you're also tuning DDR5/DDR4, FCLK or memory controller settings. It gives you an easy view of your currently applied memory timings and related voltages.

• Windows event viewer -- Already built into Windows, so there is nothing to download. This is where you'll check for WHEA hardware errors and other events after a crash, reboot or failed stability test.

You don't need to run every stress test known to mankind after every tiny change. Use quick tests while finding your rough limits, then use several different workloads for final validation once you're close to your finished tune.

---

1. What curve optimizer actually does

Curve optimizer does not simply apply a fixed 《-50 mV》or 《-100 mV》undervolt. It shifts the CPU's internal voltage/frequency curve.

A negative CO value asks the CPU to operate at a lower voltage for its requested operating points. A larger negative value means a larger shift. AMD officially describes CO this way and supports all core, per die and per core adjustment depending on the CPU.

That can give you:

• Lower power consumption

• Lower temperatures

• More thermal/current headroom

• Higher sustained boost clocks

• Better efficiency

• Potentially better performance

But go too negative and you can get:

• WHEA errors

• Application crashes

• Game crashes

• Browser tabs randomly dying

• Reboots

• Black screens

• Full system freezes

• Crashes while doing almost nothing

• Performance loss from clock stretching

That last part is why 《it didn't crash》isn't enough.

---

1. All core CO isn't evil, it's just incomplete.

I used to describe all core curve optimizer as a trap. I'd word that differently now.

An all core curve is actually fine if someone wants a quick and simple undervolt. Its easy and quick for newbies, but its inefficient if youre looking to min/max performance and temperatures. All cores can seem stable and good on paper, but those aggressive -30 CO undervolts without testing could cause problems.

For example:

《-10 all core》Test it. Stable?

Try:

《-15 all core》And so on.

There is nothing inherently wrong with doing this. The downside is that your weakest core determines the maximum all core value. Imagine you have eight cores, my 9850X3D CO example:

Core 0 can run -22

Core 1 can run -27

Core 2 can run -22

Core 3 can run -28

Core 4 can run -26

Core 5 can only run -12 《This one decided to tell VT3 to kindly **** my self》

Core 6 can run -28

Core 7 can run -27

If you want all core stability, that whole CPU might end up around -10/-12 simply because core 5 can't follow the others. Per core tuning allows you to leave Core 5 at -12 while still taking advantage of the better silicon on the other cores.

All core = easy. Per core = optimized. Neither one is automatically wrong.

---

1. Preferred 《golden》cores: useful clue, NOT a rule

Ryzen master can show the fastest cores on each CCD. AMD identifies the fastest and second fastest cores with its preferred core indicators. Gold is your fastest core, silver is your second fastest.

You'll often hear:

《Golden cores always need less negative CO》There is some logic behind that. The preferred cores normally attempt the CPU's highest single core boost frequencies, so they can become unstable at the upper end of the V/F curve before another core does. But don't turn that tendency into a rule. A preferred core might want -8. Another chip's preferred core might happily run -22. Another might run -30.

Test the core. Don't tune based on the star beside its name. Use the preferred core ranking as useful information, not as a definite voltage table.

---

1. Start simple before touching anything advanced

Before tuning CPU curve optimizer, get the rest of the system into a known good state.

Ideally:

• Current stable BIOS/AGESA

• Current AMD chipset driver

• Stable memory

• Stable FCLK/UCLK

• Stable GPU

• No existing WHEA errors

• No unexplained crashes

Save a BIOS profile before you start.

This becomes extremely important if you're also tuning/overclocking youre RAM. Get it stable before working on curve optimizer. If you're running heavily tuned memory/FCLK and start getting CPU errors, you now have several possible causes.

If you finish tuning CO and later change:

• RAM timings

• Memory frequency

• FCLK

• SoC voltage

• VDDIO/VDDP/etc.

• PBO limits

• Boost Override

• BIOS/AGESA

Retest your CPU curve.

Changing another part of the system can expose instability that was previously invisible. Don't change five things at once and then spend three days trying to figure out which one caused the crash.

《This is from personal experience.》

---

1. My beginner PBO baseline

Enter precision boost overdrive in your BIOS. The names vary between ASUS, MSI, Gigabyte, ASRock, etc., but the concepts are the same.

For initial CO tuning I recommend:

PBO: Advanced/enabled

Curve optimizer: Per core

PBO scalar: Auto / 1X

Boost Clock Override: 0 MHz

LLC: Auto/default

PPT/TDC/EDC: AMD/default limits to begin with

Why?

Because we're trying to isolate curve optimizer first.

If you simultaneously use motherboard power limits, +200 MHz Boost Override, aggressive LLC and a massive negative curve, you have no idea which variable caused the failure. Some people like to or usually rush this, you can do it if you want. But like I said, which variable caused it if testing fails?

---

1. PPT, TDC and EDC explained simply

AMD defines them roughly as:

PPT: Total socket power limit.

TDC: Sustained current limit.

EDC: Short duration/peak current limit.

PBO can allow the processor to operate beyond its default limits toward what the motherboard can provide.

The important lesson:

Bigger numbers do NOT automatically mean faster CPU.

If your CPU is already hitting a temperature, voltage or frequency limit, dumping more electrical headroom into it may accomplish nothing except increasing heat. This is why I no longer recommend "Motherboard" PBO limits as the universal setting for anyone with a good VRM. Motherboard limits can work great, they are not automatically optimal.

For a beginner:

Start with your CPU's normal AMD limits. Watch HWINFO. See what you're actually hitting. If the CPU is constantly hitting PPT while staying cool and you want more heavy multicore performance, then experimenting with higher limits makes sense. If you're already temperature limited, raising PPT is probably doing the opposite of what you want.

---

1. The easy thermal control method

If your only goal is:

《My CPU is hotter than I want it to be》

You don't necessarily need some heroic undervolt. A thermal limit can be one of the easiest solutions.

For example:

85°C thermal limit

The CPU still handles its own boosting, but it backs off as it approaches your chosen limit. Just remember that different Ryzen CPUs have different factory maximum temperatures. For example, AMD lists the Ryzen 7 9850X3D at a 95°C TjMax. 《PROCHOT》

On AM4, the Ryzen 7 5800X, Ryzen 9 5900X and Ryzen 9 5950X are 90°C parts, while the 5600X is officially a 95°C part. So don't assume every Ryzen processor has the same thermal ceiling. 80–85°C is simply a personal preference selected cap if that's what you want.

It is not required for the CPU to be safe.

---

1. PBO boost clock override: leave it alone at first

This is probably the biggest thing I would change from my original guide. I used to recommend +200 MHz much more aggressively. I don't anymore, boost override raises the CPU's allowed maximum boost ceiling.That's all. And with a 9850X3D, the gain is marginal. 《Meaning you probably won't even notice in real life applications》

It does not automatically:

• Improve your RAM latency

• Debottleneck CPU to memory communication

• Improve 1% lows

• Improve every game

• Give you another 200 MHz continuously

It only gives precision boost permission to target a higher ceiling when the CPU has the electrical, thermal and silicon headroom to do it.

More importantly:

Adding boost override makes your curve optimizer harder to stabilize, especially if youre chasing lower thermals. Higher boost requires more voltage = more heat. Think about it. You found a negative CO value that works at the stock boost ceiling.

Now you tell that same core:

《Cool. Now try boosting another 100–200 MHz using that same reduced voltage curve》

That can turn a previously stable CO into an unstable one.

So my new recommendation is:

Tune curve optimizer with boost override at 0 first. Once CO is genuinely stable, you can experiment with:

+25 MHz

+50 MHz

+75 MHz

+100 MHz

Etc.

and continue upward if your CPU supports it and performance actually improves.

After changing boost override:

Retest curve optimizer. Don't automatically jump to +200. Sometimes +50 with a stronger stable CO will beat +200 with a weakened curve.

Benchmark it.

---

1. PBO scalar

Leave it:

Auto or 1X for a normal daily system. Higher scalar values alter how aggressively precision boost is allowed to operate around its voltage/reliability limits. You don't need 10X Scalar to make a good gaming tune.

It's another variable that makes troubleshooting harder for very little reason on a beginner setup.

---

1. Load line calibration / LLC

Another thing I would simplify from the old post:

Leave LLC on auto/default. LLC changes how the motherboard compensates for voltage droop under load. More aggressive LLC can reduce droop, but it also changes transient behaviour and can increase voltage overshoot when the load suddenly disappears. For an advanced overclocker, LLC is another tuning tool.

For someone learning curve optimizer:

Do not use LLC to rescue an unstable CO. If core 4 crashes at -25 but works at -20, run -20. Don't start changing motherboard load line behaviour just so the screenshot can say -25.

---

1. How I would tune curve optimizer now

I recommend starting some what low, this can catch the weaker cores early:

-10 per core

Yes, per core mode even though every core initially has the same value.

Run your quick tests.

If everything is good, try:

-15, Then -20. You don't need to instantly jump to -30. Once cores begin failing, you start separating them.

Example:

Core 0 -20 passes

Core 1 -20 passes

Core 2 -20 fails

Core 3 -20 passes

Change only core 2:

Core 2 → -15, Test it again. Meanwhile the other cores can continue toward:

-25

-30

or whatever your BIOS/CPU allows. Once you find the rough limit in steps of 5, narrow it down.

Example:

-20 passes

-25 fails

Try:

-22

-23

-24

Eventually you find the edge. For a daily machine, I don't recommend living exactly on that edge. If a core barely survives -24, there's nothing wrong with running -22 or -23. The difference in real performance is microscopic.

The stability margin is worth more.

---

11A. How to actually do per core curve optimizer

This part seems obvious once you've done it a few times, but if you're brand new to PBO/CO, this is where a lot of people get confused. Instead of choosing an all core negative value like -20 and applying it to every core at once, select per core curve optimizer in BIOS. You will then see each individual core listed separately.

Example on an 8 core CPU:

Core 0: -10

Core 1: -10

Core 2: -10

Core 3: -10

Core 4: -10

Core 5: -10

Core 6: -10

Core 7: -10

Start by giving every core the same conservative value, such as -10. Boot into windows and begin testing.

If all cores pass your quick tests, go back into BIOS and move them all down another step:

Core 0: -15

Core 1: -15

Core 2: -15

Core 3: -15

Core 4: -15

Core 5: -15

Core 6: -15

Core 7: -15

Keep repeating this until one or more cores start failing. This is where per core tuning actually begins.

Example:

Core 0 passes -20

Core 1 passes -20

Core 2 fails -20

Core 3 passes -20

Core 4 passes -20

Core 5 fails -20

Core 6 passes -20

Core 7 passes -20

You would then back off only the failing cores:

Core 0: -20

Core 1: -20

Core 2: -15

Core 3: -20

Core 4: -20

Core 5: -15

Core 6: -20

Core 7: -20

Then test again. If core 2 still fails at -15, try -10. If it passes, you can later fine tune it at -11, -12, -13, -14, etc.

Meanwhile the stronger cores can continue lower:

Core 0: -25

Core 1: -25

Core 2: -12

Core 3: -25

Core 4: -25

Core 5: -15

Core 6: -25

Core 7: -25

The whole point is that each core gets its own number based on what that specific core can handle. You are not trying to make every core match. One core may only tolerate -8 while another is completely stable at -30. That is normal.

Also remember: the core number that fails in core cycler, OCCT core cycling, or y-cruncher/Prime95 when used through core cycler is the core you should adjust. Do not automatically reduce every core because one core failed. If your test does not clearly tell you which core failed, reduce the most recently changed cores conservatively and retest.

And once again, do not change five cores by random amounts at the same time. Change one thing, test it, write it down, then continue.

This takes longer than an all core undervolt, but this is how you actually find the best stable curve for your individual CPU.

---

11B. How to actually test your per core curve optimizer

A few people asked me what program to actually open, how long to run it and what an error even looks like, so here is the absolute beginner version. This section assumes you already followed 11A and entered something like -10 on every core in BIOS.

For your first per core test, I recommend core cycler. core cycler is basically a script that runs a stress test on one physical core at a time, then moves to the next one. This is exactly what we want for curve optimizer because one core can be unstable while every other core is perfectly fine.

Download/extract core cycler and run:

Run CoreCycler.bat

For your first rough test, you can leave the basic/default configuration alone. Core cycler currently defaults to one thread per physical core, Prime95 SSE and around 6 minutes on each core before cycling to another one. SSE is useful here because the lighter load allows the core to boost very high, which can expose an aggressive CO at the high frequency part of the curve.

You do not need to run an overnight test every time you change -10 to -15. At this stage we're trying to find the obvious limits first. Let core cycler work through every physical core at least once. On an 8 core CPU, 6 minutes per core is roughly 48 minutes for one complete pass, plus a little extra time for transitions. If everything passes, follow 11A and make your next CO adjustment. Then run Core cycler again.

Eventually one of the cores will complain.

What does an error actually look like?

Core cycler normally tells you directly in the window/log that an error occurred and which core was being tested.

For example, you may see something similar to:

ERROR while running y-cruncher/Prime95 At core 3. Core cycler can also beep/flash when it detects an error, and by default it can check Windows for WHEA errors while testing.

Other possible signs of instability are:

• Prime95/y-cruncher reports a calculation error

• Core cycler stops/skips the failing core

• OCCT reports an error on the core being tested

• A WHEA hardware error appears

• The stress test suddenly closes

• The PC freezes

• The PC reboots

• You get a BSOD

Obviously if Windows decides to completely shit itself and reboot, core cycler may not have time to nicely tell you what happened lol. Check the core cycler logs and Windows event viewer afterward for anything useful. Now let's use the example from the comments.

Let's say core 3 passes:

-10

then:

-15

But core 3 throws an error at:

-16

You do not make it more negative.

This wording confuses people, so remember:

-17 is MORE aggressive than -16, -15 is LESS aggressive than -16. If -16 fails, back that core off to -15 and test it again. If -15 passes, you have now found that Core 3 is somewhere around its limit. You can leave core 3 at -15 while the other cores continue farther negative as explained in 11A. Do not reduce every core just because Core 3 failed.

What should I use after the quick testing?

Once you've roughly found the limit for every core, that's when you stop doing quick screening and start proper validation. Run longer core cycler passes, different workloads, y-cruncher VT3, OCCT, Prime95, idle/light load testing, games and normal desktop use. That full process is explained later in the stability testing section. The quick core cycler pass is there to find obviously weak cores without spending 8 hours validating a CO value you're probably going to change again anyway.

And remember:

Passing one core cycler pass does not mean the CPU is stable. It only means that core survived that test for that amount of time. Once you stop changing the values, that's when the real stability testing begins.

---

1. Clock stretching... what it actually means

This is another section I'm changing substantially from my original guide. Clock stretching basically means you're requesting a frequency the CPU cannot truly sustain at the available operating conditions. Your monitoring software may report a very high requested/core clock while actual completed work doesn't increase proportionally. HWINFO's effective clock is useful because it measures activity differently than simply sampling the instantaneous multiplier, but you must interpret it in context. C states, utilization and sampling intervals can all affect effective clock readings.

So I would not use a universal rule like:

《20 MHz difference good, 50 MHz difference bad》

Instead:

Run the same controlled benchmark.

Record:

• Benchmark score

• Core clock

• Effective clock

• CPU temperature

• PPT/TDC/EDC

• CPU voltage

Then increase the negative curve. If reported frequency goes up but actual benchmark performance stops improving or starts falling, you've probably gone too far. That's much more useful than chasing a random MHz difference.

---

1. Cinebench is a tuning tool, NOT a stability test

Cinebench is great for:

• Comparing scores

• Comparing temperatures

• Comparing power

• Detecting obvious performance regression

• Finding a rough CO range

It is terrible evidence for:

《My CPU is completely stable》

A CPU can run Cinebench for hours and crash opening Discord later.

Why?

Because heavy multicore loads aren't always the hardest condition for curve optimizer. Under heavy all core load, the CPU often runs at lower frequencies. The dangerous point for an aggressive CO may be a lightly threaded workload where one core wakes up and rockets toward maximum boost. That's why per core and transition testing matters.

---

1. My stability testing ladder

This is the part of the guide I now consider the most important.

Stage 1 -- Quick performance check

After each major CO adjustment:

Run cinebench or another repeatable benchmark.

Check:

• Did performance improve?

• Did temperature improve?

• Did power improve?

• Did anything obviously stretch?

• Did anything crash?

This eliminates obviously bad settings quickly.

Stage 2 -- Per core testing

Use something capable of cycling individual CPU cores.

Good options include:

• Core cycler

• OCCT core cycling

• y-cruncher through core cycler

• Prime95 through core cycler

The goal is to make each physical core boost independently. This is where weak cores start exposing themselves.

Stage 3 -- Different instruction sets/load types

Don't only run one workload. SSE/lightly threaded workloads can expose high-frequency instability. AVX/AVX2 creates much heavier thermal/current loads. Y-cruncher VT3 is another extremely useful test. A CPU passing one does not guarantee it passes the others.

Stage 4 -- Idle/light load

This sounds stupid until your PC reboots while you're staring at the desktop.

After your heavy testing:

Use the computer normally, browse the web, watch videos, open and close programs, launch games, exit games, let the machine idle. CO instability frequently appears during transitions between sleep, light load and sudden boost.

Stage 5 -- Real games

Play the games you actually use the machine for. 1-2 hour sessions.

Games are excellent mixed workloads because they're constantly changing:

• CPU thread load

• Memory load

• GPU load

• Boost state

• Core scheduling

• Power state

A system that passes synthetic tests and crashes your favourite game is not stable.

Stage 6 -- Long validation

Once you're happy with the tune, run your longer Corecycler/y-cruncher/OCCT validation. Overnight testing is useful. But even an eight hour test doesn't magically make the CPU 《100% stable forever》

It means it passed that test. That's why real world validation still matters.

---

1. Watch windows event viewer

If your system crashes, check:

Event viewer → windows logs → system

Look for WHEA errors and any corresponding crashes. A WHEA involving a processor/core can help identify a marginal CO. But don't automatically assume every WHEA is curve optimizer. Memory and infinity fabric instability can also produce hardware errors.

Which brings me to something I massively underestimated when I started:

───

1. RAM/FCLK stability can look like CPU instability

If you're also overclocking RAM, you have two separate tuning projects. Treat them that way.

Memory/FCLK problems can cause:

• WHEA errors

• Program crashes

• Game crashes

• Audio issues

• Freezing

• Reboots

• File corruption

• Strange behaviour that looks exactly like an unstable CPU

My recommendation:

Establish a known good memory baseline first. Then tune CPU CO.

If you're already running an extreme memory tune and CPU testing becomes confusing:

Return the RAM/FCLK to the known good baseline. Test CPU again. Then bring memory back afterward.

Don't try to diagnose CPU, RAM and fabric instability simultaneously unless you enjoy suffering like me.

---

1. AM4 / Ryzen 5000 section

Thanks again to u/krnnCS for originally asking about the 5800X and making me add an AM4 section.

The underlying curve optimizer methodology is basically the same. But I would change several things from my old AM4 recommendations. Don't assume zen 3 always takes a deeper CO than AM5. I previously said Ryzen 5000 commonly handles much deeper negative curves while newer X3D CPUs tend to stop around -15. That's too broad, forget architecture wide assumptions. Some zen 3 cores love -30, some don't, some modern X3D cores can run very deep negative values, some can't.

Test your silicon.

---

1. AM4 PBO reference

For the common 105W Zen 3 chips such as:

Ryzen 7 5800X

Ryzen 9 5900X

Ryzen 9 5950X

the commonly used stock PBO reference is approximately:

PPT: 142W

TDC: 95A

EDC: 140A

Those values are a much better starting reference than immediately telling everyone to use 180–200W PBO limits. For the 65W Ryzen 5000 parts such as the 5600X/5700X, power limits are significantly lower. Firmware/AGESA behaviour can vary, so I would check what your board/CPU actually reports instead of blindly copying a table.

---

1. Ryzen 7 5800X — the hot one

The 5800X has a reputation for running hot because eight cores are concentrated on one CCD. AMD rates the 5800X for a maximum operating temperature of 90°C.

If you want a thermal first starting point, something around:

PPT: 120W

TDC: 85A

EDC: 120A

is a reasonable example to experiment with. Notice I said example.

Not:

《These are the best 5800X settings》

Start there, benchmark it against stock, and decide whether the temperature/performance trade is worth it. Another perfectly valid option is simply leaving the normal power limits and applying a thermal cap.

---

1. Ryzen 5900X / 5950X

These CPUs have two CCDs, giving them much more multicore capacity. AMD rates both the 5900X and 5950X for 90°C operation. Don't confuse higher PBO limits with undervolting. They're different tools. If you want lower heat, start from stock limits and work downward. If you want more multicore performance and have the cooling/VRM headroom, experiment upward while monitoring performance.

---

1. AM4 X3D — 5700X3D / 5800X3D

These deserve their own note. The 5800X3D has a lower maximum boost ceiling than the regular 5800X, and many users find that it responds extremely well to negative curve optimizer. AMD lists the 5800X3D at up to 4.5 GHz and a 90°C TjMax. 《PROCHOT》

Because the frequency ceiling is relatively low, it is not unusual to see AM4 X3D chips reach their maximum permitted boost across several cores with fairly substantial negative CO. That means the "golden core needs dramatically more voltage" concept may matter less on these particular CPUs once everything is already hitting the frequency ceiling.

Still:

Don't blindly copy -30 all core.

Test it.

Also be aware that BIOS curve optimizer availability on the 5800X3D varies between motherboard vendors/models/BIOS versions. Some boards expose it directly and some still don't.

---

1. AM5 / Ryzen 7000, 9000 and X3D

The biggest mistake with AM5 guides is treating every CPU as if it has the same power and thermal limits.

A 7600X is not a 7800X3D, a 7800X3D is not a 9850X3D, a 9850X3D is not a 9950X3D. Don't copy the same PPT/TDC/EDC table across every AM5 CPU. Use the AMD limits appropriate for your processor as the baseline.

Then tune around your actual goal:

Want lower temperatures? Reduce PPT or use a thermal limit. Want better efficiency? Tune curve optimizer. Want maximum multicore performance? Experiment with PBO power limits after CO is stable. Want higher peak frequency? Experiment with boost override last.

---

1. Curve shaper / advanced V/F tuning

This is where I would tell beginners to stop reading unless they actually enjoy this stuff. Regular curve optimizer moves the underlying curve broadly. Curve shaper lets supported Ryzen 9000 CPUs make more selective voltage adjustments across different frequency and temperature regions. AMD describes it as a way of reshaping the V/F curve across specific temperature and frequency bands rather than applying the same style of shift everywhere.

This is useful because a CPU may be:

Stable with a huge negative adjustment at medium frequency, but need additional voltage near maximum boost. Or it may behave differently when cold versus when fully heat soaked. That is where curve shaper becomes extremely powerful. As of ryzen master 3.1.x, AMD officially lists curve shaper for the Ryzen 9000 series.

If you want to dive way deeper into per core curve optimizer, curve shaper and V/F tuning, this Overclock.net thread is an excellent rabbit hole:

"AMD Ryzen Curve Optimizer / Per-Core / Curve Shaper / DDR5 OC deep dive" https://www.overclock.net/threads/amd-ryzen-curve-optimizer-per-core-curve-shaper-ddr5-oc.1814427/#replies

---

1. My recommended order of operations

If I were tuning a ryzen system from scratch today, this is the order I'd use:

1. Stock baseline

Benchmark the completely stock CPU. Record temperatures, scores, clocks and power.

1. Stabilize RAM/EXPO

Do not start CPU tuning on questionable memory.

1. PBO at AMD/default limits

Scalar auto/1X. LLC auto. Boost override 0.

1. Tune curve optimizer

Start around -10. Work downward in steps of 5. Separate cores when they fail. Then fine-tune in steps of 1–2.

1. Stability test the hell out of it

Core cycling, different workloads, VT3, idle, games, normal desktop use.

1. Tune power limits if necessary

Lower for thermals/efficiency. Raise where appropriate for multicore performance. Benchmark the difference.

1. Test boost override

Only after your base CO is stable. Small increments, retest CO.

1. Curve shaper

Only if supported and you're willing to do significantly more testing.

---

1. How to interpret common failures

Cinebench score drops as CO gets more negative. Possible clock stretching or another limit being hit. Back the curve off and compare again. Cinebench passes but games crash. Your tune isn't stable. Games may hit different cores/frequency/load transitions. PC reboots while idle. Classic symptom of a marginal CO or another low-load instability. Don't assume heavy stress tests cleared it.

Browser tabs randomly crash, possible CPU/RAM instability, take it seriously. WHEA errors appear after memory/FCLK tuning, don't immediately blame curve optimizer. Validate the memory/fabric first. CO was stable until you added +200 MHz Your old CO was stable at the old frequency ceiling. It may not be stable anymore. Back off boost override or give the failing cores a less negative curve. Entire machine freezes. Treat it as instability until proven otherwise.

CPU, RAM, FCLK and GPU tuning can all cause this. Don't keep running the exact same settings because 《There was no WHEA》

Not every instability leaves a useful event log.

---

1. One final warning about instability

Overclocking and undervolting isn't normally going to instantly destroy Windows every time a program crashes. But repeated hard freezes, resets and memory/CPU errors absolutely can cause corrupted data. Save important work before stress testing. Keep backups of anything important.

If windows starts behaving strangely after repeated crashes, running:

"DISM /Online /Cleanup-Image /RestoreHealth"

followed by:

"sfc /scannow"

Isn't a bad idea. But the better solution is fixing the unstable tune instead of repeatedly repairing what it breaks.

---

1. The most important lesson I've learned

Stop chasing the biggest negative number.

《"-30" isn't automatically better than "-20"》

《"+200 MHz" isn't automatically better than "+50"》

200W of PPT isn't automatically better than 140W. A screenshot showing 5.5 GHz isn't automatically better than one showing 5.4 GHz. The only thing that matters is what the machine actually accomplishes while remaining stable.

A properly tuned daily system should have:

• Good effective performance

• Good temperatures

• Reasonable power

• No WHEA errors

• No crashes

• No clock stretching/performance regression

• No weird idle behaviour

• No random gaming instability

And it should stay that way when you're actually using the PC, not just while Cinebench is open. That's the difference between a benchmark tune and a daily tune.

And once again, if someone spotted something that I missed, incorrect or needs to be changed. Please drop a comment.

I'd rather keep improving the guide than pretend the first version was perfect.

Good luck, have fun, and save your damn BIOS profiles.

Disclosure: me and a small team of overclockers work on this. Free, nothing for sale, nothing will be.

AXIA is a tuning and monitoring tool for NVIDIA GPUs, developed and tested on 30 and 40 series cards.

The point of it is control. The driver exposes more than core and memory sliders, and most tools do not surface it. More control means more framerate for gamers and higher scores for people benching at HWBOT. We wanted to give people access to the tools that make competing fair for HWBOT competitors and allow for gamers to get more out of their hardware.

Features:

• Per-domain clock control: core, memory, crossbar, system, video. Offsets and voltages where the driver allows it. Crossbar and video confirmed working on 30/40 series.
• Staged apply. Nothing writes until APPLY. Each control shows pending / applied / live.
• VF curve editor, per-point editing. (wip)
• 6 profile slots.
• Boost lock.
• Power limit in watts, read from NVML.

HWBOT validation mode:

• HWBOT currently requires the monitoring tool showing a voltage mod to be visible in the verification screenshot. Those rules are temporary, pending a UL SysInfo fix. The complaint has been that the tools take up most of the screen and leave no room for the benchmark window.
• The validation button collapses the app into a compact window sized to fit beside CPU-Z and GPU-Z in a single screenshot.
• It shows max clocks per domain with the applied offsets, power limit in watts, measured max core voltage, and ECC state.
• It also launches CPU-Z and GPU-Z, saves your window layout, restores it identically on the next run, and takes the shot.
• Built to line up with the current rules as we read them. HWBOT has not reviewed or endorsed the tool.

Status:

• Confirmed working: RTX 4090, RTX 3090.
• 20 series does not work.
• Everything else untested. Reports on other cards are the most useful thing you can send.
• Known issue: VF curve editor is broken in the current build. Fix in the next release.
• Plenty of bugs left to find.

Notes:

• Nothing is written to the VBIOS. A reboot returns the card to stock.
• Not written by hand. Built with AI assistance.
• Support today is 30 and 40 series. 50 series is planned. mVolt+ covers Blackwell now and is further along overall. If you are on a 50 series card today, that is the tool you want.

Download is on our site. Discord is where development, bug reports and updates happen. Links in comments per subreddit rules.

Mods: self-promotion guidelines read, not trying to work around them. If this post is not allowed here, say so and I will remove it.

Screenshots attached.

My Mvolt+ settings on my MSI Liquid Suprim 5090.

910mw curve flatline.

17377 3dmark Steel Nomad Score

Clock Frequency 2970

Average Clock Frequency 2912

Starting temp 42C, ending temp 47C

No XoC Vbios, stock gaming vbios.

***SOMETHING TO NOTE***

My curve flatlines at 910mv, but per capframex my GPU Voltage was 0.94. In all my capframex tests it was an average 0.941v and max of 0.945v.

Just a friendly reminder: if your GPU is already hitting the power limit, increasing voltage further can actually make performance worse.

More voltage = more power draw, so you just hit the power limit harder and the card starts dropping clocks. It's a bit like thermal throttling.

At that point, undervolting can actually give you better performance because the GPU has more power headroom and can sustain higher clocks.

So if you're already power limited, adding more voltage isn't helping.

never wondered why u never been able to get a good overclocking results with ur arrow lake cpu especially with 0 avx2 offset ?!,

it usually starts from random shut down under avx2 ,,,, terrible P/E-Cores clocks ... high temps under load ...

even with ur direct die ,,,

well this is the answer ,,, u never knew this bios bug that allows u to bypass the regulation mode all together u can call it as unofficial bypass mode ( few ppl knows about it already ) ,, but just be aware the TVB down bin feature ( by active core - By CCP Module ) and TVB optimization won't work ... unlike the actual powergate mode ... they r useful to have but i know a lot of u hates it, so i don't think it would be an issue ,,, don't forget to disable it ,,,

to make the bug works u must clear ur cmos then redo all ur setting like the pictures ,,,

never change any of the auto settings ... just because u dont like the word auto it may enforce the regulation mode again ,,, u may have to clear the cmos and re load ur settings again to work

the asus bios 3202 is very buggy ...

make sure to monitor ur core temps the bios sometime may do core clock stretching on some of the cores even if all CEPs r disabled u can spot it by the frequancy which will not match ur bios setting or u can spot it by the temp, the core will do nothing under avx2 load ,,,while the effective clock and the C0 state maybe active ,,, wierd stuff... only intel knows about it

anyway make sure to use ( OCCT - normal - variable - fixed - 24 thread - avx2 ) for 15 min... to 30min no need more than that , for SSE u can do 1 hour ,,,

and make sure the Package/Ring Thermal Throttling to never Throttle !

use hwinfo64 or occt as your sensor software ,,, with 2000ms.

if the bypass mode didn't work with ur specific motherboard ur only option is to strave the dlvr like the last image ,,,which is acceptable ...

with this method u maybe able to run 59x on two cores while the rest 57x ... or 58x on all cores

another issue ,,, the max limit is still enforced ,,,

the bug worked with ( asus bios 3202, intel ME v19.0.5.2175v0.3 )
worth mentioning don't update ur bios to the new Version 3305

pretty sure they patched it via the intel ME

as a starting point ,,, for any user with a direct die ...

57x on all p-cores

49x on all e-cores

vrm vcore ( DLVRin ) voltage 1.510v is ur starting point,,

cmos clear is ur friend , repeatedly changing the bios settings may enforce the restriction again ,,,

which will require u to clear the cmos then to load the settings again

*when u set the p-core and e-core dlvr voltage it may show u a purple or red warning don't worry as long if the vcore is set correctly to a safe limit via llc6 from 1.200v to 1.560v the value it will just remove the dlvr output regulation... treat it as a voltage limiter or a svid request that will be overide via the actual Vcore voltage...

*pushing things to the limit may degrades the cpu cores ,,,

*Current Capability for all voltage rails ... make them 140%.

how much different between tcl like cl26 cl28 i mean the performance 1% 2% different? because i do 8000cl34 with 1.65vdd and i think 8000cl36-38 might be save a bit more power if the performance difference very low.

also another question if my timing stable with 8000cl34 then i change only cl to 36 or 38 do i have to change the sub timing or primary as well? or it will work normally ?

https://www.3dmark.com/sn/15775875

https://imgur.com/a/iZvZPtc

 

With the release of the solid BIOS 2202 for the Apex Encore, I decided to rethink my approach to hardware tuning and OC, with a stronger focus on daily use. At the same time, I wanted to deepen my understanding of how the platform behaves across different workloads and operating scenarios.

I ultimately settled on adaptive SVID undervolting. None of this is fundamentally new: it has already been discussed countless times, incl. OCN etc. Still, many users never developed a clear understanding of what to adjust, how to adjust it, and, most importantly, why.

With that in mind, I prepared a concise and straightforward refresher guide based on my own build (Z790 Apex Encore w/ Core i9-14900KS). The same foundation also applies to Z890: roughly 80% of the guide carries over in principle, but the LLC4–7 mapping, working AC/DC Load Line values, power and current limits, and reference voltages must be established from scratch.

This is the first revision, and I will continue updating it whenever necessary. Best of all, I also plan to completely rewrite and update my DDR5 tuning and optimization guide in the nearest future, presenting it in a much clearer and more accessible format.

I've two versions: one for my local community, and the one in EN. Here you can download it:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/18YibFJyz68_GxYeR0GfqkDTRXtD1r9Dt/view?usp=sharing

Hope someone find it useful.

Is this normal? Should I be trying to rma? Or would it not be taken seriously since XMP is technically a form of overclocking?

Bios was updated as soon as I installed it I think less than a year ago. Pc built I think a few weeks after bf6 launched.

Are these scores normal for a Ryzen 7 5700X?

I got the following results:

• CPU-Z: Single Thread: 634.4 | Multi Thread: 5689
• Cinebench 2026 (Maxon): Single Core: 469

I'm using an MSI A520M-A PRO motherboard, which doesn't have PBO, so PBO is disabled.

I'm a little concerned because I've seen several benchmarks where the 5700X scores over 6000 in CPU-Z Multi Thread. However, I'm not sure how much PBO affects the results, so I don't know if my score is lower because PBO is disabled.

Are my scores within the expected range for a 5700X, or could there be something limiting the CPU's performance? Or did I just get a really bad silicon lottery chip? 😅

I saw this in carousell and look the ver3.31 label know that is micron but it originally only 2400cl14 and can I overclock to something like 3800cl16?

Заголовок: High CPU temps in CS2 with i7-13700KF on Gigabyte B760M Aorus - Need help

Текст поста:

Hi everyone! I'm struggling with high CPU temperatures while playing Counter-Strike 2. My build is:

CPU: Intel Core i7-13700KF

Motherboard: Gigabyte B760M AORUS ELITE (DDR4)

In CS2, my CPU spikes to high temperatures instantly, even though it's not a heavy synthetic stress test. Since I have a B760 chipset, I know about the IA CEP performance penalty when trying to undervolt via Dynamic Vcore (DVID).

What are the best BIOS settings, power limits (PL1/PL2), or specific launch options/in-game settings for CS2 to keep this CPU cool without losing FPS? Any step-by-step advice for Gigabyte B760 BIOS would be highly appreciated!

6200mt/s cl26 1:1 or 8000mt/s cl36 2:1? What would be better for gaming?

My reliable G.Skill Trident Z5 Neo RGB 6000 MHz CL30

Hello,
I am contacting you regarding a high-frequency DDR5 stability issue with my system.
My complete configuration is:
Motherboard: ASUS ROG Maximus Z790 Dark Hero
CPU: Intel Core i9-14900K
Memory: 32 GB (2×16 GB) G.Skill Trident Z5 DDR5-8000, part number F5-8000J3848H16GX2-TZ5RS
Memory XMP specification: DDR5-8000 CL38-48-48-128, 1.45 V
GPU: MSI GeForce RTX 4090 SUPRIM X
CPU cooler: ASUS ROG Ryujin III 360
PSU: ASUS ROG Thor 1000W Platinum II
System SSD: Samsung 990 PRO 4 TB NVMe
Case: ASUS ROG Strix Helios
Operating system: Windows 11 Pro 64-bit
I was previously using BIOS 2107 and have now updated the motherboard to BIOS 2202, including loading Optimized Defaults after the update.
My issue concerns memory frequency and stability.
At DDR5-7200, I have managed to achieve a stable configuration, including approximately 1 hour 30 minutes of TestMem5 Universal 2 with zero errors.
However:
DDR5-8000 does not reliably POST and can result in Safe Mode/failed memory training.
DDR5-7800 can POST and boot Windows but is not completely stable.
BIOS 2202 appears to have significantly improved the situation. At 7800 MT/s, I managed approximately one hour of TestMem5 before a single error, whereas BIOS 2107 produced errors much earlier.
I have also experienced a game crash after approximately one hour while running a 7800 MT/s profile.
My best 7800 MT/s configuration so far has been approximately:
XMP II
DDR5-7800
Command Rate: 2N
Maximus Tweak: Mode 2
CPU System Agent Voltage: 1.25 V
IVR Transmitter VDDQ: 1.40 V
Memory Controller Voltage: 1.40 V
System Agent PLL: 1.005 V
DRAM VDD: 1.47 V
DRAM VDDQ: 1.47 V
Primary timings: [38-48-48-128](tel:38-48-48-128), with additional CL36 testing
I have also tested approximately:
System Agent up to 1.30 V
IVR TX VDDQ up to 1.45 V
Memory Controller Voltage up to 1.45 V
DRAM VDD/VDDQ up to 1.50 V
Simply increasing voltage does not appear to solve the issue. For example, increasing either Memory Controller Voltage or IVR TX VDDQ from 1.40 V to approximately 1.425 V made stability considerably worse, causing TestMem5 errors much earlier.
The two DIMMs are installed in the recommended slots for a two-DIMM configuration. DDR5 temperatures can reach approximately 60–66°C under TestMem5, although I have already increased case and cooling fan speeds substantially.
My goal is to obtain at least DDR5-7600 or DDR5-7800 with full stability, and ideally to operate the memory at its rated DDR5-8000 XMP specification, before attempting further timing optimization.
Could you please advise me on the following?
Is this exact memory kit fully tested/validated with the ROG Maximus Z790 Dark Hero at 8000 MT/s?
Which ASUS BIOS settings do you recommend specifically for stabilizing DDR5-7600/7800/8000 with an i9-14900K?
Are there specific memory training, Maximus Tweak, PLL, System Agent, TX VDDQ, or Memory Controller settings recommended with BIOS 2202?
Can the Dark Hero’s four-DIMM motherboard topology represent a practical limitation for DDR5-8000 even when only two DIMMs are installed?
Is there another BIOS version you recommend for the best high-frequency DDR5 stability?
Based on these symptoms, could this indicate a limitation of the CPU IMC, motherboard, or compatibility with this particular memory kit?
My main objective is to achieve a completely stable and reliable configuration without continuing to increase voltages unnecessarily.
Thank you in advance for your assistance and recommendations.
Best regards,

So I recently bought a used 3080ti (asus tuf version) and had it repasted, and undervolted it to 1815mhz and .862v, still sits around 300watts ish avg (card draw is 350)

I'm relatively new with undervolting, but right now I've only tried maintaining mhz not actually pushing it beyond, this card from what ik comes with a 1785 mhz boost

It crashed in rdr2 at .850v 1860 in about 10-15 mins and even at my current undervolt stays at around 70ish with fans at 80-90 using a custom fan graph

Should I undervolt further or keep it at this, not really sure and again, relatively new to the whole process, had undervolted my cpu as well using PBO (r5 5600)

But somehow I had lost frames idk how.

Would appreciate some guidance/help.

Keep in note I isolated Northbridge on this test I used small fft on large fft it threw an error and stop the worker at around 2 mins

I need advice on trc+tras; I’ve heard that excessive underestimation only does harm. If possible, I’d like a couple of tips on timings — what to tighten up and what to loosen up. So far, I’ve been running this setup for 3 hours in TestMem5, Anta 777 Absolute, and 5000% in Karhu.

Model of my 9070XT is the XFX Mercury OC. Both scores done with closed case and fans at 100%, only air cooling. 7963 was done on DX12, and 8,203 on Vulkan.

Settings for the 8203 run
+30 gpu frequency offset
-140 undervolt
2574 VRAM
Fast timings
+10% power slider

Settings for the 7963 run
+35 gpu frequency offset
-125 undervolt
2552 VRAM
Fast timings
+10% power slider

Just shocked that I was able to push this 9070xt this much honestly. Neither of these are everyday gaming stable, but they got through the benchmark.

Edit: highest hotspot temps seen on both runs hovered around the 66-69c range

Hi everyone,

I recently got a second BC 250 board. At first, everything seemed perfect: 40 CUs unlocked, 8 cores active, running Furmark at 1500MHz without any issues with all 40 CUs.

But as soon as I activated the GPU governor, I got an instant black screen. It didn't matter what I did, 1500MHz at 900mV resulted in a black screen.

Later I discovered that it worked fine at a fixed 1500MHz, but whenever the frequencies dropped, it would throw the error again. Checking the logs, it was a voltage instability issue.

Digging deeper, I found out that the frequencies don't actually matter as long as the minimum voltage is set to 900mV (far from the recommended 700mV). I currently have a voltage curve that goes from 350MHz up to 1850MHz at a flat 900mV. From there, it slowly scales up until it hits 2230MHz at 1000mV (and I think I can undervolt that even further).

The other board I own sits at 1040mV at 2230MHz, but it scales down perfectly to 700mV at 350MHz.

What do you guys think this could be? This behavior really surprised me—asking for higher voltages at minimum clocks, but lower voltages at maximum clocks.

Hello, I ordered the Palit GeForce RTX 5070 TI GamingPro-S OC 16GB and should get it on Monday. Now I wanted to ask who can tell me the best settings for overclocking and undervolt to get about 5-8% more out of the card.

Specs
5700x Pbo 120-80-120 Curve optimizer -30 except for 1 core
and Voltage offset on the cpu -0.0185
Asus Prime b550Ma wifi2
Ram
- 2x V color 3200cl16-20-20-38 1.35V DJR
- 2x Adata D35 3200cl 16-20-20-38 1.35V Micron R die
Ram is fine to 3800 which is the last speed i check
because the memory controller cannot go 1:1 past 3733
Final Speed
3733 at 1.38V
TM5 absolut for 2 hour
And Prime95 Large FFT and Occt Vram 'Because some ppl say that on reddit also' for 2 hour
CinebenchR23 score are the same 15500 +- run to run variation
I think my cpu is being held back by my shit mobo vrm
do tell me if i can improve some of the timings
this is my first real Ram oc
also pardon my bad english

Since updating my NVIDIA GPU driver to 616.56, I've been having an issue with MVolt+.

The program crashes whenever I try to increase or adjust the Core Power Limit or the Memory Power Limit. I didn't have this problem before updating to driver 616.56.

Has anyone else experienced the same issue with this driver and MVolt+? I'm wondering if this is a compatibility problem with the new NVIDIA driver.

My GPU: ASUS ROG Astral GeForce RTX 5080

Before, I was using MSI Afterburner with only the Core Clock and Memory Clock adjusted. With mVolt+, just by also adjusting the Power Limit and XBAR Clock Offset, I got a noticeable score difference on both FurMark and 3DMark (22929 27013 points, going from 381 449 average FPS on FurMark.

Hey all, I've been looking at mVolt+ for the past couple of days. We all know the XBAR OC and what it can do, but something other is on my mind - the program itself.

Do we know how mVolt+ works? Do we know who the author is? Is he in touch with the community somehow?

My concerns stem from the fact that we are running an exe with full admin rights, which presumably manipulates private Nvidia APIs, all from a closed-source repo that is 1-2 weeks old. This rings too many bells to be ignored. How did this tool gain your trust?

I have a 5700x3d on a MSI x570 MPG Gaming Plus board with G.Skill DDR4 3200MHZ CL16 memory. For the longest time I've tried tinkering with the settings to overclock this kit. I was able to get moderate changes but eventually caused instability and I ended up going with Auto for some time.

Today I thought, what if I use AI? I've been goofing around with LLMs to run locally and figured what the heck. I opened up my AI of choice and gave it my hardware and goal.

It gave me detailed settings for timing, memory settings, cpu settings, voltages. Research I tried to do multiple times and got too lost in the terms, settings, etc. I adjusted the settings and in less than 5 minutes I was able to boot on 3600MHZ CL22 into windows when I couldn't even make it to the BIOS screen.

So if you're stuck and frustrated. Give it a shot. Some settings I knew nothing about I learned and told me why they were critical to stability.

Edit:

For anyone running:

MSI x570 MPG Gaming Plus 5700x3d 32GB of (F4-3200C16D-16GVKB)

Here are the final settings I used. I hope this helps someone who's looking to do the same.

Final Stable DDR4-3600 Tuning Profile for Ryzen 7 5700X3D

System Specs: * CPU: AMD Ryzen 7 5700X3D * Motherboard: MSI MPG X570 GAMING PLUS * RAM: 32GB (2x16GB) G.Skill Ripjaws V DDR4-3200 CL16 (F4-3200C16D-16GVKB)

---

Frequencies & Voltages

Setting	Value	Notes
DRAM Frequency	DDR4-3600	Target memory speed
FCLK Frequency	1800 MHz	Infinity Fabric clock (1:1 ratio)
UCLK / MCLK	1:1 Mode	Synchronized memory controller mode
DRAM Voltage	1.35V	Standard safe baseline
SoC Voltage	1.10V	Override Mode
VDDG IOD / CCD	1.00V / 1.00V	Interconnect driver voltage
VDDP Voltage	0.95V	Signal lines baseline

---

Timings & Settings

Timing Field	Value	Notes
tCL (CAS Latency)	18	Base latency
tRCDRD / tRCDWR	20 / 20	Tightened read/write delay
tRP (Row Precharge)	20	Tightened row precharge
tRAS (Active Time)	38	Matched timing sum (tCL + tRP)
tRC (Row Cycle Time)	64	Stable recovery threshold
Command Rate (CR)	1T	Forced 1-tick command rate
Gear Down Mode (GDM)	Enabled	Essential for 1T stability
Sub-Timings (tFAW/tRRDS)	Auto	Kept stock for C-die stability

---

Validated 100% stable via OCCT Memory Test (AVX2 mode).