schmidtbag:

Weird how even my Biostar X370 board has 1.0.0.2a.

Yes, it's strange. Perhaps MSI is simply confused by the AGESA version numbering scheme--I surely do not understand it. I updated to 1.0.0.6a long ago, but the latest versions are 1.0.0.1a and then 1.0.0.2a. I guess what they did is reset the AGESA numbering scheme when they introduced the 12nm +. That at least would add some rhyme and reason to it.

Robbo9999:

So this is your 2700X overclocked to 4.225Ghz and not allowed to downclock, and you have CPU power usage varying from 18W to 63.88W over the period of one hour - what were you doing with the PC, what kind of loads? They're certainly quite reasonable power values, not too high (but depends on what you were doing with your PC during that one hour). Will be interesting to see your power values when your CPU is allowed to downclock, while I assume still overclocking?

As promised: Spoiler: "Power: XFR+Cool&Quiet"

http://i66.tinypic.com/347tc2g.png

But it is not this nice in reality. Upon start of system steam was downloading update for some game and moving files. While one thread was used, it put CPU to 4.35GHz on one core and rest somewhere between 4.1~4.25GHz. So, to get actual idle readings, I had to reset statistics. In time I wrote this, average is 14.6W. Minimum 9W, Maximum 69W. And yes, that means a bit of browser fun with upload of image and looking for this thread. (8minutes after taking screenshot.) But voltage difference is really nice. But I am disappointed, minimal clock is 2GHz, but only on one core at time. Rest are on 2.2GHz. I do not get this at all. Maybe controlled by BIOS same way as XFR and power limits? Secondly XFR itself puts all CPU cores only to 3.9GHz in Cinebench R15 as I did set Voltage to auto instead manually increasing it. When load is on all cores, auto voltage for this 3.9GHz is 1.331V. In Single threaded Test, voltage goes to 1.512V @ 4.35GHz.

Your CPU-Z score is weird. I get 520 single core on a fully patched OS/BIOS. You got 485 for the 8700K. That should not be a possibility unless you run stuff in the background or have some settings wrong. And I get lower speed memory as well, on a cheap motherboard. https://valid.x86.fr/bench/g3egu4

Fox2232:

As promised: Spoiler: "Power: XFR+Cool&Quiet"

http://i66.tinypic.com/347tc2g.png

But it is not this nice in reality. Upon start of system steam was downloading update for some game and moving files. While one thread was used, it put CPU to 4.35GHz on one core and rest somewhere between 4.1~4.25GHz. So, to get actual idle readings, I had to reset statistics. In time I wrote this, average is 14.6W. Minimum 9W, Maximum 69W. And yes, that means a bit of browser fun with upload of image and looking for this thread. (8minutes after taking screenshot.) But voltage difference is really nice. But I am disappointed, minimal clock is 2GHz, but only on one core at time. Rest are on 2.2GHz. I do not get this at all. Maybe controlled by BIOS same way as XFR and power limits? Secondly XFR itself puts all CPU cores only to 3.9GHz in Cinebench R15 as I did set Voltage to auto instead manually increasing it. When load is on all cores, auto voltage for this 3.9GHz is 1.331V. In Single threaded Test, voltage goes to 1.512V @ 4.35GHz.

So it looks like you're saving about 10W on average during light load/idle situations when comparing with your other screenshot, I mean that's worthwhile but you're sacrificing top end performance if your max Cinebench frequency is only 3.9Ghz when at stock, in contrast to your 4.2Ghz overclock. Is it possible to overclock & retain XFR and Cool & Quiet? I suppose the Intel equivalent would be just running an Offset Voltage and increasing the multipliers, and then allowing it to downclock, etc, at idle. (I've personally found with my Skylake 6700K that C-states enabled, Offset Voltage with an overclock, and Windows High Performance Profile which results in locked frequency at 4.7Ghz is the best combination of Power savings & performance, no performance sacrifice, but low idle power consumption: C-states enabled is alone enough to lower idle power consumption, so no need to drop the frequency too).

6 core is so 2010 😛 Intel 980x released....

nizzen:

6 core is so 2010 😛 Intel 980x released....

Except this is mainstream, and 980x was a $1000 CPU back then.

I kinda miss my i7980. Still running at a very modest 4ghz on the venerable(but kinda feature lacking) X58. Upgraded to the 1600X and sure it's way faster but there was something cool about oc'ing via the FSB on a locked chip. Today's OC's just don't feel as exciting.

Why are you base clocks different than what the ryzen 2600 is at normally? The AIDA64CPUID shows your multiplier at 37.5.. I have actually been having trouble with mine where it's always at 37.5 and never goes to 34.0 even if I set it and the bios shows 3.4 or bios can be set to auto. The cache and memory below shows it at 39.0, but why don't we see 34 above this? Is this XFR kicking in and boosting the minimum clocks? Only strange thing on mine is that it doesn't often go to 3.9 under load, it appears random. My cache and memory scored pretty close to what you have here, but I'm running fairly cheap Geil Evo Spear CL16 (16-18-18-36) 3,000mhz. Wonder why my cache scores are a good 5% higher across the board. Great review, very helpful with overclocking and having a lot of benchmarks to compare to.

That heavily depends on your selected energy modus (power plan), do you use balanced, high performance / Ryzen performance profile. As to screenshots. the grabbing software always fires up one during the capture process.

The best I can get out of my Ryzen R5 2600 is 4.18 Ghz at 1.4v. Any speed beyond that and IBT AVX crashes or locks up. Right at this setting, everything runs great. (On a Asrock X370 Taichi with the 4.81 bios.) It was a cheap CPU and it is fast.