it's a setting you select, TPU1 or TPU2

 

Correct Martin.  I was responding to your statement about the posibility of the TPU switch setting Offset voltage.  You said switch, however I was talking abut 5WO exclusive of the switch.

 

My comment is that 5WO sets Offset, not adaptive voltage.  This is verified.  You mentioned a relation to the TPU, I was simply indicating that 5WO changes the bios setting to TPU1 if you select TPU1 in the software. 

 

in any case, use of 5WO sets offset voltage in the bios and not adapitive voltage.  This is a figment of Intel to which ASUS has no control or so I read. I will try it again later to confirm if you can use 5WO without selecting a TPU and see what voltage it sets.

 

 

Hi Gary, not sure what you mean there. In 5WO you have the choice, it's a setting you select, TPU1

 

Ok, just to conclude.  When using 5WO through AI 3 program in Windows, when extreme setting is selected, you must select a TPU state, either TPU 1 or TPU2.  There are no options within the 5WO to select adaptive or Offset voltage (at least none that I can find). Selection of TPU1 sets Offset, not adaptive voltage.  I confirmed this by ensuring that "keep current settings" was set in the bios prior to 5WO. After 5WO I checked bios and it was Offset.  I set default bios settings by F5. Confirmed "keep current settings" was set. Then in the bios set TPU1. Setting TPU1 in the bios set Offset not adaptive voltage. 5WO also sets TPU1 (if selected) in the bios.

Interesting. So I discovered a while ago that TPU1 overclocks just the multipier and TPU2 multiplier and BCLK.

 

Now you've discovered TPU1 uses off-set voltage.

 

I have heard JJ mention in other videos that 5WO uses adaptive, so I suspect if you select TPU2 in 5WO it probably does so.

 

I will see if I can find the other Asus video later, where JJ from Asus sets 5WO to TPU2 for his demonstration.

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/69944-asus-z170-skylake-motherboard-review-15.html

 

Look at the bottom of the page. 5WO is using adaptive.

 

I suspect TPU2 sets adaptive.

I suspect TPU2 sets adaptive.

 

 

 

I do not know Martin, personally I do not think so.  I think they may be confusing the term adaptive and Offset as both will alter the voltages as viewed in software like CPU Z or AI 3.  It is also possible previous bios versions allowed setting of adaptive (I would almost bet that it did).  I am on bios 1602.  Prior to running 5WO I did see an option within AI 3 that looked like it may let you set adaptive.  This option is removed once you run 5WO.

 

See this comment by Raja  post 2045 his point #2.

 

I have uninstalled AI 3 again.  If I reinstall it I will test TPU2.

100% accuracy of target voltage is not possible as 5-Way currently uses Offset mode due to Intel microcode issues.

 

 

Oh right, there you go then. It's down to Intel to fix the microcode and then I guess it will be back to adaptive.

Are you guys getting good results using 5 way? I couldn't hit 4.5 with it but when I manually do it in the bios I get 4.7 and she's rock solid.

Are you guys getting good results using 5 way? I couldn't hit 4.5 with it but when I manually do it in the bios I get 4.7 and she's rock solid.

 

 

 

Hi Ron,

Personally my results varied, some due to me, some not sure why they varied.  I saw 4.7-single core, 4.5 all-core, 4.6-all core, 4.3-all core.  Obviously my setting between all core and single core varied where indicated but the 4.6, 4.5 and one time it gave me 4.3 @ 1.41volts was an anomaly that should not have occurred, and is why I find the 5WO inconsistent.

 

I see Richard in the second or third post in this thread said he has 4.7 with 5WO.

 

My advice would be to not blindly use 5WO, verify voltages and temps under stress test and make sure that you are happy with the results that it gives you. The 4.6 that 5WO gave me in one of my tests was a very good clock at good temps and low volts.

 

I favour manual clocking over 5WO.

Are you guys getting good results using 5 way? I couldn't hit 4.5 with it but when I manually do it in the bios I get 4.7 and she's rock solid.

 

 

 

Depends what settings you used in 5way. There are quite a few to set. Some get mixed up between the full, stress tested 5 way, and the basic non stress tested, one size fits all, TPU1 and 2.

 

I'll tell you how I get on in a couple of weeks when my bedroom refurb is complete and I can finally get around to building my rig.

 

5way does run some pretty tough stress tests that are closer to real world use. That may be something to do with why manual overclocking with different stress tests gives different results. We have to compare like for like really to glean anything definitive. Quite frankly, Asus's stress tests may be tougher, and they certainly are closer to real world use, unlike synthetic stress tests.

 

In regard to the inconstancy Gary saw... I've not come across that before. 

In regard to the inconstancy Gary saw... I've not come across that before.

 

 

Could have been me Martin, I wasn't documenting the process or even paying much attention.  What I mostly did not like was 5WO, seems to just put the boots to the voltages.  Whether these voltages are within the programs capability to control or not I am unsure but seems they give the same voltage to get you a 4.7 clock even if you only get 4.5.  Not sure I make much sense.  The 4.3 clock it gave me once really didn't make sense to me especially at the voltages it gave.  The rest I may have been playing with limiting the frequency using the program.  It's a good program, you just have to watch it.  I know frequency and voltages are settable but if you try to limit the voltage or the frequency you will not get the result you intended.

Could have been me Martin, I wasn't documenting the process or even paying much attention. 

 

 

Yes you do have to make notes really, too many variables not to. And as I said, you are comparing two different stress testing methodologies, so can't draw any conclusions. 

 

What I mostly did not like was 5WO, seems to just put the boots to the voltages.  Whether these voltages are within the programs capability to control or not I am unsure but seems they give the same voltage to get you a 4.7 clock even if you only get 4.5.  Not sure I make much sense. 

 

 

 

 

No, that's not right. The only time voltages will be fixed is if you are just overclocking with the generic "one size fits all" TPU1 or 2, quick overclock.

 

5Way alters the voltage accordingly dependent on the results of the stress tests it runs, just the same as an experienced overclocker would if manually overclocking.

 

I agree with you, you do have to pay attention, it is quite capable, with options to select that have a significant impact.

 

What annoys me is that Asus haven't bothered to provide a PDF manual for 5 way optimisation, just a few Youtube video's. A program like this definitely requires a manual. That much is evident by the fact that we here have had to spend time on Google to discover what various options do. For example, it currently setting offset voltage rather than adaptive, and TPU1 only overclocking the multiplier not BCLK. We shouldn't have to mess around like this to find basic info, it should be in a bloody manual.

Yes you do have to make notes really, too many variables not to. And as I said, you are comparing two different stress testing methodologies, so can't draw any conclusions.

 

Possibly, however this wasn't a science experiment for me. 

 

I do not recall saying that I used two different stress tests for the comparison.  I simply stated the 5WO results as given. Unless you mean different stress tests under varying parameters within AI 3.  However I will point out that I used the program many times, although not scientific I agree. AWO wasn't supposed to require a scientist to use it. Maybe that is key, we think too much.

 

As I stated several posts back I had uninstalled the AI 3 program.  I did this because in either my ignorance as to how the program is intended to work (ASUS promotes it as one-click and-go OCing for noobies) I did click it, my results varied, my perception is the program can give inconsistent results.

 

I am not saying it is a bad program, just that it needs (in my opinion) more oversight than a blind-click.  However I am not in the motherboard marketing game and for that ASUS has me  beat hands down.

 

I agree, a manual explaining exactly how to use the program would be helpful as well as describing what changes are made by the program and why.  However I think we are a small minority of the market ASUS is appealing to and those that would blindly click an overclocking program and walk away  are likely not interested in the guts of the thing.

 

Hopefully you will have an opportunity to use the AI 3 program and 5WO soon and post back with your experiences.

Possibly, however this wasn't a science experiment for me.

 

Well no, it won't be a science experiment for me either when I give it a bash. But you did say the inconsistency you experienced "could have been you because you didn't document the process". My point therefore is that to avoid confusion a few scribbled notes helps. It doesn't have to be scientific.

 

 

I do not recall saying that I used two different stress tests for the comparison.

 

I believe you said you achieved 4.7 or was it 4.8 by manually overclocking. Then presumably you did actually stress test that manual overclock to deem it stable. I doubt you would have just set it and hoped it was stable.

 

My point is that the stress tests you presumably used to validate your manual, in the UEFI, overclock as stable, aren't the same stress tests included in 5 way optimisation. Thus we are comparing two different stress tests. 5 way optimisation may simply be utilising stress tests that are harder to pass than the ones you used to validate your overclock. Hence why you, and Ron who posted above, achieved lower frequency with 5WO.

 

As I stated several posts back I had uninstalled the AI 3 program. I did this because in either my ignorance as to how the program is intended to work (ASUS promotes it as one-click and-go OCing for noobies) I did click it, my results varied, my perception is the program can give inconsistent results.

 

 

 

Well actually, they promote it as a utility for both beginner and experienced overclocker. Your perception may be that it can give inconsistent results, but you did say it could have been you because you didn't take notes. It's no big deal, no way am I deriding you in any way, the only reason I'm questioning your impressions of 5WO is to determine if this inconstancy you experienced is a valid issue or not. That's useful for me to know as a future user of the software, and anyone else who's thinking of trying it.

 

I am not saying it is a bad program, just that it needs (in my opinion) more oversight than a blind-click.

 

I've not seen 5WO advertised as requiring just a "blind click", that sounds more like TPU1 and TPU2 that is simply a case of a single click, or a single flip of the switch on the board. There are several options to select before running 5WO, so no, it's not just a blind click that's required. I think you are confusing it with the TPU settings.

I believe you said you achieved 4.7 or was it 4.8 by manually overclocking. Then presumably you did actually stress test that manual overclock to deem it stable. I doubt you would have just set it and hoped it was stable.

 

I think it was 4.7.  This was 5WO with per-core.  No other testing, at least not as a comparative to the stress test that 5WO performs.

 

 

 

My point is that the stress tests you presumably used to validate your manual, in the UEFI, overclock as stable

 

When I set manual OC, I stress tested with RealBench.   If I tested what 5WO did in RealBench it was for a comparison of temps vs volts. Example 5WO set a 4.6 oc once then I set a manual 4.6 OC and compared results of both using RealBench.  The manual setting was much cooler than the 5WO setting.  At all times any comparisons that I made were apples to apples i.e. RealBench to real Bench or 5WO to 5WO.

 

 

 

I'm questioning your impressions of 5WO is to determine if this inconstancy you experienced is a valid issue or not. That's useful for me to know as a future user of the software,

 

My testing was pretty loose, and you would be well advised to form your own impressions.  I did have the manual TPU switches set to TPU1 through several of the 5WO runs, this potentially could have caused some issues?  I have read several forums with other users experiencing inconsistent results when using 5WO.

 

I can say my current manual OC of 4.6 ran 72c during 1-hour RealBench.  4.6 5WO I saw 82c under RealBench.

 

I can say my current manual OC of 4.6 ran 72c during 1-hour RealBench.  4.6 5WO I saw 82c under RealBench.

 

 

So many variables though Gary...

 

Depends on the delta... was your room temperature different?

 

Depends if you set AVX in RealBench when you stress tested your manual overclock, and if you set AVX in 5WO. If you didn't when you stress tested your manual overclock, the temp would be lower.

 

Depends if you ran Fan Xpert with 5WO, thus your fan curve changed.

 

Depends if you used the same voltage for your manual overclock that 5WO did for it's auto overclock. If 5WO deemed it necessary to set higher voltage to provide stability, the temp would be higher.

 

If your manual overclock was cooler, then there must have been a variable that was different. The most obvious is voltage.

 

5WO does run a whole gamut of tests, could be your brief run of RealBench when you manually overclocked didn't highlight any instability, but 5WO's stress tests did. As I said before, we have no way of knowing what stress tests 5WO is running automatically, they are invisible to us, they may well be tough tests that are more likely to detect instability, thus why it sets higher voltage.

 

Asus get the new CPU's way before we do, and test literally hundreds of them. They become experts in the platform before we even see it. Perhaps why we as manual overclockers set lower voltage, and Asus know better.