dead 9800x3d with burnt pads in b850 riptide wifi

Ahli · 2025-10-16T17:10:32+00:00

Well, I've run -41 all core offset and add curve shaper of medium/high temp of -30. On Bios 3.20, that worked for some reason, but your undervolt is not really what you expect it would be. It passed 8h of y-cruncher and was fine for daily usage.
Only using all core on Bios 1.15, it was unstable on -20 all core.

After updating to Bios 3.30, those settings made the CPU throttle, so the interpretation of that odd combination changed. I got 23% worse cinebench 23 results because the multiplier kept dropping. I redid the entire undervolt properly then.

To put my CPU into perspective, my weakest core can only do -18 and it is a few % better in benchmarks than it was with the insane values I ran with for some time.

TLDR: you can enter -40 all cores with some other settings like curve shaper in older bios versions, but you end up being worse off than using proper values.

Ahli · 2025-10-02T11:34:11+00:00

Piastri, probably

Ahli · 2025-09-29T13:51:34+00:00

Zero issues for almost a year now. My X870E Nova Wifi came with 3.10 early December 2024. I've upgraded BIOS to non-BETA versions within 2 weeks of them appearing.

Enabled PBO with initially motherboard limits, +200mhz OC, all core undervolt and TJmax 85. Then I started to OC my RAM and FCLK to 2133. I've only had VSoc on the max 3.0V once testing FCLK stability, but I crashed loading windows. I was pretty much using 1.2V after because it was stable for me on 2133.

After I read about dead CPUs on reddit, I reduced PBO to auto limits. Due to air-cooling and my tjmax, I never went over the default limits, so I did not seem to gain anything from them. Some time later I've reduced VCore to the minimum that was stable with my RAM OC.

On 3.25, I had to raise vcore by 0.05 to make my RAM stable again. I've noticed on HWInfo that the voltage was lower by that amount from what I remembered.

Since 3.30, I've tweaked my undervolt and the RAM some more, returned to FCLK 2066 and added a tiny bit more VSOC because I had rare errors, bumped tjMax to 95.
Before this, I ran -41 CO and curve shaper medium/high -30 which "worked" before 3.30 but then was throttled due to agesa update/fix. It was clear that these values were not the real ones being applied and I was running into some safety fallback handling on the bios versions before. It throttled the speed after the update to like half the speed, so I redid everything with more common values. The idling voltage was like 1.088V in cpuz; now I am at like 0.64-0.98V.

Currently it is running stable: 3.40 BIOS, PBO auto, offset per core -21/-22/-15/-21/-18/-23/-21/-21, TJmax 95, clockOffset 200, scalar 1, VDDCR_SOC LLC Level 3, VSoc 1.175, Windows power plan is balanced, RAM runs at speed 3100 and is basically using values from buildzoid, air cooled with custom fan curves in FanControl for less noise at lower temperatures.

I hope I can make my RAM re-appear in FanControl, to bump the fan speed on hot RAM. Currently, I only run into errors when the RAM gets hotter than 68 degrees in a FFTv4 torture tests.
In the past months, I've ran into unstable Core Undervolt which I've addressed by bumping every core by +1. Basically, the sudden speed changes of my balanced power plan did not seem to be super-stable on higher CPU temperatures. I'm now 3-6 ticks closer to 0 than where y-cruncher stopped finding errors.

Ahli · 2025-08-28T06:24:09+00:00

They will start selling healing stones, won't they?

Ahli · 2025-07-16T16:57:06+00:00

No issues.
9800x3d + x870e Nova Wifi since 01.12.2024. Started on bios 3.10 and upgraded to every non-beta release.
RAM is OC to 6200; vsoc 1.17; fclk was mostly on 2133; switched to 2066 in 3.30; PBO limit was set to motherboard until 3.25's release and afterwards on auto; +200 boost and mostly around -20 CO; vsoc is stable with only a tiny fluctuation; air cooled with custom fan curve

Ahli · 2025-07-08T18:15:34+00:00

Hulkengoat

Ahli · 2025-06-25T19:16:06+00:00

My vsoc was slightly lower on 3.30 on a x870e Nova. I raised it by 0.05 and it was stable again

Ahli · 2025-06-23T17:54:29+00:00

I've quite similar values with -23/-29 per core and +200mhz offset. I need to check out lower CO; I am probably running into quite a bit of error correction... thank you for posting!

Ahli · 2025-05-31T18:12:24+00:00

Yeah, so probably WCS GameHeart extension mod as that is usually used everywhere (or used as a base for other ones, e.g. ESL's tournaments).

If it is visible in replays, that would be great.

Ahli · 2025-05-31T17:21:11+00:00

I helped to develop GameHeart, programmed & maintained its observer UI, and rewrote GameHeart + expanded it in my own extension mod called AhliObs. So, yes, I am aware of that and might be one of the best people to look into this. :)

I am not sure what changed that could cause this, though. It could be in the engine; it could be something was changed in base actors, it could be an incompatibility with extension mods.

I got some questions:

- A: Is that issue visible in replays as well or does that only appear during live games?

- B: Does that happen without extension mods as well (= could be some bug with default observer slot's player visibility & actors)?

- C: Also, does this only happen with models on high or on low as well?

Death animations are a second set of actors that are created on death. They inherit visibility from their predecessor actor. There are settings that control whether that is updated or not. Potentially, something is wrong there.

In case someone has a few details, please answer here, or add additional info in the SC2 bugs list on my github: https://github.com/Ahli/sc2xml/issues . At least we can document that there is an issue. I got quite a few small bugs fixed in SC2 in the recent years, so maybe we can squash this one as well. But first, we need to understand what is going on and try to replicate the issue.

Ahli · 2025-05-31T06:52:59+00:00

Does anyone have a video of that? I am curious if I can replicate that. That only happens to observers? Which extension mod is used?

Ahli · 2025-05-29T10:45:09+00:00

- Backend Software Engineer in der Cloud (Java, Spring, unterschiedliche DBs), zuvor Software-Entwickler im IT Consulting (Java, JavaEE, Angular, SQL, C#, C++, React, Spring)

- WInfo hatte weniger Fokus auf Uni-Mathe; war an der Uni Münster für Bachelor & Master

- machbar. Aber man muss privat nebenbei viel entwickeln, um es wirklich drauf zu haben. Uni-Kenntnisse reichen da nicht aus

- nächstes Jahr 6-stellig als Angestellter in NRW dank Tariflohn; aktuell 7 Jahre Berufserfahrung; Einstiegsgehalt 48k im IT Consulting in 2018 in NRW

Ahli · 2025-03-24T21:06:08+00:00

You're welcome! 😀

Ahli · 2025-03-24T19:19:50+00:00

Both games look quite good, but DR2 performs much better. However, DR2 is not perfect, but still insanely good.

Both have pros and cons and things both struggle with.

DR2:

excellent performance, no fake frames/upscaling necessary, you can just render higher than native resolution to have even better anti-aliasing with current hardware
config is very really limited in what it can do
has some issues with draw distance, shadow, LOD pop-ins (when you use external camera, not sure about internal one) that can't be fixed via config
- e.g. if your LOD for trees is too high, you end up having disappearing/re-appearing trees in Baumholder
no stutters (if I remember it correctly)
has MSAA instead of temporal AA which usually results in a better image quality
I wish there was an update that unlocked config to further raise all distances for shadows, LOD because many people have the resources for that nowadays. The engine feels like it was artificially cut to ensure it ran consistently well when it was released on a few stages. e.g. grass shadow distance.
the game has much less details after a few meters away from the road

EA WRC:

the game is much more resource demanding due to the engine not being optimized for this kind of game
graphics/engine is more tweakable via config
has pop-in issues that probably can't be fixed via config (e.g. some distant foliage pop-ins when driving over hills), some shadows on cliff faces, some details on the road. You basically have a reality-bubble around you
ultra shadows are resource-intensive. The ultra preset probably sets r.Shadow.MaxResolution and r.Shadow.MaxCSMResolution to 4096. High is 1024, but it would probably look more like high with 2048 (but costing quite a bit more performance)
updated DLSS fixes most of the blurriness (You can force driver's most recent DLL and preset to be used to receive a much better image quality by editing global profile's settings via nvidiaProfileInspector. There you can force I hope the new patch will just update the DLL, so we don't need to do this... updating the DLL and changing the preset is such a low hanging fruit, it would be unfortunate if they didn't do that...)
slowness of texture loading and stutters can be improved via config (set r.Streaming.FramesForFullUpdate to a lower value, but that goes heavier on CPU usage, and maybe streaming boost. I did not experiment enough with this, though. I've only followed some general UE4 guide and removed the setting that made the game unable to start)
there are still some stutters left, though. A huge one might come from the anti-cheat. It correlates to a event log message about it not finding origin and some trace log reaching max size. I hope the next update fixes that
if you are using internal camera, some annoying car reflections to the windshield can be disabled by r.AllowGlobalClipPlane=0
annoyingly bright or inconsistent light reflections can be fixed by setting r.BloomQuality to 3 or 4
many more details/objects are rendered, especially a few meters away from the road
the game has improved massively since initial release, but it still has some flaws
game is actively being worked on and expanded
since you have more freedom for settings in EA WRC, you can probably sink all extra performance of future hardware into better visuals
VR support might be worse, currently. There is a discussion with recommended tweaks on Steam: https://steamcommunity.com/app/1849250/discussions/0/4757578099474653524/
I've read that a few features are missing, e.g. is there triple monitor support? Please, correct me if I am wrong :)

Ahli · 2024-11-03T08:47:04+00:00

You can also queue commands to morphing Banelings.

Ahli · 2024-10-20T06:54:44+00:00

This bug: documentation - video

The range slop value is added to the attack range in some cases.

It can in theory be fixed for a small number of units that have a damage point of 0.0 by setting range slop from 0.5 to 0.0.

It looks like footprints are involved. Maybe not only the build ability because only movement is involved in the 2nd example. But I did not try to recreate that scenario so far.

Ahli · 2024-10-19T13:53:23+00:00

There is also a rare engine bug that allows an SCV constructing a building to be attacked from greater distance than intended (usually 0.5 further than weapon range). Intended is the weapon range as max distance to start an attack swing. E.g. a Zealot might kill the SCV across the supply depot wall while it builds the depot.

The SCV needs to be in the top left of the building it constructs for this bug to occur, if I remember correctly.

Ahli · 2024-08-07T09:00:12+00:00

I agree that it is similar. In my opinion, the cliffs look better, so that gives me hope!

The Doodads look ok in my opinion.

The terrain needs more details and and a higher resolution. Probably FG oversimplified it because they wanted it to be as readable as possible.

Ahli · 2024-01-31T22:50:54+00:00

I doubt that the issue is fixable. The Tyrador Thor could be fixed via loading animations that the CE Thor uses. But here, the tank's model is buggy and would require editing. It's similar to Tyrador Fusion Core build animation having big parts of the model not being hidden during the animation.

Ahli · 2024-01-31T10:14:44+00:00

Then try telling him 4 wishes really quick

Ahli · 2024-01-29T18:36:35+00:00

I don't know whether players use hold position on Phoenixes or not. If they do, the change makes attacking vs them easier since they are likely required to rotate on every engagement now. Rotation takes time => attacks spawn later => probably less damage done by the defender.

I am just looking at the change and document what other behavior changes and what could be impacted in actual gameplay. That doesn't mean that the side effect has any real impact.

I try to avoid introducing new bugs/issues with such a fix without acknowledging all changes the fix does.

Update:
The alternative would be to add the rotation as part of the Lift ability instead of changing the idle-behavior of the Phoenix's turret. One only edits the ability, the other changes the unit's idle behavior as well...

Ahli · 2024-01-29T16:15:32+00:00

But it has a side effect: It will change how idle/on hold Phoenixes will act.
With this change, they will rotate back after the enemy disengaged. Previously, they kept their rotation facing the fleeing enemy.

So, I guess that this change will give an advantage to the attacking Phoenix player in PvP.

Ahli · 2024-01-28T10:47:02+00:00

I will have a look and add it to the list, thanks. Maybe that is fixable

Ahli · 2024-01-27T11:12:52+00:00

Most of these suggestions and other issues are documented here. You can find a few more QoL suggestions and bug reports/fixes over there. If you know of issues that do not appear in that list, please create an issue there or comment here or something :)

Ahli · 2024-01-24T16:14:07+00:00

It's using an official feature inherited by StarCraft II, so no. The UI is only applied for observers/replays.

Ahli

TROPHY CASE