# Matisse (Ryzen 3000) overclocking/undervolting



## Wavetrex (Jul 18, 2019)

(Please excuse me if this was posted already somewhere else and I missed it, If not, here we go

Findings on how to make Ryzen 3000 CPUs go faster, or cooler, or more power efficient.
Sure, the internet is full of reviews, but why not have our little corner.

_--- My findings today on a _*R7 3700x*_ ---_

It's "boost" speeds (both single and multi thread) depend on... Voltage ?
- On "Auto" my mobo was setting 1.4 (ish) or something, it boosted to 4.2-4.25 multi core and 4.4 single thread... but the thing gets very hot (90+) degrees in multi-core tests.
- I gave it 1.1 volts manual in bios, the computer worked FINE. No crashes, nothing... but it was slower, barely cracking 3.9 multi core and a slow-ish 4.1 single thread
- I gave it 1.3 volts, the boosts increased more
... I stopped at 1.45 due to reaching thermal throttling even with all fans (case+cpu) turned to max. But it was boosting to 4.4 (advertised speed) A LOT (single thread), and sustained 4.3 Ghz on all cores !! (at least until the temperature took over)
(Using boxed cooler right now, no fancy AIO so I can try even more. But I'll probably need to buy one if I want that sweet 4.4 Ghz to happen)

Using PBO +OC ( +100 Mhz) I've seen it boost to 44.5, but ONLY on 1.45 volts. If I lower the voltage, it simply doesn't go there, doesn't matter what temp it has.

So...
First day of findings ... *Automatic* CPU clock depends directly on the *Voltage* given to it.

~~~
This is quite different from Intel, or even my previous 1700... which were simply crashing if it didn't have enough volts for stability.
I'm still puzzled on how these new things work...

_What's your experience ?_

*Experiment - Over/Undervolting and running Cinebench R20*

How low can it go before I'm unable to run CB ... or boot in windows ?
( Before anyone asks, the CPUz screenshots were taken WHILE CB WAS RUNNING... so that's the 16-threads operating voltage )

1.45v (*THROTTLY THROTTLY*)



 CPUz: 

 Temp: 

 (going nuclear)

(Will try 1.425 just for science at the end)

1.4 v (let's get cookin')


 CPUz: 

 Temp: 

 (smokin' !!)

1.375 (not getting any faster) ( ran out of attachments ... max 30)
CB: *4800* | CPUz Volts: *1.395* | Temp: *89* degr.

*1.35v* (BOOM baby ! Seems to be the sweet-spot - for _my_ CPU at least)


 CPUz Volts: *1.363* Temp: *86* degr. (toasty)

1.325v ( getting faster, but not that much faster)
CB: *4786* | CPUz Volts: *1.341* | Temp: *84* degr.

1.3 v ( now we're getting some speedz ! )


 CPUz: 

 Temp: 

 (hottie)

1.287 v (found it ! This is the magic voltage where it starts to boost higher)
CB: *4252* | CPUz Volts: *1.297* | Temp: *76* degr.

1.275 v (nope, still slow...)
CB: *4046 *| CPUz Volts: *1.286* | Temp: *74* degr.

1.25 ( hmm, not any better than the lower voltage )
CB: *3966* | CPUz Volts: *1.264* | Temp: *71* degr.

1.2 v ( beats me... seems that the CPU really doesn't like 1.1v-1.275 ... )


 CPUz: 

Temp: 

 (steamy)

1.1 v


 CPUz: 

 Temp: 

 (warmish)

1.05 v (Yes, it's slower than 1.00 or 0.925) !! Ran it several times 


 CPUz: 

 Temp: 



1.00 v


 CPUz: 

 Temp: 



0.975 v


 CPUz: 

 Temp: 



0.95 v


 CPUz: 

 Temp - The same, doesn't drop more on my system. It's quite hot here in my room...

0.925 v


 CPUz: 

 Temp: 

 (just chill)

0.9 v
(Cinebench crash as soon as I hit RUN, followed by Bluescreen)


So, it doesn't seem it got any slower until 0.925v, below that... Volts-> <- 3700x


----------



## Darmok N Jalad (Jul 18, 2019)

If it really is that adaptable to voltage, you might get really low on a functional voltage, but you won't get much for clocks!


----------



## Wavetrex (Jul 19, 2019)

*Disclaimer*: These are tests on *my* CPU /mobo and may or may not apply to anyone else. (R7 3700X is shoved into a cheap board - _Asus Prime X370-Pro_)
Also, it is Cinebench R20 only, I haven't checked for stability in other applications at any of the voltages.
Tests were done in a closed case (but with 5x 140mm fans, and boxed cooler AMD Wraith Prism RGB), in my attic where it's quite hot !

Conclusions for the wall of stuff above:

Ryzen 7 3700X (and my guess the entire series) seems to overclock itself simply based on Core Voltage. By just changing the core voltage to different values, the CPU gets slower or faster
The CPU worked without any crashes for the entire range, from 0.925 volts to 1.45 volts (where it was throttling). At no point it showed instability (in Cinebench R20 anyway)
It appears to work as low as *0.925* volts, while being VERY cool (just a few degrees above minimum). Will redo power consumption tests at this *insanely low voltage* !
No performance improvement all the way up to 1.275 volts (even _regressions_ at around 1.1v-1.2v - tests were repeated)
Going from 1.287 all the way to 1.35 seems to improve performance significantly - 4826 cb / 4092 cb is *18%* )
The CPU stopped getting faster at voltages higher than *1.35*, but I will test at "near" that voltage later, to see if there's a "max sweetspot" on my system, and also test for stability in other applications around those voltages
Max Temperature increased constantly with every voltage point, from as low as *56* to the throttling point: 95
I'm quite convinced that with a much better and expensive cooler more performance can be extracted at around 1.375-1.4 volts, but these tests are done without spending any more $$$
ASUS is f*cked up with their 1.4+ default "Auto" voltages, they seem to be NOT NEEDED for this CPU, and it can be made to run cooler and more efficient at lower (1.35 or so)
I hope my efforts here help you find your own voltage/performance sweet-spots.

Good luck and please share the findings !

---
One final test after finding that voltage sweet-spot:




@*1.3625* volts (bios setting) - I think this is as high as it would go.
Will stick with this voltage and run other tests and play games to see if stable, and come back with any significant observation.


----------



## Bruno_oc (Jul 19, 2019)

Overclocking depends greatly on temperature, so having an AIO or even a custom loop will increase the max clocks. I tried a 3700X that runs below 90C at 1.4v, on custom loop, and it's stable at 4350 on all cores. No throttling.
I also have a 3900X that runs 4450 @ 1.425v on all cores, but it goes slightly over 90C. Yet, no throttling, but it's rather high temp.


----------



## Wavetrex (Jul 19, 2019)

Bruno_oc said:


> Overclocking depends *greatly* on temperature











It -depends- indeed, but not "greatly". At most 200 Mhz all-cores can be gained by going really extreme with cooling very near ambient (most powerful custom loop etc.)

I think a decent 240mm AIO would be more than sufficient to bring 75% of that gain, so running the chip at 60 degrees instead of 85-90, for minimal cost. (There are plenty less than $100).
This would also help with the noise, because the boxed cooler isn't exactly silent, especially when it ramps up.

My next acquisition will probably be exactly that, a decent 240mm AIO, as only half a day after installing this 3700x the fan noise at full load is starting to bother me...

---
Anyway, I will redo testing around certain voltages which proved interesting in previous testing but with all the fans turned on and a room fan blowing air directly into the open case.
Get it as "cold" as possible with the equipment I have. It's doubtful it will have much of an impact, but there might be one nevertheless.

Edit:
_"Hold my beer"_

During an all-core workload...



I turned this on at maximum speed and....

.... this happened




Gained around 50 Mhz all-core boost by applying a little hurricane over the computer.
Will probably need to redo a lot of the testing, under different temperature conditions.

This generation is the "Pascal" (GTX 1000 series) of CPU's...

Around 10 minutes - clear increase in clockspeed (not by much, but it exists), for just 10 degrees less:




I just remembered I still have some Thermal Grizzly Cryonaut ... will attempt to repaste the box cooler with higher quality paste to see if it makes any difference.
But tomorrow, I'm after almost 16 hours of testing and tweaking the bloody CPU... 
*Maximum Geek *


----------



## HTC (Jul 19, 2019)

Wavetrex said:


> Edit:
> _"Hold my beer"_
> 
> During an all-core workload...
> ...



Nice "high tech" solution


----------



## DragonicDM (Jul 19, 2019)

Hey, I was hoping you could help me out because I dont know the first thing about CPUs.

I got a 3700X on Stock like you do but it runs upto 80°C on some games.

I am on an Asus x470-F mobo and am unsure what to do :/


----------



## Wavetrex (Jul 19, 2019)

DragonicDM said:


> I got a 3700X on Stock like you do but it runs upto 80°C on some games.
> 
> I am on an Asus x470-F mobo and am _unsure what to do_ :/



Absolutely nothing.
That's perfectly normal actually (my guess is that you use stock cooler).

If it were over 90 then maybe you should worry about wrong installation, but at 80 it's quite "chilly" in modern games (that might use the CPU at it's maximum potential)

But if you really want to do something, buy a powerful 280mm or 360mm AIO and that will drop temps by 10 degrees, maybe 15 if lucky.
Not sure if paying $150 and up makes sense though...


----------



## DragonicDM (Jul 19, 2019)

Wavetrex said:


> Absolutely nothing.
> That's perfectly normal actually (my guess is that you use stock cooler).
> 
> If it were over 90 then maybe you should worry about wrong installation, but at 80 it's quite "chilly" in modern games (that might use the CPU at it's maximum potential)
> ...



My ASUS mobo doesn't allow fans to be quiet when cpu is more than 75 - it revvs them up and down during spikes :/

Was wondering if I should undervolt a bit? Just so it gets under 75 hopefully.


----------



## Wavetrex (Jul 20, 2019)

You could indeed.
Or tweak the curve in their software "AI Suite 3", or in bios itself (there should be a fan customization menu)

But as I showed in this topic, undervolting will result in some loss of performance (and possibly stability). You might need to test at various voltage points (2-3 tiny steps each jump).
It seems the CPU is very "touchy" when it comes to voltage... only 0.01n more can mean 5% faster !


----------



## Bones (Jul 20, 2019)

I have to disagree to a point - While it may seem normal to see temps reaching 80c I don't really believe 80c is an acceptable norm/standard.
I'd get something better than stock cooling for sure to use.

While the CPU may be able to tolerate these temps this doesn't mean it's liking them or that it's even good for it.... Because it's not. Any reduction in operating temps is a good thing but it also has to be feasable as in the amount of temp drop vs the investment to get it.

I do disagree that undervolting drops performance - If it does for some reason you've dropped voltage too far period. Speaking of such I've done some runs with my 3600X and quite happy with it, the runs done on a stock aircooler.








						Bones`s SuperPi - 32M with BenchMate score: 8min 4sec 389ms with a Ryzen 5 3600X
					

The Ryzen 5 3600X @ 4448MHzscores getScoreFormatted in the SuperPi - 32M with BenchMate benchmark. Bonesranks #318 worldwide and #2 in the hardware class. Find out more at HWBOT.




					hwbot.org
				











						Bones`s Geekbench3 - Multi Core with BenchMate score: 31182 points with a Ryzen 5 3600X
					

The Ryzen 5 3600X @ 4323MHzscores getScoreFormatted in the Geekbench3 - Multi Core with BenchMate benchmark. Bonesranks #29 worldwide and #7 in the hardware class. Find out more at HWBOT.




					hwbot.org
				



There is no reason I can see for a CPU to be hitting 80c and higher _as a norm_ - 70c+ is probrably realistic in the case of a Ryzen but certainly not 80c. Look at the thermometer icon in the entries above and it tells you the max temp seen during these runs, the benchmate results window itself shows both, min and max temps seen.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Jul 20, 2019)

Bones said:


> I have to disagree to a point - While it may seem normal to see temps reaching 80c I don't really believe 80c is an acceptable norm/standard.
> I'd get something better than stock cooling for sure to use.
> 
> While the CPU may be able to tolerate these temps this doesn't mean it's liking them or that it's even good for it.... Because it's not. Any reduction in operating temps is a good thing but it also has to be feasable as in the amount of temp drop vs the investment to get it.
> ...


Well modern processors from AMD are not like CPU from even two years ago so old rules apply less.
Heat is now king since gpu type boost has arrived on Amd CPUs , the 2000 series is the same on balanced ryzen profile or high performance it will try and retain the highest stable core speed , now per core too.
When loaded with something to do that means the CPU Will always reach for the highest clocks , Tdp and sustained thermal output it can and will always heat up as its designed to do.

Your right in general about the heat though , no electronics like too much but I think Amd have a good handle on what too much Is.

Go mental on cooling and it doesn't change the boost mode thermal output, just upps the all core clock attainable.


----------



## jesdals (Jul 20, 2019)

Wavetrex said:


> My next acquisition will probably be exactly that, a decent 240mm AIO, as only half a day after installing this 3700x the fan noise at full load is starting to bother me...
> 
> ---
> Anyway, I will redo testing around certain voltages which proved interesting in previous testing but with all the fans turned on and a room fan blowing air directly into the open case.
> ...


Well your not the only one going loud, due to my R7 gpu I took a bounch of old hardware and reused them for my build.



I mounted a dust filter in the front



But it gives me around 66c max under load. Have decided not to undervolt now because of decent result and the Gamers Nexus test of cooling on the same board as  mine. Conclusion in their test - cooling = CPU performance up to the boost clock at 0c degrees. I have ordered some corsair 3600mhz cl 18 modulets and Will perhaps try undervolting when they have been optimized

My overall power consumption under full load in Deivision 2 with directx 12 is max 410 watt so the heat should be manageble. I have reduced the fan speed to about 50% on the exhausting and in take fans. There is 2 sidedor 80mm fans and a back sidedor with access to the motherboard backplate with a 80mm intake as well


----------



## HD64G (Jul 20, 2019)

DragonicDM said:


> Hey, I was hoping you could help me out because I dont know the first thing about CPUs.
> 
> I got a 3700X on Stock like you do but it runs upto 80°C on some games.
> 
> I am on an Asus x470-F mobo and am unsure what to do :/


Turn on the A/C. Me thinks that you have a warm environment that ups the temps to the cpu.


----------



## DragonicDM (Jul 20, 2019)

HD64G said:


> Turn on the A/C. Me thinks that you have a warm environment that ups the temps to the cpu.


Ok I'll try that thanks


----------



## Vayra86 (Jul 20, 2019)

I'm surprised how remarkably similar the voltages and performance gains are compared to Intel's latest Lakes.

Basically if you have to push beyond 1.35-36V, you might as well not, diminishing returns versus excessive heat stops you pretty soon, and up to 1.3V is a very manageable OC that also extracts the largest amount of added performance.


----------



## Bones (Jul 20, 2019)

theoneandonlymrk said:


> Well modern processors from AMD are not like CPU from even two years ago so old rules apply less.
> Heat is now king since gpu type boost has arrived on Amd CPUs , the 2000 series is the same on balanced ryzen profile or high performance it will try and retain the highest stable core speed , now per core too.
> When loaded with something to do that means the CPU Will always reach for the highest clocks , Tdp and sustained thermal output it can and will always heat up as its designed to do.
> 
> ...


Oh yeah, I agree they are different than before and higher temps than what we used to see are the norm, that's why I said 70c+ was probrably realistic. Used to be anything at or above 60c was bad news but no longer the case here, however there are still limits and doesn't make sense to simply "Let it go".


----------



## Vario (Jul 20, 2019)

jesdals said:


> Well your not the only one going loud, due to my R7 gpu I took a bounch of old hardware and reused them for my build.
> View attachment 127280
> I mounted a dust filter in the front
> View attachment 127281
> ...


There is a lot to improve on your setup.
I've owned a few chenming cases.  They have a certain classic appeal that is undeniable, however the tiny 80mm fans are a joke.

1) Lose that white fleecy fan filter and you will run cooler.  That fan filter looks more likely to add dust than to remove it.  I don't know how any air in meaningful volume can pass through it, it looks very restrictive.  If you have the machine off the floor, you don't really even need a filter, especially if you keep a clean house (vacuum floors), hardwood or tile floor minimal carpeting, and no pet.  Furthermore, if you left that front door shut, barely any air gets through those tiny slits so there's no point in filtering that air and further restricting your intake.

2) Your clear CPU heatsink fan dumps straight into the deadzone of the tiny exhaust fan on the case.  You are better off removing the case exhaust fan and having your clear CPU fan just blow out the hole or move the clear fan to the front of the heatsink and retain the rear exhaust.  Or just ditch the clear fan.

If it were me, I'd just remove the lower 80mm fan from the exhaust and also remove that louvered PCI slot cover from below it too.  The other easy option is to just remove the clear fan and keep the two 80mm exhausts.  Running that many fans close together just creates turbulence rather than airflow.

2) taming some of the wiring so it doesn't sit in the path of any fans.

3) the push pin cpu heatsink fan stuck to the top of your noctua heatsink doesn't really add any value.

4) similarly theres another one of those in front of your noctua heatsink.  All that does it block airflow and create turbulence, it isn't helping you anyway.

More fans doesn't make a better setup, especially when half of them serve no purpose.


----------



## Metroid (Jul 20, 2019)

Few things to consider, ambient temperature, usually 5 to 20c higher idle which depends the cooler you are using, in your case, it must be summer where you live. It looks like stock cooler is not up for the task, in my head using all 16 threads 100% continuously, cpu temperature should stay at 60c or lower, in your case is 50% higher than what supposed to be 90c. So we come to the point why amd has bundled this cooler?  Users would be better off paying less for it and buying an aftermarket cooler like noctua d15 air or any 280mm aio cooler. A bundled cooler that will throttle cpu performance is not good at all, in the end, the performance you lose is not cost benefit. 3700x cooler should have been bundled for the 3600.

I came to this conclusion last week, if you buy a 3700x, you will in the end have to buy a better cooler, buying the 3700x and not using it fully is not something i would do.

It would have been amazing if amd partnered with noctua, a double tripple, quadro air cooler hehe, or corsair or any other aio manufacturer.


----------



## heky (Jul 20, 2019)

Guys, do remember that max safe 24/7 voltage for zen 2 is 1.325v. With voltages some of you use (1.4v and up) you will degrade your chip quite fast. I have seen people degrading chips in just a few days.


----------



## Vario (Jul 20, 2019)

heky said:


> Guys, do remember that max safe 24/7 voltage for zen 2 is 1.325v. With voltages some of you use (1.4v and up) you will degrade your chip quite fast. I have seen people degrading chips in just a few days.


From what I have read, 1.4 is the voltage that Ryzen 2 seems to settle at out of the box for most people.


----------



## Metroid (Jul 20, 2019)

heky said:


> Guys, do remember that max safe 24/7 voltage for zen 2 is 1.325v. With voltages some of you use (1.4v and up) you will degrade your chip quite fast. I have seen people degrading chips in just a few days.



I would not overclock it at all, I would leave at stock and at stock as it hits 4.4ghz, it will use 1.4v or more, depends on the silicon, overclocking ryzen is a pointless effort, ryzen as it is, with so many features and control, is already factory overclocked hehe

Buying ryzen for overclocking? I think you need to see many reviews before you buy it.

Only intel k cpus are worthy to be overclocked it, you gain some considerable performance. AMD ryzen 3xxx? no hehe


----------



## Bones (Jul 20, 2019)

That's going by the default voltage set by AMD which is more than it needs to run at default speeds.
I've been running my 3600X using 1.25v's set manually and it's been doing just fine, the chip I'm posting with right now (2700X) is only using 1.23v's and has no issues - Been running it that way since day one.
Zen 2 should be more efficient than even than the 2xxx series chips so it's not a stretch to believe the new chips coudn't do the same by comparison. If an issue does appear, all you'd have to do is raise it up, even back to stock if you want.


----------



## Vario (Jul 20, 2019)

Wavetrex said:


> Absolutely nothing.
> That's perfectly normal actually (my guess is that you use stock cooler).
> 
> If it were over 90 then maybe you should worry about wrong installation, but at 80 it's quite "chilly" in modern games (that might use the CPU at it's maximum potential)
> ...


Jesdals above has an aftermarket heatsink and gets a relatively chilly 66*C with one of the most restrictive cases ever designed.  I would ditch that AMD stock HSF as fast as possible for something more capable if I were you.


----------



## Metroid (Jul 20, 2019)

The truth is, to be worth overclocking in ryzen you need to hit that famous silicon lottery, that means, you will need to hit the precision boost clock with less than 1.35v. For the 3700x is 4.4ghz, can your chip do it? if yes, do it, if not, leave it at default, my point is, setting 1.25 for 4.2ghz or even 1.35 for 4.3ghz will not give you more performance efficiency than default clocks. Remember you need to hit that precision boost clock to be worth.

I'm still deciding if i will buy these ryzen cpus but if i do, first thing i will do is check how much voltage i will need to hit that precision boost clock, if 3700x, then, if i need more than 1.4v for 4.4ghz then i will leave at default clocks. To be worth, need to hit that precision boost clock 1.35v or less. 24/7 and remember, fixed clock.


----------



## Vario (Jul 20, 2019)

Metroid said:


> The truth is, to be worth overclocking in ryzen you need to hit that famous silicon lottery, that means, you will need to hit the precision boost clock with less than 1.35v. For the 3700x is 4.4ghz, can your chip do it? if yes, do it, if not, leave it at default, my point is, setting 1.25 for 4.2ghz or even 1.35 for 4.3ghz will not give you more performance efficiency than default clocks. Remember you need to hit that precision boost clock to be worth.
> 
> I'm still deciding if i will buy these ryzen cpus but if i do, first thing i will do is check how much voltage i will need to hit that precision boost clock, if 3700x, then, if i need more than 1.4v for 4.4ghz then i will leave at default clocks.


I'd  recommend waiting for the next model as I'd imagine the voltage and temperatures will be much better and 4000 series will probably be in 2020 which is not too far off.  Depends on what you are running now of course.  If its a really old quad core or an FX8350 then I'd be really tempted to buy 3000 series today.


----------



## Wavetrex (Jul 20, 2019)

@Metroid you seem to not understand how these things work... and what is that "4.4 boost clock"
There is no "Default" or "Stock" clock on 3000 series !
Not even a base, OR a max... both are kind of meaningless.

The CPU clocks lower than the "base" in idle (22x, or 2200Mhz seems to be minimum idle), and higher than the base in load (even full load on all 16 cores, it clocks at anywhere between 3800 and 4200... and that's fluctuating continuously)

The 4.4 boost is also "just a number", as it can can be changed with PBO+AutoOC to up to 4.6 (+200).
But... does it actually get there ? No. Not on boxed cooler anyway.
I've seen it at 4.5 for extremely short periods of time (one tick of measurement), but never higher. And that was at 1.45v and only in single threaded.

I'm sure I will see it A LOT MORE at 4.5 or even hit that magical 4.6 in tiny blips after I mount a beefy high-end AIO water cooler on it (thinking of a 280mm) and it's winter time...
Because right now the Ryzen 3700X performance seems to vary with the time of the day... it's faster in the morning when room temp (ambient) is lower.
(I have no AC, so can't lock that temp in place)

------
Anyway, just re-pasted with Kryonaut, and while idle temps have dropped 5-6 degrees, the load ones are very similar with previous tests at the same hour (it's 23:00 and very, very hot in my room (30-ish celsius), and nothing I can do about it. It's just hot.


----------



## Metroid (Jul 20, 2019)

Vario said:


> I'd  recommend waiting for the next model as I'd imagine the voltage and temperatures will be much better and 4000 series will probably be in 2020 which is not too far off.  Depends on what you are running now of course.  If its a really old quad core or an FX8350 then I'd be really tempted to buy 3000 series today.



AMD made a control freak feature and put inside ryzen 3xxx, they gave the ability to overclock but is just not worth the squeeze hehe unless you hit the lottery hehe

Yeah, I would wait for a new ryzen series. For me for now will be the 3700x or the 9700k. I still have to decide. Good thing ryzen 3xxx series came, 9700k might have a price cut.



Wavetrex said:


> @Metroid you seem to not understand how these things work... and what is that "4.4 boost clock"
> There is no "Default" clock on 3000 series !
> Not even a base, OR a max... because both are kind of meaningless.
> 
> ...




The default clock I said is stock and you put it quite well how stock works, frequency goes up and down, "fluctuating continuously", now you saying "you seem to not understand how these things work... and what is that "4.4 boost clock"", Oh I do and i dont need to have one, i have seen probably 50 or more reviews, probably 10 or more in depth reviews to come to understand how these cpus work.

"4.4 boost clock" = precision boost clock. Now if it will hit or not, that depends on many things. Also forget pbo, autooc, all that is not worth anything, all stupid features amd just created for actually nothing at all.

If you can't make your cpu with a fixed precision boost clock with 1.4v or less then leave at default clocks = stock.

I have a humble request, can you test your cpu if it can achieve 4.4ghz with less than 1.4v, run a single thread cinebench test and see if that 4.4ghz will be kept? This would be very helpful. I would be very happy if you could do that, for science.


----------



## Bones (Jul 20, 2019)

Funny thing here is my chip doesn't do that, fluctuate that is.
I will say I do set things in the BIOS for manual and that's probrably why it doesn't.

Where I set it's speed to be is where it is everytime, no noteable fluctuation of speed seen in CPU-Z with the program running on the desktop and doesn't matter if it's at idle or under load. Been benching it for the last few days and not once has it changed from where it was set to run at in MHz aside from the normal slight fluctuations you'd expect to see anyway, usually about .5 to maybe 2MHz at the very most.
Also this chip, according to how things are setup in the BIOS can run 4.4 with less than 1.40v's set for it.
BTW this board is the Phantom Gaming X.

I have to admit it's largely the board itself along with the settings I've been using that has to be the cause of it, other boards may or may not do the same based on how they are setup to be - Since I only have this one to mess around with I can't do any comparisons with other board makes and models so.....

All I can do here is to say what I've seen from this one and also state this is just one example, being the lone example doesn't make it so for all the rest.


----------



## Wavetrex (Jul 20, 2019)

@Metroid
You continue to show that you don't know what you're talking about, even with the 50+ reviews that you have read.

First of all, PB is not some fixed table ... If this volt and this temp than that frequency.
No, far from it.
The clock depends on so many things it's just mind-boggling:
- Temperature at any given moment
- Incoming core voltage (which is not fixed btw, what is set in bios is just a "hint". It still varies around that value quite a lot !)
- Any power limits (watts, amps) that are being reached
- What parts of the instruction set is being run (AVX loads seem to clock a lot lower than Integer for example)
- Freekin' MEMORY efficiency ... I've changed memory to lower/higher and noticed the boost behavior has changed slightly (my guess waiting for the memory makes the PB logic attempt to save CPU power as well by lowering clocks)
- The actual instructions that are being executed !!

Btw, I've watched many of those reviews as well and saw a LOT of inconsistency.
After buying mine, started to understand why:
*TESTING CONDITIONS AFFECT PERFORMANCE (sometimes significantly !)*

This is completely different than typical Intel CPU, which basically runs at the exact same performance no matter what. You set 4.9 Ghz, it sticks at 4.9 Ghz and done. It only gets slower when throttling for reaching TJunction.

To answer the humble request:
No, and Yes, and "Depends"

Running *single core loads* varied from ~4.2 all the way to 4.4 (with everything "default"), and if I added +100 to PBO limits, even 4.45 sustained for short periods of time.
- SuperPI hit 4.4 often
- Cinebench didn't (tops at 4.3, 4.325)
- Old Cinebench R10 (Motorcycle) hit 4.4 for very short times
- Tried some old 3DMark 2003, 2005 and other tests (which are limited to single threaded), seen 4.25, 4.35... 4.4 even, depending on which part of the test it was in. (With repeatable results)

Whatever AMD did, it's very complex and can't be measured by simply "Hitting RUN" and be done with it. That is the old way.
The new way is "per application maximum performance extraction"

*How to make these go as fast as they can:*
- Get the CPU as cool as possibly can and afford, because it will clock higher at lower temps (not by much but observable in benchmarks)
- Use under-volting in very tiny steps to find the sweet spot for your particular CPU/Motherboard/Case/Ambient, because sometimes it can get faster with lower voltage (up to a point). If the voltage gets a teeny-bitsy too low, it starts to cut off from the higher boost levels, probably to maintain stability ... somehow the CPU knows how much can it go before falling off the edge
- Use fast RAM with tight timings 3200-CL14 or 3600-CL16, because this CPU LOVES getting fed with data quickly !
- Use BPO+AutoOC (+100 to +200) if having high-end cooling and a good mobo with very stable voltages, because it DOES clock higher, it's not a fantasy, but it's not like with Intel... simply goes higher and crashes if unstable). No, Zen 2 doesn't seem to crash. Instead, it simply runs a tiny bit slower to maintain stability.

---
@Bones - Saw your post

You set everything manual, that's why, and cancelling *PB*.
But by doing that, you made the CPU very inefficient, running higher voltage than needed for various tasks, and consuming a lot more power.


----------



## Metroid (Jul 20, 2019)

Watch this.


----------



## EarthDog (Jul 20, 2019)

Bones said:


> I have to disagree to a point - While it may seem normal to see temps reaching 80c I don't really believe 80c is an acceptable norm/standard.
> I'd get something better than stock cooling for sure to use.


Arent these chips good to 100c now? Lower is always better and it can be better with that cooler, but 80C is nothing for these chips... this isnt old amd silicon where temp limits were lower.


----------



## Wavetrex (Jul 20, 2019)

Metroid said:


> Watch this.


Yeah, LN2 overclocking totally relevant to this discussion...
I think I'll start ignoring you.


----------



## Ferrum Master (Jul 20, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> Arent these chips good to 100c now? Lower is always better and.lerhals it can be better with that cooler, but 80C is nothing for these chips... this isnt old amd silicon where temp limits were lower.



I hate to say, but with board like that, the VRM will hit the bucket sooner. Either way even W1z during testing saw that it if VRM overheats it will throttle, with cooling like that you can put a jet engine it won't help as the surface area isn't enough vs the heat released from the mosfets.


----------



## Bones (Jul 20, 2019)

I believe they are, they certainly tolerate temps much better than the older ones do. 

I've always been particular about operating temps - That's just me I'll admit but again, heat is the bane of electronics period. I prefer to make things as comfortable as possible for my stuff and if I can shave off a few c's worth of heat that's good.
All I was really saying about it is if you don't have to let it run that hot, then don't - The chip will have an easier time doing it's job and probrably last longer too.


----------



## Metroid (Jul 20, 2019)

Wavetrex said:


> Yeah, LN2 overclocking totally relevant to this discussion...
> I think I'll start ignoring you.



If you dont watch you will not understand what he tried to do there. Also please do not take this personal, I'm not going to discuss this any further.


----------



## EarthDog (Jul 21, 2019)

Bones said:


> I believe they are, they certainly tolerate temps much better than the older ones do.
> 
> I've always been particular about operating temps - That's just me I'll admit but again, heat is the bane of electronics period. I prefer to make things as comfortable as possible for my stuff and if I can shave off a few c's worth of heat that's good.
> All I was really saying about it is if you don't have to let it run that hot, then don't - The chip will have an easier time doing it's job and probrably last longer too.


Most people dont leave that much meat on the bone is all.


----------



## biffzinker (Jul 21, 2019)

Update edit on 7/18: 





			
				Robert - Technical Marketing said:
			
		

> Please note that it is *totally normal* for your Ryzen to use voltages in a range of 0.200V - 1.500V -- this is the factory operating range of the CPU. It is also *totally normal* for the temperature to cycle through 10°C swings as boost comes on and off. You will always see these characteristics, as they're intended, so do not be surprised to see such values.
> Please do not undervolt the chip or set a maximum processor state of 99%. These are ineffective and/or detrimental changes.




__
		https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/cbls9g


----------



## Ferrum Master (Jul 21, 2019)

biffzinker said:


> Update edit on 7/18



It surprises me that everyone... please excuse me... but I have to use it - Fuc**ng around using software tools. Are hands growing out ar*e for every reviewer?  Put some real meter on the real voltage rail and make a log of it... damn, put some 99p china voltmeter and take a video while doing a bench and then log it...

We are talking about things like observer effect in electronics? FFS lads, just put the damn voltmeter on it... it is high current low voltage rail, not some low current high voltage rail, where even few kilo-ohms can sag the voltage. I am feeling like in a childrengarten.


----------



## Wavetrex (Jul 21, 2019)

More observations

I wanted to test this statement:
"_Please do not undervolt the chip or set a maximum processor state of 99%. These are ineffective and/or detrimental changes._"

And unsurprisingly, since he's an AMD guy, it came true.

I ran a battery of pure single-threaded tests of various benchmarks which I had around (usually older ones), all tests done with "PBO Max", aka, PBO Enabled + AutoOC 200Mhz.
(It's quite difficult to find true single-threaded workloads today that can be reliably measured !)

Anyway, this is the outcome:

*Default volts (Auto)*: (100% reference)

wPrime 32M - 29.5s
SuperPI 4M - 46.5s
Cine R10 - 10078
CpuZ - 516
3DMark2003 CPU T1 - 57.2
CPU-M 1.6 - 20062

*1.35 volts*:

wPrime 32M - 32.5 (90.8%)
SuperPI 4M - 49.7 (93.6%)
Cine R10 - 8751 (86.8%)
CpuZ - 515 (99.8%)
3DMark2003 CPU T1 - 56.2 (98.3%)
CPU-M 1.6 - 19016 (94.8%)

*1.45 volts*:

wPrime 32M - 30.1 (98%)
SuperPI 4M - 46.5 (100%)
Cine R10 - 9852 (97.8%)
CpuZ - 516 (100%)
3DMark2003 CPU T1 - 55.3 (96.7% - probably measurement error)
CPU-M 1.6 - 19770 (98.5%)

As observed, in wPrime and the old Cinebench 10, significant loss in performance on single thread at 1.35 !
Almost all tests across the board (with the exception of CPU-z) lost performance.

Then, re-ran the tests with manually set 1.45 (which was going nuclear in temps for multi-core), and... still slower !!
That feeling when 1.45 is an UNDERVOLT...

_Basically, as observed by reviewers, it appears there is (**almost*) no point whatsoever to manually set voltages and clocks on these CPUs !
Leaving PBO to do it's job (and pushing it a bit harder via AutoOC) will result in best performance in most scenarios._

* why "almost" ?

Well, temperature.
Running "Stock" as some people like to call it is too aggressive, and a "65W TDP" CPU actually consumes around 130W total (Cores + SoC) when running very heavy 16-thread workloads.

It is also the reason why 3800X and 3700X have near identical results, because PB is pushing both CPU's to the same total power envelope, which is much higher than the "65" or "105" TDP on the slides.
And that teeny-meeny Wraith Prism just can't handle that much, and temps go into 90s.

Undervolting would certainly be useful for someone in a very warm environment (No AC), and/or to keep the noise from the fast spinning Wraith cooler in check.
Yes it reduces single-thread performance, but the multi-threaded doesn't drop significantly all the way down to 1.32v or so.


----------



## biffzinker (Jul 21, 2019)

Wavetrex said:


> (It's quite difficult to find true single-threaded workloads today that can be reliably measured !)


7Zip allows selecting a single thread when using the built-in benchmark.


----------



## Bones (Jul 21, 2019)

Wavetrex said:


> @Bones - Saw your post
> 
> You set everything manual, that's why, and cancelling *PB*.
> But by doing that, you made the CPU very inefficient, running higher voltage than needed for various tasks, and consuming a lot more power.



You are correct with the above _but_........

Setting it manually as said is intentional in my case.
PB works against me in what I'm doing and I do not like seeing speeds jumping up and down anyway. What I set it for is what I want it to be doing and no differently.

Power consumption is not an issue of any importance or worry in my case.

You also missed that I've been benching this chip meaning it's being ran hard _on purpose_ - There is no task I have for it that would amount to needing less power to complete a task, save that the chip may run hot and not complete the bench because of it.

The thing I do with it is simple - Run it as high and fast as possible for best results and note I did say earlier I was setting things up manually with it.


----------



## Vayra86 (Jul 21, 2019)

Ferrum Master said:


> It surprises me that everyone... please excuse me... but I have to use it - Fuc**ng around using software tools. Are hands growing out ar*e for every reviewer?  Put some real meter on the real voltage rail and make a log of it... damn, put some 99p china voltmeter and take a video while doing a bench and then log it...
> 
> We are talking about things like observer effect in electronics? FFS lads, just put the damn voltmeter on it... it is high current low voltage rail, not some low current high voltage rail, where even few kilo-ohms can sag the voltage. I am feeling like in a childrengarten.



Blame Youtube, and our forum members that reply to very informative posts (see above) with a stupid 5GHZ video... I'll leave it at that before I start ranting. Low barrier of entry = low level of quality.

I also love how GN Is now suddenly Gandhi, Jesus and the prophecy itself all in one. Things are suddenly true because 'Steve said so'... That didn't take long.


----------



## Vario (Jul 21, 2019)

Vayra86 said:


> Blame Youtube, and our forum members that reply to very informative posts (see above) with a stupid 5GHZ video... I'll leave it at that before I start ranting. Low barrier of entry = low level of quality.
> 
> I also love how GN Is now suddenly Gandhi, Jesus and the prophecy itself all in one. Things are suddenly true because 'Steve said so'... That didn't take long.


Well Gamers Nexus does have a majestic Jesus Hair+Beard combo.

The one thing I get from reading this thread is that the AMD heatsink is just not adequate and while ~1.4 +/- .05 might be a high voltage compared with CPUs in the past, the temperature is the big issue, and the included AMD heatsink is a joke with a RGB ring.  If you are buying one of these processors, just spend the extra $50 and get a real heatsink.  I think these CPUs are meant to use the 1.35 to 1.45V that they all use stock, it just needs to be kept cooler than the stock heatsink can provide.

Wraith Stealth: Looks like a knock off of the horrible Intel Heatsinks you can buy from one of those Newegg chinese 3rd party sellers, with the addition of a RGB ring.
Wraith Spire: Looks like the horrible Intel Heatsink from 115X series with the addition of a RGB ring.
Wraith Max: its the old 939 Athlon 64 through FX heatsink that was barely adequate in its time, with the addition of a RGB ring.
Wraith Prism: also looks like an FX heatsink but even more RGB.


----------



## Wavetrex (Jul 21, 2019)

Vario said:


> The one thing I get from reading this thread is that the AMD heatsink is just not adequate



Well... it's "adequate", but not "good" or "pleasant".
It's certainly not a joke like Stealth or the old Intel boxed ones.

It cools. At 100% RPM it keeps the CPU even under heavy workloads below 85 degrees in a well ventilated case with 5 x 140mm fans...
... but at the same time my washing machine while tumble-drying is more quiet than it.

(And that's my primary problem with it)

---
Wraith Prism is identical with Wraith Max, but it has ARGB ring and translucent blades. Other than that, identical thermal properties.

Anyway... incoming *Noctua NH-U12A* next week, as well as some *Ballistix DDR4-3600 CL14*.
That should resolve the memory and temperature bottlenecks which I've noticed so far. Will run more testing once these two are in use.

(As well as keeping my sanity, I just can't stay in the room while the computer is encoding a 4K video.... I feel like I'm in a factory somewhere with the loud noise)


----------



## HTC (Jul 21, 2019)

Wavetrex said:


> Anyway... incoming *Noctua NH-U12A* next week, as well as some *Ballistix DDR4-3600 CL14*.
> That should resolve the memory and temperature bottlenecks which I've noticed so far. Will run more testing once these two are in use.



Suggest installing the cooler 1st and run some stuff you deem necessary to compare performance VS stock cooler and then swap the memory and repeat the tests: a bit more hassle but it gives us better idea of how much changing from stock cooler to a very good air cooler with everything else the same can do.


----------



## Ferrum Master (Jul 21, 2019)

Vayra86 said:


> Blame Youtube, and our forum members that reply to very informative posts (see above) with a stupid 5GHZ video... I'll leave it at that before I start ranting. Low barrier of entry = low level of quality.
> 
> I also love how GN Is now suddenly Gandhi, Jesus and the prophecy itself all in one. Things are suddenly true because 'Steve said so'... That didn't take long.



Yea. You can discard any software monitoring TBH, i2s/SPI accesing via layers of software is way too slow for real dynamic tests across cores. The digital VRM actualy has geared up numerous VID states till we actually see it on screen with our slow eye including the adding polling rate from the monitoring sofware. With time makers will do even more faster clock/voltage gearing as it does ensure better perf/watt. The hysteresis is not needed, the VRM works way faster than our perception of things eyballing some CPU-Z etc app.

At least a XY plot, from dedicated voltmeter. If you care so much for the real voltage spikes. It all rubbish waste of time talk here unless someone quits reading software VID states, that doesn't ensure that really 1.35V mean 1.35V in real life at the socket, actually it never is due to LLC and feedback compensation and protection. I hook up various voltmeters during OC, after being done with OC(found stable) I take them off, it is motherboard VRM dependant as usual.


----------



## TheLostSwede (Jul 21, 2019)

biffzinker said:


> Update edit on 7/18:



Following those instructions, my Voltages now fluctuates as you'd expect them to do. Not had a chance to benchmark to see if it makes a difference though.


----------



## Bones (Jul 21, 2019)

Vario said:


> Well Gamers Nexus does have a majestic Jesus Hair+Beard combo.
> 
> The one thing I get from reading this thread is that the AMD heatsink is just not adequate and while ~1.4 +/- .05 might be a high voltage compared with CPUs in the past, the temperature is the big issue, and the included AMD heatsink is a joke with a RGB ring.  If you are buying one of these processors, just spend the extra $50 and get a real heatsink.  I think these CPUs are meant to use the 1.35 to 1.45V that they all use stock, it just needs to be kept cooler than the stock heatsink can provide.
> 
> ...


Actually the coolers between a 939 and an FX are different even though they may look/appear the same. Changes happened along the way and I'll say not to the good, the coolers got "cheaper" as time passed with the last relying on the heatpipes mostly.

The old 939's had a base with a bit of substance to them compared to the later ones, out of all from 939 to FX with this design they are still the best.

I would dare say they are at least just as good as the Wraith coolers too.


----------



## biffzinker (Jul 21, 2019)

Anyone want to guess what Silicon Lottery will post for golden chips? Suppose to show up at 10PM CST.








						AMD Matisse
					

Binned Ryzen Matisse CPUs available from Silicon Lottery!




					siliconlottery.com


----------



## heky (Jul 21, 2019)

biffzinker said:


> Anyone want to guess what Silicon Lottery will post for golden chips? Suppose to show up at 10PM CST.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


4.5Ghz allcore oc on 3800x @ 1.325v is my guess...


----------



## Wavetrex (Jul 21, 2019)

HTC said:


> Suggest installing the cooler 1st and run some stuff you deem necessary to compare performance VS stock cooler and then swap the memory and repeat the tests: a bit more hassle but it gives us better idea of how much changing from stock cooler to a very good air cooler with everything else the same can do.


Okay, will do.
Cooler will arrive first it seems ( tomorrow ). Memory later in the week.


----------



## biffzinker (Jul 21, 2019)

Interesting: 





			
				Silicon Lottery said:
			
		

> There is absolutely a difference in silicon quality between the 3700X and 3800X, to get that out of the way. On average, the 3800X will hit about 100MHz or more higher all core.




__
		https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/cg0f0z


----------



## Vario (Jul 21, 2019)

Bones said:


> Actually the coolers between a 939 and an FX are different even though they may look/appear the same. Changes happened along the way and I'll say not to the good, the coolers got "cheaper" as time passed with the last relying on the heatpipes mostly.
> 
> The old 939's had a base with a bit of substance to them compared to the later ones, out of all from 939 to FX with this design they are still the best.
> 
> I would dare say they are at least just as good as the Wraith coolers too.


Yeah they had a big copper plate on them.  Had one of them back in the day on top of my Opteron.


----------



## Bones (Jul 22, 2019)

The copper plate is what makes the difference, more mass to absorb heat and move it along. Those that came later with the direct heatpipe contact are..... OK but not as good, even though they too have a plate but it does little in comparison to the 939 type.

I do not like direct heatpipe contact coolers, they are just a cheaper form of cooler.


----------



## TheLostSwede (Jul 22, 2019)

biffzinker said:


> Anyone want to guess what Silicon Lottery will post for golden chips? Suppose to show up at 10PM CST.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That must be a joke no? That looks very mediocre at best and not worth paying extra for.
I guess some people snagged some cheap CPU's though...


----------



## Wavetrex (Jul 22, 2019)

That website/company is a scam and anyone with half a functioning brain knows it.

Unfortunately there are plenty of people with less than half of a brain functioning... which is why they are still in business.


----------



## Bones (Jul 22, 2019)

Wavetrex said:


> That website/company is a scam and anyone with half a functioning brain knows it.
> 
> Unfortunately there are plenty of people with less than half of a brain functioning... which is why they are still in business.


Truth!
No way I'd pay the extra they are charging for these.


----------



## EarthDog (Jul 22, 2019)

You can thank amd for the results. SL did what they do...there's just zero headroom.


----------



## Wavetrex (Jul 22, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> You can thank amd for the results.


Actually, I think you can thank TSMC for not being able to hit AMD's expectations.

I really believe AMD designed this core to boost up to 5 Ghz on 7nm, but failed to do so for reasons we will probably never know.
It's possible that "A0" silicon targeted those clocks, but proved to be unstable and causing errors, no matter what, and they altered some circuits to make the cores run well and error free and had to lower the clocks to make the changes to the current "B0" silicon work.

This is obviously a wild guess, but it might explain why there's no headroom whatsoever on these chips.

Also, it is possible there will be a refresh down the line that DOES boost higher ( by 200-300 Mhz, potentially hitting that magic 5Ghz on single thread ). All core... no way, but single thread definitely possible if they find a fix to what's preventing the chips to go there. The process itself should definitely be capable !


----------



## EarthDog (Jul 22, 2019)

I think this has more to do with the uarch than it does with the process. Zen, and Zen+ behave similarly. No headroom. It's AMD getting the most out of these CPUs out of the box. The process has little to do with it.

So, SL is just doing what they are doing... hardly a scam, but clearly not worth it to this subset of ENTHUSIASTS... whereas those who may not be as well versed thinks it is worth the time and effort. But this is hardly a scam and a very myopic look at the whole thing IMO.


----------



## Vario (Jul 22, 2019)

Wavetrex said:


> That website/company is a scam and anyone with half a functioning brain knows it.
> 
> Unfortunately there are plenty of people with less than half of a brain functioning... which is why they are still in business.


Yeah, the CoffeeLake binning didn't seem legit at all based on what my sample does and what people were reporting on Overclock.net.  Also the pricing for 5GHz 5.1, 5.2 etc CPUs is ridiculous given most CoffeeLake can achieve that easily with enough voltage and a solid board.

Furthermore, the binning they do is very simplified and not very exact.  The voltages they use for 5.1+ are way too high and that tells me their top bins are nothing special.  A high bin 8700K for example would be 5.1 @ 1.25, not 5.1 @ 1.4v.  5.1 @ 1.4V is average and quite mundane for an 8700K especially with a -2 offset.  Your typical retail CPU can do that with a midrange Z370.

A lot of their bins rely on AVX offset which, when subtracted from the "binned" frequency shows they are nothing special.  I am also very skeptical of the binning statistics.


----------



## EarthDog (Jul 22, 2019)

What were people reporting? 

What do you mean by the binning they do is simplified and not 'exact'? They needed the voltage they for stability in how they test.

Many users run an AVX offset in the first place as with typical CPUs at 5GHz+ with AVX, most coolers can't keep up anyway. 

I strongly disagree with the assertion that SL is a scam. It may not be the best deal, but for those who do not want to gamble, it can be worth the premium. It may not be worth it to you, but you're also more of an enthusiast than most and take the chance and time to manually overclock your own.


----------



## Wavetrex (Jul 22, 2019)

Bring out the big guns ! (Well, average size guns, but with good muzzle velocity )

Will redo testing after this is installed on the 3700X


----------



## Vario (Jul 22, 2019)

Nice, perfect.  Now you will probably be in the 60s.


----------



## Wavetrex (Jul 22, 2019)

Vario said:


> Nice, perfect.  Now you will probably be in the 60s.


Extremely unlikely, there's over 30 degrees in this room...






They weren't kidding in the reviews that installation is a breeze.

It literally took me only 5 minutes to mount it, and another 10 to admire the craftsmanship...

But now my computer is all over the place in colors ... oh well 

First observation:
*I can't hear it !*
The noise outside in the street is stronger than the fan at auto-speed.
Even at full speed (~2000 rpm it's barely audible inside the case)
WOW !

---- First quick round of benchmarks (Single thread) ---
Note: It's VERY hot here, I don't have AC and it's afternoon. Room thermometer shows around 30 degrees Celsius ambient ( 86 F )

The percentages are related to this post:
https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/...overclocking-undervolting.257505/post-4084338 (The "Default" 100% reference)

wPrime 32M - 29.0 (101.7%)
SuperPI 4M - 45.8 (101.5%)
Cine R10 - 10156 (100.7%)
CpuZ - 517 (100.2%)
3DMark2003 CPU T1 - 58.8 (102.8%)
CPU-M 1.6 - 20310 (101.2%)

Extra: 7zip single threaded (32MB dic): 7014 MIPS, 5227 KB/s Comp, 90546 KB/s Decomp
Also 7zip but 16 threads: 73860 MIPS, 51410 KB/s Comp, 1000594 KB/s Decomp

One observation about clocks, during all the single threaded tests it was consistently boosting between 4.3 and 4.4, with tiny spikes to 4.45 ( I have PBO+100 enabled )
Max temp during 7zip ran for 5 mins ... ~ 81 degrees.
Cinebench R20 went to 85 ( no longer hitting 90+, so that's progress). Will retry some testing when it's colder (night).

Faster? Yes. But 1-2% is nothing.
Did it worth the 95 euro cost for the cooler ? If you look at performance... no.
But... I spend 8-10 hours per day working on my computer ( job ), so for NOISE... it's a definite YES. Even at 100% it has a pleasant "wind like" sound, not a harsh "turbine" sound. _I LOVE IT_.


----------



## kapone32 (Jul 22, 2019)

Wavetrex said:


> Extremely unlikely, there's over 30 degrees in this room...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Excellent, based on my own testing these Noctua coolers are indeed golden. I agree totally with the noise argument. I have one on my TR 4 build and it keeps the 1900x in the 30s while idle and a max of 67 C when gaming.


----------



## HTC (Jul 22, 2019)

Wavetrex said:


> Okay, will do.
> Cooler will arrive first it seems ( tomorrow ). Memory later in the week.



Don't forget to also test that "high tech extra wind source"


----------



## Khonjel (Jul 22, 2019)

@Wavetrex how hot is there in NL? It's 33c here during the day.


----------



## Wavetrex (Jul 22, 2019)

Khonjel said:


> @Wavetrex how hot is there in NL? It's 33c here during the day.


hot.
Bad time to test new computer hardware which changes speeds based on temperature 

@ 15:00








						Windy as forecasted
					

Wind map and weather forecast




					www.windy.com
				




It seems that Spain, south-France, Italy, Greece and Romania had it worst today.


----------



## EarthDog (Jul 22, 2019)

Wavetrex said:


> Bad time to test new computer hardware which changes speeds based on temperature


Which is why most people normalize temps and go from there. So, essentially, you pick a temp to start with, say 22C, and whatever your ambient is, add/subtract that from the results. So if my room was 26C at the time of testing, I would subtract 4C from all my results. 

Martin/Skinee labs used this method years ago when they were around. Or...... you can use a delta which temps shouldn't matter anyway.


----------



## Wavetrex (Jul 22, 2019)

Yes but the problem with Zen 2 core... it boosts depending on ABSOLUTE temperature, not the relative over ambient.

I'm not a rich youtuber that can control the temp with LN2 *cough*Steve , or run AC at 100% to keep ambient at 20 at all times *cough*Jay ...
And most of us aren't either.

So we deal with real-life situations, when we can't "normalize" anything... If the room has 33 degrees like @Khonjel 's... then that's his starting temperature and his potential Zen 2 cores will run slower than for someone that burns 1500W of electricity per hour to cool the room to 20.


----------



## Ferrum Master (Jul 22, 2019)

Wavetrex said:


> Yes but the problem with Zen 2 core... it boosts depending on ABSOLUTE temperature, not the relative over ambient.
> 
> I'm not a rich youtuber that can control the temp with LN2 *cough*Steve , or run AC at 100% to keep ambient at 20 at all times *cough*Jay ...
> And most of us aren't either.
> ...



Get a ticket to Alaska or Siberia?  Case solved.

It is +18C outside for me now too thou lol


----------



## EarthDog (Jul 22, 2019)

That is correct. I was talking testing/reviews, which cannot account for such variables.


----------



## Wavetrex (Jul 23, 2019)

New GN video about this exact subject...









New toy to play with... (probably a waste of money, just like for those that bought 3600X and 3800X ... ^.^)


----------



## Xzibit (Jul 24, 2019)

Same memory I got. Just happened to get it cause it was on sale $118 USD


----------



## Agent_D (Jul 24, 2019)

I think that these 3000 series aren't really something you can put any real logic to. On my 3600X, I have the best results setting both CCX to 4200 @ 1.35v (using Ryzen Master). Under these circumstances I see the best overall performance and numbers, it beats out PBO and even higher clock speeds with stable voltage; going any further or using PBO makes my synthetic and real world numbers go down, not significantly, but they go down nonetheless, even single core loads are very simlar in results when using PBO or the solid 4200. I'm running on an EK Supremacy EVO water block and temps max out around 73-75c (ambient ~28-30c).

I know that AMD probably accounted for it, but doing PBO Max +200 and seeing voltages sit in the 1.43-1.5v range all the time is uncomfortable for me; the negligible increase in performance isn't worth the increased voltages imo.


----------



## storm-chaser (Jul 24, 2019)

heky said:


> Guys, do remember that max safe 24/7 voltage for zen 2 is 1.325v. With voltages some of you use (1.4v and up) you will degrade your chip quite fast. I have seen people degrading chips in just a few days.


Are you already seeing degradation with Zen 2 specifically? I'm just puzzled / surprised that there is even evidence of degradation so soon after release.


----------



## EarthDog (Jul 24, 2019)

heky said:


> Guys, do remember that max safe 24/7 voltage for zen 2 is 1.325v. With voltages some of you use (1.4v and up) you will degrade your chip quite fast. I have seen people degrading chips in just a few days.


Any links to this information? As was mentioned, regardless if it was more than needed or not, the VID in the chips have it well over 1.325V already. One would imagine that if 1.325V was true, AMD themselves and the VID in the CPU wouldn't be much over that mark.

I can't say I buy that we've seen degraded chips already... at least not from the ambient crowd. Most of these CPUs can't take more than 1.35V with all cores and threads overclocked in the first place due to thermals... so I wonder how we're seeing it so soon as well when most can't even run it that way.


----------



## jesdals (Jul 24, 2019)

We are having some hot weather these days - 30c out side and aprox 25c inside - did a couple of ours of gaming ang got these results with Hardware Monitor




79c and a average wall measure of watt totalt ussage of between 415 and 470 watt. I have change my Radeon VII OC to more voltage and i getting better average FPS with it.






Hence the higher total powerdraw


----------



## pantherx12 (Jul 26, 2019)

Vario said:


> Wraith Stealth: Looks like a knock off of the horrible Intel Heatsinks you can buy from one of those Newegg chinese 3rd party sellers, with the addition of a RGB ring.
> Wraith Spire: Looks like the horrible Intel Heatsink from 115X series with the addition of a RGB ring.
> Wraith Max: its the old 939 Athlon 64 through FX heatsink that was barely adequate in its time, with the addition of a RGB ring.
> Wraith Prism: also looks like an FX heatsink but even more RGB.
> View attachment 127381



The heat pipe coolers are a refined designed based on the ones you used to get with phenom processors. The thermal performance is actually a lot better though. Over clocking wasn't a thing on those stock heatsinks at the time. Even at 100% fan speed the old ones would be smashed even by the cheap arctic cooling 92mm tower coolers. The current gen ones about about as good as the aforemention 92mm tower heat sink.


----------



## EarthDog (Jul 26, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> Any links to this information? As was mentioned, regardless if it was more than needed or not, the VID in the chips have it well over 1.325V already. One would imagine that if 1.325V was true, AMD themselves and the VID in the CPU wouldn't be much over that mark.
> 
> I can't say I buy that we've seen degraded chips already... at least not from the ambient crowd. Most of these CPUs can't take more than 1.35V with all cores and threads overclocked in the first place due to thermals... so I wonder how we're seeing it so soon as well when most can't even run it that way.


@heky  - Hello.


----------



## Wavetrex (Jul 27, 2019)

Playing around with Memory timings @ DDR voltage *1.39*:






CL14 was achieved by dropping from 1800 to 1733 ( DDR4-3466 instead of DDR4-3600 which is written on the sticker).
Anything more (3533) results in 3 bios beeps and board resetting itself.

Seems to complete CineBench, wPrime, the usual stuff, but scores seem to be in the same ballpark.
Little to no effect in CPU-z, anything from DDR4-3000 to DDR4-3600 showed almost identical scores:



I guess this test fits completely in that giant L3 "GameCash"


3DMark on the other hand, especially Fire Strike have increased by 1-2% compared to DDR4-3600 CL16:
https://www.3dmark.com/fs/19987389 ( *20852 *). I think this is the highest score I ever got in this test with the same GPU (GTX 1080)








						Result
					






					www.3dmark.com
				




Also the highest "Memory Write" speed achieved so far in AIDA64 - Over 30000:



Reads are a tad slower than for 3600.

Edit:
Small update, shaved one clock out of the secondaries, booted, running random tests:




Some extra 3D testing and comparison to my previous CPU:
Cloud Gate https://www.3dmark.com/compare/cg/4568226/cg/4373806
Sky Diver https://www.3dmark.com/compare/sd/5622133/sd/5263543


----------



## jesdals (Jul 27, 2019)

Did some test of a new SSD when i noticed my boost clock


----------



## hzy4 (Jul 31, 2019)

Anybody knows what is the voltage limit for Ryzen 3000 chips to run it 24/7 without degradation? Somewhere i read 1.32v 
My 3700X runs:
4.1Ghz at 1.23v
4.15Ghz at 1.3v
4.2Ghz needs more than 1.32v to be stable


----------



## Wavetrex (Jul 31, 2019)

If you looked at the pages before, what you're doing is wrong.
Don't do manual all-core overclock on these chips, it's pointless in most cases and reduces performance.

Yes, it can do 4.2 on 1.32, but it can also do 4.4 or 4.5 on single thread if you let it... ( so no fixed clock and fixed voltage ), which does matter a lot in games.
That extra 200-300 Mhz can be the difference between dropping below 60 fps and not dropping below 60 fps...


----------



## Agent_D (Jul 31, 2019)

Depending on the quality of the chip you get, what you're saying could also be wrong. While I do agree the difference in performance isn't worth messing with the stock CPU settings, it's still possible to get better depending on the chip quality.

I ended up getting a really poorly binned 3600X, won't break 4250MHz single core at all stock settings, and setting 4200MHz @ 1.3625v improves my scores across the board, single and multi-thread. I also cannot run Infinity Fabric at 1800MHz, if I set 1800MHz on the IF to match a 3600MHz memory clock, it either won't boot, or will crash as soon as I log in, I have to settle at 1767MHz IF with 3533 memory because I got a really poor quality chip.


----------



## hzy4 (Aug 1, 2019)

Wavetrex said:


> Don't do manual all-core overclock on these chips, it's pointless in most cases and reduces performance.
> 
> Yes, it can do 4.2 on 1.32, but it can also do 4.4 or 4.5 on single thread if you let it... ( so no fixed clock and fixed voltage ), which does matter a lot in games.
> That extra 200-300 Mhz can be the difference between dropping below 60 fps and not dropping below 60 fps...


I am running stock with auto voltage PBOoff and on or auto OC+200mhz didnt notice any difference, 1T boost only up to 4.375Ghz in CB R20, but I am curious to push some all core OC just to see, what it can do.
When I change LLC to higher levels on my Asus TUF X570 it is stable with 4.2ghz 1.325v. I slowly pushing further, traying out every day, but I've noticed, when I bump SOC voltage more then 1.1v it doesnt boot into BIOS I have to clear CMOS.


----------



## TheLostSwede (Aug 1, 2019)

Agent_D said:


> Depending on the quality of the chip you get, what you're saying could also be wrong. While I do agree the difference in performance isn't worth messing with the stock CPU settings, it's still possible to get better depending on the chip quality.
> 
> I ended up getting a really poorly binned 3600X, won't break 4250MHz single core at all stock settings, and setting 4200MHz @ 1.3625v improves my scores across the board, single and multi-thread. I also cannot run Infinity Fabric at 1800MHz, if I set 1800MHz on the IF to match a 3600MHz memory clock, it either won't boot, or will crash as soon as I log in, I have to settle at 1767MHz IF with 3533 memory because I got a really poor quality chip.



It's not all about binning it seems, the new AGESA 1.0.0.3ABB made a big difference for me, so update to that once it's available for your board and see if that doesn't make a difference.
Yes, I still don't have a great chip, but it got my chip to 4.5GHz boost for the first time.


----------



## Agent_D (Aug 1, 2019)

TheLostSwede said:


> It's not all about binning it seems, the new AGESA 1.0.0.3ABB made a big difference for me, so update to that once it's available for your board and see if that doesn't make a difference.
> Yes, I still don't have a great chip, but it got my chip to 4.5GHz boost for the first time.



Interesting; hopefully I'll end up having the same experience. Thanks for that info!


----------



## biffzinker (Aug 1, 2019)

Agent_D said:


> I also cannot run Infinity Fabric at 1800MHz,


Apparently my 3600 has been running the IF at 1,800 MHz with the Auto setting in the BIOS. Problem with that was the RAM is only stable at 1,733 MHz so it was running de-coupled. Set the IF to 1,733 MHz and would you look at that, memory latency dropped to 69.3ns from 78ns.


----------



## Agent_D (Aug 1, 2019)

While I can't personally attest to this just yet (I'll test a bit on it later). From a Hardforum user in reply to my seemingly poorly binned 3600X:

"PBO is fully broken right now. Youre wasting your time with these dicussions until a resolution is released. Turn PBO off and use boost only. "


----------



## hzy4 (Aug 1, 2019)

Yes you are right, did a quick test in CPU-Z bench, with PBO i got 1 thread 519p without it 521p, it does nothing, AMD could admit that, they just make Ryzen 3000 owners confused and desperate, regret the buy.


----------



## Agent_D (Aug 2, 2019)

I had the same results, no change with PBO on or off. It'll get sorted out as BIOS updates and software updates come along. These are the prices you pay for adopting new things early, just a speed bump. Still faster than the setup I did for my friend with an 8086k @ 5.0GHz all core when the 3600x does 4.1GHz all core and 4.25GHz single. I'm still happy with it and am super glad to be rid of Intel and nvidia.


----------



## Khonjel (Aug 10, 2019)

Just built my PC yesterday with an MSI pre-MAX Tomahawk board. Against all odds the PC booted first try. Now the issue is with high idle voltage and subsequently high idle temp.

Ryzen Master, CPU-Z, HWMONITOR all show 1.448 idle volt. My Windows 10 1903 is up to date and I also installed the latest 1.7.29 chipset driver with Ryzen Balanced plan selected.

* The only thing I touched in the bios is to set memory XMP    
* The windows install is a carry over from my last build. Should fresh install fix it?    
* I would have re-flashed the bios but wanna check if it's a windows/driver issue


----------



## mstenholm (Aug 10, 2019)

Khonjel said:


> Just built my PC yesterday with an MSI pre-MAX Tomahawk board. Against all odds the PC booted first try. Now the issue is with high idle voltage and subsequently high idle temp.
> 
> Ryzen Master, CPU-Z, HWMONITOR all show 1.448 idle volt. My Windows 10 1903 is up to date and I also installed the latest 1.7.29 chipset driver with Ryzen Balanced plan selected.
> 
> ...


Have a look here post 423


----------



## Cr1z619 (Oct 10, 2019)

I know this is a bit old but just saw this post   I have my cpu at 1.18125 ish volt and 4200 and got a sweet score on cinebench r20 im using an ic thermal pad which I've used on my old cpu but i'm going to switch to arctic mx4 cause I do not like the temps but check this out.


----------



## hzy4 (Oct 10, 2019)

Cr1z619 said:


> I know this is a bit old but just saw this post   I have my cpu at 1.18125 ish volt and 4200 and got a sweet score on cinebench r20 im using an ic thermal pad which I've used on my old cpu but i'm going to switch to arctic mx4 cause I do not like the temps but check this out.


Holy frequency Batman! 5000pts with 1.18v, but is it stable stable? Please share your secret.


----------



## Cr1z619 (Oct 10, 2019)

hzy4 said:


> Holy frequency Batman! 5000pts with 1.18v, but is it stable stable? Please share your secret.


Yeah prime95 it hours I game at least 6 hours daily never had it crash or anything. Did some prime95 torture tests and regular 0 issues



hzy4 said:


> Holy frequency Batman! 5000pts with 1.18v, but is it stable stable? Please share your secret.


I might have just gotten lucky with my cpu only thing else i changed was my ram timings, i have an asus x570 tuf wifi, didn't change any other settings.


----------



## HD64G (Oct 10, 2019)

Seems that new bioses will improve performance of Zen2 chips allowing less voltage that reduce power draw and improve thermals that in turn allow higher sustainable all-core-clocks.


----------



## Cr1z619 (Oct 10, 2019)

HD64G said:


> Seems that new bioses will improve performance of Zen2 chips allowing less voltage that reduce power draw and improve thermals that in turn allow higher sustainable all-core-clocks.


Honestly after seeing this thread I decided to mess with the frequency some more I was able to get it to 4250mhz on the same voltage ran p95 for a little while then ran cinebench like 5 times it's scoring about 5050 now after 4250 it required much more voltage to be stable which drew a lot more power and much more heat so I kept it at 4250 I like to keep my CPU under 70c


----------



## tabascosauz (Oct 10, 2019)

HD64G said:


> Seems that new bioses will improve performance of Zen2 chips allowing less voltage that reduce power draw and improve thermals that in turn allow higher sustainable all-core-clocks.



The voltage improvements are miniscule compared to what you can accomplish with some time on your hands, and willingness to experiment with Vcore and LLC. They just change idle and boost behaviour, that's pretty much it. All that goes out the window anyways when you manual OC.

If his story is true, this guy has a magical unicorn of a chip, because mine would require close to or past 1.3V to sustain 4.2GHz stably. Even if that was the case, there's no way in hell I'm staying below 85c in P95 on a U9S. My chip would laugh in my face if I tried to push 4.1 or 4.2GHz on 1.18V. I'm at 1.194V minimum on 4.0GHz.

Curious as to whether this guy is running Blend. It usually takes ~30min to 45min of full on P95 Smallest or Small in order to find instabilities on manual freq for me, and Blend would not meet that requirement, giving me the illusion of stability.


----------



## Cr1z619 (Oct 10, 2019)

I did run blend for over an hour and had no issues passed just fine, honestly I was surprised my self how little voltage it required considering my previous R7 1700 non x required 1.45v to run at 4ghz.I game daily I play a lot honestly I've had it at this voltage for a month or more now, playing 6+ hours daily, mostly csgo pubg and some fortnite at 240hz


----------



## biffzinker (Oct 10, 2019)

tabascosauz said:


> mine would require close to or past 1.3V to sustain 4.2GHz stably.


My 3600 requires 1.45V to run at 4.2 GHz, otherwise I get encoding errors in Realbench.


----------



## tabascosauz (Oct 11, 2019)

Cr1z619 said:


> I did run blend for over an hour and had no issues passed just fine, honestly I was surprised my self how little voltage it required considering my previous R7 1700 non x required 1.45v to run at 4ghz.I game daily I play a lot honestly I've had it at this voltage for a month or more now, playing 6+ hours daily, mostly csgo pubg and some fortnite at 240hz



My point is not that Blend is a good stability test if you already know your RAM is good. My point is that in your hour of Blend, you're not getting as much of the core stress as you can. The great thing about P95 is that there's no ramp up and down in load and temperature like most other stress tests (OCCT, IBT), if you run on the smaller tests, your CPU doesn't get a break, which is good for evaluating actual load Vcore and temps.

Even on manual settings, droop can mess with stability. 

As far as I can tell, stability is far from a black and white concept on Ryzen 3000. The first signs for me are WHEA errors logging in HWInfo, usually a single one. Without other symptoms, most people would probably ignore it, but the fact that a perfectly stable setup never results in any WHEA errors says everything.

With more instability, they start to add up. Then P95 individual worker threads start stopping. Then OCCT crashes or refuses to run. Then Windows starts artifacting. Finally, with hilariously low Vcore, only then do the BSODs begin.

None of those games really require any CPU power at all. Single threaded or low multi stress (like some more intensive games) seem to be good at evaluating boost Vcore offset stability, but do nothing for testing a manual OC.

By the way, I'm not casting doubt on your experience. You do have a great chip.



biffzinker said:


> My 3600 requires 1.45V to run at 4.2 GHz, otherwise I get encoding errors in Realbench.



Damn. And here I thought that mine was a mediocre bin.


----------



## Cr1z619 (Oct 11, 2019)

as


tabascosauz said:


> My point is not that Blend is a good stability test if you already know your RAM is good. My point is that in your hour of Blend, you're not getting as much of the core stress as you can.
> 
> As far as I can tell, stability is far from a black and white concept on Ryzen 3000. The first signs for me are WHEA errors logging in HWInfo, usually a single one. Without other symptoms, most people would probably ignore it, but the fact that a perfectly stable setup never results in any WHEA errors says everything.
> 
> ...


I didn't just run blend, blend actually doesn't seem to do much besides make the cpu usage at 100% it stays at a solid 55c with blend, I ran torture tests with different ffts, I also have aida64 and stress tested it their stress tested with cpu z I ran several different benchmarks real bench etc, futuremark timespy and all that. Never had an issue until I tried 4.3ghz at the same voltage but it wasn't  stable, p95 would fail etc. Altough my chip can easily do 4.35 or 4.3 but it require about 1.35vcore which runs much hotter still under 90c though even during cinebench/fft torture tests, and used about 40 watts more under full load. Which I don't think it's worth it at all with such minor improvement over 1.18 at 4.25
Hopefully in the future amd releases a new agesa and I can get a stable 4.4 at a lower vcore, there is some guy with a 3800x at 4475mhz at 1.38v that scored 5400 in cinebench r20 so some chips just seem to do much better than others.


----------



## cowboy44mag (Oct 11, 2019)

The whole question of stability when overclocking Ryzen 3000 is hugely subjective.  I've seen many guys bragging about a high overclock at low voltage only to see their benchmark scores and realize that their scores are all low which in itself shows stability issues.  I've also seen a couple systems where a high overclock (best I've personally seen on conventional cooling was 4.475Ghz all core- Ryzen 3800X) with reasonable voltage was 100% true and almost beyond belief it was on XFR, PBO - something I definitely can't do.  That was without doubt a "golden" chip, and there are bound to be some golden chips out there so not all the low voltage/ high clock stories are someone running an unstable system.

My personal experience has been with my 3800X and while I can't get past a 4.3 - 4.35Ghz boost with XFR/ PBO I have been able to get a 4.4Ghz all core overclock in bios that I can further push with Ryzen Master in Windows to overclock the fastest CCX to 4.45Ghz.  After a lot of tweaking with the Vcore and LLC I am running an offset which allows core voltage to go down to ~0.5V at rest and will push 1.373V under full load.  Using the offset the CPU sensor shows a constant 1.337V however my motherboard sensor will actually show the voltage offset.  While I wouldn't consider my chip to be "golden" I do think it is a good overclocker and I could probably get a little more performance out of it if I had a higher end motherboard.  With my Strix X470-F I am able to hit a stable 4.4Ghz at 1.373V and 4.45Ghz stable at 1.42V but I am not comfortable running that much voltage on 7nm Ryzen 3000.

As far as temps go, I have a very good air cooling system (6 140mm case fans and a NH-U14S with 2 140's in a push/ pull) and all my temps are well under control.  Giving a temp under torture testing is subjective as you don't know how long that test was run for, so I like to give a "standard" everyone can easily compare to - at the end of a Cinebench R20 run my temps are just at or just below 70C, ambient room temperature of 70F.

I'm attaching a few screenshots, the first one is HWinfo64 at beginning/ mid run to show the clock speed and system load, the next is at the end of a Cinebench R20 run to show voltage and temperature and the last is an earlier Cinebench R20 run with all monitoring shut off to improve the score.  I know my system is stable as it will not only pass any conventional stability testing I throw at it, but it also has benchmark scores in line with the frequency its running at.

Edit, adding one more screenshot, overclocked my rig a little bit more.  Last screen shot is when I run one CCX at 4.425Ghz and one CCX at 4.45Ghz.


----------



## Cr1z619 (Oct 13, 2019)

cowboy44mag said:


> The whole question of stability when overclocking Ryzen 3000 is hugely subjective.  I've seen many guys bragging about a high overclock at low voltage only to see their benchmark scores and realize that their scores are all low which in itself shows stability issues.  I've also seen a couple systems where a high overclock (best I've personally seen on conventional cooling was 4.475Ghz all core- Ryzen 3800X) with reasonable voltage was 100% true and almost beyond belief it was on XFR, PBO - something I definitely can't do.  That was without doubt a "golden" chip, and there are bound to be some golden chips out there so not all the low voltage/ high clock stories are someone running an unstable system.
> 
> My personal experience has been with my 3800X and while I can't get past a 4.3 - 4.35Ghz boost with XFR/ PBO I have been able to get a 4.4Ghz all core overclock in bios that I can further push with Ryzen Master in Windows to overclock the fastest CCX to 4.45Ghz.  After a lot of tweaking with the Vcore and LLC I am running an offset which allows core voltage to go down to ~0.5V at rest and will push 1.373V under full load.  Using the offset the CPU sensor shows a constant 1.337V however my motherboard sensor will actually show the voltage offset.  While I wouldn't consider my chip to be "golden" I do think it is a good overclocker and I could probably get a little more performance out of it if I had a higher end motherboard.  With my Strix X470-F I am able to hit a stable 4.4Ghz at 1.373V and 4.45Ghz stable at 1.42V but I am not comfortable running that much voltage on 7nm Ryzen 3000.
> 
> ...


How do you use ryzen master I also saw someone else with a 3800x mention they couldn't get past 4.4ghz with the bios but where able to do 4475mhz through ryzen master but when I try to use it under manual settings it does not let me adjust my ram timings how I want it and seems to be missing a lot of settings or maybe I just have an old version.


----------



## cowboy44mag (Oct 13, 2019)

Cr1z619 said:


> How do you use ryzen master I also saw someone else with a 3800x mention they couldn't get past 4.4ghz with the bios but where able to do 4475mhz through ryzen master but when I try to use it under manual settings it does not let me adjust my ram timings how I want it and seems to be missing a lot of settings or maybe I just have an old version.



I'm sure there are some people who use Ryzen Master for all their overclocking needs, but I do 95% of my overclocking in bios and only fine tune the overclock with Ryzen Master.  I have my RAM (G.Skill Trident Z RGB 3200Mhz CL14 - Samsung B die) overclocked to 3733 CL14 in bios, and I have an offset on my Vcore, and my multiplier overclock all set in bios.  When I boot into windows I'm running at 4.4Ghz all core and then use Ryzen Master (Profile 1 set on manual overclocking)  to overclock each individual CCX module (with the 3700X and 3800X will be 2 CCX with 3900X will be 4 CCX modules).  

I'm posting 2 screenshots, the first is my normal everyday overclock of the fastest CCX @ 4.425Ghz and the other at 4.4Ghz and the second is with my best overclock of the fastest CCX @ 4.45Ghz and the other CCX at 4.425Ghz.  As you can see, the only thing I use Ryzen Master for is actually setting the clock speed of the individual CCX modules, doing that you can get a little more performance when your system just either won't go any higher with a conventional multiplier overclock or needs crazy voltage to do so.


----------



## Cr1z619 (Oct 14, 2019)

Man I wish I would have bought b die ram, I bought a pair of corsair ram cause it was cheap 100 bucks 3600 c18 got the timings down to c16 same voltage but no matter what I did i couldn't get c14 even at 3000mhz with 1.45v on the ram, the ram itself benchmarks good in aida64 though, but I'm jelly of that c14 3600 lol


----------



## cowboy44mag (Oct 15, 2019)

Cr1z619 said:


> Man I wish I would have bought b die ram, I bought a pair of corsair ram cause it was cheap 100 bucks 3600 c18 got the timings down to c16 same voltage but no matter what I did i couldn't get c14 even at 3000mhz with 1.45v on the ram, the ram itself benchmarks good in aida64 though, but I'm jelly of that c14 3600 lol



The first RAM kit I bought was for my first Ryzen build, Ryzen 2700X, and was Hynix A die.  It was a lot cheaper and I thought that the frequency would make up for the timings/ latency.  After seeing the performance hit I was taking on large rendering/ editing projects I upgraded to G.Skill Trident Z RGB Samsung B die (CL14).  I made it work out in the end though as after upgrading to the Ryzen 3800X I bought another Strix X470-F on sale, picked up a 550W Seasonic 80+ Bronze power supply on sale, and used a couple older 1TB HHDs I had laying around along with the 2700X and Hynix A die RAM and upgraded my mother's computer.  She had been running an old FX 8500 so she was blown away with the performance increase.  At least that A die RAM wasn't just wasted and when the kids visit they can play all the same games they can at home (maybe with a little lower settings).


----------



## CountMike (Oct 28, 2019)

Asus Prime x470 pro (BIOS 5220 AGESA 1003ABBA) + 3700x (under CM Nepton 140XL) + Kingston 3600MHz Cl 16 RAM. 
I experimented with OC and found that PBO works nicely, allowing 4.45GHz single core and rest running at 4.375 under decent load. My max OC all cores was limited to 4.4GHz with hefty 1.5v but cooler kept it at 70c max. PBO works best at temps less than 65c, preferably 62-63c. CB r20 is useless as it can't seem to put proper load on the CPU and RAM speed is hardly taken into account. I could switch RAM to 2400MHz and still loose just few points in CB r20. Passmark PTest is not much better for CPU loading although reacts a bit better than CB r20 to memory speed changes. 
Regarding undervolting, under full load (Geekbench) voltage stays at 1.326v, so I set that voltage and it never goes up to 1.5v  like it used to do when on auto and there's no loss in performance. Actually, with 1003ABBA it doesn't jump that high but it's still more than it could. 
Ram, Kingston HyperX 3600 b-die is XMP rated at at Cl17 but when I set DOCP to 3000 and RAM at 3600 it happily clicks at 3600 MHz Cl 16 giving better scores than when set manually to 3800 and even 4000MHz   on account of much higher Cl (21 at 3800 and 28 at 4000MHz). 3733MHz (still 1:1:1 ratio) had some better memory scores but at cost of some instability. 
 As I have seen,. PBO is working better than full stable all core OC. CB r20 scored 5106 Multi and 512 single core at those settings while 4.4GHz OC was barely higher 5166 with single core score of 508. Hardly an improvement and nothing to write home about. Certainly nothing that can be felt in real world use. 
My conclusion, let PBO do it's job if CPU is cooled properly, optimize RAM and all is good. Manual OC is pretty well out and that's coming from an old time OC-er since we had to make volt mods.


----------



## jesdals (Oct 28, 2019)

After some tweaking with new memory, I have been lowering vcore on cpu and memory voltage



Been able to lower voltage to 1.412v vcore on cpu in bios and 1.44v on memory


----------



## Space Lynx (Oct 31, 2019)

cowboy44mag said:


> I'm sure there are some people who use Ryzen Master for all their overclocking needs, but I do 95% of my overclocking in bios and only fine tune the overclock with Ryzen Master.  I have my RAM (G.Skill Trident Z RGB 3200Mhz CL14 - Samsung B die) overclocked to 3733 CL14 in bios, and I have an offset on my Vcore, and my multiplier overclock all set in bios.  When I boot into windows I'm running at 4.4Ghz all core and then use Ryzen Master (Profile 1 set on manual overclocking)  to overclock each individual CCX module (with the 3700X and 3800X will be 2 CCX with 3900X will be 4 CCX modules).
> 
> I'm posting 2 screenshots, the first is my normal everyday overclock of the fastest CCX @ 4.425Ghz and the other at 4.4Ghz and the second is with my best overclock of the fastest CCX @ 4.45Ghz and the other CCX at 4.425Ghz.  As you can see, the only thing I use Ryzen Master for is actually setting the clock speed of the individual CCX modules, doing that you can get a little more performance when your system just either won't go any higher with a conventional multiplier overclock or needs crazy voltage to do so.




care to share your RAM oc settings? I have the same ram



jesdals said:


> After some tweaking with new memory, I have been lowering vcore on cpu and memory voltage
> View attachment 135081
> Been able to lower voltage to 1.412v vcore on cpu in bios and 1.44v on memory



I did 1.38 volt in bios, didn't mess with anything else, xmp ram, that's it.  its around 75 celsius in witcher 3 but when i go from 60h z to 144hz, i hit about 90 celsius in witcher 3... i don't know what i am doing wrong. ryzen is frustrating.

but if i dont touch BIOS volt at all, MSI artificially inflates it when left on auto... so still to hot... really annoying...


----------



## cowboy44mag (Nov 1, 2019)

CountMike said:


> Asus Prime x470 pro (BIOS 5220 AGESA 1003ABBA) + 3700x (under CM Nepton 140XL) + Kingston 3600MHz Cl 16 RAM.
> I experimented with OC and found that PBO works nicely, allowing 4.45GHz single core and rest running at 4.375 under decent load. My max OC all cores was limited to 4.4GHz with hefty 1.5v but cooler kept it at 70c max. PBO works best at temps less than 65c, preferably 62-63c. CB r20 is useless as it can't seem to put proper load on the CPU and RAM speed is hardly taken into account. I could switch RAM to 2400MHz and still loose just few points in CB r20. Passmark PTest is not much better for CPU loading although reacts a bit better than CB r20 to memory speed changes.
> Regarding undervolting, under full load (Geekbench) voltage stays at 1.326v, so I set that voltage and it never goes up to 1.5v  like it used to do when on auto and there's no loss in performance. Actually, with 1003ABBA it doesn't jump that high but it's still more than it could.
> Ram, Kingston HyperX 3600 b-die is XMP rated at at Cl17 but when I set DOCP to 3000 and RAM at 3600 it happily clicks at 3600 MHz Cl 16 giving better scores than when set manually to 3800 and even 4000MHz   on account of much higher Cl (21 at 3800 and 28 at 4000MHz). 3733MHz (still 1:1:1 ratio) had some better memory scores but at cost of some instability.
> ...




I really liked PBO with Ryzen+ (2700X), but thus far PBO doesn't work as well as manual overclocking for Ryzen 3000.  I am looking forward to the release of the new AMD agesa that will hopefully fix PBO, but for now my manual overclock is much better.  With my 3800X I have tweaked the Infinity Fabric, tightened the RAM sub timings further, and have increased my max overclock to 4.475Ghz @ 1.406V.  I think the results speak from itself:


----------



## ShrimpBrime (Nov 1, 2019)

lynx29 said:


> care to share your RAM oc settings? I have the same ram
> 
> 
> 
> ...



To stop the voltage increase, take CPU LLC off of auto. Dial that it in manually until you reach a stable desired loaded voltage.


----------



## cowboy44mag (Nov 1, 2019)

lynx29 said:


> care to share your RAM oc settings? I have the same ram
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I have to go into bios and get my RAM timings.  I'll post them as soon as I can, but keep in mind that like every processor all RAM kits will be different.  It should give you a base of where to start though, but my settings may not work with your RAM, you will probably have to tweak them.


----------



## ShrimpBrime (Nov 1, 2019)

cowboy44mag said:


> I have to go into bios and get my RAM timings.  I'll post them as soon as I can, but keep in mind that like every processor all RAM kits will be different.  It should give you a base of where to start though, but my settings may not work with your RAM, you will probably have to tweak them.


I'm curious what the Ram voltage is? Looks good from here 1866 Cas 14 mmhmm good!
G.Skill Trident Z RGB Samsung B die (CL14)


----------



## Space Lynx (Nov 2, 2019)

cowboy44mag said:


> I have to go into bios and get my RAM timings.  I'll post them as soon as I can, but keep in mind that like every processor all RAM kits will be different.  It should give you a base of where to start though, but my settings may not work with your RAM, you will probably have to tweak them.



thanks, my goal is to get 3600 cas 14 at 1.43v or so.  but i just don't know what other settings to change. i am not aiming for 3733


----------



## cowboy44mag (Nov 2, 2019)

Ok, so these are my RAM settings that I'm currently running.  I will probably tweak them a little more over time, but I have found that 3733Mhz is the sweet spot for my processor.  I actually get better results than when I'm running 3800Mhz, plus at 3733 my I can really tighten up the sub-timings.


----------



## Space Lynx (Nov 2, 2019)

cowboy44mag said:


> Ok, so these are my RAM settings that I'm currently running.  I will probably tweak them a little more over time, but I have found that 3733Mhz is the sweet spot for my processor.  I actually get better results than when I'm running 3800Mhz, plus at 3733 my I can really tighten up the sub-timings.



I just did 3600 cas 14-14-14-15 and changed the 34 to 36, still 1T not 2T  and bumped voltage to 1.450v

just ran 3 tests and no issues so far, didn't change anything else  prob will just leave it right there, quite happy. not bad for $108 ram, cheap ryzen 3600 cpu (which i have 4.2 ghz no downclock at 1.31v and its stable in everything except prime95, but screw prime95 anyway)

and my mobo was only $105... honestly for this level of performance and the price I paid for all 3 parts is combined total cheaper than a 9900k cpu by itself... lol  amazing


----------



## moproblems99 (Nov 2, 2019)

I don't understand the all-core overclocks when many write-ups have shown margin-of-error differences compared to just letting the chip be the chip...?


----------



## cowboy44mag (Nov 2, 2019)

moproblems99 said:


> I don't understand the all-core overclocks when many write-ups have shown margin-of-error differences compared to just letting the chip be the chip...?



This topic may be totally different at the end of November.  AMD has released an updated agesa and all motherboards will adopt new bios by the end of November to incorporate it.  The new bios is supposed to correct over 100 issues with Ryzen 3000 series processors.  Hopefully one of the addressed issues will be XFR and PBO.  Right now with Ryzen 3000 you can get better results with manual overclocking than by letting XFR or PBO "do their thing".  With Ryzen+ (2700X) I loved PBO and it would do all core boosts of 4.35Ghz all core all day long, however with Ryzen 3000 PBO at best will only boost my 3800X to 4.35Ghz all core.  I can get 4.475Ghz all core with manual overclocking, and with the amazing IPC of Ryzen 3000 the extra frequency makes a difference.  At 4.475Ghz the R7 3800X is every bit the equal of a i9 9900K @ 5Ghz even in gaming.  In productivity based applications the 3800X simply outperforms the 9900K @ 5Ghz.

Once all motherboards are updated to the new agesa, then it is very possible that XFR and PBO will be hands down the way to go, but for now you can get better overclocks with manual bios overclocking and then tweaking the overclock with CCX overclocking in Ryzen Master.

Ryzen 3800X @ 4.475Ghz Time Spy and Fire Strike:
Time Spy - CPU score *11705*
Fire Strike - Physics score *25650*


----------



## Space Lynx (Nov 2, 2019)

moproblems99 said:


> I don't understand the all-core overclocks when many write-ups have shown margin-of-error differences compared to just letting the chip be the chip...?



I got a 300 point increase in FFXV benchmark at at 4.2 all core versus stock.


----------



## cowboy44mag (Nov 2, 2019)

I just realized that Cinebench R20 glitched or something when I ran my first testing.  My R7 3800X scored 6118 @ 4.475Ghz but it was due to a glitch in Cinebench R20 that I was unaware could happen.  I took multiple screenshots of the run and upon closer examination the glitch was very clear.  In that run several sections of the main image were only partially rendered or for some reason not rendered and it artificially inflated the score.  I am just setting the record straight.  I didn't know CB R20 could glitch like that and was so excited to see a score above 6000 I didn't question it at first and just rushed to launch hwinfo64 and cpu-z to validate my system settings.

below is a screenshot of the glitched run





My actual score with my 3800X @ 4.475Ghz
Still a good score, but not 6118...


----------



## delshay (Nov 2, 2019)

I have a technical general question about undervolting CPU/GPU/RAM/CHIPSET,ect,ect.

Undervolting is good for silicon, but it's still subjected to manufacture standard voltage from cold boot. Would it not be better to change this in software/hardware so that the silicon always receive the lower voltage at all times?


----------



## oobymach (Nov 2, 2019)

I tested some undervolting with previous bios with mixed results. Cpu always going to require certain voltage to run a set speed, undervolting at best drops performance and at worst causes issues. Best to leave voltages on auto unless you're underclocking or overclocking when a few mv matter. Once set in bios your computer will boot with whatever voltages you set. 

Ram will generally work underclocked with lower voltages just fine as will cpu but chipset on the other hand, I messed with sb soc voltage and it made windows audio play at reduced speed so my advice is test it for a few min in p95 while listening to a song or watching a video to see if there's corruption/degradation. You can test p95 for days but generally a few (5 or 6) passed tests per worker is enough for most people. Unless you're using it for super critical tasks and stability is a must you're fine with 20mins stability.


----------



## cowboy44mag (Nov 2, 2019)

delshay said:


> I have a technical general question about undervolting CPU/GPU/RAM/CHIPSET,ect,ect.
> 
> Undervolting is good for silicon, but it's still subjected to manufacture standard voltage from cold boot. Would it not be better to change this in software/hardware so that the silicon always receive the lower voltage at all times?




I've done a lot of testing on Ryzen 3000, but my answer may change with the next bios updates coming this month.  AMD's new agesa may change everything we understand about Ryzen and performance as it stands right now as it is supposed to fix "over 100" issues with Ryzen 3000.  With the current bios available for most of us (only a select few X570 motherboards have the new bios) I have found that undervolting is really only advantageous when letting XFR and PBO scale the processor, ie letting Ryzen be Ryzen and doing the boosting by itself.  For manual overclocking I have found that undervolting tends to be an issue and leads to bad performance.

If your going to run on Auto and let Ryzen scale itself with XFR and PBO undervolting yields higher boost clocks and better performance.  By default the auto scaling of Ryzen uses more voltage than necessary and by undervolting you keep the temps lower and it allows the processor to boost higher.  The very best clocks I've been able to get with my 3800X have been 4.35Ghz all core with XFR (PBO off) and 4.3Ghz with PBO enabled.  Surprisingly PBO enabled actually lowers the boosting behavior and highlights one of the issues that will hopefully be addressed with the upcoming agesa/ bios.

If your going to manually overclock with a multiplier and utilize CCX overclocking then I would be very careful trying to undervolt.  I see a lot of people out there quoting 4.3 and 4.4 Ghz at very low voltages and although their systems are "stable" their benchmarks scores are low.  The low voltages that some are utilizing is actually hampering performance even though it can technically run the frequency at the given voltage.  A lot of times bumping the voltage up just a little bit will lead to better performance even though technically the overclock is "stable" at the lower voltage.


----------



## Space Lynx (Nov 2, 2019)

The new BIOS was just released for my MSI B450 Gaming Plus MAX, installing it now.


edit:  so far it is very stable. my temps have improved at stock and with overclock. this new BIOS is great


----------



## cowboy44mag (Nov 2, 2019)

lynx29 said:


> The new BIOS was just released for my MSI B450 Gaming Plus MAX, installing it now.
> 
> 
> edit:  so far it is very stable. my temps have improved at stock and with overclock. this new BIOS is great



That's great, gives me something to look forward to.  Asus is taking its sweet time getting the new bios rolled out.  I have the Strix X470-F gaming and still nothing.  I think the only updated bios they have is for the X570 boards.


----------



## thesmokingman (Nov 2, 2019)

Can't say I agree with the findings but kudos for the effort involved.


----------



## Space Lynx (Nov 2, 2019)

thesmokingman said:


> Can't say I agree with the findings but kudos for the effort involved.



I'm very happy I went with MSI now, I decided to give "gameboost and A-xmp" a try. Just two little buttons you hit with BIOS. Well, old BIOS voltage was way too high so I had to do it all myself. But this new BIOS, 1.345v max and temps are great and I had do 0 work.

Also, I rebooted PC after turning on both, then dialed in my ram higher and its all stable. I settled on 3400 cas 14-14-14-34 at 1.450v and the 4.2 all core is good on temps now. Quite happy. Now I just want an RX 5800 Navi gpu.


----------



## cowboy44mag (Nov 2, 2019)

lynx29 said:


> I'm very happy I went with MSI now, I decided to give "gameboost and A-xmp" a try. Just two little buttons you hit with BIOS. Well, old BIOS voltage was way too high so I had to do it all myself. But this new BIOS, 1.345v max and temps are great and I had do 0 work.
> 
> Also, I rebooted PC after turning on both, then dialed in my ram higher and its all stable. I settled on 3400 cas 14-14-14-34 at 1.450v and the 4.2 all core is good on temps now. Quite happy. Now I just want an RX 5800 Navi gpu.



Don't get me wrong, I have been very happy with Asus, and with my X470-F motherboard.  I have had top end performance with my 2700X, which I could run @ 4.35Ghz all core, and with my 3800X which I can validate at 4.5Ghz all core, but have to run at 4.475Ghz all core to be stable enough to run demanding benchmarks.  It is frustrating that Asus still doesn't have the new bios rolled out for its X470 boards, but its hard to find fault with the quality of their boards.  I'm really hoping that with the improvements of the new agesa PBO will be fixed and get boosts of at least 4.4Ghz all core (with good cooling of course), and I'm also hoping that I can get that little bit extra so my manual overclock is totally stable at 4.5Ghz all core.  Its already so very close to being stable at 4.5Ghz all core the new agesa improvements have to put it over the top...


----------



## thesmokingman (Nov 3, 2019)

cowboy44mag said:


> Don't get me wrong, I have been very happy with Asus, and with my X470-F motherboard.  I have had top end performance with my 2700X, which I could run @ 4.35Ghz all core, and with my 3800X which I can validate at 4.5Ghz all core, but have to run at 4.475Ghz all core to be stable enough to run demanding benchmarks.  It is frustrating that Asus still doesn't have the new bios rolled out for its X470 boards, but its hard to find fault with the quality of their boards.  I'm really hoping that with the improvements of the new agesa PBO will be fixed and get boosts of at least 4.4Ghz all core (with good cooling of course), and I'm also hoping that I can get that little bit extra so my manual overclock is totally stable at 4.5Ghz all core.  Its already so very close to being stable at 4.5Ghz all core the new agesa improvements have to put it over the top...



If/when that bios comes out you will love it. You'll be able to compensate for weaker CCX and not have them hamstring your stronger CCX. I took one of my CCX up to 4525mhz and only needed 1.33v ish, since I didn't have to overcome the weaker CCXs.


----------



## Space Lynx (Nov 3, 2019)

cowboy44mag said:


> Don't get me wrong, I have been very happy with Asus, and with my X470-F motherboard.  I have had top end performance with my 2700X, which I could run @ 4.35Ghz all core, and with my 3800X which I can validate at 4.5Ghz all core, but have to run at 4.475Ghz all core to be stable enough to run demanding benchmarks.  It is frustrating that Asus still doesn't have the new bios rolled out for its X470 boards, but its hard to find fault with the quality of their boards.  I'm really hoping that with the improvements of the new agesa PBO will be fixed and get boosts of at least 4.4Ghz all core (with good cooling of course), and I'm also hoping that I can get that little bit extra so my manual overclock is totally stable at 4.5Ghz all core.  Its already so very close to being stable at 4.5Ghz all core the new agesa improvements have to put it over the top...



I mean you shouldn't be frustrated at all, MSI announced they would be first and was the first to rollout the new BIOS and it literally just happened lol

I am 100% stable and loving it. I really hope they get Navi drivers up to par by the time 5800 xt launches, I really want an all AMD rig


----------



## cowboy44mag (Nov 6, 2019)

Have been working on my memory voltages and sub timings.  Ryzen really responds well to fast memory and tight timings / sub timings.

Ryzen R7 3800X @ 4.475Ghz all core:

*Cinebench R20 - 5456
Time Spy CPU score - 11815
Fire Strike Physics score - 27013*


----------



## Space Lynx (Nov 6, 2019)

cowboy44mag said:


> Have been working on my memory voltages and sub timings.  Ryzen really responds well to fast memory and tight timings / sub timings.
> 
> Ryzen R7 3800X @ 4.475Ghz all core:
> 
> ...



Care to share all your timings with us?


----------



## cowboy44mag (Nov 6, 2019)

lynx29 said:


> Care to share all your timings with us?



I already posted all of my "base" RAM settings on page 5 of this thread.  I really don't want to go back into bios and take pictures of everything again.  From my notes I only tweaked a couple of things and all the other timings are the same.
I tweaked:
Dram Voltage - was 1.48V now 1.46V
CLDO VDDG voltage - was 0.998V now 1.000V
Trc - was 42 now 40
Trfc was 298 now 280


----------



## cowboy44mag (Nov 16, 2019)

Just started optimized single core execution and was wondering what kind of single core scores everyone was getting with Ryzen 3000.

Cinebench R20 Single Core- 531


----------



## thesmokingman (Nov 16, 2019)

You're on target I think as 3900x scores roughly 520 ish and it has a single core boost of 4.6ghz.


----------



## cowboy44mag (Nov 16, 2019)

thesmokingman said:


> You're on target I think as 3900x scores roughly 520 ish and it has a single core boost of 4.6ghz.



You know, I would really love to see AMD release a "special edition R7 3800X"  maybe call it R7 3850X...  If they would use the incredible silicon binning of the R9 3950X only use the R7 3800X I really think it could be clocked upwards of 5Ghz all core.  Don't get me wrong, the 3800X is already a great processor and can outperform the 9900K in some areas, such as productivity, however a 3800X using the extreme binning of the 3950X would take away Intel's last refuge.  I really believe that a processor like that could take away the gaming crown from the 9900K(S) and leave Intel with no areas where they can claim "the best".

At any rate, I'm really happy with the performance of my 3800X.


----------



## thesmokingman (Nov 16, 2019)

Don't get yer hopes up as clock frequency is hard to achieve as the process shrinks and shrinks. I doubt Intel would want to keep the clock frequency if it meant getting their asses beat this soundly, honestly man. And to put that into context having 5ghz clock frequency scaling advantage that only shows itself in gaming when you remove the gpu as a bottleneck, that's like meh right? That really is only for epeen because no one games w/o a gpu or at a resolution that makes the cpu a bottleneck. You know what I mean?


----------



## cowboy44mag (Nov 16, 2019)

thesmokingman said:


> Don't get yer hopes up as clock frequency is hard to achieve as the process shrinks and shrinks. I doubt Intel would want to keep the clock frequency if it meant getting their asses beat this soundly, honestly man.



I hear you, but binning has a lot to do with clock frequency.  On average the 3800X can hit higher clocks than the 3700X due to better binning.  The 3950X has way better binning than the 3900X.  Quite frankly the 3950X is simply amazing, but a big part of that amazing performance is due to the very impressive binning that the processors have.  Utilizing the silicon that is used for the 3950X but substituting a 3800X...  I really believe that a processor like that could totally dethrone the 9900KS across the board.  But as you said, I don't think that will ever happen.  I think that AMD is happy with the product stack as it stands now, and really its a very impressive product stack


----------



## Zach_01 (Nov 16, 2019)

We as consumers, may want and desire a lot of things, but AMD is not willing to sacrifice anymore high binned chiplets for mainstream products other than the 3950X. They need all the high staff they can get for the Threadripper/Epyc packages that can return the highest margins, and very important... to be able to start the “next chapter“ war with Intel for HEDT/Server market share.

And for all I can understand, ZEN2 is not capable of 5GHz boost clocks, even the high end chiplets. They can certainly run the 4~4.5GHz at much lower voltage than the low end chiplets but after a point all advantages vanish. It must be a silicon restriction, and by that I mean the current 7nm UV process.

IMHO the next series ZEN3 on 7+nm will do better, still not 5+GHz. 4.7GHz is the fastest we have today and that’s it. Next we will get another 1-200MHz max. But it will come with another IPC upgrade (5-10%) which is more important.
2020 things are getting darker for Intel on almost all aspects of CPU market. The only section that’s left to fight is the mobile market. But Intel will come back for sure and strong, but that’s not happening before 2021, ...could be 22. They don’t say it, but they know it.

We will see a lot the next 5-10 years from both Intel and AMD. The previous decade will look like a bad joke...


----------



## R0H1T (Nov 16, 2019)

5Ghz could well be a relic of the past, if ICL is any indication Intel isn't going to achieve that clock any time soon either. Not to mention 5Ghz on their 7nm will be even harder given the energy/heat density as well as die space.


----------



## Zach_01 (Nov 16, 2019)

...and to add something more... Overclock eventually is going to die for both AMD and Intel. We saw the first signs** with ZEN and now the ZEN2 diminishes the "value" at almost 0 point. Intel holding this relic too (the only one left) but I see the next all new architecture following AMD.

**CPU wise, because the GPU section already has dismissed it, first by nVidia and AMD done the same.


----------



## Space Lynx (Nov 16, 2019)

Zach_01 said:


> ...and to add something more... Overclock eventually is going to die for both AMD and Intel. We saw the first signs** with ZEN and now the ZEN2 diminishes the "value" at almost 0 point. Intel holding this relic too (the only one left) but I see the next all new architecture following AMD.
> 
> **CPU wise, because the GPU section already has dismissed it, first by nVidia and AMD done the same.



You need to look at differently, sure CPU overclocking is dead, but now ram overclocking is alive. I gained 1000 points using ryzen dram calculator to take my b-die 3200 cas 14 to 3800 cas 16, doing all the sub timings manually, etc.

it made a real measurable difference in performance, higher time spy score even. this is a trend that will continue with Ryzen, maximizing your setups 1:1 infinity fabric.


----------



## biffzinker (Nov 16, 2019)

lynx29 said:


> sure CPU overclocking is dead, but now ram overclocking is alive.


Just you wait, there coming for your RAM overclocking ways.


----------



## Zach_01 (Nov 16, 2019)

Oh you have missed the point entirely. We are talking about CPU speeds and OC and the moving on from old habits as CPU/GPU tech is progressing.
Ram is irrelevant, CPU OC is dying and GPU is already dead.
And I have OC the RAM to 3800 (1:1:1) so I'm looking it alright.


----------



## cowboy44mag (Nov 16, 2019)

Zach_01 said:


> Oh you have missed the point entirely. We are talking about CPU speeds and OC and the moving on from old habits as CPU/GPU tech is progressing.
> Ram is irrelevant, CPU OC is dying and GPU is already dead.
> And I have OC the RAM to 3800 (1:1:1) so I'm looking it alright.



I can see CPU overclocking by pure definition and in the most strict sense being "dead" but there was and still is manual "optimization" and "overclocking" in bios.  With Ryzen+ and now Ryzen2 we can definitely see that pushing the clock speed above the boost clock is near impossible.  I have seen a select few "golden binned" processors that could do it but overall, its impossible.  With that said it is however possible to get all core boost clock with the proper optimizations in bios given a good motherboard, psu, and processor.  I have found that all the 3800X I have worked with can manually overclock with multiplier to 4.4Ghz and some like mine can push 4.5Ghz all core.  The 3700X I have worked with can all hit 4.3Ghz and some can hit 4.4Ghz.  While this is not "overclocking" so to speak as you are never exceeding the boost clock, it is still overclocking as it is exceeding the standard clock by a decent margin.  As long as there is still the capability to enter bios and optimize the system to run all core at the boost clock then overclocking isn't dead, it has just changed from what it once was.

Maybe with the next generation of Ryzen they will have XFR and PBO to the point where its just one click and done, but for now there are still many aspects of overclocking and tweaking for system optimization.


----------



## Zach_01 (Nov 16, 2019)

First of all I never said is dead, but is dying... There is a difference. And from now on (more with ZEN3) OC will become a past remnant (just like GPU OC) that some users refuse to let go... yet.
How much more FPS these processors are gainning from those OCs. Its false usage IMHO and it just kills its advanced tech, management and characteristics.
Hey but this is my opinion and apologize for not making it more clear.


----------



## thesmokingman (Nov 16, 2019)

That's a lot of voltage man. You should try per CCX ratio overclocking. The reason you have to throw so much voltage at it is due to weaker cores/CCX. At 1.32v I have one CCX that will do 4.55ghz and the others from 4.4ghz down to 4.35ghz. I'm not keen on throwing down 1.4v just to get the weaker cores up. The 4.55 CCX gets me high IPC w/o burdening the chip with excess voltage and heat.

In comparison, my chip will do all core of 4.35 at 1.31v...


----------



## cowboy44mag (Nov 16, 2019)

Zach_01 said:


> First of all I never said is dead, but is dying... There is a difference. And from now on (more with ZEN3) OC will become a past remnant (just like GPU OC) that some users refuse to let go... yet.
> How much more FPS these processors are gainning from those OCs. Its false usage IMHO and it just kills its advanced tech, management and characteristics.
> Hey but this is my opinion and apologize for not making it more clear.



I can definitely see your point, and am not disagreeing that CPU overclocking may go the way GPU overclocking has.  I no longer try to manually overclock my GPU the only setting I'll manually "overclock" is the memory frequency, past that I just use MSI Afterburner to auto overclock on a curve.  I have found that MSI's Afterburner can actually get better GPU overclocks then I can trying it manually.  Using Afterburner and manual memory overclock I can get my RTX 2070 to the performance level of a RTX 2070 Super (at stock).  I can definitely foresee a day when CPU overclocking is just like MSI Afterburner and the only manual overclocking will be very slight tweaks.

As far as overclocking and gaming goes...  Well I just called out a guy today for posting videos of his R7 3800X @ 4.625Ghz all core, 1.475V playing Battlefield V and a couple other games.  Yes, you can technically game with your CPU running a very unstable overclock (and with very unsafe voltages) but I don't consider it "valid" as other than gaming your going to crash to desktop, bluescreen, or hard restart if you would try to run something a little more taxing like Cinebench R20.    I don't really know how much of a real boost manually overclocking in gaming will give you, I primarily do it for rendering / editing /  converting videos and 4.4, 4.475Ghz all core overclock 100% stable makes a big difference.



thesmokingman said:


> That's a lot of voltage man. You should try per CCX ratio overclocking. The reason you have to throw so much voltage at it is due to weaker cores/CCX. At 1.32v I have once CCX that will do 4.55ghz and the others from 4.4ghz down to 4.35ghz. I'm not keen on throwing down 1.4v just to get the weaker cores up. The 4.55 CCX gets me high IPC w/o burdening the chip with excess voltage and heat.



I don't run 24/7 at that voltage, and do use CCX overclocking.  My usual max overclock is 4.475Ghz CCX0 and 4.45Ghz CCX1, but usually won't push past 4.475Ghz all core max, and that's only if I'm benchmarking or really need a project done as quickly as is possible (doesn't happen very often).  My normal overclock is much more reasonable, 4.4Ghz all core @ 1.3V (I can run at 1.28V stable but have found I get better benchmark scores @ 1.3V).  I'll have to try one core at 4.4 and one at 4.5, 4.55Ghz and see what I get...

Just rechecked my voltages and made a correction, at 4.4Ghz all core I run 24/7 @ 1.3V, but I can use 1.28V...  I just corrected above.


----------



## thesmokingman (Nov 16, 2019)

Yea um, ya realize yer chip is pretty well binned right?

I went thru each core one at a time. And fyi, the preferred core in Ryzen Master was dead wrong lol. Those turned out to be my weakest cores.


----------



## cowboy44mag (Nov 16, 2019)

thesmokingman said:


> Yea um, ya realize yer chip is pretty well binned right?
> 
> I went thru each core one at a time. And fyi, the preferred core in Ryzen Master was dead wrong lol. Those turned out to be my weakest cores.



You know, I just took AMD at their word and have always pushed the highest clock on the CCX with the gold star.   In fact, my CCX overclocking is very limited and I don't really know why.  If I overclock one core then all the other cores on that CCX drop to 3.5Ghz and can't be changed.  When I overclock a CCX I can't do it with individual cores I have to set the entire CCX.  Therefore the best I can do without increasing voltage is CCX0 4.4Ghz and CCX1 4.450Ghz, so 4 cores 8 threads running 4.4Ghz and 4 cores 8 threads running 4.450Ghz...  Would be nice for an everyday clock to only set my strongest core to 4.5Ghz and the rest to 4.4Ghz...

I have always considered my chip to be on the better side of binning but I don't know if I would consider it to be golden.  That's not a knock to it or anything, but I have seen some guys posted better voltage than I can for the same stable clocks.  Then again, weather or not they are really stable is up for debate...  I always validate my stability with Prime95.


----------



## ShrimpBrime (Nov 16, 2019)

cowboy44mag said:


> You know, I just took AMD at their word and have always pushed the highest clock on the CCX with the gold star.   In fact, my CCX overclocking is very limited and I don't really know why.  If I overclock one core then all the other cores on that CCX drop to 3.5Ghz and can't be changed.  When I overclock a CCX I can't do it with individual cores I have to set the entire CCX.  Therefore the best I can do without increasing voltage is CCX0 4.4Ghz and CCX1 4.450Ghz, so 4 cores 8 threads running 4.4Ghz and 4 cores 8 threads running 4.450Ghz...  Would be nice for an everyday clock to only set my strongest core to 4.5Ghz and the rest to 4.4Ghz...



That's some decent clocks!!
72 (load) 27 (idle) 21 (ambient)
Your air cooler does pretty good imo.

why does cowboy44mag name sound so familiar to me??
yes, I remember now, OCN.


----------



## cowboy44mag (Nov 16, 2019)

ShrimpBrime said:


> That's some decent clocks!!
> 72 (load) 27 (idle) 21 (ambient)
> Your air cooler does pretty good imo.
> Remember to use cpu-z tabs
> ...



I can get better clocks, but have to increase voltage to do so.  I run with an offset so I measure my voltage based upon its highest average level.  I can run 4.4Ghz all core at 4.3V, but to run CCX0 @ 4.4 and CCX1 @ 4.45Ghz I need 1.33V.  I can hit 4.5Ghz all core and submitted a validation of such, but Prime doesn't like 4.5Ghz all core.  The best I can do to pass Prime is 4.475Ghz all core @1.406V.  I can do CCX0 4.475Ghz and CCX1 4.5Ghz (so for me that's 4 cores 8 threads @ 4.475Ghz and 4 cores 8 threads @ 4.5HGhz) but haven't had the time to Prime test that one, however it will run Cinebench R20 and any other benchmark I an throw at it.  To be perfectly honest though the difference between 4.475Ghz all core and running the fastest with 4.475 / 4.5Ghz with CCX is such a small difference I vary rarely even bother.

I have been really happy with my NH-U14S.  I have 2 140mm in push pull and it seems to perform right up there with the NH-D15 and most AIOs.  I find overclocking relaxing so I'm always tweaking something to see if I can get just a little more, so far my limiting factor has been voltage (safe voltage) and not heat.

Yep, OCN is one of my favorite


----------



## R0H1T (Nov 16, 2019)

thesmokingman said:


> I went thru each core one at a time. And fyi, the *preferred core in Ryzen Master was dead wrong* lol. Those turned out to be my weakest cores.


So there's a chance AMD could be sued over this


----------



## thesmokingman (Nov 16, 2019)

R0H1T said:


> So there's a chance AMD could be sued over this



I've written this before, anytime there's something about AMD yall love to go negatory. It's ironic, Intel's got like a dozen exploits yet no one mentions a suit.


----------



## R0H1T (Nov 16, 2019)

If you've seen me in this forum, or some of the others, you'll find I "almost" despise Intel - *almost* being the keyword. As for what I said, it was joke like that lawsuit over Bulldozer.


----------



## thesmokingman (Nov 16, 2019)

I clearly missed the sarcasm there.


----------



## Zach_01 (Nov 16, 2019)

thesmokingman said:


> Yea um, ya realize yer chip is pretty well binned right?
> 
> *I went thru each core one at a time. And fyi, the preferred core in Ryzen Master was dead wrong lol. Those turned out to be my weakest cores.*


This is kind of interesting... Can you give specifics? Speeds, voltages... scaling.

Not that I’m going to OC but it’s interesting to me and always want to understand the behavior of ZEN2 CPUs and why the do what they do.


----------



## thesmokingman (Nov 16, 2019)

Zach_01 said:


> This is kind of interesting... Can you give specifics? Speeds, voltages... scaling.
> 
> Not that I’m going to OC but it’s interesting to me and always want to understand the behavior of ZEN2 CPUs and why the do what they do.



I used my 4.3ghz all core voltage as a starting point. Basically I left everything as is, docp enabled, voltages as they are from the all core overclock. I went into the CCD/CCX ratio option, left the VID at default/auto and then raised CCX 0 ratio from its current 4.3 to 43.25/43.5/43.75 etc etc to till I ended up at 45.5. Each change along the way I primed for 2-3 tests, ie. prime runs a pre-test which is like 4 minutes or more before actually running a test. As you can see this can be a long process. Once I hit a stopping point and noted it, I moved onto the next CCX and the next and so on. I chose to arbritraily cap my voltage at 1.32v-1.33v for daily usage and it also coincided with the least voltage needed to hit 4.55ghz on my best CCX. You obviously may get higher ratios with more voltage but that's an individual choice.

Oh forgot to add, since I started with a 4.3ghjz all core starting point, you can switch all the CCX to 43 to start  with, since it is the same thing and then go from there.


----------



## Space Lynx (Nov 20, 2019)

is it normal for my ram write score to be so low on ryzen 3000?


----------



## Zach_01 (Nov 20, 2019)

Yes... mine is around there too. This was deliberate from AMD to give resources to other performance aspects of the CPU with higher importance.
around... its excactly the same.


----------



## robinjoo1 (Nov 23, 2019)

well i have to wait for gigabyte to release AGESA 1.0.0.4
We will update AGESA 1004 on B350 platform about the end of November 2019.


----------



## cowboy44mag (Dec 9, 2019)

I just tried AGESA 1.0.0.4B and at least on my motherboard it really screwed things up.  Just reverted back to 1.0.0.3ABBA and have been tweaking settings and actually just got a nice performance bump.


----------



## Cherry2Blost (Jan 12, 2020)

I have had my 3800X since September 2019, I too was really worried about some of the insane Voltages being applied at stock, coming from an early early R7 1700 @3800 All Core @1.35v I did see a performance increase. But all of my fans were running loud VERY loud and temps were in the high 70's / early 80's on a 360 AIO. I was seeing anything upto 1.5v in Ryzen Master. Every now and then a core would tap 4400 ish but for the most part  it fluctuated between 4100 and 4300. CB20 (All Core) would settle at around 4150 all core, regardless if I used PBO etc...

Now I am well aware the the community at large believes that my Motherboard is the Garbage of the Garbage ... ahem X470 Ultra Gaming... but this board is now actually having to deal with much less current than it was on my old 1700@3.8 and in fact runs so much cooler than it did with my Gen 1 but with MUCH higher performance.

I played around with dropping max voltages and upping Freqs and settled on the following which has been 100% stable since September and tames those fans to almost silent...





This is, and has been my daily default driver setting ever since. Obviously coming from a Gen 1 (pre order) 1700 it has made a huge difference to my render times and general 'feel' of the system. Excuse the RAM timings as I had already bought (for the old system) the G SKILL 32GB (RYZEN) DDR4 3600 Kit and refuse to bin them for a modest performance uplift.

Amended due to tiredness...

Stock 





@4300 Allcore @1.275v





Hope it helps....


----------



## CountMike (Jan 12, 2020)

Cherry2Blost said:


> I have had my 3800X since September 2019, I too was really worried about some of the insane Voltages being applied at stock, coming from an early early R7 1700 @3800 All Core @1.35v I did see a performance increase. But all of my fans were running loud VERY loud and temps were in the high 70's / early 80's on a 360 AIO. I was seeing anything upto 1.5v in Ryzen Master. Every now and then a core would tap 4400 ish but for the most part  it fluctuated between 4100 and 4300. CB20 (All Core) would settle at around 4150 all core, regardless if I used PBO etc...
> 
> Now I am well aware the the community at large believes that my Motherboard is the Garbage of the Garbage ... ahem X470 Ultra Gaming... but this board is now actually having to deal with much less current than it was on my old 1700@3.8 and in fact runs so much cooler than it did with my Gen 1 but with MUCH higher performance.
> 
> ...


Unless you made some mistakes that MB is really holding you down. With PBO set to all maximums and few tweaks including negative voltage offset, my 3700x on Asus Prime x470 pro + 3600MHz Cl 16 RAM, my CB r20 scores 5087/511. Max voltage Load 1.325v, 1.4v at idle with up to 65c and that's under single 1400mm cooler CM Nepton 140XL.


----------



## Cherry2Blost (Jan 12, 2020)

Thanks for the Heads up, was a late night last night and I posted the wrong images for CB 20 Scores, Here I have 1 more one at 'Stock and 1 at 4300 All Core @ 1.275V.... sorry for stupidity ...

Yeah, I kinda know the MB is holding me back as are the seriously slack RAM timings, but coming from R7 1700 to this is such a massive improvement that an additional outlay of in excess of £250 (mobo) for a 3% performance uplift is just not good enough value for me. I am happy that the performance is as good as it is, seeing as the 'only' cost addition was the £399 for the CPU .
I think I will be awaiting release of Ryzen 4000 / X670, then will buy a new X570 when that price sweet spot hits just after release. Already have PCIe 4 SSD's (as the price at the time was way too good) so will be wanting X570 for that alone.
Probably go with X570 Aorus Ultra when the price drops, as I am so used to Gigabyte BIOS (Crappy as it is) from many years use, that I cannot be bothered to re learn a new BIOS.





Above is the Stock scores, please ignore the images in previous post





Above here is the All Core 4300 @ 1.275v

Thanks for the reply but I was sooo tired at the time


----------



## CountMike (Jan 12, 2020)

Cherry2Blost said:


> Thanks for the heads up, yeah I kinda know the MB is holding me back as are the seriously slack RAM timings, but coming from R7 1700 to this is such a massive improvement that an additional outlay of in excess of £250 (mobo) for a 3% performance uplift is just not good enough value for me. I am happy that the performance is as good as it is, seeing as the 'only' cost addition was the £399 for the CPU . I think I will be awaiting release of Ryzen 4000 / X670, then will buy a new X570 when that price sweet spot hits just after release. Already have PCIe 4 SSD's (as the price at the time was way too good) so will be wanting X570 for that alone. Probably go with X570 Aorus Ultra when the price drops as I am so used to Gigabyte BIOS (Crappy as it is) from many years use, that I cannot be bothered to re learn a new BIOS.


I know that feeling, I went from FX 6350 OCed to 4.9GHz  first to 1600x and that was 4 times faster !!!  !600x to 1700x which was less overwhelming but still nice boost in multitasking. 1700x was replaced by 2700x with 20% boost but I almost regretted getting 3700x as 3800x wasn't available at that time. Changing to 3800x is now out of question as I would loose at least 100 Euro. Only real change would be 3900x but I'm still very satisfied with 3700x. 
So, here I'm waiting for 4000 series  too, just to see what that might bring, info is pretty scarce for now.  I doubt it would bring DDR5 or PCIe v5/6 so hope I can keep this very satisfactory MB.


----------



## Cherry2Blost (Jan 12, 2020)

I have also tried messing with upping the Freq on the Golden Core to 4400, 4375, 4350 and 4325, but it seems my chip is uncomfortable with ANY core over 4300 without putting over 1.37v into the chip... TBH I would rather it last forever than fade away due to abuse.

So for me it seems the best sweet spot I can find is 4300 all core @ 1.275v.... I have a rather aggressive fan profile, the fans are set to 19% all the way From 0 to 60 Degrees (due to fan stop not always restarting the fans) then a super sharp ramp to 75 Degrees @90% then 100% at 85 Degrees. Pump is on 50% until 60 Degrees the straight to 100% at 75 Degrees.
Obviously using Thermal Grizzly Conductanaut for paste 

Currently using 3 x 120mm CM fans on Rad, 1, (same) rear exhaust and 2 (same) top exhaust, toying with the idea of an additional 3 120's on Rad in push/pull, just for the giggles


----------



## CountMike (Jan 12, 2020)

I also toyed with all core OC, 1.375v (which I don't think is too high) as long as temps are decent. Btw. temps are not as important for stationary all core OC as they are for PBO. As I couldn't get desired stability over 4,3GHz even with over 1.4v, I practically gave up on it. this is the result:


----------



## Cherry2Blost (Jan 12, 2020)

CountMike said:


> I also toyed with all core OC, 1.375v (which I don't think is too high) as long as temps are decent. Btw. temps are not as important for stationary all core OC as they are for PBO. As I couldn't get desired stability over 4,3GHz even with over 1.4v, I practically gave up on it. this is the result:



Yeah that's all well and good, but I have been burnt by being a very early adopter of 1700, reviews all promised 3.9 to 4.0 All core, and yes I attained 3.95 but the amount of voltage and heat pumping into that CPU... definitely damaged it in some way... after all the early experimenting it would only ever get to 3.8 at any Voltage and its' stability was always in question. So for me protecting the Silicon takes priority now over eeking a tiny performance boost.

My original plan had been to install 3800X Set PBO etc and leave it well alone. The only reason I have for fiddling at all is because I saw consistent voltages right up to 1.5v and it just didn't 'feel' right.

Problem is, for me, adding that much extra Voltage 0.1v to 0.125v , to 1.375 or 1.4v, for such a little gain is pointless, it would have been nice if my experiments with the 'Golden Core' had worked out so running that at 4400 etc and remaining 7 at 4300.... but alas it wasn't to be the case. So for my uses and the longevity of my CPU 4300 @ 1.275 is where I am at until a 'magic' BIOS appears, that is


----------



## cowboy44mag (Jan 15, 2020)

Cherry2Blost said:


> Yeah that's all well and good, but I have been burnt by being a very early adopter of 1700, reviews all promised 3.9 to 4.0 All core, and yes I attained 3.95 but the amount of voltage and heat pumping into that CPU... definitely damaged it in some way... after all the early experimenting it would only ever get to 3.8 at any Voltage and its' stability was always in question. So for me protecting the Silicon takes priority now over eeking a tiny performance boost.
> 
> My original plan had been to install 3800X Set PBO etc and leave it well alone. The only reason I have for fiddling at all is because I saw consistent voltages right up to 1.5v and it just didn't 'feel' right.
> 
> Problem is, for me, adding that much extra Voltage 0.1v to 0.125v , to 1.375 or 1.4v, for such a little gain is pointless, it would have been nice if my experiments with the 'Golden Core' had worked out so running that at 4400 etc and remaining 7 at 4300.... but alas it wasn't to be the case. So for my uses and the longevity of my CPU 4300 @ 1.275 is where I am at until a 'magic' BIOS appears, that is



I have built a few systems now using the 3800X and thus far every one of them has hit 4.4Ghz all core @ 1.3 - 1.34V.  Now this is manual overclocking as on average the 3800X won't boost past 4.35Ghz on PBO.  I have seen a user that had a 3800X that was able to hit 4.475Ghz all core with PBO, but have never been able to do so with my personal rig or any of the 3800X processors I have worked on personally.  Manually overclocking with CCX I am able to get 4 cores and 8 threads to 4.5Ghz and 4 cores 8 threads to 4.475Ghz @ 1.406V, but I only use this setting if I really need a project done as quickly as possible or I am benchmarking.  My everyday overclock is 4.4Ghz @ 1.3V.

I would highly recommend trying manual overclocking.  With the 3800X the highest Vcore I've ever had to use to get 4.4Ghz stable was 1.34V.  As long as heat is under control I don't think you would have any issue going as high as 1.37V for 24/7 operation.  If you are concerned over constant static voltage with a manual overclock you can always do what I have done and set a voltage offset.  With my offset my CPU will use as little as 0.5V at idle and will use the full 1.3V under load, setting the offset will help guard against any chance of degradation as the voltage isn't constant.


----------



## Zach_01 (Jan 15, 2020)

Cherry2Blost said:


> My original plan had been to install 3800X Set PBO etc and leave it well alone. The only reason I have for fiddling at all is *because I saw consistent voltages right up to 1.5v and it just didn't 'feel' right.*


More or less this is false thinking or feeling...
This is how ZEN2 is working and programmed by AMD. It is said alot of times that high voltage for low clock/load and eventually low power current (EDC/Ampere) does not hurting anything (PPT/Watt stays low). These chips have internal monitoring and regulation for clock/voltage in conjunction with temperature to preserve performance and longevity of silicon. Its called FIT (silicon FITness controller).
If you have it on auto for PB and PBO and increase cooling, clocks will go up for allcore loads and it will sustain the rated single core boost more (effective clock goes up on all scenarios).
Additionally If you keep power current tamed while keeping it cool clock increasing further and its more sustained.


----------



## liuyc_2007 (May 20, 2020)

Wavetrex said:


> *Disclaimer*: These are tests on *my* CPU /mobo and may or may not apply to anyone else. (R7 3700X is shoved into a cheap board - _Asus Prime X370-Pro_)
> Also, it is Cinebench R20 only, I haven't checked for stability in other applications at any of the voltages.
> Tests were done in a closed case (but with 5x 140mm fans, and boxed cooler AMD Wraith Prism RGB), in my attic where it's quite hot !
> 
> ...


Hi OP,

Quesiton for you, did you set a manual fixed vcore then leave CPU ratio and all other settings on AUTO? Has your system been stable at fixed 1.36v voltage? Any CPU degradation after setting so?

I got a 3600x+Gigabyte X570 Aorus Elite borad, I am experiencing annoying motherboard coil whine from the VRM seciton whenever moving my mouse slowly in Windows especially in Chrome. I think that coil whine is caused by CPU/VRM's frequent voltage change. The only fix i found is to set a manual fixed CPU voltage (Vcore) to 1.356v and leave all other settings stock, then the coil whine stops. I just wonder if setting manual vcore without touching CPU ratio is a safe and proper way for long term use.

Any input would be appreciated, thanks!



Bones said:


> That's going by the default voltage set by AMD which is more than it needs to run at default speeds.
> I've been running my 3600X using 1.25v's set manually and it's been doing just fine, the chip I'm posting with right now (2700X) is only using 1.23v's and has no issues - Been running it that way since day one.
> Zen 2 should be more efficient than even than the 2xxx series chips so it's not a stretch to believe the new chips coudn't do the same by comparison. If an issue does appear, all you'd have to do is raise it up, even back to stock if you want.



Hi Bones,

Quesiton for you, did you set a manual fixed vcore then leave CPU ratio and all other settings on AUTO? Has your system been stable at fixed 1.25v voltage? Any CPU degradation after setting so?

I got a 3600x+Gigabyte X570 Aorus Elite borad, I am experiencing annoying motherboard coil whine from the VRM seciton whenever moving my mouse slowly in Windows especially in Chrome. I think that coil whine is caused by CPU/VRM's frequent voltage change. The only fix i found is to set a manual fixed CPU voltage (Vcore) to 1.356v and leave all other settings stock, then the coil whine stops. I just wonder if setting manual vcore without touching CPU ratio is a safe and proper way for long term use.

Any input would be appreciated, thanks!


----------



## Bones (May 22, 2020)

I manually set the voltage and speed it runs at. 
The BIOS in my x470 Tachi Ultimate will let me set it's speed manually and I did so, everything to that end is still working well for me with CPU voltage set below 1.30v's - I can't recall ATM where it is but it's below that voltage value for sure.
Some boards are different in how things are implemented in the BIOS but all do the same thing in the end.

Yes, as long as you have the voltage set within a certain range, based on cooling and temps seen UNDER LOAD (Not idle) it's fine for long term use. As for the mouse noise I've experienced it before, you can try a different mouse if you have one and see it that changes anything.


----------



## liuyc_2007 (May 22, 2020)

Bones said:


> I manually set the voltage and speed it runs at.
> The BIOS in my x470 Tachi Ultimate will let me set it's speed manually and I did so, everything to that end is still working well for me with CPU voltage set below 1.30v's - I can't recall ATM where it is but it's below that voltage value for sure.
> Some boards are different in how things are implemented in the BIOS but all do the same thing in the end.
> 
> Yes, as long as you have the voltage set within a certain range, based on cooling and temps seen UNDER LOAD (Not idle) it's fine for long term use. As for the mouse noise I've experienced it before, you can try a different mouse if you have one and see it that changes anything.


So you set fixed cpu voltage and fixed cpu speed like 4.1GHz at 1.3v correct? 

What I want to do is just setting a fixed cpu voltage and leave cpu speed on auto, not sure if that will be a proper way.


----------



## Bones (May 22, 2020)

Mine was at stock speed.
You'd probrably need 1.35v's to run it at 4.1GHz, just be sure your load temps aren't getting out of hand with your settings whatever they wind up being and you'll do fine. It will take some experimentation to find out what the lowest voltage your system needs to run there with stability.


----------



## nwtech (May 27, 2020)

I have an R5 3600, set the vcore to 1.325 and 4.4GHz on all cores by Ryzen Master. Can this affect the CPU life? Affect the cilice?


----------



## thesmokingman (May 27, 2020)

nwtech said:


> I have an R5 3600, set the vcore to 1.325 and 4.4GHz on all cores by Ryzen Master. Can this affect the CPU life? Affect the cilice?



It depends on your individual silicon. 1.325v is the ballpark for maximum FIT voltage for high current loads, but... each chip is different. You should run a test to see where your chip's threshold is. You can do this by maxing PBO, stock everything else, and load it up with a heavy test app, not cinebench. Then watch your voltage, where it ends up averaging is about your maximum safe voltage. Stay under that maximum.


----------



## nwtech (May 27, 2020)

That way you say?

I left everything in stock, the PBO left it at 200% (maxing) and the maximum after stress was voltage v1.469



_Note: Sorry, I'm not fluent in English.


----------



## nwtech (May 27, 2020)

4.4GHz (All Cores) 1.3vcore. Temp máx: 81°

Acceptable for the cilice? 
Does it affect how to keep it that way in the future?


----------



## learners permit (Jun 6, 2020)

These cpus are beasts at incredibly low voltages. My 3800x  runs 4.5Ghz all cores at 1.1v . I know some of you are thinking BS dude not possible. See  here.


----------



## R0H1T (Jun 6, 2020)

It is possible, basically all Ryzen chips operate past their peak efficiency curve, much like Intel. If you lower their clocks a little bit you can definitely save a lot of power by dialing down the voltage, at low clocks they're way past what Intel can offer even if we count Intel's peak efficiency!


----------



## tabascosauz (Jun 6, 2020)

learners permit said:


> These cpus are beasts at incredibly low voltages. My 3800x  runs 4.5Ghz all cores at 1.1v . I know some of you are thinking BS dude not possible. See  here.



I don't doubt that you have a good chip, but show us Effective Clock and SVI2 Vcore in HWInfo during, not after these benchmarks. Ryzen Master is not an effective long term monitoring program.

103C at just 1.1V has alarm bells ringing, I don't care what your clocks are.

Also, "stable" is stable through heavy gaming, half an hour or more in P95 Smallest/Small, intense settings IBT, and multiple runs of CB in short order. Ryzen Master's built in "stress test" is entirely useless and doesn't even stress the CPU properly, giving the impression of stability at some absurd clocks/voltage settings.

The slow RAM won't have a significant impact on your CB scores, but I can't say they aren't holding you back either.


----------



## R0H1T (Jun 6, 2020)

Part of it could be that he has only 8c/8t with SMT disabled *IIRC*.


----------



## thesmokingman (Jun 6, 2020)

nwtech said:


> That way you say?
> 
> I left everything in stock, the PBO left it at 200% (maxing) and the maximum after stress was voltage v1.469
> 
> ...



First, it is hard to tell what you are doing and what I'm looking at. You will never see a 1.4v+ when all cores are maxed out under load. That amount of voltage is way over the general range of max FIT voltage for high current loads.

Judging from your screen Ryzen Master is saying your max peak voltage is 1.268v. If that voltage was attained while running an all core load, then that is your max safe voltage.


Read this link on how to setup hwinfo for monitoring. Stop using all other forms of monitoring as 99% are not accurate with Matisse.






						Build: 3970x, dual 2080ti, 8TB m.2 RAID = Render Monster
					

At 95c the chip throttles down.  That's kind of the point to the test.




					hardforum.com
				






tabascosauz said:


> I don't doubt that you have a good chip, but show us Effective Clock and SVI2 Vcore in HWInfo during, not after these benchmarks. Ryzen Master is not an effective long term monitoring program.
> 
> 103C at just 1.1V has alarm bells ringing, I don't care what your clocks are.
> 
> ...



I already posted in his thread DEGRADATION. His screens are full of missing info, smh...


----------



## learners permit (Jun 6, 2020)

Would not the resultant = the sum of the factors. Look at the numbers it is apparent that nothing is out of line. The thing that eludes folks is the die shrink effectively gives better efficiency so massive amounts of voltage are in the history books or should be by now. It's all in the current regulation now so a top tier board with kickass VRM's is required to effectively power the cores minus transient disturbances.

Analogy for the masses. Can you build a 1000HP V8 with a nodular iron crankshaft? In short yes if you'd like the output at maximum for 1 whole second.

@ Tabasco thanks for pointing out the metrics that will "finally settle this dispute"? My computer geek friend promises to make himself available this Sunday to help me properly configure the rtss osd for hw info before the last suicide air run for this poor old 3800x before the XT settles in and gets comfortable.


----------

