# Ryzen 3000 degradation with static voltage and static frequency



## mushmx (Dec 26, 2020)

Hi im new, and english is not my native language but ill doing my best without a translator.

im here because ive been reading about"safe voltages"overclock, and that stuff direclty on the bios.
I understand that but my thought is the next

Ive been reading that higher voltages can hurt, lower voltages too, so im not really sure if this configuration really hurts.
My resereach at least on COD WARZONE, is that FPS fluctuate a lot.
With static values fluctuate much less than factory settings, almost "stable", and infact i gain 10fps, much more than stock OC/PBO.
and just not like that, idle temps, on stock was 40-50 fluctuating every second, now with the static config stay on 39, warzone reach to 76 on stock, now are 60 with 3-5 fluctuating.
as you know warzone is a processor game related, but im not because FPS, im here because i care the processor health.
short way: with that static values, i improve the system performance a lot, and temps too, but i really concerned about proccesor health.

So my question is  using 1.25 STATIC voltage and 4.300 STATIC Ghz
Could degrade, or hurt my processor or maybe mobo?

Thanks in advance, ivbeen trying to figue out just reading some artciles and forums,  but i cant, i need to ask.


My specs are the following:
ryzen 3700x
Motherboard: ASRock Steel Legend B450M
AIO CoolerMaster 240mm with inwin sirius loop asl 120 fans
Case CoolerMaster Case H500
RAM HyperX Fury 32GB (4x8)
GPU Asus Dual EVO 2070 Super


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Dec 26, 2020)

Even if it does, you will probably change it before it is damaged beyond use.


----------



## WatEagle (Dec 26, 2020)

As far as I'm aware +1.3v can damage the cpu, but 1.25 should be fine


----------



## mushmx (Dec 26, 2020)

tigger said:


> Even if it does, you will probably change it before it is damaged beyond use.


Yeah, in fact normal use degrade it, but that's not the question. thanks anyway.


WatEagle said:


> As far as I'm aware +1.3v can damage the cpu, but 1.25 should be fine


Ive been read that before, but i read before lower voltages can hurt too in higher loads, like 4.3 and an certain amount of usage, thats what im asking.

I mean ryzen was designed to work with constant voltage peaks, and fluctuant Ghz, i mean set up static can hurt?


----------



## WatEagle (Dec 26, 2020)

mushmx said:


> Ive been read that before, but i read before lower voltages can hurt too in higher loads, like 4.3 and an certain amount of usage, thats what im asking.
> 
> I mean ryzen was designed to work with constant voltage peaks, and fluctuant Ghz, i mean set up static can hurt?


At the time I got my 3600 I tried static voltage to get 4.2Ghz all cores an it was really toasty with 1.3v and also there were chances of cpu degradation. The best thing to do for me is play with pbo, and let it so its things.
These chip are really pushed from fabric so I wouldn't do much with oc
You can try also to adjust ram frequency and latency 
With all that said you have a 3700x which has a higher silicon quality than my 3600 so it could be or not be


----------



## mushmx (Dec 26, 2020)

WatEagle said:


> At the time I got my 3600 I tried static voltage to get 4.2Ghz all cores an it was really toasty with 1.3v and also there were chances of cpu degradation. The best thing to do for me is play with pbo, and let it so its things.
> These chip are really pushed from fabric so I wouldn't do much with oc
> You can try also to adjust ram frequency and latency
> With all that said you have a 3700x which has a higher silicon quality than my 3600 so it could be or not be


Yes  as i say before in the moment of i set static values, system become more stable and cooler, but ive got back to the start point again.
that lower voltage hurt? use static voltage permanently hurts?
thats are my real thoughts.

PD:RAM profiles and XMP are ok,setted preciseleybut its not a subject in this topic, im not really looking for MORE performance, im looking for a cooler, stable and reliable config.
PD2:i had a 3600,and 3600X iand i dont touch anything in the bios related this subject dont get warmer. in fact they get cooler than my 3700x, in the same case and system... even if 3600x had a higher tdp than 3700... probably you have to check the airflow in your case, and performe some fixes or replace the case, check the thermal paste, or upgrade/replace your actual cpu cooler.


----------



## droopyRO (Dec 26, 2020)

For long time use i would not bother with overclocking or PBO on Ryzen. The gains are minimal in most apps and games. I set my PBO to off, activate XMP and keep the Ryzen as cool as possible, it will do it's own thing.


----------



## mushmx (Dec 26, 2020)

droopyRO said:


> I would not bothe with overclocking or PBO on Ryzen, the gains are minimal in most apps and games. I set my PBO to off, activate XMP and keep the Ryzen as cool as possible.


correct me if im wrong, but im not overclocking or i doing?
because as i explain with stock defaults stuff, i get higher and peaking temps (even iddle) , peaking fps ... and after set all on static i get lower and stable temps, and better performance and higher stable fps.
and i think im not going over factory settings, on GHz or Voltages, thats why i ask to you if im overclocking.


----------



## tabascosauz (Dec 26, 2020)

mushmx said:


> correct me if im wrong, but im not overclocking or i doing?
> because as i explain with stock defaults stuff, i get higher and peaking temps (even iddle) , peaking fps ... and after set all on static i get lower and stable temps, and better performance and higher stable fps.
> and i think im not going over factory settings, on GHz or Voltages, thats why i ask to you if im overclocking.



Static OC is OC...

Stock all core is between 4.0-4.1GHz with PBO off. If you want pedantics, setting fixed frequency at anything over 3.6GHz base clock, outside of default Precision Boost functionality, is overclocking.

Personally, I don't think you have much to worry about. Stock PB calls for 1.3-1.35V all core depending on the nature of the workload and its instructions; if it's thoroughly stable, 4.3GHz 1.25V is not a bad result, as long as you keep it cool.

Getting into the 1.3V range is where things start to get complicated, and over 1.35V is flat out not recommended.


----------



## mushmx (Dec 26, 2020)

tabascosauz said:


> Static OC is OC...
> 
> Stock all core is between 4.0-4.1GHz with PBO off.
> 
> Personally, I don't think you have much to worry about. Stock PB calls for 1.3-1.35V all core depending on the nature of the workload and its instructions; if it's thoroughly stable, 4.3GHz 1.25V is not a bad result.


Oh didnt noticed.
Yes i think i achieve great results, in low values, in that way im not worried about, but.

I repeat my questions.
lower voltages at high loads, can hurt? and keep static can hurt?
as i explain many times in the post, that chips are designed in peaking voltages and frequencys situations, i dont really know if making a plain and statiuc situation can hurt the proccesor i mean, overpass the factory operation levels is not the only way to hurt it dont u think?

we have a lot of people talking about this,youtubers, overclockers, normal people. im concerned about this,.


----------



## tabascosauz (Dec 26, 2020)

mushmx said:


> Oh didnt noticed.
> Yes i think i achieve great results, in low values, in that way im not worried about, but.
> 
> I repeat my questions.
> ...



Already been said multiple times, below 1.3V is relatively safe. That's the closest to a firm statement you're going to get.

If you're looking for a guarantee, there isn't one, and never will be.

I think you're missing something here. Load (current), and temperatures have an equally big part to play in degradation.

If you hammer the CPU for hours on end in an all-core workload, lifespan shortens quicker regardless of how you run the CPU.  Keep the CPU completely stock, and if you crunch on it 24h a day it'll still "hurt" compared to a CPU that spends 5 years idling on desktop.

There's no reason why "lower voltage at high loads" would be a bad thing compared to higher voltage at high loads.  

Wouldn't be concerned about running 1.25V if it's stable and kept cool. If you're still worrying for some unfathomable reason, go back to stock and stay there, and stop fretting about the idle temperatures because that's how Ryzen behaves.


----------



## droopyRO (Dec 26, 2020)

mushmx said:


> correct me if im wrong, but im not overclocking or i doing?
> because as i explain with stock defaults stuff, i get higher and peaking temps (even iddle) , peaking fps ... and after set all on static i get lower and stable temps, and better performance and higher stable fps.
> and i think im not going over factory settings, on GHz or Voltages, thats why i ask to you if im overclocking.


Do you see any gains with static overclock ? I got my 8600K from 4.1 all core(stock value with Turbo) to 5.1Ghz. Now that is an overclock. There is no way of doing that with a Ryzen. Load default values in BIOS, turn PBO off and XMP on(if you have it on your RAM) test it and see how much lower your temps, power consumption and performance is.
This is a small test i made, in the game i play the most this days:


----------



## mushmx (Dec 26, 2020)

tabascosauz said:


> Already been said multiple times, below 1.3V is relatively safe. That's the closest to a firm statement you're going to get.
> 
> If you're looking for a guarantee, there isn't one, and never will be.
> 
> ...


Ok i will try it in fact, words of an steve (GN) 1.25 its enough and theres no reason to go far.
But its seems i always have the doubt if keep stuff static degrades faster than variable does.



droopyRO said:


> Do you see any gains with static overclock ? I got my 8600K from 4.1 all core(stock value with Turbo) to 5.1Ghz. Now that is an overclock. There is no way of doing that with a Ryzen. Load default values in BIOS, turn PBO off and XMP on(if you have it on your RAM) test it and see how much lower your temps, power consumption and performance is.
> This is a small test i made, in the game i play the most this days:


i already xmp enabled on my 3000Mhz RAM at 1.35v
And i didnt noticed that im overclocking i think i was lost on that term because i think that overclock is going OVER factory settings, even if i dont, touch the proccesor parts its over clock then 

now im relaxed about this subject, unless somone else have another thing to say


----------



## Zach_01 (Dec 26, 2020)

Lower voltages can "hurt" only stability. No hardware damage. If you can, try even lower than 1.25V and see where it gets unstable (crash, reboot) under load.
I'm one of those against static settings for ZEN2 CPU speeds and voltages but 1.25V is not bad at all. As long as you keep it cool and doesn't overlimit the currents(A) under heavy loads.

Use this:



Your 3700X limits are...

PPT: 88W
EDC: 90A
TDC: 60A

Its ok to exceed PPT while temp is low (<80C or better <70C) and current (EDC) is under limit.


----------



## mushmx (Dec 26, 2020)

Zach_01 said:


> Lower voltages can "hurt" only stability. No hardware damage. If you can, try even lower than 1.25V and see where it gets unstable (crash, reboot) under load.
> I'm one of those against static settings for ZEN2 CPU speeds and voltages but 1.25V is not bad at all. As long as you keep it cool and doesn't overlimit the currents(A) under heavy loads.
> 
> Use this:
> ...


very useful information.
that values are in addition to my actual config, or instead of?

Btw, why ure against static stuff?
im curious.


----------



## Zach_01 (Dec 26, 2020)

Because not everyone knows about what I and @tabascosauz wrote.
A lot of users see auto CPU voltage going up to 1.45~1.5V and think that 1.3~1.4V for static is safe. But the truth is they know nothing about it. The CPU is monitoring itself by temp, voltage and current(A) in relation. When load and current is up voltage is going down... and it does that a few hundread times/sec to keep silicon away from stress.


----------



## mushmx (Dec 26, 2020)

Zach_01 said:


> Because not everyone knows about what I and @tabascosauz wrote.
> A lot of users see auto CPU voltage going up to 1.45~1.5V and think that 1.3~1.4V for static is safe. But the truth is they know nothing about it. The CPU is monitoring itself by temp, voltage and current(A) in relation. When load and current is up voltage is going down... and it does that a few hundread times/sec to keep silicon away from stess.


Yes is exactly what im talking about, and thats exactly the point that im playing with.

As you say, chip is designed to fluctuate voltages and frequencys, (i dont know exaclty why, but thats the design)

i dont really know if set all at static can degrade the chip or hurt it. thats what im talking about. and thats exactly what i want to discuss, iwasnt looking for coments like "ure under safe parameters, ure ok" im looking for coments just like yours


----------



## mtcn77 (Dec 26, 2020)

mushmx said:


> Ok i will try it in fact, words of an steve (GN) 1.25 its enough and theres no reason to go far.
> But its seems i always have the doubt if keep stuff static degrades faster than variable does.


Both correct statements. It seems if you want a proper ryzen, you have to buy one of those 5000s. At least it comes with not just overclocking, but *undervolting* which improves the score by about 7%. Pretty good for no extra work if you ask me....
Be safe, don't bet on dumb luck. You can do better than running your chip at 4.3GHz flat - _go buy a ryzen 5000._


----------



## mushmx (Dec 27, 2020)

mtcn77 said:


> Both correct statements. It seems if you want a proper ryzen, you have to buy one of those 5000s. At least it comes with not just overclocking, but *undervolting* which improves the score by about 7%. Pretty good for no extra work if you ask me....
> Be safe, don't bet on dumb luck. You can do better than running your chip at 4.3GHz flat - _go buy a ryzen 5000._


do you mean run 4.3GHz static is not safe? excuse me if dont understand.


----------



## Athlonite (Dec 27, 2020)

So my question is using 1.25 STATIC voltage and 4.300 STATIC Ghz
Could degrade, or hurt my processor or maybe mobo?

Nope those are the exact same Voltage and Clock I run and everything is running fine. Running 1.3V and up can degrade a Ryzen CPU but it's such a slow process that you'll not likely notice it happening


----------



## Zach_01 (Dec 27, 2020)

Athlonite said:


> So my question is using 1.25 STATIC voltage and 4.300 STATIC Ghz
> Could degrade, or hurt my processor or maybe mobo?
> 
> Nope those are the exact same Voltage and Clock I run and everything is running fine. Running 1.3V and up can degrade a Ryzen CPU but it's such a slow process that you'll not likely notice it happening


Personally I answered that question on post #14. To add more to it, I say its nothing for sure, although its on the safe-er side going under 1.3V and as I said, and @tabascosauz said, voltage and speed are not the only factors on the equation. Temp and current(A) is also.

If you're using your system as a typical every day user on some browsing watching movies and play games, then you are making it even more safe.
If you're running CPU benchmarks and stress tests every day, even for a couple of hours or you're using professional apps that use 100% of CPU then you're not...


----------



## mushmx (Dec 27, 2020)

Athlonite said:


> So my question is using 1.25 STATIC voltage and 4.300 STATIC Ghz
> Could degrade, or hurt my processor or maybe mobo?
> 
> Nope those are the exact same Voltage and Clock I run and everything is running fine. Running 1.3V and up can degrade a Ryzen CPU but it's such a slow process that you'll not likely notice it happening


Im pleasure to listen that so im more relaxed about this stuff.


Zach_01 said:


> Personally I answered that question on post #14. To add more to it, I say its nothing for sure, although its on the safe-er side going under 1.3V and as I said, and @tabascosauz said, voltage and speed are not the only factors on the equation. Temp and current(A) is also.
> 
> If you're using your system as a typical every day user on some browsing watching movies and play games, then you are making it even more safe.
> If you're running CPU benchmarks and stress tests every day, even for a couple of hours or you're using professional apps that use 100% of CPU then you're not...


This answer its clear for me.
I use it for playing and streaming only, ill never run synthetic tests, i rather test on the real ground. anyway.
this post result really educational and really usefull at least for me


----------



## Zach_01 (Dec 27, 2020)

So, is static speeds and voltages safe?
Like a lot of things, a simple yes or no does not suffice.
Depends on several factors...


----------



## biffzinker (Dec 27, 2020)

mushmx said:


> (i dont know exaclty why, but thats the design)


It does that to maximize the performance for a single core, and so the CPU can drop back to a low idle power state.


----------



## mtcn77 (Dec 27, 2020)

biffzinker said:


> It does that to maximize the performance for a single core, and so the CPU can drop back to a low idle power state.


It is more than that, they specifically designed these chips to throttle. Sense M.I is a big piece of the puzzle. When manually set, the SV2(did I recall the name correctly?) circuit is turned off. You cannot have the best of both worlds in that regard, either your chip floats like a butterfly or it falls flat like a brick.
It fails me how people want their justified purchase not to work as intended.
The EDC parameter is specifically designed for such single/full duty workload balancing. It is a soft pttl setting all in one, since throttling also determines the max temperature threshold.
When 'decreased', single threads do continue to boost, but multiple threads run at a lower bin. This has the largest impact on the chip since available bins are tied to the voltage bin(prime determinant of power curve).


----------



## mushmx (Dec 27, 2020)

mtcn77 said:


> It is more than that, they specifically designed these chips to throttle. Sense M.I is a big piece of the puzzle. When manually set, the SV2(did I recall the name correctly?) circuit is turned off. You cannot have the best of both worlds in that regard, either your chip floats like a butterfly or it falls flat like a brick.
> It fails me how people want their justified purchase not to work as intended.
> The EDC parameter is specifically designed for such single/full duty workload balancing. It is a soft pttl setting all in one, since throttling also determines the max temperature threshold.
> When 'decreased', single threads do continue to boost, but multiple threads run at a lower bin. This has the largest impact on the chip since available bins are tied to the voltage bin(prime determinant of power curve).


talkning about this, keep all static, malfunction or degrade the chips?
even if system looks more stable and cooler?
i mean at stock temps and voltages going crazy (normal on ryzen) but at static everything goes fine, stable, and cool so i cant understand when somone say its not really ok


----------



## oobymach (Dec 27, 2020)

mushmx said:


> correct me if im wrong, but im not overclocking or i doing?
> because as i explain with stock defaults stuff, i get higher and peaking temps (even iddle) , peaking fps ... and after set all on static i get lower and stable temps, and better performance and higher stable fps.
> and i think im not going over factory settings, on GHz or Voltages, thats why i ask to you if im overclocking.


I set mine static to 1.25v and 4.2ghz but I have a decent cooler, I don't believe you will hurt your chip as long as you stay below 1.35v, in my system also I get lower temps and better gaming performance with a static clock. If your chip runs without issues at 4.3ghz on 1.25v I say run it like that.

The only thing you gain from auto is higher single thread performance, while the static multi-thread boost is usually better than auto. On auto it drops under load (while maintaining a higher voltage) whereas on static you're reducing the voltage and increasing the frequency to gain performance and reduce heat. It's a no brainer imo but many people will argue that you should use auto, even though auto runs the chip hotter and slower.


----------



## mushmx (Dec 27, 2020)

oobymach said:


> I set mine static to 1.25v and 4.2ghz but I have a decent cooler, I don't believe you will hurt your chip as long as you stay below 1.35v, in my system also I get lower temps and better gaming performance with a static clock. If your chip runs without issues at 4.3ghz on 1.25v I say run it like that.
> 
> The only thing you gain from auto is a higher single thread performance, while the static multi-thread boost is usually better than auto. On auto it drops under load (while maintaining a higher voltage) whereas on static you're reducing the voltage and increasing the frequency to gain performance and reduce heat. It's a no brainer imo but many people will argue that you should use auto, even though auto runs the chip hotter and slower.


Yes but its no brainer but, it came from factory in that way for a reason, should be a tech reason.

Anyway as you say i think static run cooler and better so... i just wanna resereach about bad effects of doing it meaning degrade or early malfunction.


----------



## mtcn77 (Dec 27, 2020)

oobymach said:


> It's a no brainer imo but many people will argue that you should use auto, even though auto runs the chip hotter and slower.


Thanks, although I happen to know it is because cc6 that keeps the cores cool when idling.
It really should be a no brainer that a manual oc chip with 'cc6' turned on will be cooler than one that is on auto, but cc6 tampered to be off. We shouldn't be discussing pointlessly, either you run your chip cool, or it burns due to electromigration end of story.
And I don't need to endorse stupid amd practices just to point out, it can work out nicely. You just have to do the procedure which some do not like, I do not argue against that.
All I argue is, pbo is for throttling and people use it like it is an overclocking utility - it came up solely to keep threadripper motherboards from ripping a whole in its earnings reports.


----------



## oobymach (Dec 27, 2020)

mushmx said:


> Yes but its no brainer but, it came from factory in that way for a reason, should be a tech reason.
> 
> Anyway as you say i think static run cooler and better so... i just wanna resereach about bad effects of doing it meaning degrade or early malfunction.


I've run stress tests at 1.4v and higher before I learned about degradation, not long tests most were just a few seconds before a p95 worker failed so I stop and go back to bios and change things and re-test. AMD themselves say if you set a static voltage higher than 1.35v it will cause degradation. Also you might notice performance loss anything over 1.3v static (if you test with aida64 there is a performance decrease in ram read speed, at least in my tests if I go beyond 1.3v).


----------



## mushmx (Dec 27, 2020)

oobymach said:


> I've run stress tests at 1.4v and higher before I learned about degradation, not long tests most were just a few seconds before a p95 worker failed so I stop and go back to bios and change things and re-test. AMD themselves say if you set a static voltage higher than 1.35v it will cause degradation. Also you might notice performance loss anything over 1.3v static (if you test with aida64 there is a performance decrease in ram read speed, at least in my tests if I go beyond 1.3v).


Wow really interesing! can you provide the amd post or source (no sarcasm or something like that) i wanna read and check that i really enjoy reading about this and this topic!
so 1.29 could be usfeful, like a balance?
as GNexus say go far from1.25  its not tangible and dont really worth it. I like steve content since hes very methodic and idk even if dont speak my language is very clear.
so thats why i wanna read amd information about voltages


----------



## mtcn77 (Dec 27, 2020)

mushmx said:


> i wanna read amd information about voltages











						ClockTuner for Ryzen Simplifies "Zen 2" Overclocking, Squeezes Out Double-digit Percent Performance
					

I tried it with my early 3600 bin. Rated bronze by the software. It's running in an ITX-case with a single 120mm AIO so I wanted to optimize for thermals. Worked pretty well:  Voltage down from 1.367 to 1.225V CCX1/CCX2 down from 4100/4100Mhz to 4000/4000Mhz CB20 multi score down from 3680 to...




					www.techpowerup.com
				



This is from a website that is now offline(ferra.ru). Be careful about the tables, one is charting power scaling, the other the temperature.
I really question you would require any more voltage, though I admit: faster cores go to sleep(4.3Ghz) state faster than an idling(1.4GHz) core. AMD has gone all tape measure with frequency scaling on that end.
Still, the fact that you gain headroom by running a lower voltage should be evident to anybody: in fact, according to AMD, CC6 saves up ~92% of idling power consumption, so think of all the benefits you will get when you max out the cores, but run them cool in the mean time. Your cpu will be early to bed, early to rise.


----------



## mushmx (Dec 27, 2020)

mtcn77 said:


> ClockTuner for Ryzen Simplifies "Zen 2" Overclocking, Squeezes Out Double-digit Percent Performance
> 
> 
> I tried it with my early 3600 bin. Rated bronze by the software. It's running in an ITX-case with a single 120mm AIO so I wanted to optimize for thermals. Worked pretty well:  Voltage down from 1.367 to 1.225V CCX1/CCX2 down from 4100/4100Mhz to 4000/4000Mhz CB20 multi score down from 3680 to...
> ...


Sorry, unfortunately i run out my english knowings. I cant fully understand your message.

So u saying im doing good? or im wrong? setting all static with c6 enabled?


----------



## mtcn77 (Dec 27, 2020)

mushmx said:


> Sorry, unfortunately i run out my english knowings. I cant fully understand your message.
> 
> So u saying im doing good? or im wrong? setting all static with c6 enabled?


Follow the link and you will witness the power cost, basically the power is not the deciding factor here. Your frequency can be met even at the opposite ends of the efficiency scale. You can decide for yourself.


----------



## mushmx (Dec 27, 2020)

mtcn77 said:


> Follow the link and you will witness the power cost, basically the power is not the deciding factor here. Your frequency can be met even at the opposite ends of the efficiency scale. You can decide for yourself.


Ive looked at that and sorry man i didnt understand at all.
according table 1.25 and 4300 will kill my cpu early?  because temps arent close to that table, i cant talk about watts neither

im not very experienced on this stuff


----------



## mtcn77 (Dec 27, 2020)

mushmx said:


> according table 1.25 and 4300 will kill my cpu early?


That is a 1800X. Essentially, performance depends on the 4300 and not the 1.25, so max out one while minimising the other.
I told you CC6 works faster at a higher base frequency, although that is just part of it. You will electromigrate the cores if you try to run it manually on full threaded workloads. One even did it at 1.305v. I don't think testing the waters is a good idea, what you have at the beginning is all you will end up with, let's try to make it easier to keep it along the way.
People are accustomed to wrong pbo at onset, so they don't think much about it when in fact you can do better: AMD proved that with 5000. You undervolt to gain more score. It is basic stuff, you save on power to spare more boost power.


----------

