# Buildzoid's 3700x Static Overclock Degrades Processor



## Mr McC (Feb 26, 2020)

Just noticed this, it may be of interest. It appears Buildzoid's static overclock on his 3700x has degraded the processor:









						Actually Hardcore Overclocking
					

Ok so it looks like I've managed to degrade my 3700X as it crashes on MSI mobos even at stock and PBO doesn't work on it at all now. EDIT I think since I alr...




					www.youtube.com


----------



## eidairaman1 (Feb 26, 2020)

Mr McC said:


> Just noticed this, it may be of interest. It appears Buildzoid's static overclock on his 3700x has degraded the processor:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I dont see anything?


----------



## A.Stables (Feb 26, 2020)

Doesn't say if its just MSI, and with the recent VRM issue (HWU) I wonder i this is related  degrading # drawmorepower = loads the VRM more etc failing VRM? Does sound like OCP on VRM


----------



## eidairaman1 (Feb 26, 2020)

A.Stables said:


> Doesn't say if its just MSI, and with the recent VRM issue (HWU) I wonder i this is related  degrading # drawmorepower = loads the VRM more etc failing VRM? Does sound like OCP on VRM



He hasnt tried another motherboard.


----------



## Mr McC (Feb 26, 2020)

The posted link should lead to comments, not a video:


----------



## moproblems99 (Feb 26, 2020)

I'm not exactly surprised. Ryzens (2) are pushed to the top from the factory.  Pushing them over leads to degradation.  Who'd have thought?


----------



## mtcn77 (Feb 26, 2020)

MSI enlists the high volt, so you are running 75mV extra!

This lootcrate was even pushing


> upper 1.3V range


beforehands.

You cannot set above 1.25v via MSI and if you are in for advice, 1.225v at most.

He was rolling at 1.45v when he hit the pavement.


----------



## sneekypeet (Feb 27, 2020)

I feel like there is more to this story than what is in the link. Until all facts present themselves, I have a hard time blindly accepting this. The OP I mean, not the comments.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Feb 27, 2020)

sneekypeet said:


> I feel like there is more to this story than what is in the link. Until all facts present themselves, I have a hard time blindly accepting this. The OP I mean, not the comments.



I agree myself, what could appear as chip degradation could truly be vrm degradation.


----------



## Mr McC (Feb 27, 2020)

sneekypeet said:


> I feel like there is more to this story than what is in the link. Until all facts present themselves, I have a hard time blindly accepting this. The OP I mean, not the comments.


Couldn't agree more, I simply stumbled across it and thought it might be of interest as a heads-up, I expect further information and a fuller explanation to be forthcoming, I am not suggesting that anything should be read into this, as it stands, but if Buildzoid thought it was worthy of mention, I thought it would do no harm to share it here.


----------



## Zach_01 (Feb 27, 2020)

eidairaman1 said:


> I agree myself, what could appear as chip degradation could truly be vrm degradation.


If I'm not mistaken BZ is using high-end motherboards for OC and VRM wise can handle 2x3700X on OC. I can believe the degradation of ZEN2. I mentioned it in every chance I get, in every thread relative to ZEN2 OC and informing users to forget about free extra performance on 7nm and all forthcoming nodes.
Study thoroughly the auto boost/voltage behavior of these chips, and what it does with PPT/TDC/EDC limits and all add-up. PBO limits are not only product segmentation. Its silicon preservation too handled by silicon FITness controller. Static OC it you tied its hands and send it home...

BZ has several videos talking about temps, current, voltages and degradation and all ZEN2 users (at least) must watch.


----------



## A.Stables (Feb 27, 2020)

Zach_01 said:


> If I'm not mistaken BZ is using high-end motherboards for OC and VRM wise can handle 2x3700X on OC. I can believe the degradation of ZEN2. I mentioned it in every chance I get, in every thread relative to ZEN2 OC and informing users to forget about free extra performance on 7nm and all forthcoming nodes.
> Study thoroughly the auto boost/voltage behavior of these chips, and what it does with PPT/TDC/EDC limits and all add-up. PBO limits are not only product segmentation. Its silicon preservation too handled by silicon FITness controller. Static OC it you tied its hands and send it home...
> 
> BZ has several videos talking about temps, current, voltages and degradation and all ZEN2 users (at least) must watch.



Don't have much personal Experience with Zen2 apart from a a day testing , comparing it with my 1700. But in all the Years I've been running AMD I've never really suffered from the phenomena, expect perhaps Mildly with an Oppy 165 on Socket 939. I should read the thread in youtube to see if he comments on what boards have been used to "degrade" and if this CPU does this work on another manufacturers board.


----------



## Chomiq (Feb 27, 2020)

If something degraded it wasn't because buildzoid was being careful with it. So unless you're willing to go as far as him you should be OK.


----------



## IceShroom (Feb 27, 2020)

I think preple are forgetting Buildzoid is an extreme overclocker. Who know how much volt he pushed through his 3700X??


----------



## GlacierNine (Feb 27, 2020)

IceShroom said:


> I think preple are forgetting Buildzoid is an extreme overclocker. Who know how much volt he pushed through his 3700X??


He  knows that, and he posted it in a screenshot up above. Upper 1.3V range. 

Please read threads before replying to them...


----------



## R00kie (Feb 27, 2020)

@buildzoid is around on these forums, why don't we ask him?


----------



## IceShroom (Feb 27, 2020)

gdallsk said:


> @buildzoid is around on these forums, why don't we ask him?


Upper 1.3V means from 1.36 - 1.39V higher than 1.325 that MB makers recomands.


----------



## GlacierNine (Feb 27, 2020)

IceShroom said:


> Upper 1.3V means from 1.36 - 1.39V higher than 1.325 that MB makers recomands.


Yes, and the 1.328V that my 6700K has run on for the last 3 years is also higher than the 1.2V it is intended to use.

And the 1.36V that my i7 920 ran on for 5 years is also higher than the 1.26 it was supposed to use.

Neither of those chips degraded over time because the manufacturing processes they were built with were quite capable of dealing with the extra voltage as long as cooling was available.

We've been able to run chips well out of spec with no ill effect, for decades. If 7nm can't do that, that's *new* and doesn't deserve you being so damn condescending about it. Especially considering you're trying to educate someone who can easily break down the VRM and Phase layout of a motherboard to the level of individual ICs and calculate the current capability on the fly while he does so. 

Buildzoid is no idiot, don't act like he is.


----------



## mtcn77 (Feb 27, 2020)

GlacierNine said:


> Buildzoid is no idiot, don't act like he is.


_–"On the MSI board its the voltage under high load (idle rises above set value)."
–"On the MSI board when I set 1.425v expecting it to be the same as the Gigabyte I got 1.52v low load voltage."_
I told you overclockers.co.uk was the best.


----------



## Deleted member 178884 (Feb 27, 2020)

Bullzoid ran 1.375V


----------



## Mr McC (Feb 27, 2020)

Please understand that by posting this, I was not attempting to promote controversy in any form. I assumed that Buildzoid's insight into the degradation would prove of interest, I am neither suggesting that there is cause for concern or that Buildzoid was unaware of what he was doing: he is an overclocker who was pushing the processor beyond its limits.



A.Stables said:


> Doesn't say if its just MSI, and with the recent VRM issue (HWU) I wonder i this is related  degrading # drawmorepower = loads the VRM more etc failing VRM? Does sound like OCP on VRM



I believe the Hardware Unboxed article referred to a specific motherboard, or motherboards below a certain price point, it would be wrong to imply that all MSI boards have VRM issues.



moproblems99 said:


> I'm not exactly surprised. Ryzens (2) are pushed to the top from the factory.  Pushing them over leads to degradation.  Who'd have thought?



Agreed, but if his intention was to determine the precise limits, surely we have something to learn?



mtcn77 said:


> MSI enlists the high volt, so you are running 75mV extra!
> 
> This lootcrate was even pushing
> beforehands.
> ...



Your post is simultaneously informative and offensive. I was unaware that MSI boards overcompensated for voltage, so I thank you for that, but is there any need to refer to Buildzoid as a "lootcrate", particularly when his intention never was to remain within the safe operating limits of the chip?



eidairaman1 said:


> I agree myself, what could appear as chip degradation could truly be vrm degradation.



That is of interest, I hope it becomes clear.



Chomiq said:


> If something degraded it wasn't because buildzoid was being careful with it. So unless you're willing to go as far as him you should be OK.



Precisely, it was not my intention to suggest that there is cause for alarm.



gdallsk said:


> @buildzoid is around on these forums, why don't we ask him?



I was unaware that Buildzoid was a member, I hope he sees fit to provide some clarification.



GlacierNine said:


> Yes, and the 1.328V that my 6700K has run on for the last 3 years is also higher than the 1.2V it is intended to use.
> 
> And the 1.36V that my i7 920 ran on for 5 years is also higher than the 1.26 it was supposed to use.
> 
> ...



You give me hope that my original post is of interest by raising the same questions I have myself. I would say to everyone that my intention was not to suggest that Buildzoid was an idiot or to expose him to any form of attack.


----------



## mtcn77 (Feb 27, 2020)

He is a kid and gullible. It is just not something sported by old incendiary folk such as me. I served my time of gleeful ignorance. I cannot say I condone his negligence, it's supposed to be instrumental. He is not received as an amateur. This isn't a tidepod challenge.


----------



## kapone32 (Feb 27, 2020)

This brings me to something I have noticed in my own experiences. I had the 1700 and 1.3 volts was great for 3.9 GHZ, the 2600 at 1.27 volts would do 4.2 GHZ all day long the 1900X would do 4.1 GHZ @ 1.3, the 1920X would do 4.1 GHZ @ 1.25 volts and now the 2920X runs at 4.2 GHZ @ 1.215 volts. Running a 3700X @ 1.375 volts may be actually dangerous as the 65W TDP vs the 105W for the 3800X should be observed.


----------



## mtcn77 (Feb 27, 2020)

He reminds me of that one time some dude tried to drill through a gpu board only to discover buried resistors underneath. It was quite an expensive gpu as well. Oh the times...


----------



## R0H1T (Feb 27, 2020)

eidairaman1 said:


> I agree myself, what could appear as chip degradation could truly be vrm degradation.


Or both, though I'm leaning towards the actual Si taking the major hit! At constant high voltages (like 1.45V?) the chips going to degrade faster, that's a given, the rate though *IMO* would depend on the load the chip's sustaining during that time as well as the (total) time it's been running. Basically it's *YMWV *& this is why I generally like to undervolt chips, especially locked ones.


----------



## kapone32 (Feb 27, 2020)

mtcn77 said:


> He reminds me of that one time some dud tried to drill through a gpu board only to discover buried resistors underneath. Oh the times...



To be honest bullzoid is very good when it comes to detailing components for the VRM and subjects like this one. I don't think he made this video as what the 3700X could do but not what to do with a 3700X.


----------



## Mr McC (Feb 27, 2020)

kapone32 said:


> This brings me to something I have noticed in my own experiences. I had the 1700 and 1.3 volts was great for 3.9 GHZ, the 2600 at 1.27 volts would do 4.2 GHZ all day long the 1900X would do 4.1 GHZ @ 1.3, the 1920X would do 4.1 GHZ @ 1.25 volts and now the 2920X runs at 4.2 GHZ @ 1.215 volts. Running a 3700X @ 1.375 volts may be actually dangerous as the 65W TDP vs the 105W for the 3800X should be observed.



Forgive my ignorance, but I was under the impression that the TDP was merely "defined" by the type of stock cooler AMD ships with each processor.


----------



## mtcn77 (Feb 27, 2020)

kapone32 said:


> To be honest bullzoid is very good when it comes to detailing components for the VRM and subjects like this one. I don't think he made this video as what the 3700X could do but not what to do with a 3700X.


I know. It is a rhetorical dissertation on his part. Still, the youth never cease to grant us with free entertainment.



Mr McC said:


> Forgive my ignorance, but I was under the impression that the TDP was merely "defined" by the type of stock cooler AMD ships with each processor.


It takes a standard thermal resistance in series formula and sorts out from the temperature gradient its cooling capability.


----------



## R0H1T (Feb 27, 2020)

Well TDP doesn't have a standard industry definition, & if you ask Intel they'll give a different answer from AMD. Talk with forum dwellers like us, & that's generally not gonna be pretty. Not defending Intel (or AMD) here but in today's world TDP definition is kinda malleable, especially depending on boost clocks as well as OCed speeds. You generally get more cooling headroom than what the manufacturer states as their "TDP" & you're good to go, just like with PSU & (total) system power draw.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Feb 27, 2020)

Mr McC said:


> Please understand that by posting this, I was not attempting to promote controversy in any form.


Such is unavoidable in posts like this. Not because of the subject but because of certain users.


Mr McC said:


> I assumed that Buildzoid's insight into the degradation would prove of interest


I agree, it is interesting and gives insight to the limits of the Ryzen 3000 range of CPU's.


Mr McC said:


> Agreed, but if his intention was to determine the precise limits, surely we have something to learn?


Ah, but therein we find the crux of this: It is impossible to precisely determine the upper limits of a CPU line. This is because of variations in the manufacturing of materials, the manufacturing of the dies with those materials, and the imperfections found within each. This is where the phrase "Silicon Lottery" came from.


----------



## GlacierNine (Feb 27, 2020)

Mr McC said:


> Forgive my ignorance, but I was under the impression that the TDP was merely "defined" by the type of stock cooler AMD ships with each processor.


TDP is meaningless because the way the number is derived is in no way standard. You can safely ignore what mtcn77 is saying - he simply doesn't have a clue what he's talking about and even if he did, he's utterly incapable of putting together a sequence of words that makes enough sense to explain it. 

Intel and AMD both define TDP completely differently, to start with, so even if there were no variable clockspeeds or boost clocks, the TDP numbers couldn't be compared. Anyone claiming there is an "industry standard" for TDP is delusional - AMD and Intel are the industry, and they don't use the same formulas to calculate TDP. How standard can anything be if the two largest players in the market don't use it?

Also again, that would presume that "TDP" was based on one fixed clockspeed and voltage. This isn't how AMD or Intel quote TDP - for both companies, they quote TDP is based on a base or average clockspeed. In Intel's case they claim that max all core boost is a 25% increase on the base TDP, but they also specify it's only supposed to be maintained for a short period of time, and that it can be done because of, essentially, "spare heat capacity" in a heatsink, not indefinitely, so that claim is dubious.

AMD do something very similar, since their chips effectively overclock themselves based on ambient conditions, via Precision Boost Overdrive - how can you quote a TDP for a product that will change it's operating frequency to a number you as a manufacturer don't actually set in stone? 

You can't, and AMD don't, making both manufacturer's quoted TDP ratings completely meaningless. 

And even if they weren't, if AMD and Intel can't quote TDP consistently, what makes you think cooler manufacturers can? (Protip: They can't and don't)


----------



## Zach_01 (Feb 27, 2020)

GlacierNine said:


> Yes, and the 1.328V that my 6700K has run on for the last 3 years is also higher than the 1.2V it is intended to use.
> 
> And the 1.36V that my i7 920 ran on for 5 years is also higher than the 1.26 it was supposed to use.
> 
> ...





A.Stables said:


> Don't have much personal Experience with Zen2 apart from a a day testing , comparing it with my 1700. But in all the Years I've been running AMD I've never really suffered from the phenomena, expect perhaps Mildly with an Oppy 165 on Socket 939. I should read the thread in youtube to see if he comments on what boards have been used to "degrade" and if this CPU does this work on another manufacturers board.


This is the most common mistaken thoughts of users. The use their previous knowledge and experience on these new chips. What we know from previous CPUs including Ryzen1000/2000 series is irrelevant and do not apply to Ryzen3000. Users must forget everything they know and start from scratch. ZEN2 is not for static OC. And if you do you must do it by loosing performance setting it in very low speeds and voltage. Auto boost clocking/voltage is complex procedure that we cannot understand. First of all its doing it in bursts that no software can catch.


----------



## mtcn77 (Feb 27, 2020)

Gj hater. This isn't even my final form!


> TDP (Watts) = (tCase°C - tAmbient°C)/(HSF θca)


AMD measures HSF θca from a static formula. Normally, you would get lower resistance(better conductivity) if you modulate the fan curve. They set a single level to linearise the polynomial. So you can bet it could be improved if the resistance in the denominator was accounted for. I said all that and more here:95°C is necessary


----------



## GlacierNine (Feb 27, 2020)

mtcn77 said:


> Gj hater. This isn't even my final form!
> 
> AMD measures HSF θca from a static formula. Normally, you would get lower resistance(better conductivity) if you modulate the fan curve. They set a single level to linearise the polynomial. So you can bet it could be improved if the resistance in the denominator was accounted for. I said all that and more here:95°C is necessary


Congratulations, you've managed to find one of a number of arbitrary formulas, none of which return the same results as each other, and all of which are or have been used to calculate "TDP". That formula is not the same one that Intel use, and the results are not comparable.

Here, have the Anandtech article on this: https://www.anandtech.com/show/13544/why-intel-processors-draw-more-power-than-expected-tdp-turbo

And here, also have the Intel 7th Gen Core CPU datasheet (You can also look up the 9th and 10th gen datasheets from intel ark, but they actually contain less data than this one does since Intel have gotten more reticent to share the info of how they do TDP)



			https://cdrdv2.intel.com/v1/dl/getcontent/335195


----------



## mtcn77 (Feb 27, 2020)

GlacierNine said:


> That formula is not the same one that Intel use


Gj you played yourself: cause, it is the one AMD uses!
Which goes to say, if we sideline that and use thermal transmittance formula(same as above, only accounting for area as well) we can approximate much better.


----------



## GlacierNine (Feb 27, 2020)

mtcn77 said:


> Gj you played yourself: cause, it is the one AMD uses!
> Which goes to say, if we sideline that and use thermal transmittance formula(same as above, only accounting for area as well) we can approximate much better.


Read what you said, and then read what I said again and try and actually understand it this time around.


----------



## mtcn77 (Feb 27, 2020)

GlacierNine said:


> Read what you said, and then read what I said again and try and actually understand it this time around.


Well, shifting the magic blamestick is not in your leisure.
Here is what to do: we can drop all bars when we disable cpb. We set the vid, we set the clock multiplier and work our way manually. At least this way, there is more manual overclock provisioning when we expand the thermal headroom. The resistance doesn't stay the same when heat loads are headed for an increase.

PS: I've stopped making logical attempts for one upmanship instead - the same with your one liners.


----------



## A.Stables (Feb 27, 2020)

Zach_01 said:


> This is the most common mistaken thoughts of users. The use their previous knowledge and experience on these new chips. What we know from previous CPUs including Ryzen1000/2000 series is irrelevant and do not apply to Ryzen3000. Users must forget everything they know and start from scratch. ZEN2 is not for static OC. And if you do you must do it by loosing performance setting it in very low speeds and voltage. Auto boost clocking/voltage is complex procedure that we cannot understand. First of all its doing it in bursts that no software can catch.



I'm not mistaken so please don't try to correct me, I was merely stating in to so many words, that its not Like AMD to put out weak silicon. Thanks


----------



## eidairaman1 (Feb 27, 2020)

lexluthermiester said:


> Such is unavoidable in posts like this. Not because of the subject but because of certain users.
> 
> I agree, it is interesting and gives insight to the limits of the Ryzen 3000 range of CPU's.
> 
> Ah, but therein we find the crux of this: It is impossible to precisely determine the upper limits of a CPU line. This is because of variations in the manufacturing of materials, the manufacturing of the dies with those materials, and the imperfections found within each. This is where the phrase "Silicon Lottery" came from.



When you overclock it is 100% Prayer, 80% Skill, 20% Will.

Also box o chocolates, doesn't matter what electronic is, mtbf can be from 1 zeta second to 1000+ years...


----------



## rtwjunkie (Feb 27, 2020)

mtcn77 said:


> He reminds me of that one time some dude tried to drill through a gpu board only to discover buried resistors underneath. It was quite an expensive gpu as well. Oh the times...


You obviously don’t know anything about Buildzoid. He’s not some gullible kid.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Feb 27, 2020)

eidairaman1 said:


> When you overclock it is 100% Prayer, 80% Skill, 20% Will.


That's about right, yes! LOL!


----------



## mtcn77 (Feb 27, 2020)

rtwjunkie said:


> You obviously don’t know anything about Buildzoid.





mtcn77 said:


> It is a rhetorical dissertation on his part.


Don't expect unconditional adulation, I won't praise vandalism.


----------



## Zach_01 (Feb 27, 2020)

A.Stables said:


> I'm not mistaken so please don't try to correct me, I was merely stating in to so many words, that its not Like AMD to put out weak silicon. Thanks


Its not my fault that you keep doing the same mistake, and think of it like this. Its not AMD who is putting out weak silicon. Its the nature of this node that cannot be treated like previous ones. Going to 7nm and to 5nm or 3nm... it will keep diminishing headroom. You want overclock and free performance stick to 12nm or 14nm++++. The static OC era is coming to an end whether we like it or not.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Feb 27, 2020)

rtwjunkie said:


> You obviously don’t know anything about Buildzoid. He’s not some gullible kid.


Agreed but everyone is capable of making a mistake, not saying he has just saying.

I saw the video a day or so ago but it's not on his channel and the comments page is gone ,Op your links dead.

Interesting findings and what's come after ie disappearing.

I used to pin clocks and Volt's, now I nearly suggest via settings what to run at but I am interested no doubt my CPU has sat at 75+ since purchase at varying voltages , depending on bios ,ageesa etc.

Used to stick to 1.45 ISH and now is more conservative at 1.25-35 all cores clock higher now though too 4@1.45 ,,,4.15@1.35 all cores crunching.

We'll see if anything pans out as a few crunch with Ryzen and consumer parts were not meant for such, if anything reasonable ages Ryzens that would.


----------



## thesmokingman (Feb 27, 2020)

Maximum FIT voltage...


----------



## Bones (Feb 27, 2020)

Been running my 2700x with about 1.25v's since I've had it with only a few times I've ran up the volts on it. 
Still doing good.


----------



## Zach_01 (Feb 27, 2020)

Bones said:


> Been running my 2700x with about 1.25v's since I've had it with only a few times I've ran up the volts on it.
> Still doing good.


But this has nothing to do with 3000. Its night and day, apples and oranges...
What I keep saying here and there over and over again, is that anything we know from other past CPUs is irrelevant with Ryzen 3000.

I really hope users understand this soon. Yesterday if possible...


----------



## Deleted member 178884 (Feb 27, 2020)

Bones said:


> Been running my 2700x with about 1.25v's since I've had it with only a few times I've ran up the volts on it.
> Still doing good.


And? Of course it's still doing good - it's not rocket science, it's a 12nm chip and has absolutely nothing to do with 7nm or ryzen 3000? Care to elaborate?


----------



## mtcn77 (Feb 27, 2020)

Zach_01 said:


> What I keep saying here and there over and over again, is that anything we know from other past CPUs is irrelevant with Ryzen 3000.


Well, I know I won't win any favors, but your manner to me was the same when I elected another benchmark to measure tdp in the zen 2 generation. We can, of course, trust in AMD to do the right thing, but someone has to address this ryzen 3000 uneven cpu heating issue.



Xx Tek Tip xX said:


> Care to elaborate?


We discussed this previously, he wouldn't acknowledge it, though. _I must have struck a chord._


----------



## moproblems99 (Feb 27, 2020)

Mr McC said:


> Agreed, but if his intention was to determine the precise limits, surely we have something to learn?



All valid questions.  If I came off as condescending, forgive me.  It was not intentional.  When ever you push things over the limits, expect them to degrade.  What ever happens on other chips and other processes is irrelevant.  

AMD, for better or for worse, appears to be clocking and volting these to the limits because they have to to keep the single thread and some thread as high as possible.  Volting and clocking them more appears to basically be extreme oc now.  There is not much left to get out of them.  I expect degradation to occur when any changes to Zen2 or above occurs.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Feb 27, 2020)

moproblems99 said:


> All valid questions.  If I came off as condescending, forgive me.  It was not intentional.  When ever you push things over the limits, expect them to degrade.  What ever happens on other chips and other processes is irrelevant.
> 
> AMD, for better or for worse, appears to be clocking and volting these to the limits because they have to to keep the single thread and some thread as high as possible.  Volting and clocking them more appears to basically be extreme oc now.  There is not much left to get out of them.  I expect degradation to occur when any changes to Zen2 or above occurs.


AMD, while I agree with your assertions I think it's THE Way it's done now by anyone doing high performance chips, period.


----------



## Bones (Feb 27, 2020)

Xx Tek Tip xX said:


> *And? Of course it's still doing good - it's not rocket science*, it's a 12nm chip and has absolutely nothing to do with 7nm or ryzen 3000? Care to elaborate?



That's the point.
What's said isn't rocket science as you indicated - Doesn't matter what nm size the chip is, architecture or whatever else, if you run it with excessive voltage _you will_ shorten it's lifespan (Duh).
Buildzoid was doing it to see how much and for how long the chip could stand it before degregation set in with a Ryzen 3xxx chip and we now have an answer.

It's a warning to those that just set an arbitrary voltage and go with it, if you do it this is what you can expect to happen and how quickly.

I made the point with mine along the same lines since it's also subject to this effect like any other chip, I run it with what it needs and no more. The chip to this day can still clock up like it has before without issue and it's the same for Ryzen 3000 as well based on all this.

Now that I've elaborated, that it.
Carry on guys.


----------



## sneekypeet (Feb 27, 2020)

Bones said:


> That's the point.
> What's said isn't rocket science as you indicated - Doesn't matter what nm size the chip is, architecture or whatever else, if you run it with excessive voltage _you will_ shorten it's lifespan (Duh).
> Buildzoid was doing it to see how much and for how long the chip could stand it before degregation set in with a Ryzen 3xxx chip and we now have an answer.
> 
> ...



Comments in the linked thread makes me think it could be a multitude of issues, not just CPU voltage. There was a comment about his choice to run crazy SOC volts, assuming on the same motherboard. If that is/was the case, we need to know.


----------



## Bones (Feb 27, 2020)

That's a good point, if he would come in and elaborate more that would be great for all to hear and understand. 
I mean the only one that could tell the full story would be Buildzoid himself on this.


----------



## Mr McC (Feb 27, 2020)

theoneandonlymrk said:


> Agreed but everyone is capable of making a mistake, not saying he has just saying.
> I saw the video a day or so ago but it's not on his channel and the comments page is gone ,Op your links dead.



Works fine here, I just took this screenshot, click the text underneath to see if that works:


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Feb 27, 2020)

Mr McC said:


> Works fine here, I just took this screenshot, click the text underneath to see if that works:
> 
> View attachment 146111


Yeh I can see your screeny but not sure what is going on your link lead to a dead channel for me still does , I can't find the video in question on his channel I'm subd too now either though I have seen it.
Rest of web seems okay, odd.


----------



## Mr McC (Feb 27, 2020)

theoneandonlymrk said:


> Yeh I can see your screeny but not sure what is going on your link lead to a dead channel for me still does , I can't find the video in question on his channel I'm subd too now either though I have seen it.
> Rest of web seems okay, odd.


It's not a video, it is only the comments.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Feb 27, 2020)

Mr McC said:


> It's not a video, it is only the comments.


I'm still not getting a working link here. 
So the video has been pulled?


----------



## Zach_01 (Feb 27, 2020)

I like to elaborate myself,
By saying that what we know about past CPUs and nodes is irrelavant I mean that actual values are irrelevant. For example 1.25~1.3Vcore seems very safe for any CPU judging from past experience.
With Ryzen 3000 even this low value can be thought as safe, it could not in some specific cases.
First of all for these 7nm CPUs its not all voltage level or temp level. Its current too. High current on certain speed and voltage level can kill the chip rather quickly and easily.
And do not compare static voltage and speeds with auto voltage and speeds. While on auto the silicon controller flactuate speed and voltage several hundred times per sec.



theoneandonlymrk said:


> Yeh I can see your screeny but not sure what is going on your link lead to a dead channel for me still does , I can't find the video in question on his channel I'm subd too now either though I have seen it.
> Rest of web seems okay, odd.


Its not from video. In his channel go to Community page.


----------



## Mr McC (Feb 27, 2020)

theoneandonlymrk said:


> I'm still not getting a working link here.
> So the video has been pulled?


I don't think so, I don't think a video of this has been made yet, it appeared as a "new post" on Youtube last night and I clicked on it, obviously based on my browsing history.


----------



## mtcn77 (Feb 27, 2020)

theoneandonlymrk said:


> Yeh I can see your screeny but not sure what is going on your link lead to a dead channel for me still does , I can't find the video in question on his channel I'm subd too now either though I have seen it.
> Rest of web seems okay, odd.


It happens to me too if using the mobile site. You need to switch your browser cookie to desktop.


----------



## ERazer (Feb 27, 2020)

OC = risk, imo with ZEN2 its all about running stock speed and under volting it as low as you can.


----------



## Deleted member 178884 (Feb 27, 2020)

theoneandonlymrk said:


> I'm still not getting a working link here.
> So the video has been pulled?


----------



## oobymach (Feb 27, 2020)

ERazer said:


> OC = risk, imo with ZEN2 its all about running stock speed and under volting it as low as you can.


But what exactly is stock speed? I'm running my 3600x @ 4.2ghz 1.23v now because of threads like this, was pushing 4.3ghz @ 1.33v before with no issues but if degradation is a real problem I want to avoid it and it seems like pushing over 1.3v is a cause.


----------



## milewski1015 (Feb 27, 2020)

oobymach said:


> But what exactly is stock speed? I'm running my 3600x @ 4.2ghz 1.23v now because of threads like this, was pushing 4.3ghz @ 1.33v before with no issues but if degradation is a real problem I want to avoid it and it seems like pushing over 1.3v is a cause.


I think by stock speed @ERazer means leaving it at base clock and just letting it auto boost


----------



## thesmokingman (Feb 27, 2020)

Again Maximum FIT voltage is 1.325v *in high current workloads, depending on silicon.


----------



## biffzinker (Feb 27, 2020)

sneekypeet said:


> There was a comment about his choice to run crazy SOC volts, assuming on the same motherboard.


I've found that populating all memory slots caused the mobo firmware to auto adjust the SoC voltage to 1.2 from auto selecting 1.1v. 

Use to be 1.038v it would set, not sure why the change. I could try a clear CMOS, and see what happens.


----------



## sneekypeet (Feb 27, 2020)

biffzinker said:


> I've found that populating all memory slots caused the mobo firmware to auto adjust the SoC voltage to 1.2 from auto selecting 1.1v.
> 
> Use to be 1.038v it would set, not sure why the change. I could try a clear CMOS, and see what happens.



Can't argue that, I have seen similar on my system. However, do we have any certainty he stopped at just 1.2V?


----------



## Bones (Feb 27, 2020)

I did notice how he worded things in that it crashes in MSI boards, not just boards in general. 
Hmmm.....


----------



## biffzinker (Feb 27, 2020)

sneekypeet said:


> However, do we have any certainty he stopped at just 1.2V?


No, but I'd be on edge pushing it any higher than the 1.2v it's already at. My 2600X was able to get away with less than 0.9v with the DDR4 overclocked to 3466 MHz.


----------



## sneekypeet (Feb 27, 2020)

biffzinker said:


> No, but I'd be on edge pushing it any higher than the 1.2v it's already at. My 2600X was able to get away with less than 0.9v with the DDR4 overclocked to 3466 MHz.



I agree, I have yet to see a need for more than 1.18V SOC on my system. At least I maxed out the IMC at that voltage with a few kits.


----------



## Zach_01 (Feb 27, 2020)

thesmokingman said:


> Again Maximum FIT voltage is 1.325v *in high current workloads, depending on silicon.


That is depending on the speed, the Current and the temp, of the allcore load.
You can see 1.32V for some loads and you can see 1.38V for others. And these actual values are not for all SKUs. Different SKU = different voltage levels.

But principal is the same for all...
If temp goes down(more cooling) voltage and speed goes up and vice-versa.
If current is going down, voltage and speed goes up and vice-versa.
Lower temp = lower current = higher voltage/speed.
Lower current = lower temp = higher voltage/speed.

Degradation is a result of the combination of current, voltage, speed and temp.
Only FIT can regulate properly the dynamics and the stress of the silicon. And even then what you see as an actual voltage (HWiNFO’s SVI2 TFN) is half the truth. Because the real time value (or the avg) is not a static one. It fluctuates within a few mSec.


----------



## mtcn77 (Feb 27, 2020)

1.325V*
Why isn't there an option to undervolt? Negative scalar, or offset doesn't work. It would shoot the performance through the roof with an improved thermal headroom if it were possible to combine scalar with negative offset. However, the cpu treats this as undersupplied rail. AMD needs to introduce negative offsets, or open up the vid P-table.


----------



## Zach_01 (Feb 27, 2020)

mtcn77 said:


> 1.325V*
> Why isn't there an option to undervolt? Negative scalar, or offset doesn't work. It would shoot the performance through the roof with an improved thermal headroom if it were possible to combine scalar with negative offset. However, the cpu treats this as undersupplied rail. AMD needs to introduce negative offsets, or open up the vid P-table.


I can’t really say it will shoot it through the roof but it will help a lot. And the more high quality silicon the better. Again through FIT and not just static.

You can do this indirectly by capping current while having middle scalar values (x3-5) and low level Vdroop (high LLC setting).


----------



## moproblems99 (Feb 27, 2020)

ERazer said:


> OC = risk, imo with ZEN2 its all about running stock speed and under volting it as low as you can.



If I undervolt, I drop hz.


----------



## mtcn77 (Feb 27, 2020)

Zach_01 said:


> You can do this indirectly by capping current while having middle scalar values (x3-5) and low level Vdroop (high LLC setting).


PS: look at it this way, there is a vid table in which FIT upper limit is presumably _higher_ than the base level of the cpb table.
Sometimes I wonder just who writes these software for AMD. Same with their gpus. Is it hard to run them at near threshold voltage when you have adaptive clock stretching because all sorts of issues are going to be resolved at the lower spectrum of stock boundaries. Just who runs 1.2v when the score would be the same at 1.05v with a clear conscience it wouldn't break anything?


----------



## Fry178 (Feb 28, 2020)

Dont remember if TDP ever was anywhere close to what the chips actually use.
its more or less an indicator whats needed to run it properly (no oc) when it comes to power/cooling,
and easier to drop in an upgrade as long as tdp is similar.

and even with strong chip binning by amd, lottery etc will still have a big impact on what V is safe, or isnt.
the first 3600 i got was running 1.44 under all core full load (max power), the second one is doing same clocks but at 1.33v
all with pbo/xfr etc off, only PB on(as per pbo=off), everything on auto except ram.
no difference which board i used (msi gaming or aorus ultra).
doubt the second one would survive long going with the same V the first one needed.


----------



## Zach_01 (Feb 28, 2020)

Fry178 said:


> Dont remember if TDP ever was anywhere close to what the chips actually use.
> its more or less an indicator whats needed to run it properly (no oc) when it comes to power/cooling,
> and easier to drop in an upgrade as long as tdp is similar.


For sure it’s not the total power draw of the entire package.
TDP for Intel CPUs is what the chip will dissipate towards IHS when runs at base clock.
TDP for AMD is what CPU will dissipate towards IHS on average boost clocking (not base clock, not max all core clock).

My 65W TDP rated 3600 is allowed (by stock limits) to draw 88W (PPT).
The higher 105W TDP SKUs are limited to 142W (PPT). And I think the 95W TDP ones are limited to 125W (PPT).


----------



## gupsterg (Feb 28, 2020)

Zach_01 said:


> My 65W TDP rated 3600 is allowed (by stock limits) to draw 88W (PPT).
> The higher 105W TDP SKUs are limited to 142W (PPT). And I think the 95W TDP ones are limited to 125W (PPT).



This is correct.


----------



## Vayra86 (Feb 28, 2020)

moproblems99 said:


> I'm not exactly surprised. Ryzens (2) are pushed to the top from the factory.  Pushing them over leads to degradation.  Who'd have thought?



This. And note... Intel is not going to be very different when they do move to a smaller node. We saw this coming already since 22nm Ivy Bridge that couldn't hold an OC candle to 32nm, even just because concentration of heat on smaller surface area. Add smaller transistors and you've got a nasty cocktail of heat and power.


----------



## freeagent (Feb 28, 2020)

I totally agree, my 3770K is by far the hottest cpu that I’ve owned, and puts out very little actual heat.


----------



## londiste (Feb 28, 2020)

Healthy long-term allowed voltage is going down the smaller you go with the manufacturing process. The other side of voltage issue is that the minimum voltage to make transistors work tends to not decrease as fast or increase, making the viable voltage range smaller and smaller.

I seem to remember there was an actual document behind 1.325V maximum recommended for TSMCs 7nm but when trying to Google it now, I cannot find these references any more. In an empirical way, this seems to be about the right number.


----------



## Schmuckley (Feb 28, 2020)

GlacierNine said:


> He  knows that, and he posted it in a screenshot up above. Upper 1.3V range.
> 
> Please read threads before replying to them...


That's not extreme.
This is a daily OC:








						AMD Ryzen 7 2700X @ 4317.64 MHz - CPU-Z VALIDATOR
					

[45twks] Validated Dump by Schmuckley (2020-02-28 15:34:44) - MB: Asus ROG CROSSHAIR VII HERO - RAM: 32768 MB




					valid.x86.fr
				





This is extreme:









						anjing`s CPU Frequency score: 5143.1 MHz with a Ryzen 7 2700X
					

The Ryzen 7 2700X @ 5143.1MHzscores getScoreFormatted in the CPU Frequency benchmark. anjingranks #null worldwide and #23 in the hardware class. Find out more at HWBOT.




					hwbot.org
				




Pretty sure 1.37v is for a daily OC.  

Also, Buildzoid has no extreme subs with 3700x that I can see.


----------



## GlacierNine (Feb 28, 2020)

Schmuckley said:


> That's not extreme.


Did I say it was or are you just misrepresenting me so you can flaunt your irrelevant CPU-Z-peen?


----------



## sneekypeet (Feb 28, 2020)

Easy..... let's play nice.


----------



## Schmuckley (Feb 28, 2020)

Let the record show Buildzoid has no extreme subs with 3700x.

Doesn't look like he was abusing it to me.


----------



## mtcn77 (Feb 28, 2020)

Schmuckley said:


> Let the record show Buildzoid has no extreme subs with 3700x.
> 
> Doesn't look like he was abusing it to me.





Schmuckley said:


> Pretty sure 1.37v is for a daily OC.


That is not 1.37v, but presumably as high as 1.47v due to msi defaulting to FPU vid.


----------



## Schmuckley (Feb 28, 2020)

GlacierNine said:


> Did I say it was or are you just misrepresenting me so you can flaunt your irrelevant CPU-Z-peen?



As far as CPU-z-peen goes, that's not even close to a semi-.
That's jump into a cold lake in winter cpu-z-peen.


----------



## moproblems99 (Feb 28, 2020)

Schmuckley said:


> That's not extreme.
> This is a daily OC:
> 
> 
> ...



They key difference here is your daily example is a 2700x which used an entirely different process and has no direct meaning to a 3700x.


----------



## Schmuckley (Feb 28, 2020)

mtcn77 said:


> That is not 1.37v, but presumably as high as 1.47v due to msi defaulting to FPU vid.



AMD says up to 1.5 is OK.
The 3**** chip I ran briefly registered up to 1.46 on all auto settings.



moproblems99 said:


> They key difference here is your daily example is a 2700x which used an entirely different process and has no direct meaning to a 3700x.


So they're not both AMD 8-core CPUs only 1 generation apart?


----------



## kapone32 (Feb 28, 2020)

Mr McC said:


> Forgive my ignorance, but I was under the impression that the TDP was merely "defined" by the type of stock cooler AMD ships with each processor.





Schmuckley said:


> AMD says up to 1.5 is OK.
> The 3**** chip I ran briefly registered up to 1.46 on all auto settings.
> 
> 
> So they're not both AMD 8-core CPUs only 1 generation apart?



Yes but one has 7nm lithography and the other is refined 14nm lithography. Using the same IHS means that there is a vast difference between the two chips. A better comparison would be the 1700 vs the 2700x those are much closer than the 3700x to either of them.


----------



## Schmuckley (Feb 28, 2020)

kapone32 said:


> Yes but one has 7nm lithography and the other is refined 14nm lithography. Using the same IHS means that there is a vast difference between the two chips. A better comparison would be the 1700 vs the 2700x those are much closer than the 3700x to either of them.


I would use a 3000-series chip, but still trying to figure out how to shut off cores with this one like that one can do.
I see other people doing it.


----------



## mtcn77 (Feb 28, 2020)

Schmuckley said:


> AMD says up to 1.5 is OK.


I would argue that it is not OK.
As again, let us look at my citation.
_–__So to set this up safely (I think), referencing from reddit, AMDRobert has said that 1.425v low load and 1.35v AVX load are the maximum safe voltages for Ryzen 3000. I have no idea at all why AMD allow up to 1.5v stock, but I regularly see that on both my 3600 and 3800x._


----------



## moproblems99 (Feb 28, 2020)

Schmuckley said:


> So they're not both AMD 8-core CPUs only 1 generation apart?



As said, one is 12nm the other is 7nm.  Early first gen 7nm at that.  So, big difference.



Schmuckley said:


> I would use a 3000-series chip, but still trying to figure out how to shut off cores with this one like that one can do.
> I see other people doing it.



The options are right in my UEFI for shutting down cores.


----------



## kapone32 (Feb 28, 2020)

Schmuckley said:


> I would use a 3000-series chip, but still trying to figure out how to shut off cores with this one like that one can do.
> I see other people doing it.



Use Ryzen Master you can disable cores directly in there. Even though I don't understand why you would want to do that.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Feb 28, 2020)

Fry178 said:


> Dont remember if TDP ever was anywhere close to what the chips actually use.
> its more or less an indicator whats needed to run it properly (no oc) when it comes to power/cooling,
> and easier to drop in an upgrade as long as tdp is similar.
> 
> ...



What EMF maximum for any semiconductor needs to be taken with caution. I dont expect a 14/10 nm/7nm part to handle volts my 8350 can handle. Just as I dont expect my chip to handle volts a 8088 can...


----------



## Zach_01 (Feb 28, 2020)

Schmuckley said:


> AMD says up to 1.5 is OK.
> The 3**** chip I ran briefly registered up to 1.46 on all auto settings.
> 
> 
> So they're not both AMD 8-core CPUs only 1 generation apart?


No it does not apply to a 3000 what we know about Ryzen 1000/2000. As @kapone32 says 1000 and 2000 are similar achitectures and with similar dynamics. 3000 is a completely new stuff and apparently unkown to most.

While on auto these chips can hit 1.475~1.5V but this is only on idle or very low load and very low current. If you had gone through all posts here you would have read what I previously said.
What voltage anyone see when the CPU is on auto has nothing to do with a static voltage on a static speed. If the CPU on auto settings for a given load and speed is feeding cores with 1.35V it does not mean that you can set a static 1.35V for that speed. Even less (1.325V) voltage is not safe. The FIT controller of the CPU is flactuating speed and voltage hundreds of times within a sec to regulate silicon stress. Have it on static speed/voltage and this is like taking down all defenses. Degradation is at hand...

I keep saying... What users know about past CPUs and OC do not apply to Ryzen 3000. There is no free extra performance on these chips. Forget it...
The only things one can do is to further cool it down as low as possible (50C if possible) and play with PBO EDC values to restrict current and silicon stress. Only then it boost more by its own and still by a few %.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Feb 28, 2020)

Zach_01 said:


> No it does not apply to a 3000 what we know about Ryzen 1000/2000. As @kapone32 says 1000 and 2000 are similar achitectures and with similar dynamics. 3000 is a completely new stuff and apparently unkown to most.
> 
> While on auto these chips can hit 1.475~1.5V but this is only on idle or very low load and very low current. If you had gone through all posts here you would have read what I previously said.
> What voltage anyone see when the CPU is on auto has nothing to do with a static voltage on a static speed. If the CPU on auto settings for a given load and speed is feeding cores with 1.35V it does not mean that you can set a static 1.35V for that speed. Even less (1.325V) voltage is not safe. The FIT controller of the CPU is flactuating speed and voltage hundreds of times within a sec to regulate silicon stress. Have it on static speed/voltage and this is like taking down all defenses. Degradation is at hand...
> ...



Iirc ryzen 3000 is a mcm design.


----------



## Zach_01 (Feb 28, 2020)

eidairaman1 said:


> Iirc ryzen 3000 is a mcm design.


Except that, even if it was a monolithic one, it would still be as discribed above. Its the 7nm proccess node primarily and the fact that AMD took advantage all headroom for speed and voltage. In a way that does not damage/degrades the silicon of course.


----------



## droopyRO (Feb 28, 2020)

Zach_01 said:


> While on auto these chips can hit 1.475~1.5V


You are reffering to 1xxx and 2xxx chips ? I ask because my 2700X defaults to 1.45V in BIOS.


----------



## milewski1015 (Feb 28, 2020)

droopyRO said:


> You are reffering to 1xxx and 2xxx chips ? I ask because my 2700X defaults to 1.45V in BIOS.


When PBO/XFR2 is enabled? I recall a while back Buildzoid complaining about the PBO algorithm. Something about how it's extremely stupid that the first thing PBO does is crank the voltage up. 

You may want to read this post from r/overclocking...

__
		https://www.reddit.com/r/overclocking/comments/amtnt4

"Conclusion, based on my testing and several others that have seen degradation above 1.38v on this subreddit, I can solidly say, since AMD has released zero safe voltages for this chip, if you value the longevity of your Ryzen gen 2 chip for more than around 4 months, stick to 1.375v as your max voltage. "

and this from the Anandtech forums:





						Page 72 - Ryzen: Strictly technical
					

Page 72 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.




					forums.anandtech.com
				




"The seen behavior suggests that the full silicon reliability can be maintained up to around 1.330V in all-core workloads (i.e. high current) and up to 1.425V in single core workloads (i.e. low current). Use of higher voltages is definitely possible (as FIT will allow up to 1.380V / 1.480V when scalar is increased by 10x), but it more than likely results in reduced silicon lifetime / reliability."


----------



## droopyRO (Feb 28, 2020)

Yup. PBO enabled, with it off i can go as low as -1.250V   -1.000V offset for 4.1Ghz manual setting. Testing it now to see if it is stable in Prime95. Good thing i ran in to this thread.


----------



## Fry178 (Feb 28, 2020)

At least for 3xxx cpus, Pbo is more often counter productive to voltages/temps.
And no consistency that performance improves.
Turning it off (which leaves PB running) is usually the better choice for the masses/most ppl..


----------



## Zach_01 (Feb 28, 2020)

droopyRO said:


> You are reffering to 1xxx and 2xxx chips ? I ask because my 2700X defaults to 1.45V in BIOS.


I'm reffering to 3xxx. And some keep posting here info for 2xxx. I'm always reffering to 3xxx from the beggining of this thread.
1.375V for 3xxx is definately not safe in most full load sircumstances. Buildzoid degrade his 3700X with 1.375V.
Even 1.3~1.325V could be lethal potentially. All and all, 3xxx is not for static speeds and voltages. Its not the same with auto boosting and voltage. Its night and day.














Fry178 said:


> Pbo is more often counter productive to voltages/temps.
> And no consistency that performance improves.
> Turning it off (which leaves PB running) is usually the better choice for the masses/most ppl..


I'm in the middle of DRAM OC and PBO testing. Need a few more days... Wait and see.
All I can say right now is that you can benefit from some PBO settings in a specific way but nothing groundbreaking.


----------



## biffzinker (Feb 28, 2020)

Fry178 said:


> Turning it off (which leaves PB running)


You mean turning off PBO but leaving the factory boost on - XFR2?


----------



## Schmuckley (Feb 28, 2020)

droopyRO said:


> You are reffering to 1xxx and 2xxx chips ? I ask because my 2700X defaults to 1.45V in BIOS.


3000 series does too. At least in my BIOS.









						AMD Ryzen 5 3600X @ 4423.97 MHz - CPU-Z VALIDATOR
					

[6a39qf] Validated Dump by Schmuckley (2020-02-28 21:22:48) - MB: Asus ROG CROSSHAIR VII HERO - RAM: 32768 MB




					valid.x86.fr
				




Zoooohh-Nooooeeessss! Teh degradation! 

IN b4 I'm eating my snarkiness in 6 mos. So I'm actually running this chip with .035 less voltage than stock auto settings apply.
This is no stellar sample, it wants 1.46v.
It seems to me this is what the chip wants to be stable.
No crashes in  this configuration. With PBO there were crashes every other boot and running hot.
'bout to get some crashes bcuz tinkering with RAM.


----------



## Bones (Feb 28, 2020)

Now I'm wondering if my RAM's gonna degrade too along with the 3600x....... 








						Bones`s Memory Frequency score: 2232.8 MHz with a DDR4 SDRAM
					

The DDR4 SDRAM @ 2232.8MHzscores getScoreFormatted in the Memory Frequency benchmark. Bonesranks #295 worldwide and #293 in the hardware class. Find out more at HWBOT.




					hwbot.org
				




Yep - Defaults spec'ed by the board maker tends to be higher than it needs but thats because not every chip will work with less voltage, they have to spec a "Blanket" voltage to be sure any non-defective chip dropped in would work.


----------



## moproblems99 (Feb 28, 2020)

Schmuckley said:


> This is no stellar sample, it wants 1.46v.



I am pretty sure it doesn't want 1.46v all core.


----------



## Zach_01 (Feb 28, 2020)

Schmuckley said:


> 3000 series does too. At least in my BIOS.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Bones said:


> Now I'm wondering if my RAM's gonna degrade too along with the 3600x.......
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Am I not visible to all people in here? Seem that some are on their own world. Are they trolling or something?

1.42V all core voltage and load with high current will degrade the CPU eventually.
Ryzen 3000 doesn’t need 1.46 for all core speeds and loads. Don’t post such things that could mislead other users. Please read the posts in here and maybe try to understand...


----------



## looniam (Feb 28, 2020)

not that i want to quell a spirited discussion but ya know this is ONE SAMPLE.

carry on.


----------



## Zach_01 (Feb 28, 2020)

Please do so...


----------



## R-T-B (Feb 28, 2020)

mtcn77 said:


> He is a kid and gullible.



He is neither.  He's literally made a media business out of overclocking, something many of us could never hope to do.


----------



## mtcn77 (Feb 28, 2020)

R-T-B said:


> He is neither.  He's literally made a media business out of overclocking, something many of us could never hope to do.


I don't say so needlessly. It is that he is using msi and that entails its own conditions on his supposed 1.375v which is 1.475v in fact.


----------



## Zach_01 (Feb 28, 2020)

mtcn77 said:


> I don't say so needlessly. It is that he is using msi and that entails its own conditions on his supposed 1.375v which is 1.475v in fact.


Come on man... did you monitor his test bed?
If that was true be sure about it that he would know. He doesn’t relay on software monitoring.


----------



## Bones (Feb 28, 2020)

Zach_01 said:


> Am I not visible to all people in here? Seem that some are on their own world. Are they trolling or something?
> 
> 1.42V all core voltage and load with high current will degrade the CPU eventually.
> Ryzen 3000 doesn’t need 1.46 for all core speeds and loads. Don’t post such things that could mislead other users. Please read the posts in here and maybe try to understand...



I'm not trolling on my part - At least I'm not trying to. 

Anyone can look at what I did with my 3600x, see the speed I had it running at AND voltage used to get there. 

In turn most (Hopefully) would realize if it can go that high with such low voltage there is no need to really volt it up to get that from a typical setup running at or not too far from stock speed. 

Was using that to show what speeds could be obtained with what amount of voltage in use and it does make the case you probrably don't need 1.40v's or higher to get some nice clocks from a Ryzen 3rd Gen.


----------



## moproblems99 (Feb 28, 2020)

I still don't see the point of all core clocking Ryzen.  Why lose out on single/low thread performance?


----------



## mtcn77 (Feb 28, 2020)

Zach_01 said:


> Come on man... did you monitor his test bed?
> If that was true be sure about it that he would know. He doesn’t relay on software monitoring.


I am doing this guy a favor. He is young and should be given the chance to make a mistake in a clear headed way. If you start manipulating, you start speculating... suddenly, you find yourself despirited. That is how you get emotional burnout.
Don't idolize him, let it come forth. It is not his mistake to make anyway, it is MSI's. It is just that he is underreporting and in all his pure heartedness, that is unlike him, he would have left no stone unturned such as this.
Anyway, I am just highlighting that bold 'MSI' disclaimer in his quandary. It confounds with any logical statement said previously and is in direct conflict with any conclusion thereafter, imo. It is a big no-no.



moproblems99 said:


> I still don't see the point of all core clocking Ryzen.  Why lose out on single/low thread performance?


I agree fully, however since the cpu adopts fivr regime, it overrides any undervolting in practice unless you make it pack up shop.

Notice Ryzen is right on target where Intel hit home with Ivy Bridge/Haswell. Intel had gained genuineness points for adopting fivr; however cpu-vrm was not mentioned as an overall improvement to vrm mosfets so it be good AMD did it the way it is.


----------



## Schmuckley (Feb 28, 2020)

moproblems99 said:


> I am pretty sure it doesn't want 1.46v all core.





Zach_01 said:


> Am I not visible to all people in here? Seem that some are on their own world. Are they trolling or something?
> 
> 1.42V all core voltage and load with high current will degrade the CPU eventually.
> Ryzen 3000 doesn’t need 1.46 for all core speeds and loads. Don’t post such things that could mislead other users. Please read the posts in here and maybe try to understand...



I do understand Chicken Littleism. And yes, it sucks 1.46v on auto.


----------



## moproblems99 (Feb 28, 2020)

mtcn77 said:


> I am doing this guy a favor. He is young and should be given the chance to make a mistake in a clear headed way. If you start manipulating, you start speculating... suddenly, you find yourself despirited. That is how you get emotional burnout.
> Don't idolize him, let it come forth. It is not his mistake to make anyway, it is MSI's. It is just that he is underreporting and in all his pure heartedness, that is unlike him, he would have left no stone unturned such as this.
> Anyway, I am just highlighting that bold 'MSI' disclaimer in his quandary. It confounds with any logical statement said previously and is in direct conflict with any conclusion thereafter, imo. It is a big no-no.



Did I miss something? I didn't watch the video because YouTube sucks and I avoid it at all costs but how do you know he didn't verify with a meter?  How do you know he didn't set the voltage in the uefi to reflect the msi overvolt? How do you know MSI under reports?  It doesn't make any sense for them to not report the correct voltages.



Schmuckley said:


> And yes, it sucks 1.46v on auto.



At load, on all cores?  In action?  Mine draws 1.46V but that is only when 1 or 2 threads is active.


----------



## Schmuckley (Feb 28, 2020)

moproblems99 said:


> I still don't see the point of all core clocking Ryzen.  Why lose out on single/low thread performance?


What single core performance?



moproblems99 said:


> Did I miss something? I didn't watch the video because YouTube sucks and I avoid it at all costs but how do you know he didn't verify with a meter?  How do you know he didn't set the voltage in the uefi to reflect the msi overvolt? How do you know MSI under reports?  It doesn't make any sense for them to not report the correct voltages.
> 
> 
> 
> At load, on all cores?  In action?  Mine draws 1.46V but that is only when 1 or 2 threads is active.


During Cinebench R20.


----------



## moproblems99 (Feb 28, 2020)

Schmuckley said:


> What single core performance?



I don't understand what you are asking.



Schmuckley said:


> During Cinebench R20.



Are you doing an all-core fixed multiplier overclock or did you leave everything on auto so the processor is functioning how it was intended from the factory?


----------



## Zach_01 (Feb 28, 2020)

Schmuckley said:


> What single core performance?
> 
> 
> During Cinebench R20.


There is no chance that Ryzen 3000 will take by its own and on full stock more than 1.35-1.36V on full, all thread load. Higher chips take even less (1.15~1.25V)
And again after a thousand times I said it it’s not the same with static voltage. Night and day...

Look the Core voltage SVI2 TFN. That is the actual Vcore. This under R20 all core load full stock settings.




Schmuckley said:


> I do understand Chicken Littleism. And yes, it sucks 1.46v on auto.


Only when idle and very low load and current. It’s not for all core loads

Yet another one with better temp(more cooling)


----------



## Schmuckley (Feb 28, 2020)

Zach_01 said:


> There is no chance that Ryzen 3000 will take by its own and on full stock more than 1.35-1.36V on full, all thread load. Higher chips take even less (1.15~1.25V)
> And again after a thousand times I said it it’s not the same with static voltage. Night and day...
> 
> Look the Core voltage SVI2 TFN. That is the actual Vcore. This under R20 all core load full stock settings.
> ...



That's not not going any higher than 4.05Ghz, though.
Manually you could (should be able to) get that down to 1.3v or less more often than not..
Or maybe clock a little higher.



moproblems99 said:


> I don't understand what you are asking.
> 
> 
> 
> Are you doing an all-core fixed multiplier overclock or did you leave everything on auto so the processor is functioning how it was intended from the factory?



Neither. it's a manual overclock with offset voltage and C n Q enabled. All cores do ramp up...yes.

PBO is disabled as well as boosting. The single core performance is just dandy!

543 with CPU-Z


----------



## Zach_01 (Feb 28, 2020)

Schmuckley said:


> That's not not going any higher than 4.05Ghz, though.
> Manually you could (should be able to) get that down to 1.3v or less more often than not..


Are we talking about stock settings or not? You said that it takes 1.46V at stock... where is that exactly?
Changing the subject?



Schmuckley said:


> Neither. it's a manual overclock with offset voltage and C n Q enabled. All cores do ramp up...yes.
> 
> PBO is disabled as well as boosting. The single core performance is just dandy!
> 
> 543 with CPU-Z


How is that neither? Manual OC is fixed multi...


----------



## Schmuckley (Feb 28, 2020)

Zach_01 said:


> Are we talking about stock settings or not? You said that it takes 1.46V at stock... where is that exactly?
> Changing the subject?
> 
> 
> How is that neither? Manual OC is fixed multi...


A Ryzen 5 3600 allegedly should turbo up to 4.2 Ghz, which the one in those charts is not doing.
I guess I am doing fixed multi then.
It takes 1.46v at all-auto settings. Gets very hot under load, too.
I know this newer stuff can take more heat, but I'm from the days of keep it below 55c if it's AMD.


----------



## moproblems99 (Feb 28, 2020)

Schmuckley said:


> A Ryzen 5 3600 allegedly should turbo up to 4.2 Ghz, which the one in those charts is not doing.



I'll leave this here:


----------



## Zach_01 (Feb 28, 2020)

Schmuckley said:


> A Ryzen 5 3600 allegedly should turbo up to 4.2 Ghz, which the one in those charts is not doing.
> I guess I am doing fixed multi then.
> It takes 1.46v at all-auto settings. Gets very hot under load, too.
> I know this newer stuff can take more heat, but I'm from the days of keep it below 55c if it's AMD.


I’m sorry but you don’t know all of it. 4.2GHz on the 3600 is for single thread only and not all core. And it’s doing this opportunistically and not sustained. This means that it should not work or loaded to 4.2GHz on all core loads. One way or another if you do that you will exceed silicon limits. You know anything about this and the silicon FITness controller?


----------



## Schmuckley (Feb 28, 2020)

Zach_01 said:


> I’m sorry but you don’t know all of it. 4.2GHz on the 3600 is for single thread only and not all core. And it’s doing this opportunistically and not sustained. This means that it should not work or loaded to 4.2GHz on all core loads. One way or another if you do that you will exceed silicon limits. You know anything about this and the *silicon FITness controller*?



Nope! Don't care, either. It's going to do what I want or I'll find something that will or a way to make it happen! 

Tell me more about these silicon limits and electron migration. 

I'm sure not finding out anything about this "*silicon FITness controller* " via search engine. Got a link?



moproblems99 said:


> I'll leave this here:
> 
> View attachment 146228




Or..amount of Vitamin V and temperature! 
And how hard you kick it in the tail!


----------



## Zach_01 (Feb 29, 2020)

Schmuckley said:


> Nope! Don't care, either. It's going to do what I want or I'll find something that wil!
> 
> Tell me more about these silicon limits and electron migration.


I can’t care less of your mocking...
If you don’t know what your CPU is and what it can take that is your problem. Just don’t encourage others to do so.
You can keep your ideas and settings and I hope no one will be mislead by you.

But please do let us know when you are going to replace you CPU due to degradation.


----------



## Bones (Feb 29, 2020)

I'll be honest - I HATE seeing clocks jumping around, drives me nuts seeing it do that so I set things for it to be at the speed I want period.

I can also speak from past experience that all this yo-yo'ing of clocks can affect a chip. 
Mobile chips as an example do the same thing (Power saving features) but all this up and down of the core(s) does have a detrimental effect on the silicon over time, even if it's "Designed" for it which mobiles certainly are. 

You can largely tell which ones were constantly boosting and which ones were not by the way they behaved when OC'ed, those that got boosted acted up and were less stable, ones that didn't have it going on all the time did better meaning the ones that got boosted more had more degregation to them. 
Since silicon is the same material used in desktops AND mobiles it's only common sense these chips would be affected in the same basic way from the effects of all this boosting. 

That's how I run mine and I ain't changing either, I do have chips well over a decade old now that still run about the same as they did when I first got them new as proof of it.


----------



## Schmuckley (Feb 29, 2020)

Zach_01 said:


> I can’t care less of your mocking...
> If you don’t know what your CPU is and what it can take that is your problem. Just don’t encourage others to do so.
> You can keep your ideas and settings and I hope no one will be mislead by you.
> 
> But please do let us know when you are going to replace you CPU due to degradation.


Will do, Cap'n!  
We'll see what happens.
Wager $20 it doesn't happen until next Ryzen release?



Bones said:


> I'll be honest - I HATE seeing clocks jumping around, drives me nuts seeing it do that so I set things for it to be at the speed I want period.
> 
> I can also speak from past experience that all this yo-yo'ing of clocks can affect a chip.
> Mobile chips as an example do the same thing (Power saving features) but all this up and down of the core(s) does have a detrimental effect on the silicon over time, even if it's "Designed" for it which mobiles certainly are.
> ...



I was getting instability with the clocks jumping around. Random reboots n stuff. Not now. 
Voltage is still all over the place...no weird reboots, though.


----------



## Zach_01 (Feb 29, 2020)

Bones said:


> I'll be honest - I HATE seeing clocks jumping around, drives me nuts seeing it do that so I set things for it to be at the speed I want period.
> 
> I can also speak from past experience that all this yo-yo'ing of clocks can affect a chip.
> Mobile chips as an example do the same thing (Power saving features) but all this up and down of the core(s) does have a detrimental effect on the silicon over time, even if it's "Designed" for it which mobiles certainly are.
> ...


And why are we keep talking about irrelevant things? This is Ryzen 3000 topic thread about degradation and OC. What you know about past chips has 0 value or meaning. Still you can’t comprehend that static OC is not for 3000. Other CPUs are irrelevant in this topic.
This is not a general conversation about OC. Digest it...
Ryzen 3000 is for stock only usage. Unless you static OC it to 4.0GHz max.



Schmuckley said:


> I was getting instability with the clocks jumping around. Random reboots n stuff. Not now.


You are the only one experience this as far as I know. And it was full stock?
Nonsense...


----------



## Schmuckley (Feb 29, 2020)

Zach_01 said:


> And we are we keep talking about irrelevant things? This is Ryzen 3000 topic thread about degradation and OC. What you know about past chips has 0 value or meaning. Still you can’t comprehend that static OC is not for 3000. Other CPUs are irrelevant in this topic.
> This is not a general conversation about OC. Digest it...
> Ryzen 3000 is for stock only usage. Unless you static OC it to 4.0GHz max.



This is not some new form of substrate, bubba. It's still silicon.
It's actually harder and more durable silicon that can take more heat.
And I say what people know about past chips IS relevant.


----------



## Bones (Feb 29, 2020)

*It is* relevant since it's the same basic thing - Silicon. 
Unless the composition of the chip is changed (Which in this case it's not) all the effects that goes with it remain whether it's a 3000, 2000 or whatever else. These effects of course will differ by chip as to how it gets used, that's just how it is and you attempting to dismiss it because "It not a 3000 Ryzen" changes nothing about it. 

Silicon is still silicon after all these years.


----------



## Zach_01 (Feb 29, 2020)

Schmuckley said:


> This is not some new form of substrate, bubba. It's still silicon.
> It's actually harder and more durable silicon that can take more heat.
> And I say what people know about past chips IS relevant.
> Also past MSI boards and AMD.. (snicker)


Keep it in plain English please. We are not all from US here. If we start calling whatever names this leads no where...



Bones said:


> *It is* relevant since it's the same basic thing - Silicon.
> Unless the composition of the chip is changed (Which in this case it's not) all the effects that goes with it remain whether it's a 3000, 2000 or whatever else. These effects of course will differ by chip as to how it gets used, that's just how it is and you attempting to dismiss it because "It not a 3000 Ryzen" changes nothing about it.
> 
> Silicon is still silicon after all these years.


Oh you both are going to know soon how different the 7nm is, the hard way...


----------



## Schmuckley (Feb 29, 2020)

Zach_01 said:


> Keep it in plain English please. We are not all from US here. If we start calling whatever names this leads no where...
> 
> 
> Oh you both are going to know soon how different the 7nm is, the hard way...








Hey, this chip's already made it through a board blowing up with the 12V GPU rail of the PSU going bye bye.
Yeah...don't use cheap fan controllers with Panaflos.
PSU still works if you wanna use a 5450.
CPU still works fine.


----------



## Zach_01 (Feb 29, 2020)

Schmuckley said:


>


Oh that is your issue... having no fear is often lack of rationality.




Schmuckley said:


> Yeah...don't use cheap fan controllers with Panaflos.
> PSU still works if you wanna use a 5450.
> CPU still works fine.


And am I supposed to understand the meaning of this?


----------



## Schmuckley (Feb 29, 2020)

Zach_01 said:


> Oh that is your issue... having no fear is often lack of rationality.
> 
> 
> 
> And am I supposed to understand the meaning of this?



Yes you are. It's plain English.
This 3600x has already been through a motherboard and PSU blowing up.


----------



## Bones (Feb 29, 2020)

Zach_01 said:


> Keep it in plain English please. We are not all from US here. *If we start calling whatever names this leads no where*...



This I have to agree with, need to keep it civil. 



Zach_01 said:


> Oh you both are going to know soon how different the 7nm is, the hard way...



I know 7nm is different, just because it's smaller still doesn't change the charateristics of silicon itself. 
And do note I didn't just zap my CPU with voltage, I'm of the way of using less as in less is better here. 

Let's get back to what this is supposted to be about - Degregation of a chip.

I know well about the effects along lines of going from larger to smaller nm , it can't take the strain as well as a chip of a larger nm make, there is no disputing that fact of it. Also bear in mind degregation speaks to "How well" the chip clocks up with a given amount of voltage over the course of time, Buildzoid's example shows the effects of this degregation at work and the effect(s) it has. 

I can use something here as a way of thinking about it for example - Remember old light bulbs with a wire filament?

Thicker filaments can handle larger amounts of power, smaller ones cannot handle the same amount without burning out and this effect is really similar to what happens when you downsize the nm's of a chip. 
That's also why voltage with each downsize in nm goes down, not up to get the same speeds from the silicon. Right now Ryzen 3000 is the smallest of these requiring the least amount of voltage to get to a given speed value, such as 4000MHz for example here. 

Older chips being larger in size can take more voltage to get there without issue, newer ones cannot without burning out, just like a bulb's filamant would do based on it's thickness (Size). Efficiency and speed does go up with reduced size because there is less of it (material) to go through but at a cost of how it can handle the voltage if it stays the same, which it cannot and continue to work because it will burn out if voltage isn't reduced. 

At least that's how I think of it. 

And yes, being an OC'er after all this time I understand all too well about degregation, it's effects and how it applies to both, older and newer hardware. 

Done with this - Carry on guys.


----------



## Zach_01 (Feb 29, 2020)

Schmuckley said:


> Yes you are. It's plain English.
> This 3600x has already been through a motherboard and PSU blowing up.


That was not on my quote and question



Schmuckley said:


> Yeah...don't use cheap fan controllers with Panaflos.
> PSU still works if you wanna use a 5450.
> CPU still works fine.


This was...
What is the meaning of this?
Are you telling how you blow up your board?


Are you telling that because the CPU has survived this, then it can handle 1.4+V and static OC?
WoW... how wasn’t I thought of that!


----------



## Fry178 (Feb 29, 2020)

@biffzinker
no, xfr and the like all off. just running PB (turns "on" when PBO is default/off).

@Bones/schmuckley
and how many cpus compared to global numbers?
how many have been running with "auto" settings in identical setup/environment to have a control group chip?
even if u had 100 chips in the past 20y would mean nothing compared to millions.
meaning you have ZERO proof, if we talk about ALL the cpus (of same brand/type/model).
so unless you guys setup multiple cpu the same exact way and put the same stress on them,
it means narda when it comes to "this works better".

same for different gens:
just because its an amd/zen, doesnt mean its the same or gets "treated" the same
and if all silicon is the same: how about taking a intel from 20y ago and run it like its a Zen cpu when it comes to voltages and clocks.
right.


----------



## Schmuckley (Feb 29, 2020)

Fry178 said:


> @biffzinker
> no, xfr and the like all off. just running PB (turns "on" when PBO is default/off).
> 
> @Bones/schmuckley
> ...


20 years ago, computer chips took 3v and ran from 66-160Mhz.
Also, AMD and Intel ran in the same socket.


----------



## moproblems99 (Feb 29, 2020)

Bones said:


> I'll be honest - I HATE seeing clocks jumping around, drives me nuts seeing it do that so I set things for it to be at the speed I want period.
> 
> I can also speak from past experience that all this yo-yo'ing of clocks can affect a chip.
> Mobile chips as an example do the same thing (Power saving features) but all this up and down of the core(s) does have a detrimental effect on the silicon over time, even if it's "Designed" for it which mobiles certainly are.
> ...



I mean to each their own, but I have laptops that will disagree with you.  Sadly enough, none of us have a sample size big enough to claim anything.  If you wanna run  your chip at 24v, good on you.  If someone else wants to run theirs at .5v, then good on them too.  Just be mindful telling other people that this or that is bullet proof and gospel.

The fact remains, when you do stuff out of spec, the only thing that should be expected is problems.  Whether or not you get them is a different story.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Feb 29, 2020)

Zach_01 said:


> Come on man... did you monitor his test bed?
> If that was true be sure about it that he would know. He doesn’t relay on software monitoring.



Mtn is a troll same with schmuckley, just ignore them.

Bones is not Young.



Zach_01 said:


> Keep it in plain English please. We are not all from US here. If we start calling whatever names this leads no where...
> 
> 
> Oh you both are going to know soon how different the 7nm is, the hard way...





Fry178 said:


> @biffzinker
> no, xfr and the like all off. just running PB (turns "on" when PBO is default/off).
> 
> @Bones/schmuckley
> ...



Bones acknowleges the risks involved in overclocking so no need to worry about him.

Schmuckley on the other hand hasn't a clue with anything, and I agree his advice is not advice but rubbish. There is a reason I ignore certain members and communicate with others.



moproblems99 said:


> I mean to each their own, but I have laptops that will disagree with you.  Sadly enough, none of us have a sample size big enough to claim anything.  If you wanna run  your chip at 24v, good on you.  If someone else wants to run theirs at .5v, then good on them too.  Just be mindful telling other people that this or that is bullet proof and gospel.
> 
> The fact remains, when you do stuff out of spec, the only thing that should be expected is problems.  Whether or not you get them is a different story.



Bro overclocking is out of spec no matter how you slice it.



R-T-B said:


> He is neither.  He's literally made a media business out of overclocking, something many of us could never hope to do.



You are right, mtn is a AMD Troll and schmuckley are nonsense givers.


----------



## Zach_01 (Feb 29, 2020)

eidairaman1 said:


> Bones acknowleges the risks involved in overclocking so no need to worry about him.


I figured that out, eventually...


----------



## Vayra86 (Feb 29, 2020)

@eidairaman1 Typical how the most clarifying post in the topic gets flagged Low Quality.

I respect @Zach_01 for his patience.. wow.



Schmuckley said:


> 20 years ago, computer chips took 3v and ran from 66-160Mhz.
> Also, AMD and Intel ran in the same socket.



They also didnt boost...


----------



## freeagent (Feb 29, 2020)

Degradation is just fancy for breaking it in, just means you need to use more voltage after  



Schmuckley said:


> 20 years ago, computer chips took 3v and ran from 66-160Mhz.
> Also, AMD and Intel ran in the same socket.


They still do I think, you just need a psu that’s on it’s way out, and a good hard stress test for the cpu. Hit go and you should see those rails nose dive. I’m referring to my x58 before I replaced the psu.
Also 20 years wasn’t that long ago


----------



## Bones (Feb 29, 2020)

Fry178 said:


> @biffzinker
> no, xfr and the like all off. just running PB (turns "on" when PBO is default/off).
> 
> @Bones/schmuckley
> ...



I hope you realize with this you just voided what the topic is about since even Buildzoid by this is but a singular example AND in this way, there is no way to provide such proof. There is no way ANY of us are going to have a lab setup with millions of chips (Test group(s) as you put it) lying around to test, run or anything else.

Even the post I quoted below says this and I bolded it for you.

We can only test what we have and go by the results we get - Just like Buildzoid did with his but I don't see many if any really arguing about what he came up with.


How many times does the same result from testing over and over have to play out before one can say it "Is" or at least probrably is?

At some point with any testing you have to come to a conclusion of some kind and say as much.
Certainly not in the millions as you make it out to be with your global test numbers - Even AMD themselves woudn't go _that far_ and they make 'em, so I guess by your post we can discount what AMD themselves spec's for them too since they haven't had degregation testing done in batches by the literal millions in control groups.
They do test them to see if they work before shipping out and that's it.

BTW if you do have a way to test a global number of chips concerning degredation yourself, show us please along with your results from all this testing.



Fry178 said:


> same for different gens:
> *just because its an amd/zen, doesnt mean its the same or gets "treated" the same
> and if all silicon is the same: how about taking a intel from 20y ago and run it like its a Zen cpu when it comes to voltages and clocks.*
> right.


_*Reread my previous*_ - I touched on that when I mentioned the lightbulb filamant comparison and did say things about differences when you reduce the nm size of a chip. Also reread another when I said I run mine with as little voltage as possible - I did say it because it's true.



moproblems99 said:


> I mean to each their own, but I have laptops that will disagree with you.  *Sadly enough, none of us have a sample size big enough to claim anything*.  If you wanna run  your chip at 24v, good on you.  If someone else wants to run theirs at .5v, then good on them too.  Just be mindful telling other people that this or that is bullet proof and gospel.
> 
> The fact remains, when you do stuff out of spec, the only thing that should be expected is problems.  Whether or not you get them is a different story.


Never made any claim what I said was "Bullet Proof" or gospel as you put it, results can and will vary.

Don't forget I'm at the bot too and "Out of spec" is the standing order of the day with chips frying and dying for me.


----------



## freeagent (Feb 29, 2020)

Well to be fair, overclocking has always been "At Your Own Risk" since the very beginning.

If they tell you your warranty will be void if you do something they warn you not to do, that is essentially on you, for thinking you knew better.. regardless if they could tell or not. Chances are they can nowadays.

I'm not saying don't overclock, but be smart about it if you intend for it to last. I would imagine them to be fragile to a degree, look how tiny the process is. And jamming a bunch of vcore into it probably doesn't help much since it is nearly at its limit anyways.


----------



## Bones (Feb 29, 2020)

freeagent said:


> Well to be fair, overclocking has always been "At Your Own Risk" since the very beginning.
> 
> If they tell you your warranty will be void if you do something they warn you not to do, that is essentially on you, for thinking you knew better.. regardless if they could tell or not. Chances are they can nowadays.
> 
> I'm not saying don't overclock, but be smart about it if you intend for it to last. I would imagine them to be fragile to a degree, look how tiny the process is. And jamming a bunch of vcore into it probably doesn't help much since it is nearly at its limit anyways.


I agree 100%.


----------



## mtcn77 (Feb 29, 2020)

You cannot get a consensus on cpu ihs dishing, or asymmetrically displaced cpu and its hideous consequences, or the voltage requirements, but boy doesn't everyone like naming names instead?
I like forums. At least everyone is true to character in a sick flick kind of way.


----------



## moproblems99 (Feb 29, 2020)

Bones said:


> Never made any claim what I said was "Bullet Proof" or gospel as you put it, results can and will vary.
> 
> Don't forget I'm at the bot too and "Out of spec" is the standing order of the day with chips frying and dying for me.



I didn't mean you as in you but as the proverbial 'you', the in general 'you'.  I almost edited my post.


----------



## gupsterg (Feb 29, 2020)

Zach_01 said:


> While on auto these chips can hit 1.475~1.5V
> 
> 
> 
> ...



UEFI is unlike legacy BIOS. UEFI is like a mini OS, Ryzen will boost when sat in UEFI. This has been the case with 1000/2000/3000 series AM4 and Threadripper. Get yourself a wall socket power meter and you'll also see quite high power usage when sat in UEFI.



Zach_01 said:


> I’m sorry but you don’t know all of it. 4.2GHz on the 3600 is for single thread only and not all core. And it’s doing this opportunistically and not sustained. This means that it should not work or loaded to 4.2GHz on all core loads. One way or another if you do that you will exceed silicon limits. You know anything about this and the silicon FITness controller?



I've got a launch purchase R5 3600 (besides having had R7 3700X/3x R9 3900X), at stock if CPU power usage is below ~60W I can have ~4.2GHz all cores boost on R5 3600.


Spoiler










PBO set to 105W CPU limits and +150MHz clock over-ride can result in ~4.35GHz all cores boost if ~60W or less is being pulled through CPU, link.


----------



## Ferrum Master (Feb 29, 2020)

Anyone wouldn't come to idea he has a dud CPU?

I have a old 3960X that bsods on stock voltage also... so what? It has been like that since day zero and is still alive in my LP box, I also noticed that way later, as the bsods were rare. It didn't affect his overclock ability at all, it just need more voltage at certain p states.

We are spamming 7 pages making philosophy etc, but to be fair, there should be a great amount CPU's ran through torture test like in a laboratory and then make such claims... this is nothing like mere gossip talk about cheating housewives.


----------



## Bones (Feb 29, 2020)

moproblems99 said:


> I didn't mean you as in you but as the proverbial 'you', the in general 'you'.  I almost edited my post.


Thank you for clarifying that.


----------



## gupsterg (Feb 29, 2020)

Schmuckley said:


> I'm sure not finding out anything about this "*silicon FITness controller* " via search engine. Got a link?



Zen in reviewers guide this is what it states.



> As a general guideline: a CPU voltage of 1.35V is acceptable for driving everyday overclocks of the AMD Ryzen processor. Core voltages up to 1.45V are also sustainable, but our models suggest that processor longevity may be affected. Regardlessof your voltage, make sure you’re using capable cooling to keep temperatures as low as possible.



See page 34 in this PDF.

For Zen+ I saw no official information, the only thing we have is The Stilt stating his observations concerning FIT under heading "Where is the limit?" in this post.

For Zen2 again I have seen no official information. Robert Hallock from AMD does not state one, his post on r/AMD. Now if you wanna see what FIT decides for your 3000 series follow what The Stilt posted here.

I posted a screenie and video link concerning my R5 3600 at stock and PBO+150MHz. Averaged voltage can be ~1.375V *if ~60W or less *is being pulled through CPU by loading application, once load and or temperature increases the clocks and voltages drop. The R7 3700X and 3x R9 3900X are also the same for this aspect.


----------



## moproblems99 (Feb 29, 2020)

Bones said:


> Thank you for clarifying that.



I almost edited my post as I was typing but all that crap sucks on mobile.


----------



## Zach_01 (Feb 29, 2020)

What I wanted to state in the end by saying these CPUs are not like any other we ever know is of course the 7nm process. What @Bones has stated with the light bulb pretty much.

But except the level of voltage (and mostly in conjunction with current) they can sustain, I strongly believe that the process it self and maybe the implementation of it it’s not for static speeds and voltages. All other past CPUs are more sustained in a speed and voltage during a light or a serious load. If you study the range of speed and voltage Ryzen 3000 is fluctuating at a given load, anyone will see that it’s unique. There is a very specific reason it behaves like this.
And this for me is the function of FIT that preserves the silicon.
That’s why I’m always sayIng that not only the level of voltage, but the static state of speed and voltage also contributes to degradation of the silicon. It’s not meant for this kind of operation, in the long term, more than any other CPU.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Mar 1, 2020)

Zach_01 said:


> What I wanted to state in the end by saying these CPUs are not like any other we ever know is of course the 7nm process. What @Bones has stated with the light bulb pretty much.
> 
> But except the level of voltage (and mostly in conjunction with current) they can sustain, I strongly believe that the process it self and maybe the implementation of it it’s not for static speeds and voltages. All other past CPUs are more sustained in a speed and voltage during a light or a serious load. If you study the range of speed and voltage Ryzen 3000 is fluctuating at a given load, anyone will see that it’s unique. There is a very specific reason it behaves like this.
> And this for me is the function of FIT that preserves the silicon.
> That’s why I’m always sayIng that not only the level of voltage, but the static state of speed and voltage also contributes to degradation of the silicon. It’s not meant for this kind of operation, in the long term, more than any other CPU.



Apparently I am just shy of 1.55V on my rig (1.524)


----------



## Zach_01 (Mar 1, 2020)

eidairaman1 said:


> Apparently I am just shy of 1.55V on my rig (1.524)


Oh I had an FX8370 and I know what abuse they can take... I can imagine the level of power draw you are on this voltage...


----------



## eidairaman1 (Mar 1, 2020)

Zach_01 said:


> Oh I had an FX8370 and I know what abuse they can take... I can imagine the level of power draw you are on this voltage...



Considering 5.0 lol, yeah, i just found a guide from 2013 for Asus motherboards, i learned the hardway of overclocking this platform because i had no guide then, be sweet if I could do a fsb oc and get the ram above DOCP/XMP specs and all extended dram tweaks set.


----------



## Bones (Mar 1, 2020)

Zach_01 said:


> What I wanted to state in the end by saying these CPUs are not like any other we ever know is of course the 7nm process. What @Bones has stated with the light bulb pretty much.
> 
> But except the level of voltage (and mostly in conjunction with current) they can sustain, I strongly believe that the process it self and maybe the implementation of it it’s not for static speeds and voltages. All other past CPUs are more sustained in a speed and voltage during a light or a serious load. If you study the range of speed and voltage Ryzen 3000 is fluctuating at a given load, anyone will see that it’s unique. There is a very specific reason it behaves like this.
> And this for me is the function of FIT that preserves the silicon.
> That’s why I’m always sayIng that not only the level of voltage, but the static state of speed and voltage also contributes to degradation of the silicon. It’s not meant for this kind of operation, in the long term, more than any other CPU.



I'm glad to hear you finally understood what I was getting at with this. 
Again, I never run mine with no more than it needs to operate for that very reason based on the chip itself. 

Each nm downsize equals a reduction in voltage required for basic operation and that's why past chips are indeed relevant because this effect from downsizing in nm has been happening all along as a proven, historical trend with each reduction in the nm process. 
From day one up until now it's still silicon in use for making them and until they change to something else like Graphine to make them from for example, it's gonna be like that. 

And here's what my FX-9590 can take - At subzero of course and yes, it's capable of even more this way.
I just gotta figure it out to get it. 








						Bones`s SuperPi - 32M score: 10min 13sec 266ms with a FX-9590
					

The FX-9590 @ 7741MHzscores getScoreFormatted in the SuperPi - 32M benchmark. Bonesranks #null worldwide and #null in the hardware class. Find out more at HWBOT.




					hwbot.org


----------



## eidairaman1 (Mar 1, 2020)

Bones said:


> I'm glad to hear you finally understood what I was getting at with this.
> Again, I never run mine with no more than it needs to operate for that very reason based on the chip itself.
> 
> Each nm downsize equals a reduction in voltage required for basic operation and that's why past chips are indeed relevant because this effect from downsizing in nm has been happening all along as a proven, historical trend with each reduction in the nm process.
> ...



I am fortunate to be pushing mine 2GHz lower than yours on a lower profile tower cooler


----------



## Bones (Mar 1, 2020)

If this chip holds up vs degredation I believe it can top 8GHz - In fact it's been there but coudn't get a validation of it at the time.
Needs a different board to make it happen.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Mar 1, 2020)

Bones said:


> If this chip holds up vs degredation I believe it can top 8GHz - In fact it's been there but coudn't get a validation of it at the time.
> Needs a different board to make it happen.



Are you saying you need a Crosshair? Or a high end AsRock/GA board?


----------



## Zach_01 (Mar 1, 2020)

Well I couldn’t go past 4.6GHz with mine. Didn’t have the right cooling solution. When I finally got the AIO I currently have, I was to lazy to try for more...
Even at 5.0GHz it’s like 250+W or what?


----------



## eidairaman1 (Mar 1, 2020)

Zach_01 said:


> Well I couldn’t go past 4.6GHz with mine. Didn’t have the right cooling solution. When I finally got the AIO I currently have, I was to lazy to try for more...
> Even at 5.0GHz it’s like 250+W or what?



Never worried about that as I have a 1250Watt PSU (was gonna do crossfire till it got abandoned)

I disabled a lot of power settings on the motherboard.


----------



## Zach_01 (Mar 1, 2020)

Yeah never concerned about power usage and PSU wise I always had headroom also.
It’s for the cooling issue I commend for the 250+W


----------



## eidairaman1 (Mar 1, 2020)

Zach_01 said:


> Yeah never concerned about power usage and PSU wise I always had headroom also.
> It’s for the cooling issue I commend for the 250+W


I need to look at my cooler and see if it is even rated for that.

Well There is no wattage info i could find, just know under gaming conditions it stays around 55°C, under Ryzen Blender 75°C.

Moral of the story is CPUs can only handle less and less vcore without burning up. Buildzoid had a oops moment and that just proves we cant run 1.375 through a 3700X and expect it to survive. And Both Intel and AMD are taking overclocking away from us which sucks


----------



## Zach_01 (Mar 1, 2020)

Well, what else can they do... things are going like that... Not that they doing it on purpose.


----------



## R-T-B (Mar 1, 2020)

mtcn77 said:


> I don't say so needlessly. It is that he is using msi and that entails its own conditions on his supposed 1.375v which is 1.475v in fact.



Ok, prove you know more than him. I'm sure your resume is extensive.

Or, alternatively, stop.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Mar 1, 2020)

R-T-B said:


> Ok, prove you know more than him. I'm sure your resume is extensive.
> 
> Or, alternatively, stop.



He needs to take a hike


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Mar 1, 2020)

Zach_01 said:


> Well, what else can they do... things are going like that... Not that they doing it on purpose.


They are doing it on purpose, to optimize performance , really quite uniformly at least for all users , the only outlier to this would be laptops wherein year on year power budgets drop yet meaning full performance is expected to rise.
And in slimmer packages.

Afaik all dies are now ground down to be considerably thinner sometimes flexible even, that can't help with radiation transmission weva.


----------



## moproblems99 (Mar 1, 2020)

Bones said:


> From day one up until now it's still silicon in use for making them and until they change to something else like Graphine to make them from for example, it's gonna be like that.



Yes, it is silicon but the individual components are 40% smaller than the last one.  For all we know, the properties (functional, for us) start to change and historical trends don't matter anymore.  Similar to how Ryzen's, especially 3s, are bucking some of the trends that we are used to operationally.  Again, similar to how intel is having problems clocking on 10.


----------



## Bones (Mar 1, 2020)

eidairaman1 said:


> Are you saying you need a Crosshair? Or a high end AsRock/GA board?


I've got one, just need to use it with the chip. 
The board I was using itself can throw 2.0v's+ to it.


----------



## Zach_01 (Mar 1, 2020)

theoneandonlymrk said:


> They are doing it on purpose, to optimize performance , really quite uniformly at least for all users , the only outlier to this would be laptops wherein year on year power budgets drop yet meaning full performance is expected to rise.
> And in slimmer packages.
> 
> Afaik all dies are now ground down to be considerably thinner sometimes flexible even, that can't help with radiation transmission weva.


I meant they’re not doing it (for us to loose OC & extra performance) on purpose... It is what it is... It’s competition they’re up against.


----------



## moproblems99 (Mar 1, 2020)

eidairaman1 said:


> And Both Intel and AMD are taking overclocking away from us which sucks



I'll be honest, part of the reason I bought Ryzen was to be lazy and get 95% of possible performance from day 1.  Surprisingly, it is has almost been as fun digging through the ASRock UEFI looking for shit.


----------



## Bones (Mar 1, 2020)

moproblems99 said:


> Yes, it is silicon but the individual components are 40% smaller than the last one.  For all we know, the properties (functional, for us) start to change and historical trends don't matter anymore.  Similar to how Ryzen's, especially 3s, are bucking some of the trends that we are used to operationally.  Again, similar to how intel is having problems clocking on 10.



I can't say you're wrong, could be once it gets to a certain size or smaller you'd have to throw convention out the window. 

ATM I'm still seeing things going in the same direction even with the Ryzen 3000 chips, the differences I'm seeing are in how things are implemented - Could also be this is out of necessity due to it's smaller size to make it work properly. 
Either that or it's just them implementing more features with the chips. 

Can't say one way or the other myself on that.


----------



## Fry178 (Mar 1, 2020)

@Bones
i should have added, its no proof either way (incl BZ).
and of course i was a little over exaggerating with millions, but just because someone has a couple of chips that can handle certain numbers, doesn't mean all can/all the time.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Mar 1, 2020)

Bones said:


> I've got one, just need to use it with the chip.
> The board I was using itself can throw 2.0v's+ to it.



Hmm, a crosshair right?

Also 2V on vcore right?



Fry178 said:


> @Bones
> i should have added, its no proof either way (incl BZ).
> and of course i was a little over exaggerating with millions, but just because someone has a couple of chips that can handle certain numbers, doesn't mean all can/all the time.



Been like that since jumper overclocking



moproblems99 said:


> I'll be honest, part of the reason I bought Ryzen was to be lazy and get 95% of possible performance from day 1.  Surprisingly, it is has almost been as fun digging through the ASRock UEFI looking for shit.



I guess I'm old fashioned.

Rather OC myself.


----------



## Bones (Mar 1, 2020)

@eidairaman1 Was running a Sabertooth 2.0 for my runs.



Fry178 said:


> @Bones
> i should have added, its no proof either way (incl BZ).



Dude......
*By the way you presented this *it's still impossible to say for example the sun factually rises in the east and sets in the west even if you had observed, took notes and compared every sunrise and sunset since the beginning of time itself because, from the way you put it all that doesn't matter, never did, never will.

Since you referred to it,* From you once again:*
_"and how many cpus compared to global numbers?
how many have been running with "auto" settings in identical setup/environment to have a control group chip?
even if u had 100 chips in the past 20y would mean nothing compared to millions.
*meaning you have ZERO proof, if we talk about ALL the cpus* (of same brand/type/model)."_

You already know that no one is going to have them all, time to test them, facilities to do that in...... Then using what's clearly impossible to acheive to justify your arguement _is beyond ridiculous_ and in itself proves nothing.
There does come a point in time from all the testing you MUST declare something as actually being "*something*", esp if the same results keep happening over and over again or just stop wasting time and don't do it at all.



Fry178 said:


> and of course i was a little over exaggerating with millions, but just because someone has a couple of chips that can handle certain numbers, doesn't mean all can/all the time.


This is an obvious thing, it's called the Silicon Lottery".


----------



## droopyRO (Mar 1, 2020)

A bit of offtopic:









I did this clip last night, the top one is PBO off with undervolt -0.0625 + 105W TDP limit and the bottom one is the default board settings with undervolt. So PBO looks kind of useless IRL, will test it further in apps.



Ferrum Master said:


> You have have same CPU Temps to have use of this bench.


I dont understand what you mean, sorry.


----------



## Ferrum Master (Mar 1, 2020)

droopyRO said:


> A bit of offtopic:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You have have same CPU Temps to have use of this bench.

@droopyRO 

Why did you edit, it hard fo me to reply without looking like double post.

Your temps vary a lot in between benches, I saw around 10C. That changes the turbo boost duration for the gpu and also CPU now. You have to cooldown or/and ramp up everything on 100% fan speed(open window, it is winter) to tame the temperature drift, in order to have similar boost clocks for the system. 

Basically even if you undervolt, PBO would work better if you have better cooling capacity.


----------



## droopyRO (Mar 1, 2020)

The tests were done at a few minutes apart, the time it takes to reboot you PC and make a few BIOS settings. 
GPU/CPU is at 59ºC/49ºC respectively 61º/54º at the beginning of the tests.  With PBO off and TDP limit it will not boost as high as with them on. But you see an average of 15W reduction in power consumption and with 0.125V less, for the same performance.
Also this is the time it took to render this clip on both the PBO off and on settings.


----------



## Ferrum Master (Mar 1, 2020)

Try the same with CPU fan on max... imho the cooling is the limiting factor here, thus PBO ain't that useless in those cases... as it gives a simple thing - enable, slap a really good cooler or live in tundra and here we are even for an average Joe. It doesn't apply to us as enthusiasts, but things have changed really. Tinkering too much into doing voltages and frequencies has passed, just as GPU. The only thing we need to do is to provide decent cooling and the silicon should do everything himself.


----------



## droopyRO (Mar 1, 2020)

Did you check my system spec before replying ? Better cooling for what, ? I have a Noctua U12(because i a like silent PC) with two Noctua 1300 rpm in push-pull config. If i want better performance i can sell the 2700X and get a Ryzen 3700X. Rather than invest 100$-150$ in some useless AiO just to get 100Mhz more.


----------



## Fry178 (Mar 1, 2020)

@Bones
(btw, im not your "dude").
it still will not change the fact that someone telling me that certain (higher voltages) are safe, just because a handful of chips "made it",
and not even having enough samples to be statistically relevant, and especially if they don't work for the company making them, yet "know better"

and you cant factually say where the sun rises,  as it changes with the observer's position.
and this time i make it easy to NOT misunderstand me: northern/southern half of the planet.


@droopyRO
unless you start gaming and the cpu heat dumped inside the case heats up the air,
lowering you gpu boost clocks (starting above 40*C gpu temp), which is less of an issue using even the cheapest AIO
setup as exhaust to dump the heat outside the case.
temps on gpu can make a difference of the next faster chip being slower.


----------



## Super XP (Mar 1, 2020)

Mr McC said:


> Just noticed this, it may be of interest. It appears Buildzoid's static overclock on his 3700x has degraded the processor:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


But with Boost & Turbo clocks Ryzen doesn't need overclocking really. As it boosts when you most need them to boost. 
Anyhow I've had a AMD FX 8350 Piledriver CPU statically overclocked to 4.40GHz all cores and minimal voltages for about 5 years with absolutely no issues, and even sold it for a pretty penny after I got my R7 1700X CPU. Apparently that FX-8350 is still running strong.



R0H1T said:


> Well TDP doesn't have a standard industry definition, & if you ask Intel they'll give a different answer from AMD. Talk with forum dwellers like us, & that's generally not gonna be pretty. Not defending Intel (or AMD) here but in today's world TDP definition is kinda malleable, especially depending on boost clocks as well as OCed speeds. You generally get more cooling headroom than what the manufacturer states as their "TDP" & you're good to go, just like with PSU & (total) system power draw.


Last I read AMD measures its TDP by its max achievable boost clocks, where as Intel measures there's by there base clocks, as to give the illusion of a lower TDP, lol I just wish I could find that very detailed analysis I read a couple years ago online. Maybe Intel paid to have that analysis removed? kidding lol


----------



## Bones (Mar 1, 2020)

Fry178 said:


> @Bones
> (btw, im not your "dude").



It was a figure of speech.... Dude.
Get over yourself already, you're not that special and to be fair about it, neither am I.



Fry178 said:


> it still will not change the fact that someone telling me that certain (higher voltages) are safe, just because a handful of chips "made it",



And I'd like to see where I'm the someone that told _you_ it was safe to run higher voltages 24/7.
Take that up with the one that did say it to you and be done with it because you'll find no solution here about that.

To say it as you said it "_and this time i make it easy to NOT misunderstand me"_..... I always use the least amount of voltage that's needed per chip.

Yes, I don't try to overvolt and then claim it's 24/7 safe, been doing this for too long to know better.



Fry178 said:


> and not even having enough samples to be statistically relevant, and especially if they don't work for the company making them, yet "know better"



Sure..... Keep on with the impossible requirements about control groups and so on, things you know will never be and then try to use this impossibility as "Justification"....
It's BS and we both know it.



Fry178 said:


> and you cant factually say where the sun rises,  as it changes with the observer's position.
> and this time i make it easy to NOT misunderstand me: northern/southern half of the planet



AH!
Nice "Spin" on this  but you're not worming out of this one so easily.
The Sun STILL comes up _towards_ the East and goes down _towards_ the West no matter where observed due to the rotation of the earth being consistent in direction relative to the sun itself no matter where you are on it, does it even at the poles when observed there.

Speaking of the poles although it may not disappear over the horizon for 6 months it still goes up and down a little as observed, from an Easterly to Westerly direction until it's hidden by the horizon for the other half of the year.
EDIT:
If you want to continue this back and forth, please.... Let's take it to PM's and be done with it.


----------



## Mr McC (Mar 1, 2020)

Thanks all for turning this thread into an interesting discussion, well it is of interest to me at any rate.


----------



## moproblems99 (Mar 1, 2020)

Mr McC said:


> Thanks all for turning this thread into an interesting discussion, well it is of interest to me at any rate.



It's pretty common, rarely do threads play out as intended.


----------



## Mr McC (Mar 1, 2020)

moproblems99 said:


> It's pretty common, rarely do threads play out as intended.



Agreed, but with a little effort, we can all learn to agree to disagree, we can defend our positions and encourage debate without any hostility.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Mar 1, 2020)

Mr McC said:


> Agreed, but with a little effort, we can all learn to agree to disagree, we can defend our positions and encourage debate without any hostility.


Yup till trolls from intel/nvidia show up


----------



## mtcn77 (Mar 1, 2020)

eidairaman1 said:


> Yup till trolls from intel/nvidia show up


Hey, no one leaves me out of a good trollfest. Let's slug it out.


----------



## Michael Nager (Mar 1, 2020)

Here is a comment I made on Buildzoid's video 







 entitled "The easy way to get a bit more performance out of Ryzen 3000 CPUs on Gigabyte X570 Motherboards"


From the outset, you have the same motherboard as I, the GigaByte X570 AURUS XTREME and the same CPU namely the 3950X.

If I were to put my hand on my heart and swear why I bought such an expensive mobo then the deciding reason was that it doesn't have a chipset fan. I have had mobos with a chipset fan in the past and I hated them.

Price is also a relative thing; I got the board for £580 but this would be considered "cheap" for a mobile phone, and yet for a mobo that will last me for a few years this is meant to be exorbitantly expensive?

But let's get to the meat and potatoes about why I am writing this rather lengthy comment and including a real guide on how to configure a 3rd Gen Ryzen system.

I watched a video from a guy called Major Hardware and he had a 3950X and a GigaByte board and pretty much everything went wrong for him and I felt sorry for him.

When I first started messing about with the Ryzen system (I started off with a GigaByte X470 AURUS Gaming 7 WiFi and a 3600X (I knew I wanted the AURUS XTREME board, but not at the price it was available and I also wanted the then rumoured 16 Core /32 Thread Ryzen if and when it ever came out).

After two months of frustration I realised that pretty much everything I thought I knew after 37 years of being a techie with regard to setting up the system wasn't really applicable, and I had to do a lot of unlearning - which you still do not seem to have considered.

The overwhelming amount of videos put out by so-called Tech-YouTubers on the topic of configuring Ryzen 3rd Gen are not only garbage, but also, over time, will lead to the degradation if not outright frying of the CPU.

So after watching Major Hardware's video I decided to post a guide in the comment section of the video to help him out based on my experience and the knowledge I have gained.

Do I think I have done a competent job?

Because of my back problems (I have had two spine operations and have spinal arthritis) I have to keep the room temperature pretty warm.

The ambient temperature in my room is 28 - 29 °C and you should keep that in mind when I show you the following benchmark results of my system, and you can compare it to yours:

My R9 3950X with SMT On:

1) CineBench R20 all-core score of 10,170 and a single core score of 498

2) FireStrike EVGA 1080 Ti SC2 I have a Graphics Score of 28,213, a Physics Score of 33,848 and a Combined Score of 15,488
3) FireStrike Extreme EVGA 1080 Ti SC2 I have a Graphics Score of 14,130, a Physics Score of 33,821 and a Combined Score of 7,057
4) FireStrike Ultra EVGA 1080 Ti SC2 I have a Graphics Score of 7,180, a Physics Score of 34,089 and a Combined Score of 3,902

5) TimeSpy EVGA 1080 Ti SC2 I have a Graphics Score of 10,292 and a CPU Score of 15,390
6) TimeSpy Extreme EVGA 1080 Ti SC2 I have a Graphics Score of 4,791 and a CPU Score of 9,421

7) Ghost Recon Wildlands benchmark 1080p everything at max FPS 86.33, CPU 14.7% (Min. 9.8% Max. 23.2%) and GPU 96.7%

8) 7zip Compression Average 124.906 MB/s, Decompression 199.303 MB/s


My R9 3950X  with SMT Off:

1) CineBench R20  all-core score of 7,817 and a single core score of 513

2) FireStrike EVGA 1080 Ti SC2 I have a Graphics Score of 28,295, a Physics Score of 30,052 and a Combined Score of 15,833
3) FireStrike Extreme EVGA 1080 Ti SC2 I have a Graphics Score of 14,170, a Physics Score of 30,168 and a Combined Score of 7,076
4) FireStrike Ultra EVGA 1080 Ti SC2 I have a Graphics Score of 7,186, a Physics Score of 30,164 and a Combined Score of 3,906

5) TimeSpy EVGA 1080 Ti SC2 I have a Graphics Score of 10,271 and a CPU Score of 15,340
6) TimeSpy Extreme EVGA 1080 Ti SC2 I have a Graphics Score of 4,788 and a CPU Score of 7,564

7) Ghost Recon Wildlands benchmark 1080p everything at max FPS 86.51, CPU 23.4% (Min. 17.2% Max. 48.6%) and GPU 97%

8) 7zip Compression Average 103.106 MB/s Decompression 129.844 MB/s

The cooler I am using is the AlphaCool EisBaer 360 LT which as the name suggests has a 360 rad and I am running it with three Noctua NF-A12x25 fans.

So the following is the step-by-step guide to configuring the system which I wrote in his comment section whereby you will be able to maximise the performance without running the risk of frying your CPU and you don't have to live in a ice-locker as you seem to do, to get a result:

I have to preface this with some info that is woefully lacking in the videos or articles you may see or read.

The thing is that as opposed to Intel CPUs that you have been used to (and that I was used to) the BIOS is supplied to the motherboard manufacturers as a binary and is called AGESA.

So what you see displayed as "The BIOS" is in effect just a configuration menu for the AGESA. The problem about editing the AGESA portion found under "Settings" under the headings "AMD CBS" and "AMD Overclocking" directly is that with some of the options, if you enter a wrong value, then your system will not boot. What is worse however is that some of the settings cannot be removed with a "Clear CMOS" and your mobo is effectively bricked.

With the GigaByte board you have you are lucky that you have a Dual-BIOS and I would strenuously suggest that you change the switches to "Single BIOS" and have a clean. up to date Backup BIOS and you can then configure the Master BIOS to your hearts content.

So now to configuring your BIOS:

1) Go into Easy Mode (F2) and click on "Load Optimized Defaults (F7)

a) Switch to Advanced Mode (F2)

b) Under the heading "Tweaker" do the following:

a) Go down to the bottom of the page and open "CPU/VRM Settings"
i) Set "CPU Vcore Loadline Calibration to "Turbo"
ii) Set "SOC Loadline Calibration" to "High"
iii) Set "PWM Phase Control" to "eXm Perf" (eXtreme Performance)

2) Under the heading "Setting"
a) Go to "AMD CBS"
i) Go to "XFR Enhancement"
ii) Set the FCLK Freqency to the desired value (in your case 1800 MHz)
iii) Set the "UCLK DIV1 MODE" to "UCLK ==MEMCLK"

b) Go to "AMD Overclocking" under "Settings"
i) Click on "Accept"
ii) Go to "DDR and Infinity Fabric Frequency/Timings"
iii) Go to "Infinity Fabric Frequency and Dividers"
iv) Set "Infinity Fabric Frequency and Dividers" to the desired value (in your case again 1800 MHz).

3) Under the heading "Boot" do the following
a) Set "Full Screen LOGO Show" to "Disabled"

Of course setting the boot drive etc. should be obvious and I don't think I need to explain that.

Do NOT set anything else, like "Extreme Memory Profie(X.M.P)" for instance.

There that's you done with the BIOS part of the configuration

Boot into Windows and install "Ryzen Master".

When Ryzen Master has loaded, click on "Creator Mode" on the left hand side.

1) Make sure "Control Mode" is expanded and under that heading click on "Manual"

2) Make sure that the section "Cores Section" is expanded
a) Expand "CCD0" and "CCD1"
b) Click on the red circle on the right hand side so that it changes to what looks like a Green "X"
i) Click in the first field beside "C 01" and change the clockspeed. You should have absolutely no problems setting it to "4250". When you have done the rest of the configuration then test it and increase it (in my case it is set to 4300 and I have no problems). When you set one field, because the Green X is activated, all the other values will change to what you set.

3) Make sure "Voltage Control" is expanded
a) Set "Peak Core(s) Voltage to 1.3 Volts

4) Make sure Memory Control is expanded and that it is "Included"
a) "Coupled Mode" should be "On"
b) Set your memory clock speed (in your case it would be 1800) remember this is the data rate. Infinty Fabric runs at the data rate and RAM runs at double data rate.

5) Make sure "Voltage Contols" is expanded
Unless otherwise stated, leave the values on "Auto"

a) MEM VDDIO should be set to 1.35
b) MEM VTT should be set to 0.675
c) VDDCR SOC should be set to 1.05

6) Make sure "DRAM Timing Configuration" is expanded

Now I have found that unless these values are set then every time you change something (like the voltage or the clockspeed) the system will want to reboot. If these are set then the values are just changed and you can continue

a) Change "CAS Latency" from "Auto" and you should see the correct value for your RAM
b) Change "Row Precharge Delay" from "Auto" and you should see the correct value for your RAM
c) Change "Read Row-Column Delay" from "Auto" and you should see the correct value for your RAM
d) Change "Write Row-Column Delay" from "Auto" and you should see the correct value for your RAM
e) Change "Row Cycle Time" from "Auto" and you should see the correct value for your RAM

Leave everything else on "Auto" and you can configure those sub-timings at your leisure.

7) Make sure that "DRAM Controller Configuration" is expanded
a) Change "Cmd2T" from "2T" to "1T". If you have good quality RAM then it should run at 1T. If not then change this back to 2T.

Now at the bottom click on "Save Profile" and then click on "Apply & Test" and the system will reboot.

Now as you will see, the CPU is limited to a maximum of 1.3 Volts and essentially you are just seeing how much clockspeed you can squeeze out of those 1.3 Volts. When the system is not under load then of course the operational voltage will decrease.

Now comes the best part about the 3950X.

If you are mainly gaming, then click on the profile "Game Mode" and do exactly the same as above EXCEPT:

1) Under the heading "Additional Control" turn "Simultaneous Multithreading" to "OFF". This will run your CPU as a straight 16 Core/16 Thread CPU.

2) Under "Cores Section" make sure the red circle is a green "X" and add 100 MHz to whatever was stable running 16 Cores /32 Threads with SMT ("Simultaneous Multithreading") ON

The one problem with the GigaByte BIOS is that this is not changed and you have to go into the BIOS and

1) In the Advanced Mode go to "Tweaker"
a) Under "Advanced CPU Settings"
i) Go down to "SMT Mode"
ii) Change from "Auto" to "Disabled"

Save and exit.

If you want to go back to using 16 Cores/32 Threads just choose the "Creator Profile" and then change this value back to "Auto" again.

That's it.

I know it looks like a lot, but it really isn't.

IMPORTANT!!

Every time you reboot the system you have to load Ryzen Master and apply the profile you want. Unfortunately there is no way as yet to automatically load a default profile, but I hope that option will be forthcoming in the future.

If you are applying the same Profile you had before you shut down then the system will not need a reboot.

After you have applied the profile you can close Ryzen Master.

Have fun.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Mar 1, 2020)

Stinginess, never had issue with chipset fans, infact that was an upgrade in past...


----------



## Michael Nager (Mar 2, 2020)

eidairaman1 said:


> Stinginess, never had issue with chipset fans, infact that was an upgrade in past...


The problem I had back in the day was that the PC kept on crashing and after going nuts trying to trouble-shoot the problem I finally noticed that the chipset fan wasn't spinning.


----------



## moproblems99 (Mar 2, 2020)

eidairaman1 said:


> Yup till trolls from intel/nvidia show up



Let's not kid ourselves, trolls exist on either side.  Although I think the AMD side is more akin to ostriches burying their head in the sand.

In either case, as 7nm plays out, it will be interesting to see what happens.  It already seems like the writing is on the wall with Intel having issues.  We'll get a better picture when NV pushes over.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Mar 2, 2020)

moproblems99 said:


> Let's not kid ourselves, trolls exist on either side.  Although I think the AMD side is more akin to ostriches burying their head in the sand.
> 
> In either case, as 7nm plays out, it will be interesting to see what happens.  It already seems like the writing is on the wall with Intel having issues.  We'll get a better picture when NV pushes over.


I see most of the intel trolls in most AMD related threads, i dont bother intel threads unless if i can help with cooling...


----------



## Mr McC (Mar 2, 2020)

Michael Nager said:


> Here is a comment I made on Buildzoid's video
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thanks for the very detailed post, can you expand on the reason why you simply didn't enable XMP settings? Cheers


----------



## Michael Nager (Mar 2, 2020)

moproblems99 said:


> Let's not kid ourselves, trolls exist on either side.  Although I think the AMD side is more akin to ostriches burying their head in the sand.
> 
> In either case, as 7nm plays out, it will be interesting to see what happens.  It already seems like the writing is on the wall with Intel having issues.  We'll get a better picture when NV pushes over.


I remember back in the day when Intel was developing the Itanium CPU as their 64-bit processor and then AMD came out with their 64-bit architecture and basically ended Intel's Itanium.

I wonder if the same thing could happen again with regard to Nvidia's RTX when AMD introduces its version of Ray-Tracing. It has to be borne in mind that the consoles will be running on AMD GPU hardware in the next generation and games developers will probably adopt that as the standard.

I think we can all agree that RTX has been pretty much a disaster and DLSS is as good as dead.


----------



## Schmuckley (Mar 2, 2020)

I just found 2 NB coolers..nice ones..in the sink box.
Thought I sold them, guess not!  

I was like..dang! 2, even!
2 heatpipe+fin coolers.
I know I sent one to somebody free. I know I did.


----------



## Michael Nager (Mar 2, 2020)

Mr McC said:


> Thanks for the very detailed post, can you expand on the reason why you simply didn't enable XMP settings? Cheers


That's quite simple, as soon as I enabled XMP on the RAM the system became very unstable, even when I had the same values implemented in Ryzen Master.

The other thing that, if I configure the BIOS exactly the way the system is configured in Ryzen Master then Windows loads with just garbage on the screen and when I reboot it goes into repair mode.

The other thing about using the XMP profile was that any time I made even the slightest change to the configuration in Ryzen Master it required a reboot, whereas with XMP off I can change values on the fly and click on "Apply" and I am done.

The thing is that the actual BIOS is the AGESA and it is supplied as a binary so what I am configuring with regard to the CPU in what one would normally think of as the BIOS is basically "GigaByte Master".

After a couple of months of frustration and realising that the Tech Media and Tech YouTubers were full of it, I decided to start all over again.

Through trial and error I found that the system ran most stably when I only configured the motherboard parameters in the BIOS and configured the CPU and the RAM in Ryzen Master (except for overclocking the RAM to 3733 MHz and I had to configure the Infinity Fabric to 1866 in the AMD potion of the BIOS).

Since then I have had no problems with the system.


----------



## Schmuckley (Mar 2, 2020)

What's up with the XMP/D.O.C.P fail?
Z170 days that was the way to go!
Set XMP and you got Nick Shih RAM OCing guide and profiles.


----------



## moproblems99 (Mar 2, 2020)

Michael Nager said:


> I remember back in the day when Intel was developing the Itanium CPU as their 64-bit processor and then AMD came out with their 64-bit architecture and basically ended Intel's Itanium.
> 
> I wonder if the same thing could happen again with regard to Nvidia's RTX when AMD introduces its version of Ray-Tracing. It has to be borne in mind that the consoles will be running on AMD GPU hardware in the next generation and games developers will probably adopt that as the standard.
> 
> I think we can all agree that RTX has been pretty much a disaster and DLSS is as good as dead.



I don't think so because the individual nuts and bolts to RTX are abstracted by DXR within DirectX.  I think devs may optimize for AMD's implementation of it naturally because of consoles but NV will continue to shell out money to devs to optimize for it.



eidairaman1 said:


> I see most of the intel trolls in most AMD related threads, i dont bother intel threads unless if i can help with cooling...



 LOL, did you call yourself a troll? As for threadshitting, asshats are born everyday but life goes on.


----------



## Super XP (Mar 2, 2020)

Michael Nager said:


> I remember back in the day when Intel was developing the Itanium CPU as their 64-bit processor and then AMD came out with their 64-bit architecture and basically ended Intel's Itanium.
> 
> I wonder if the same thing could happen again with regard to Nvidia's RTX when AMD introduces its version of Ray-Tracing. It has to be borne in mind that the consoles will be running on AMD GPU hardware in the next generation and games developers will probably adopt that as the standard.
> 
> I think we can all agree that RTX has been pretty much a disaster and DLSS is as good as dead.


In that respect the entire computer industry can thank AMD for pushing 64-bit technology. 

With regards to RTX, last I checked AMD, Intel and Nvidia are coordinating there RTX efforts together in cooperation with game devs.


----------



## moproblems99 (Mar 2, 2020)

Super XP said:


> In that respect the entire computer industry can thank AMD for pushing 64-bit technology.



64bit was a necessity and an inevitability. The only question was who's was going to be adopted.


----------



## Michael Nager (Mar 2, 2020)

Super XP said:


> In that respect the entire computer industry can thank AMD for pushing 64-bit technology.
> 
> With regards to RTX, last I checked AMD, Intel and Nvidia are coordinating there RTX efforts together in cooperation with game devs.


Nvidia doesn't "coordinate" with others. It tries to dictate and is strictly a "my way or the highway" kind of player in the market. DirectX Raytracing is based on Nvidia hardware without any input from AMD.

AMD filed a patent for hybrid Ray-Tracing at the end of 2017 and is in a far better position to impose a de facto Ray-Tracing standard given its monopoly with regard to creating the CPU and GPU in the Micro$haft and $ONY consoles.

I have two 1080 Ti graphics cards (EVGA 1080 Ti FTW3 and an EVGA 1080 Ti SC2) and the current overpriced offerings from both AMD and Nvidia can rot on the shelves as far as I am concerned.

There are very few games available which implement "Ray-Tracing" and even those do so to a very limited extent. Nvidia has effectively priced Ray-Tracing out of the market and it is highly unlikely that AMD will follow Nvidia's lead.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Mar 2, 2020)

Buildzoid did not kill his 3700x see him set it up optimally here, on an Asus Itx.

Degraded possibly , dead no.


----------



## Super XP (Mar 2, 2020)

Michael Nager said:


> Nvidia doesn't "coordinate" with others. It tries to dictate and is strictly a "my way or the highway" kind of player in the market. DirectX Raytracing is based on Nvidia hardware without any input from AMD.
> 
> AMD filed a patent for hybrid Ray-Tracing at the end of 2017 and is in a far better position to impose a de facto Ray-Tracing standard given its monopoly with regard to creating the CPU and GPU in the Micro$haft and $ONY consoles.
> 
> ...


I fully agree. Wasn't happy with Nvidia's Ray Tracing implementation. 
But was going by this article. 












						HW News - Intel i7-10700K 5.3GHz Rumors, Apple Malware Surge, & Sony PS5 Pricing
					

Hardware news this week talks about our upcoming factory tours, Intel's vulnerabilities for February, Threadripper 3990X world records, and more.




					www.gamersnexus.net
				






moproblems99 said:


> 64bit was a necessity and an inevitability. The only question was who's was going to be adopted.


I remember Intel was kind of angry with AMD for coming out with the Athlon 64 and being the 1st to introduce 64-bit processors. Intel didn't want to move in that direction at that time and did what they can to prevent AMD from technological and innovative advancements. AMD won and Intel lost. 

Intel's Itanium 64-bit was full of issues. There's a wealth of articles on the subject, but the main site The Inquirer.net unfortunately shut down. From that site came Fudzilla and SemiAccurate.


----------



## Michael Nager (Mar 2, 2020)

theoneandonlymrk said:


> Buildzoid did not kill his 3700x see him set it up optimally here, on an Asus Itx.
> 
> Degraded possibly , dead no.


The problem as I see it with the Ryzen 3000 series - after experimenting first with a 3600X on a GigaByte X470 Gaming 7 WiFi, then on the GigaByte X570 AURUS XTREME, then with a 3950X on the X570 board and with the 3900X my friend lent me also on the X570 board for over six months now - is that AMD has pushed the voltage on these CPUs beyond the limit in an attempt not to fall back in the clockspeed department.

People are stupid, and they see 5 GHz for Intel and 4.2 GHz for AMD and think "5 is bigger than 4 therefore Intel is better".

The first generation of Ryzen was a good series, the one thing that let them down was that all the motherboards sucked.

The second generation of Ryzen was and incremental improvement on the first generation and there were a few pretty good boards that were brought out by the motherboard manufacturers because they started to take Ryzen seriously.

The third generation which we currently have was a major step forward, but also a step back.

The improvement in IPC of the third generation was comparatively huge, and the motherboard manufacturers have gotten behind this series in a big way. The step back however was in the realms of clockspeed. As the nodes have shrunk it is more and more difficult to squeeze more clockspeed out of the architecture simply because you have to work with reduced voltages.

Unfortunately to hit the advertised boost frequencies way too much voltage is pumped in - to compensate for the VDroop under load - and you end up with the system on idle drifting up to 1.5 Volts and under load going to 1.37 Volts or above.

This is unacceptable, considering that at these levels of voltage you are not even getting 4.1 GHz running CineBench R20.

It is inevitable, left to its own devices, and the grace of AMD's defaults, that a Ryzen 3000 CPU will degrade.

Thankfully they managed to gag that baldy-headed little cretin of a marketdroid Robert Hallock, because he was just a lawsuit waiting to happen for AMD the way he was shooting his mouth off, and especially his videos on configuring the Ryzen 3000 CPU.



Super XP said:


> I fully agree. Wasn't happy with Nvidia's Ray Tracing implementation.
> But was going by this article.
> View attachment 147051
> 
> ...


GDC has been cancelled and it speaks of wanting to plan discussions, not that any discussions had actually taken place in the past.


----------



## Zach_01 (Mar 2, 2020)

Michael Nager said:


> The problem as I see it with the Ryzen 3000 series - after experimenting first with a 3600X on a GigaByte X470 Gaming 7 WiFi, then on the GigaByte X570 AURUS XTREME, then with a 3950X on the X570 board and with the 3900X my friend lent me also on the X570 board for over six months now - is that AMD has pushed the voltage on these CPUs beyond the limit in an attempt not to fall back in the clockspeed department.
> 
> People are stupid, and they see 5 GHz for Intel and 4.2 GHz for AMD and think "5 is bigger than 4 therefore Intel is better".
> 
> ...


Dont forget please that voltage, only by it self, does not harm/degrade silicon. Its in conjunction with speed, current(A) and temp. Its the combination of the 4 that can slowly kill the CPU.

Thats why 3000 series is best kept on auto settings, whatever those can be. Only on auto the silicon FITness controller, can regulate the operating parameters (Speed/boost, voltage, current... and temp) and preserve silicon.

1. Cool it down, and it will boost/voltage more.
2. Play with PBO settings to bring Current(A) down, and it will boost more and maybe voltage more.
Do it both... well you can get it...

Somethings, all should be aware of:


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Mar 2, 2020)

Michael Nager said:


> The problem as I see it with the Ryzen 3000 series - after experimenting first with a 3600X on a GigaByte X470 Gaming 7 WiFi, then on the GigaByte X570 AURUS XTREME, then with a 3950X on the X570 board and with the 3900X my friend lent me also on the X570 board for over six months now - is that AMD has pushed the voltage on these CPUs beyond the limit in an attempt not to fall back in the clockspeed department.
> 
> People are stupid, and they see 5 GHz for Intel and 4.2 GHz for AMD and think "5 is bigger than 4 therefore Intel is better".
> 
> ...


Your ideology is tainted by the experience gigabyte provided you, as mine is Asus.
If you have the board set on auto ,try it on default , I'll be surprised if the Volt's are not lower.
Auto is NOT default.
Secondly I disagree, scientists and engineers tested it , in typical use unloaded 2-6 cores could be gated fully off , the chip has some degree of regulation built in and anyway a core at 1.45 unloaded won't be pulling much current and at low temps.
It is NOT one thing ie Volt's in isolation that kills or degrades chips.
Hyper focusing leads to bad theology.


----------



## Michael Nager (Mar 2, 2020)

theoneandonlymrk said:


> Your ideology is tainted by the experience gigabyte provided you, as mine is Asus.
> If you have the board set on auto ,try it on default , I'll be surprised if the Volt's are not lower.
> Auto is NOT default.
> Secondly I disagree, scientists and engineers tested it , in typical use unloaded 2-6 cores could be gated fully off , the chip has some degree of regulation built in and anyway a core at 1.45 unloaded won't be pulling much current and at low temps.
> ...


From what I understand

Too high a voltage causes Oxide Breakdown in the CPU.

Too high a current causes Electromigration in the CPU.

Although I do not have an ASUS motherboard, my friend, who loaned me his 3900X  does. He has an ASUS ROG Crosshair VIII Hero WiFi.

His results were similar to mine when he followed my guide. He also allowed me to configure his system in Windows so that I knew it was done right.

His temps were lower than on default, but also his benchmark results were a lot higher.

I guess you didn't read the part where I said that I have been experimenting with the Ryzen 3000 series of CPUs for over *SIX MONTHS* now.

You also didn't read the part of my original post above where I stated that I had to basically unlearn everything I thought I knew and start again at first principles and build up a new body of knowledge built on trial and error.

Nice try at a passive-agressive ad hominem there old son, but you scored a clean miss.

I would be deeply grateful if you could point me in the direction of the "scientists and engineers" who have tested it. Could you name one for me? Could you point me in the direction of any paper they have written?

You can't? Well what a surprise!

I have been in the techie game for almost 38 years now and aside from an AMD 7870K APU system I built as a backup, the third generation of AMD Ryzen CPUs is the first AMD processor I have built a system for my own use with.

I am not a stranger to the concept of RTFM, and I approach every new piece of hardware with the attitude, "A computer does not do what I want it to do, it does what I tell it to do"; I am also very much aware of the saying, "Behind every computer error there are at least two human errors, including the error of blaming it on the computer".


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Mar 2, 2020)

Michael Nager said:


> From what I understand
> 
> Too high a voltage causes Oxide Breakdown in the CPU.
> 
> ...


Are you having a laugh , Dr Lisa Su for a start though I doubt she tested it , I am not even going to argue , since you know stuff and now are implying pixies designed Ryzen or something.

On voltages I am not talking 1.5 am I, though I've benched at that on all three generations of Ryzen and on all makers boards bar asrock , six months ,and what.

It's designers and engineers and testers spent the last seven years, but you know more then them.

Go you.

But do note your not the only old timer


----------



## Michael Nager (Mar 2, 2020)

So you don't have anything specific to contribute then aside from being a member of a cult of personality?

And here was me thinking you could point me in the direction of something enlightening.

My results speak for themselves.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Mar 2, 2020)

Michael Nager said:


> So you don't have anything specific to contribute then aside from being a member of a cult of personality?
> 
> And here was me thinking you could point me in the direction of something enlightening.
> 
> My results speak for themselves.


So does your argument , your dragging in all your post's ,yet I replied to one.

Your arguing some points I might agree with and not realising I only debated your comments on high voltage at idle.

Plus see the video by buildzoid , that's how you get highest clocks while leaving the chip capable Of protecting itself, that and manually setting a max temp ,which he doesn't do and your good, IMHO.

Opinions can vary.

Though my assumptions of you are dropping after calling me a cultist for passing you a dr's name who worked on it, you asked a stupid question , I am not obligated to spend hours on Google to protect my ego and PROVE you wrong though you are, scientists and engineers worked on and tested this for the last seven years.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Mar 2, 2020)

moproblems99 said:


> I don't think so because the individual nuts and bolts to RTX are abstracted by DXR within DirectX.  I think devs may optimize for AMD's implementation of it naturally because of consoles but NV will continue to shell out money to devs to optimize for it.
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, did you call yourself a troll? As for threadshitting, asshats are born everyday but life goes on.



Wrong



Michael Nager said:


> Nvidia doesn't "coordinate" with others. It tries to dictate and is strictly a "my way or the highway" kind of player in the market. DirectX Raytracing is based on Nvidia hardware without any input from AMD.
> 
> AMD filed a patent for hybrid Ray-Tracing at the end of 2017 and is in a far better position to impose a de facto Ray-Tracing standard given its monopoly with regard to creating the CPU and GPU in the Micro$haft and $ONY consoles.
> 
> ...



They are with navi gen 1


----------



## Michael Nager (Mar 2, 2020)

theoneandonlymrk said:


> So does your argument , your dragging in all your post's ,yet I replied to one.
> 
> Your arguing some points I might agree with and not realising I only debated your comments on high voltage at idle.
> 
> ...



I might remind you that it was you who said

"Your ideology is tainted by the experience gigabyte provided you, as mine is Asus. "

You ended the post with:

"Hyper focusing leads to bad theology."

So as far as my reply was concerned, as the Aussies say, "Turn around is fair dinkum".

If you had read my original post you will have noticed that I did *NOTHING *to compromise the safeguards built into the system to prevent overheating.

Also if you knew enough about the Ryzen 3000 series you would know that at the data rate I have set for my RAM and thus the Infinity Fabric (which is 1:1 because I am running 3600 CL16 RAM which I have overclocked to 3733 CL16 or rather a data rate of 1867 MHz) at temperatures above 85 °C the Infinity Fabric becomes unstable and thus the benchmarking program terminates.

The same is also true if you do LN2 overclocking on a Ryzen 3000 CPU where you have to clock the FCLK down to below 1500 because anything higher will cause the system to fail at very low temps.

Thus I don't know which part of your anatomy you pulled that chestnut from.

Even giving it his best shot, Buildzoid could only get a CineBench R20 score of 9,589 after he had worked his "magic" and his second go at running the benchmark his score deteriorated, whereas I have achieved a CineBench score of 10,170 running exactly the same type of CPU and motherboard (3950X and GigaByte X570 AURUS XTREME) as he has. The thing is though, that my results don't deteriorate from one run to the next, usually the second run results in a higher score and the 10,170 was the highest I achieved after doing a number of CineBench R20 runs.

He was using Corsair Dominator Platinum 3600 CL16 RAM and I use Team Group Edition 3600 CL16 RAM. I know mine uses Samsung B-die and I assume his RAM does as well.

The other thing to consider is that my ambient temperature is normally at 28 - 29 °C whereas Buildzoid did state that it was pretty cold where he was conducting his tests and yet he was still running into thermal problems.

During a CineBench R20 run my CPU draws between 154 and 159 Watts of power and never exceeds 160 Watts, my CPU temp reaches a maximum of 84 °C but again I would have to say that the ambient temperature I just ran it at was 28 °C in my room.

Attached is a screenshot I took of one of my CineBench runs. I don't know whether or not I made one when I got the score of 10,170.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Mar 2, 2020)

Michael Nager said:


> I might remind you that it was you who said
> 
> "Your ideology is tainted by the experience gigabyte provided you, as mine is Asus. "
> 
> ...


Theology , regarding your opinion of high volts being bad while un loaded , I read your argument the first time ,if you must have more of my opinion, software over locking as is my experience is less stable then hardware or auto and crashes can be monstrous to the OS state, I personally can't back it as a goto default stance which always required Ryzen master loaded and a profile switch.
With mine setup as it is it all cores to 4.125 all cores at 1.235 Volt's automatically fully loaded crunching 24/7 and sits at 75° but you know what , that's my rig in its environment , it's not transferable to others , I wouldn't argue your way doesn't work well, I have tried it many times going back to FX but the end result is the same long term instability and issues over time due to OS degredation from crashes and memory pages going missing,  my pc is always up and loaded so stability is important.


----------



## Vayra86 (Mar 2, 2020)

freeagent said:


> Well to be fair, overclocking has always been "At Your Own Risk" since the very beginning.
> 
> If they tell you your warranty will be void if you do something they warn you not to do, that is essentially on you, for thinking you knew better.. regardless if they could tell or not. Chances are they can nowadays.
> 
> I'm not saying don't overclock, but be smart about it if you intend for it to last. I would imagine them to be fragile to a degree, look how tiny the process is. And jamming a bunch of vcore into it probably doesn't help much since it is nearly at its limit anyways.



In my world I call this common sense. On TPU, we debate that common sense whenever someone gets fed a reality that doesnt sit well with them


----------



## Michael Nager (Mar 2, 2020)

Most of the time I will be running my 3950X as a straight 16 Core/16 Thread with SMT Off at 4.4 Ghz for playing games or just doing my daily stuff; whereby I have the easy possibilty of running it at 16 Cores /32 Threads at 4.3 GHz with SMT On when I use something like video editing software that profits from more cores.

It's funny how EVERYBODY has all of a sudden done what I have done AFTER I have told them how to do it.

Over the past six months or so I have not met anyone who has told me the stuff PRIOR to my explaining it to them. Which is basically why I have had to work it all out for myself.

Funny how that works isn't it?

My previous main machine - an i7-990X on an X58 mobo - was up and running 24/7 for 1,900 days before I decommissioned it in favour of my current main machine, an i7-4790K, which has been running 24/7 for over 1,720 days.

Because I am not in need of a new system, I have had plenty of time to experiment to my heart's content with the Ryzen system.

I am considering going gold with it in April on my birthday.

It is nice when there is no rush.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Mar 2, 2020)

Michael Nager said:


> Most of the time I will be running my 3950X as a straight 16 Core/16 Thread with SMT Off at 4.4 Ghz for playing games or just doing my daily stuff; whereby I have the easy possibilty of running it at 16 Cores /32 Threads at 4.3 GHz with SMT On when I use something like video editing software that profits from more cores.
> 
> It's funny how EVERYBODY has all of a sudden done what I have done AFTER I have told them how to do it.
> 
> ...


I can show you dated benchmarks to prove I had Ryzen clocked adequate from launch but doing so would be as lame as saying I can to me.

You don't recommend something you think wrong ie software clocking, so I wouldn't have told you to do it Had you asked ,new member.


----------



## Michael Nager (Mar 3, 2020)

OneMoar said:


> huh would you look that operating something beyond manufacturer specification might break it
> 
> what in the hell is going on here
> 
> ...



Well someone sounds mildly triggered.

Was it something I said? 

I have delidded my i7-4790K over two years ago and applied liquid metal TG Conductonaut, and it has been running at 4.4 GHz (except that for two years it ran quite a bit warmer) on all cores 24/7 for over 1,720 days (that would be 4.7 years).

The thing is though that if I didn't put in a screenshot of my benchmark then it is sure as dammit that someone would call me a liar.

I am sure that Buildzoid doesn't need anyone to White Knight for him.

The fact of the matter is though that the way I described it in the guide does not void the warranty of the CPU.

Originally when I heard about the 7 nm node from TSMC the spec was for a maximum of 1.3 Volts.

Then the pronouncements about what could be considered "safe" voltage has been very vague with regard to info coming from AMD.

Two things can damage a CPU, too much voltage over time causes Oxide Breakdown in the CPU and too much current causes Electromigration in the CPU, both of which degrade the CPU over time.

There are already reports of the performance of Ryzen 3000 CPUs degrading and they have only been out for six months or so.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Mar 3, 2020)

Michael Nager said:


> Well someone sounds mildly triggered.
> 
> Was it something I said?
> 
> ...


As I said posts ago , there are a few here I could name have a few Ryzens set up with normal air cooling ,no overclock and they run these systems hard all day everyday, we will more than adequately hear about that IF and WHEN it happens.

Originally when I heard about 7nm it was just round the corner , it wasn't.

The 7nm we have now is not the same as that envisioned years ago ,plans adapt , the results of research further alter design and process.

No one is white knighting for him , he has a presence here , he could speak for himself.

But I'd wager most Here have tried your way , I didn't say it didn't work, I argued it's too faffy and is not a safe way long term, and not necessary. IMHo

And I don't think this drama regarding degradation while out of spec is necessary, you say you're an old school clocker ,all older chip's also degraded if you were far enough out of spec ie trying hard enough.


----------



## robot zombie (Mar 3, 2020)

Vayra86 said:


> In my world I call this common sense. On TPU, we debate that common sense whenever someone gets fed a reality that doesnt sit well with them


Haha, when I talk about doing any sort of overclocking I jab myself a little bit. Make a monkey out of myself in my head, and when I talk about it. Preparing myself, I guess. In my mind whatever I'm doing is going to fry the chip. I abused my poor 2600 heavily... knowing I was fine with doing an impromptu upgrade. It ended up doing better than most I've seen... but I spent a lot of time up in the 90's pushing over 1.5v. You can't go poking around for voltage and thermal limits (which... if you're really overclocking, you're absolutely gonna) without also realizing that you're risking your hardware.

I think sometimes I wanted to fry it just so I'd have a reason to buy a new chip. But you always gotta know that. And maybe it's best to make that clear somehow when we talk about overclocking.

My 3900x is a different story. I don't want to buy another one of those. Plus... it's kinda already fairly badass at stock. I enjoy overclocking... sometimes more than casually, but with this one I just wasn't feeling it. I appreciate the engineering that went into the arch they built up and all of the interlocking systems for preserving it and exacting better performance than I might get from my most thorough and tedious overclock efforts. In stead of OCing it I just let it ride, see what it does, and learn more about it.

Overclocking is a way to engage with the hobby, I suppose. But there are so many other ways. You ain't gotta do it! And if you want to, you better know that's not what these are made for!


----------



## moproblems99 (Mar 3, 2020)

eidairaman1 said:


> Wrong
> 
> 
> 
> They are with navi gen 1



Can you elaborate?


----------



## Super XP (Mar 3, 2020)

All heavy Overclocks and voltage increases eventually degrade a CPU regardless of who makes the CPU. But won't happen overnight. I've had a FX8350 heavily OCed with a voltage bump. Worked like a charm for more than 5 years sold it and it's still working like a charm or a champ. Lol


----------



## P4-630 (Mar 3, 2020)

@Super XP  what's that "(RDNA2 7nm+ Prototype) " in your system specs?....


----------



## Super XP (Mar 3, 2020)

P4-630 said:


> @Super XP  what's that "(RDNA2 7nm+ Prototype) " in your system specs?....


I never thought anybody would notice.   
I am just kidding.


----------



## Michael Nager (Mar 3, 2020)

theoneandonlymrk said:


> As I said posts ago , there are a few here I could name have a few Ryzens set up with normal air cooling ,no overclock and they run these systems hard all day everyday, we will more than adequately hear about that IF and WHEN it happens.
> 
> Originally when I heard about 7nm it was just round the corner , it wasn't.
> 
> ...


You are making an assumption there, and that assumption is that I am so much of a n00b and a (L)user that when I said that I had been experimenting with the Ryzen 3000 series of CPUs that I had NOT tested with an air cooler.

The air-cooler I used in my experiments was the Noctua NH-U12A and in my experimentation I discovered a little trick to increase the cooling performance of the cooler which you can see in the attached picture and that I will describe here and also share my experience with the cooler.

If you look at the picture, I attached the fans so that they were flush with the top of the cooler and underhanging the bottom of the fin-stack. This is because it prevents a pocket of dead air forming between the cold-plate and the fin-stack which would result in the cold-plate getting hotter than it would need to be. When I have seen others set up this cooler they always have the fans poking over the top of the fin-stack which is absolutely useless for cooling.

From my testing, I would say that if you want to have the best, and best value, cooling for a single chiplet Ryzen 3000 system then you should not be considering an AIO.

The reason for this is pretty simple, with an AIO less than 25% of the effective cooling potential (where the fins are that are transferring heat to the liquid) covers the hotspot of the single chiplet CPU. By contrast the Noctua NH-U12A has half of its seven heatpipes carrying heat away from the hotspot.

A 280 rad AIO will not be able to keep up with the NH-U12A

I say this because on the single chiplet CPU I had to test with - the 3600X - it was only when I used an AlphaCool Eisbaer 360 that I was getting slightly better cooling performance than with the air cooler. I have not seen any comparisons between a good air-cooler and an AIO with regard to cooling a single chiplet Ryzen 3000 series CPU.

I replaced the fans that come with the AlphaCool Eisbaer 360 with Noctua NF-a12x25 fans - probably the best fans you can get for quietness and performance.

The test I ran was quite simple, I cranked the 3600X to 4.125 GHz at 1.29375 Volts on all threads and ran Prime95 running with small fft for three hours on each and then monitored the temps. The TIM I used was TG Kryonaut. I also used the spread method to apply the TIM because the traditional pea sized or grain of rice sized blob on the centre of the CPU doesn't completely cover the hotspot caused by the fact that the chiplet of the Ryzen CPU is off centre.

The picture is of the test with the Noctua cooler, I didn't make one for the AIO because that was the one I tested second. There was around 4 °C in it with the AIO peaking at 80 °C CPU temp.

In each of the tests, the NF-A12x25 fans which I was using on both coolers were at max RPM


----------



## eidairaman1 (Mar 3, 2020)

Can we all just stop arguing



Michael Nager said:


> You are making an assumption there, and that assumption is that I am so much of a n00b and a (L)user that when I said that I had been experimented with the Ryzen 3000 series of CPUs that I had NOT tested with an air cooler.
> 
> The air-cooler I used in my experiments was the Noctua NH-U12A and in my experimentation I discovered a little trick to increase the cooling performance of the cooler which you can see in the attached picture and that I will describe here and also share my experience with the cooler.
> 
> ...



I use a Scythe Ashura myself, handles this "old hot chip"


----------



## Michael Nager (Mar 3, 2020)

eidairaman1 said:


> Can we all just stop arguing
> 
> 
> 
> I use a Scythe Ashura myself, handles this "old hot chip"


I am not arguing, I am answering accusations.

There's a difference.



eidairaman1 said:


> I use a Scythe Ashura myself, handles this "old hot chip"



The closest I come to being a FanBoi is with Noctua.

I bought one of the first fans they ever brought out about 15 years ago, and that fan (a 140mm that can can fit on 120 mm mount) is still running today in my friend's system and is as quiet today as it was back then.

I have had a number of fans from a number of manufacturers and I have had them fail or become rattly or in some other way noisy.

Of all the Noctua fans I have bought over the past 15 years I have never had even one get noisy, never mind fail.

I moved from the Noctua NF-F12 fans to the NF-A12x25 fans I now have for my systems and I have given away those fans to people, who use them and can't believe that I had been using those fans for five or more years.

I don't care about the colour, I care deeply about reliability, performance and above all else quietness. Noctua gives me the best of all those worlds.

Below is my current main system (i7-4790K transplanted into a Phanteks Evolv X case), all of the fans in there are NF-A12x25 and even under load, the system is silent.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Mar 4, 2020)

Michael Nager said:


> I am not arguing, I am answering accusations.
> 
> There's a difference.
> 
> ...



Cool story, I like what I have, system I have will be from 6 years ago now.


----------



## Michael Nager (Mar 4, 2020)

eidairaman1 said:


> Cool story, I like what I have, system I have will be from 6 years ago now.



You choose what you want and I choose what I want, or, as my grandfather used to say, "Everybody should be allowed to go to hell in their own way" 

The thing is that I am still very content with my i7-4790K and there is a lot of useful life left in it, I don't NEED to build the 3950X system I have, I want to. The 4790K has been up and running now for just over 1,750 days 24/7 which is about 4.8 years. Even eight year old systems can still do a reasonably good job, never mind six year old systems.

I have been pretty lucky with regard to the timing of my purchases; for instance the RAM I have in the system I got for £105 and it is now £170, or the 1TB NVME M.2 drives which I got for £120 which are now £170. I also got a good deal on the motherboard which I managed to get for £580 as opposed to the normal price which is around £700.

I also managed to pick up an almost brand new EVGA 1080 Ti ICX FTW3 for £480.

Because I don't need the Ryzen 3000 system, I can have fun experimenting with it and can set it up to run optimally 24/7 when I finally switch over to it as my main machine.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Mar 4, 2020)

Michael Nager said:


> You choose what you want and I choose what I want, or, as my grandfather used to say, "Everybody should be allowed to go to hell in their own way"
> 
> The thing is that I am still very content with my i7-4790K and there is a lot of useful life left in it, I don't NEED to build the 3950X system I have, I want to. The 4790K has been up and running now for just over 1,750 days 24/7 which is about 4.8 years. Even eight year old systems can still do a reasonably good job, never mind six year old systems.
> 
> ...


One persons 24/7 doesn't always equal another's.

for example.


----------



## Michael Nager (Mar 4, 2020)

eidairaman1 said:


> I use a Scythe Ashura myself, handles this "old hot chip"



The closest I come to being a FanBoi is with Noctua.

I bought one of the first fans they ever brought out about 15 years ago, and that fan (a 140mm that can can fit on 120 mm mount) is still running today in my friend's system and is as quiet today as it was back then.

I have had a number of fans from a number of manufacturers and I have had them fail or become rattly or in some other way noisy.

Of all the Noctua fans I have bought over the past 15 years I have never had even one get noisy, never mind fail.

I moved from the Noctua NF-F12 fans to the NF-A12x25 fans I now have for my systems and I have given away those fans to people, who use them and can't believe that I had been using those fans for five or more years.

I don't care about the colour, I care deeply about reliability, performance and above all else quietness. Noctua gives me the best of all those worlds.


----------



## P4-630 (Mar 4, 2020)

Michael Nager said:


> the NF-A12x25 fans I now have for my systems and I have given away those fans to people, who use them and can't believe that I had been using those fans for five or more years.



The Noctua NF-A12x25 fans are available since May 2018......


----------



## moproblems99 (Mar 4, 2020)

P4-630 said:


> The Noctua NF-A12x25 fans are available since May 2018......



Five years, two years, what's the difference?   

I do think they were referring to the NF-f12s and not the a12s.


----------



## Assimilator (Mar 4, 2020)

P4-630 said:


> @Super XP  what's that "(RDNA2 7nm+ Prototype) " in your system specs?....



It's a trash can.


----------



## moproblems99 (Mar 4, 2020)

Assimilator said:


> It's a trash can.



_Alleged_, or _rumored_ trash can as it is unreleased.


----------



## Michael Nager (Mar 4, 2020)

P4-630 said:


> The Noctua NF-A12x25 fans are available since May 2018......


I replaced the NF-F12 fans with the NF-A12x25 fans.

I thought that was pretty clear from what I wrote.


----------



## Super XP (Mar 4, 2020)

Assimilator said:


> It's a trash can.


Let me assure you, Nvidia wakes up with a cold sweat every morning all because of RDNA2.


----------



## moproblems99 (Mar 4, 2020)

Super XP said:


> Let me assure you, Nvidia wakes up with a cold sweat every morning all because of RDNA2.



Actually, I think that liquid is from half open bottles of the finest wine  that were tossed aside after spending the night with the finest super models, could be the clap too I suppose, since they can practically print money.  The only thing that Nvidia worries about is how dismal the actual AMD gpu product is compared to the hype.

At least AMD took a step forward with Navi.  It might be a little too ambitious, or naive, to think they can claw it all back in this gen.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Mar 4, 2020)

moproblems99 said:


> Actually, I think that liquid is from half open bottles of the finest wine  that were tossed aside after spending the night with the finest super models, could be the clap too I suppose, since they can practically print money.  The only thing that Nvidia worries about is how dismal the actual AMD gpu product is compared to the hype.
> 
> At least AMD took a step forward with Navi.  It might be a little too ambitious, or naive, to think they can claw it all back in this gen.


So err ,nah.


----------



## moproblems99 (Mar 4, 2020)

theoneandonlymrk said:


> So err ,nah.



If AMD can get remotely close, I'll likely buy their top GPU come later this year.  But they are already like 40% or more behind the 2080 ti and they have to face everything that the jump to 7nm will bring.  The only reason AMD is even competitive right now is because of the process advantage.  AMD has a huge hole to climb out of.  I would be pretty surprised, and excited, if they could pull it off this gen.  I don't really expect parity (raw performance and efficiency) until the next gen.


----------



## Super XP (Mar 5, 2020)

moproblems99 said:


> Actually, I think that liquid is from half open bottles of the finest wine  that were tossed aside after spending the night with the finest super models, could be the clap too I suppose, since they can practically print money.  The only thing that Nvidia worries about is how dismal the actual AMD gpu product is compared to the hype.
> 
> At least AMD took a step forward with Navi.  It might be a little too ambitious, or naive, to think they can claw it all back in this gen.


We will have to wait and see. Just don't underestimate RDNA2 and the importance of next generation gaming consoles that's going to use this GPU design.


----------



## Michael Nager (Mar 5, 2020)

theoneandonlymrk said:


> One persons 24/7 doesn't always equal another's.
> 
> for example.
> View attachment 147218



Thank you for giving me an idea.

Seeing your results it occurred to me to see what the performance would be if I confined the 3950X to just using one CCD (8 Cores/16 Threads) so after setting it up in the BIOS and in Ryzen Master, I then decided to see how high I could clock that virtual 3800X to run stably and then run CineBench on a loop.

As you can see from the picture, the CPU is using around 85 Watts and also that the cores are maxed out as you can see from the Task Manager. At the time I took the snapshot, CineBench had been running on a loop for over three hours (one run takes about 57 seconds) and it is cranked up to 4.425 GHz (although for some reason the Task Manager reads 4.41 GHz) at 1.29375 Volts.

My ambient temperature was at 25 °C as measured by a thermal probe just in front of the intake fans of the radiator.

That was an interesting experiment and I am not being snarky when I say thank you for planting that idea in my head.

If you had asked me beforehand I would have said that I would not have been able to go above 4.3 GHz because that is the limit when I am running it as a 16 Core/32 Thread CPU.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Mar 5, 2020)

Michael Nager said:


> Thank you for giving me an idea.
> 
> Seeing your results it occurred to me to see what the performance would be if I confined the 3950X to just using one CCD (8 Cores/16 Threads) so after setting it up in the BIOS and in Ryzen Master, I then decided to see how high I could clock that virtual 3800X to run stably and then run CineBench on a loop.
> 
> ...


I'm glad you're happy.

Keep in mind that the screeny I showed is typical after two days of being at max load.

The coolant loop is both saturated as much as it gets and regulated for that 80 CPU max temp , for short term loads from zero at low ambient temperature it would boost higher.


----------

