Raiden85CPU's these days have sod all overclocking headroom as they tend to run not that far from their max potential these days, same for the GPUs, so for me stock speeds are fine. Seems these days it's gone from overlocking to undervolting instead,

freeagentIf you like to run your CPU at stock, all the power to you.

Raiden85I stopped tweaking CPUs a long time ago, the last CPU I ran overclocked was the Intel Q6600, so a very long time ago. CPU's these days have sod all overclocking headroom as they tend to run not that far from their max potential these days, same for the GPUs, so for me stock speeds are fine. Seems these days it's gone from overlocking to undervolting instead, which I've never bothered to get into. If the system is rock solid, fast and stable then that's good enough for me :)

LittleBroWell, CPU/GPU manufacturers found out that doing OC on previous generation product along with applying minor tweaks can easily be released as next generation product, no significant changes in architecture required.

LittleBroBut we saw with Raptor Lake how that might strike back if you push too hard. It's as you wrote, now it's mostly about optimizing efficiency - undervolting. To me it seems it's not less fun and is also safer to play with. Provided there is a sufficient cooling measure in place, you can't damage CPU/GPU when lowering voltage or ramping up the clocks - the chip might become unstable, cause a system crash or freeze or smth similar. Undervolting will not only lower power consumption, but also temps and lower temps equals to less noise.

Personally, I'm not feeling comfortable when I know that with proper tuning and not so much effort my system might work at much better conditions, especially noise-wise. There are people who tune their chips to reach the efficiency sweet spot, which basically requires significant lowering of clocks. I am happy to go with stock clocks at as low voltage as possible, this usually lowers temps and noise significantly.

AusWolfOr maybe they've just run out of ideas of how to make significant improvements without raising power and/or cooling needs significantly.

AusWolfOr you could just buy a one tier lower CPU and run it at stock.

LittleBroTo me it seems like they are trying to save money in wrong places, like in R&D. Without proper R&D, there won't be so many new ideas and new inventions.
They should spend less on marketing and other non-crucial company stuff. I really can't understand Intel's decision to lay off people also from R&D. This will backfire badly one day.

LittleBroNo way! I want my life to be complicated.

freeagentI like tuning CPUs.

And tuning X3D is boring AF.

Now it wont be, hopefully.

If you like to run your CPU at stock, all the power to you.

WarriorK9999Thats why I like buying the Phenom series, Sandybridge and even FX and mess with it. When I got the 5700g and it was pretty boring so I just set at default and I actually bought the FX 8350 since I already have a motherboard for it. lol

freeagent1366 was the last great overclocking platform :respect:

izySeems that you can OC it for at least 200Mhz , thats nice. (source: Gamers Nexus last video)

mouacykIdeally, it should unlock TDP and voltage

mouacykclock offset for AVX512

mouacykfor predictable boost clocks

SL2I highly doubt the current price of the 7800X3D is a sign that the 9800X3D is even more expensive. (Yeah, launch price)

The 7800X3D isn't just more expensive now, it's also out of stock.

If anyone blames scalpers alone, let's not forget that the less popular 7900X3D has gone up in price as well, and is harder to find. All time low was an insane $280, now it's 600.

windwhirlWasn't the voltage range limited after the motherboard shenanigans?

Unsure if this exists to begin with, as AMD's implementation didn't seem to hit clocks as much as Intel's did, at least if I recall correctly.

Also, about this, isn't it all subjected to silicon lottery? Specially since AMD just programs the things to go as fast as safely possible

mouacykWhat really will count is if the 9800X3D will allow for predictable boost clocks, with well-understood offsets. Ideally, it should unlock TDP and voltage, so the only limiter is going to be possibly a clock offset for AVX512. This will make for locking max clocks possible, unlike how it has been quite unpredictable.

mouacykThere are 2 locked voltages:
VSOC - locked to 1.3v in later BIOS versions only for x3D CPU's (yes, due to CPU's dying), likely due to fragility of the Cache die sitting on top of a 90C CCD die. With Cache die moved underneath the CCD die now, hopefully they can unlock it again.

mouacykCPU voltage - locked to 1.2v on all x3D CCD's. Again, with the die repositioning, there's opportunity to unlock this.

mouacykApparently, AMD's implementation of AVX512 is more efficient so not penalized as much in clocks and power, but it must still be consuming more power at the same clocks than other instructions. Honestly, PBO was just AMD's voodoo dance around the TDP and thermal limits. With more things unlocked for overclocking, the voodoo should not be necessary (warranty be damned.)

Raiden85I stopped tweaking CPUs a long time ago, the last CPU I ran overclocked was the Intel Q6600, so a very long time ago. CPU's these days have sod all overclocking headroom as they tend to run not that far from their max potential these days, same for the GPUs, so for me stock speeds are fine. Seems these days it's gone from overlocking to undervolting instead, which I've never bothered to get into. If the system is rock solid, fast and stable then that's good enough for me :)

AusWolfIf that's the case, that'll be interesting. Let's see if rumours about the reversed cache/CCD are true, and how much they improve on thermals.

Edit: if it was really such a significant improvement, then AMD would have gone with a higher max boost clock, methinks.