Is that supposed to be good? Reason I ask is because I was interested in the 3500X but was basing it on this
Tried some GD900, wasn't impressed.
-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
AMD Ryzen 5 3500X / 3900 (non-x) ???
- Thread starter The Old School Gamer
- Start date
My guess is that is a split second low load peak on a single core.
I doubt that is a constant fixed ratio OC over all six cores.
I doubt that is a constant fixed ratio OC over all six cores.
try setting EDC between 1 and 10 for pbo and see if this helps.
Cheers Dude.
Did you see the validation? http://valid.x86.fr/71trq7 Shows all cores at the same clocks and bench scores of 568 / 3318 if that helps.
What do you guys who bought the 3500x think, is there a good chance of those clocks, if not what would be a ballpark figure?
That is highest all core OC I've seen on a 3500X, I had seen 4.4Ghz but not 4.6Ghz @ 1.341v.
Like Mr Gates says we have no idea if that's 100% stable though.
I personally never tried to manually OC on my 3500X, I just stuck to PBO.
I'll give it try, thanks.
Just changing Performance Enhancer from Auto to Level 3 (OC) sorted it out.
That looks more like it.
3900X Before & After
3900 (non-X)
Last edited:
That's what I wasn't sure of, thanks for clarifying. Usually I'd look to HWBOT but there's next to nothing other than a couple of random results for the 3500x.
There's about 4 results for 4.6GHz, such as http://valid.x86.fr/9lzda6
Not having any experience with Ryzen I don't know if those temperatures are in line with standard air/water cooling and CPU-Z validation loads. Seems they are exceptional rather than the norm.
Here is CPU-Z validation for my 3500X on PBO.
https://valid.x86.fr/ssbblw
I wouldn't trust those recorded snapshot temps on the validations.
The CPU-Z bench test only lasts like 40 seconds or so, certainly not long enough to gauge a proper max temp reading imho.
Max temp threshold is 95c,
Think I was only hitting around 60c on PBO (4.1xGhz).
4.6Ghz @ 100% load must be up in the 70c-80c range I would imagine.
https://valid.x86.fr/ssbblw
I wouldn't trust those recorded snapshot temps on the validations.
The CPU-Z bench test only lasts like 40 seconds or so, certainly not long enough to gauge a proper max temp reading imho.
Max temp threshold is 95c,
Think I was only hitting around 60c on PBO (4.1xGhz).
4.6Ghz @ 100% load must be up in the 70c-80c range I would imagine.
Last edited:
Just found this thread. I'm looking at a system with a 3900 (non X) in it. It sounds like with decent cooling (I'm looking at a 360MM AIO) that using PBO and Performance Enhancer should give me ~4.2Ghz across 12 Cores - 24/7 stable
Fair assessment?
Fair assessment?
PBO is an dynamic overclock.
Under an generic simulated load as demonstrated above it will.
But an actual real use case scenario is quite different.
You can apply a fixed ratio OC but generally that hurts single/low core count performance and could degraded the CPU over time.
So PBO is the way to go imho for 24/7 running.
I use a low cost 212 EVO black cooler on my 3900 with PBO and the maximum temp I've recorded after hours of gaming is just 72c which is nowhere near the throttle down limit.
So apart from running a little cooler I can't see water-cooling making much to any difference performance wise.
Under an generic simulated load as demonstrated above it will.
But an actual real use case scenario is quite different.
You can apply a fixed ratio OC but generally that hurts single/low core count performance and could degraded the CPU over time.
So PBO is the way to go imho for 24/7 running.
I use a low cost 212 EVO black cooler on my 3900 with PBO and the maximum temp I've recorded after hours of gaming is just 72c which is nowhere near the throttle down limit.
So apart from running a little cooler I can't see water-cooling making much to any difference performance wise.
Last edited: