Ryzen overclocking seems much more binary than Intel?

[beany_bot]

So, I got a new system for work, went for R5 1600.
Started overclocking it (course I did). And found that while 3900Mhz is rock stable at 1.4v (yet to try and bring this down but temps are fine.) but at 4000Mhz - 1.4v it wont even boot. Like, I don't mean windows, I mean cant even get into the BIOS!
Now, fair enough, 3.9Ghz is my limit. I have no issue with that. But just find it odd it's such a difference in behaviour at 100Mhz increase. I'm used to with Intel, if something is rock solid at 3.9Ghz then I would expect it to maybe fail after some stress testing 100Mhz higher, add another 100Mhz and you might not get into windows, add another and it might not boot.
Not complaining, just surprised in the start difference between rock solid and wont even post at 100Mhz increase.

 

[beany_bot]

Yeah not much overclocking headroom on ryzen. It was designed as a 3ghz cpu so they're already being pushed at stock tbh.

Not so much even the headroom I was getting at (I knew that was that with Ryzen).
Was more suprised at the stark difference between 100Mhz of "totally stable" and "I'M NOT GONA BOOT!!"
Just not used to that with Intel, usually it is more analogue.

 

[beany_bot]

Just tried 1.35v 3.9Ghz. Seems stable!
Yet 1.4v 4.0Ghz can't even show me the bios.

Again, totally fine, just odd coming from Intel.

 

[beany_bot]

U forgot that on all reviews all eyzen cpus do stable 4ghz at 1.4 amritw??

Ye all reviews are full of ********