• 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.

The Ryzen 5 3600 Discussion Thread

Orange Nexus said:
If you undervolt too much, then it will impact the boost. A bit of an undervolt might lower temp a bit and still retain the boost.
Click to expand...

Yeah it looks like aside from the usual silicon lottery of each individual chip, it demonstrates that you think its performing better when in fact it is not. A few nuances to delve in there but the more time spent on the details is its not as simple as changing one setting but also keep an eye on a couple of things (clock stretching) which if you spot it (most software may not report it) means you dialled too low.
 
Th0nt said:
Yeah it looks like aside from the usual silicon lottery of each individual chip, it demonstrates that you think its performing better when in fact it is not. A few nuances to delve in there but the more time spent on the details is its not as simple as changing one setting but also keep an eye on a couple of things (clock stretching) which if you spot it (most software may not report it) means you dialled too low.
Click to expand...
Not watched that video, but I am willing to bet it relates to stock settings.

When you do a all core overclock it runs all the cores at that clock and if there is not enough juice then you will get a crash or blue screen. Also I don’t get how can it not be performing if every benchmark shows otherwise? I have tested my all core OC’s on many benchmarks to test this and they all show a significant performance uplift.

Also, all one has to do is use common sense and look at what voltage is being used when all cores are active to know that it uses around 1.28v. It only ever uses 1.45v for low loads or when single core is being boosted. So if you are using an all core over lock, you can just set it to 1.275v no? Works for me on my 4.4GHz OC anyways.

Will watch that video later when I get the time.
 
TNA said:
Will watch that video later when I get the time.
Click to expand...

Yeah you will know where I am coming from after this. On my older FX setup I offset the voltages and it ran overclocking really well with it most of the time whilst working (not gaming) happy with the efficiency/low temps.

The video and input is from a few months ago, so I expect after BIOS updates and more understanding of how to squeeze Ryzen 3000 maturing that it maybe much clearer and simple to setup. One thing I have not toyed on much yet is the Ryzen Master software.
 
Th0nt said:
Yeah it looks like aside from the usual silicon lottery of each individual chip, it demonstrates that you think its performing better when in fact it is not. A few nuances to delve in there but the more time spent on the details is its not as simple as changing one setting but also keep an eye on a couple of things (clock stretching) which if you spot it (most software may not report it) means you dialled too low.
Click to expand...

The main goal, imo, of undervolting is to get lower temps not necessarily to gain performance. At a certain point you try to maintain the performance of having no undervolt. In this case, at stock, still get 4.2 boost. Check out my vcore. It does not go 1.47v or higher, which makes temp jump higher.

https://i.imgur.com/uq8nhAX.jpg

Of course a BIOS might change things like the up coming 1004.
 
I've left all voltage settings on default/auto in the BIOS as I've heard that undervolting Ryzen 3000 CPU's affects the performance, although I've not tested it myself. My cooler is making proper contact and is fitted nice and tight (hard to go wrong with Noctua fitting kits to be honest). I'm also using the Noctua NT-H1 thermal paste that came with the NH-U12A cooler... I usually use Arctic MX-4, but I don't think there will be any notable differences in performance between the two.

My MSI Radeon RX 580 Gaming X actually runs cooler than my CPU. The highest I've seen is 75C, but it's usually around 70C when gaming. My CPU will reach around 77C when gaming and thats with the Noctua NH-U12A using both fans and they will reach in the region of 1800rpm at that temp!.

My case currently has 3 x 120mm Cougar intake fans and another 120mm as an exhaust. I did have two exhaust fans, but one failed recently.

Oh and I can't really make sense of the Ryzen Master core speed readings. It will report cores bouncing around 500-900MHz when idling (with a couple sleeping now and then)… But every other utility such as CPU-Z and HWinfo etc will show idle speeds of 3.3GHz at the same time! It's strange.


TNA said:
Upcoming? I already have it :p;)

Thought everyone got it by now.

I see no changes to be honest in regards to this, not that I have had the chance to look deep into it.
Click to expand...

I'm still waiting for Asrock to stop twiddling their thumbs and get it released for my board :D. They did have a Beta BIOS, but it appears to have disappeared!​
 
Last edited:
PowerPie5000 said:
I've left all voltage settings on default/auto in the BIOS as I've heard that undervolting Ryzen 3000 CPU's affects the performance, although I've not tested it myself. My cooler is making proper contact and is fitted nice and tight (hard to go wrong with Noctua fitting kits to be honest). I'm also using the Noctua NT-H1 thermal paste that came with the NH-U12A cooler... I usually use Arctic MX-4, but I don't think there will be any notable differences in performance between the two.

My MSI Radeon RX 580 Gaming X actually runs cooler than my CPU. The highest I've seen is 75C, but it's usually around 70C when gaming. My CPU will reach around 77C when gaming and thats with the Noctua NH-U12A using both fans and they will reach in the region of 1800rpm at that temp!.

My case currently has 3 x 120mm Cougar intake fans and another 120mm as an exhaust. I did have two exhaust fans, but one failed recently.

I'm still waiting for Asrock to stop twiddling their thumbs and get it released for my board :D. They did have a Beta BIOS, but it appears to have disappeared!
Click to expand...

How did you apply the paste? Cos the old pea method is not recommended for Ryzen Gen2.

@TNA, Asus here and still waiting.
 
I actually did the pea sized method as was not sure what else to do at the time and did not Google it as I thought if it turns out to be **** I can just repaste it. Turned out to be fine for me though. Saying that I did apply a slightly bigger blob than I usually do just to be sure it spread and covered everywhere.

Now that I have a nice overclock I do not want to mess with it :p
 
Orange Nexus said:
The main goal, imo, of undervolting is to get lower temps not necessarily to gain performance. At a certain point you try to maintain the performance of having no undervolt. In this case, at stock, still get 4.2 boost. Check out my vcore. It does not go 1.47v or higher, which makes temp jump higher.

https://i.imgur.com/uq8nhAX.jpg

Of course a BIOS might change things like the up coming 1004.
Click to expand...

I was on an fx8320 so I know about the lower temps :) but unlike the vega's for example where you can undervolt and overclock to yield nice gains this application is somewhat different. It seems the results from when some people undervolt, also experience a dip in performance..
 
Th0nt said:
Yeah you will know where I am coming from after this. On my older FX setup I offset the voltages and it ran overclocking really well with it most of the time whilst working (not gaming) happy with the efficiency/low temps.

The video and input is from a few months ago, so I expect after BIOS updates and more understanding of how to squeeze Ryzen 3000 maturing that it maybe much clearer and simple to setup. One thing I have not toyed on much yet is the Ryzen Master software.
Click to expand...

So I watched the video and he is using Cinebench which is one of the many benches I used to test my clocks to validate. My results are nothing like his. Don't know if it is because of me winning the silicon lottery or because the new BIOS (ABBA and the new 1.0.0.4 B) makes changes.

Here is my validation from The Official OCUK Cinebench R20 benchmark Thread:

Scoreboard Single-Threaded (1 to 50).

1, Score 580: Intel Core i9 9900K at 5.45Ghz, RSR
2, Score 578: Intel Core i9 9900K at 5.5Ghz, Robert896r1
3, Score 569: Intel Core i9 9900K at 5.4Ghz, moorhen2
4, Score 563: Intel core i9 9900K at 5.35Ghz, Nickolp1974
5, Score 559: Intel Core i9 9900K at 5.36Ghz, tyler_jrb
6, Score 557: Intel Core i7 8086K at 5.4Ghz, ChrisD.
7, Score 551: Intel Core i9 9900K at 5.3Ghz, LordByron69
8, Score 548: Intel Core i7 8700K at 5.2Ghz, Polo6RGTI
9, Score 547: Intel Core i7 8700K at 5.2Ghz, Radox-0
10, Score 540: Intel Core i7 8086K at 5.2Ghz, iakhtar
11, Score 535: Intel Core i9 9900K at 5.1Ghz, Robert896r1
12, Score 535: Intel Core i7 8700K at 5.2Ghz, Chaos666
13, Score 535: AMD Ryzen R9 3900X at 4.6Ghz, Shac
14, Score 534: AMD Ryzen R7 3800X at 4.575Ghz, Nghtmare
15, Score 533: AMD Ryzen R5 3600 at 4.6Ghz, TNA
16, Score 532: AMD Ryzen R7 3700X at 4.575Ghz, motiv
17, Score 532: Intel Core i9 7900X at 5.1Ghz, RSR
18, Score 528: AMD Ryzen R9 3900X at Stock, Rossi~
19, Score 528: Intel Core i5 9600K at 5.0Ghz, pastymuncher
20, Score 527: Intel Core i7 8086K at 5.0Ghz, dessimpson
21, Score 525: AMD Ryzen R9 3900X at Stock, FredFlint
22, Score 524: AMD Ryzen R9 3900X at 4.5Ghz, redkrptonite
23, Score 520: Intel Core i7 8700K at 5.1Ghz, Tee Hee Johnson
24, Score 518: AMD Ryzen R7 3800X at Stock, zx128k
25, Score 518: Intel Core i5 8600K at 5.0Ghz, McstylisT
26, Score 518: AMD Ryzen 3700X at 4.425Ghz, Lolik
27, Score 516: Intel Core i9 7980XE at 5.0Ghz, Radox-0
28, Score 513: Intel Core i7 8700K at 5.0Ghz Grim5
29, Score 512: AMD Ryzen R7 3800X at Stock, csutcliff
30, Score 512: AMD Ryzen R7 3700X at 4.275Ghz, Kashinoda
31, Score 510: AMD Ryzen R9 3900X at Stock, Oblivion007
32, Score 509: AMD Ryzen R9 3900X at 4.4Ghz, wookiee87
33, Score 509: AMD Ryzen R9 3900X at 4.3Ghz, andy_mk3
34, Score 506: AMD Ryzen R5 3600 at Stock, roy23
35, Score 506: AMD Ryzen R9 3900X at Stock, Chrisc
36, Score 506: AMD Ryzen R9 3900X at Stock, Oblivion007
37, Score 506: AMD Ryzen R9 3900X at 4.35Ghz, Sin_Chase
38, Score 503: AMD Ryzen R7 3700X at 4.325Ghz, JDHansen
39, Score 503: AMD Ryzen R9 3900X at 4.2Ghz, Clov!s
40, Score 501: AMD Ryzen R7 3700X at 4.3Ghz, PieEater
41, Score 501: AMD Ryzen R9 3900X at PBO, cliffy
42, Score 500: AMD Ryzen R9 3900X at 4.3Ghz, tommoT.Striker
43, Score 500: AMD Ryzen R7 3600 at 4.3Ghz, Phixsator
44, Score 498: AMD Ryzen R7 3700X at 4.29Ghz adwol48
45, Score 498: AMD Ryzen R5 3600 at 4.375Ghz, Journey
46, Score 497: Intel Core i9 9900K at Stock, Omaeka
47, Score 495: AMD Ryzen R7 3700X at 4.35Ghz, JDHansen
48, Score 494: AMD Ryzen R9 3900X at 4.3Ghz, TrM
49, Score 494: Intel Core i7 6700K at 4.7Ghz, MaXxBoulton
50, Score 493: Intel Core i7 8700K at 4.7Ghz, Rainmaker
Click to expand...


As you can see I am on number 15. And I have run this multiple times, not just once. Even blender benchmark finishes much quicker :D

My all core 4.5GHz results is not far of the AMD Ryzen R7 2700X stock score which has 2 extra cores :p
 
Just did two more runs of cinebench on the new bios at my 4.4GHz all core OC just now:

1.jpg



2.jpg


As you can see a big uplift from my stock run going from 3531 to 3947. Oh and in the 2nd picture you can see the cores even go to sleep and you can the average core voltage so voltage does not stay locked at 1.275v all the time I am guessing.
 
Th0nt said:
I was on an fx8320 so I know about the lower temps :) but unlike the vega's for example where you can undervolt and overclock to yield nice gains this application is somewhat different. It seems the results from when some people undervolt, also experience a dip in performance..
Click to expand...

Any lower than (or should i say any higher) than -0.03v my 3600 boost lower than 4200MHz. But, even then, i only see regression in Cinebench or CPUz. Prolly cos i don't stare at the fps during gaming or i only have a mid-range gpu - RX 5700.
 
PowerPie5000 said:
The only complaint I have are the temps and voltage for my Ryzen 3600 chip. It hits around 77C when gaming and that's with the chip running stock and with one of the best air coolers available (Noctua NH-U12A) and good case cooling. The voltages reach 1.450V when the cores hit 4.2GHz. the voltage hovers around 1.375V when all cores are being used at 4.05GHz.
Click to expand...
Either your heatsink isn't making proper contact with the CPU or your motherboard fan curves are set wrong.
 
Orange Nexus said:
Any lower than (or should i say any higher) than -0.03v my 3600 boost lower than 4200MHz. But, even then, i only see regression in Cinebench or CPUz. Prolly cos i don't stare at the fps during gaming or i only have a mid-range gpu - RX 5700.
Click to expand...

Yeah ok, I am happy to undervolt so will explore this with all feedback from here as I am all in with power savings. I was basically extracting that on some content sources that it was performing worse than leaving at stock, which would make the tweaks pointless because some software tools were making it look like better performance (lower temps, higher clocks) when it in fact was not.
 
TNA said:
Just did two more runs of cinebench on the new bios at my 4.4GHz all core OC just now:


As you can see a big uplift from my stock run going from 3531 to 3947. Oh and in the 2nd picture you can see the cores even go to sleep and you can the average core voltage so voltage does not stay locked at 1.275v all the time I am guessing.
Click to expand...

You doing all that just on ryzen master? no offsets in bios etc?
 
TNA said:
Just did two more runs of cinebench on the new bios at my 4.4GHz all core OC just now:

1.jpg



2.jpg


As you can see a big uplift from my stock run going from 3531 to 3947. Oh and in the 2nd picture you can see the cores even go to sleep and you can the average core voltage so voltage does not stay locked at 1.275v all the time I am guessing.
Click to expand...

About 65% faster than a 7700K. Entry level mainstream CPU!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom