Question CPU running cooler after overclocking?

[ju1c3]

I just have a quick question, I've never overclocked my CPU ever before, but I tried it for the first time today, and my CPU was actually running a lot cooler than normal while idle and while under load (it also performs much better in games of course). Is this because the AIO is overcompensating and speeding up and in turn making my CPU cooler overall? If so then does that mean that there's zero harm being done by my overclock? Is there such thing as a "safe" overclock? can I overclock more?

CPU: R9 5950x

 

[CountMike]

I just have a quick question, I've never overclocked my CPU ever before, but I tried it for the first time today, and my CPU was actually running a lot cooler than normal while idle and while under load (it also performs much better in games of course). Is this because the AIO is overcompensating and speeding up and in turn making my CPU cooler overall? If so then does that mean that there's zero harm being done by my overclock? Is there such thing as a "safe" overclock? can I overclock more?

CPU: R9 5950x

Depends very much on what you call overclock ? So, to what and how much did you "overclock it ? If it's manually set to less than 4.6GHz on all cores, it's actually underclocked comparing to what it can boost all by itself.
4.6GHz is what it should comfortably reach on all cores and 4.9GHz on single core boost.

 

[ju1c3]

Depends very much on what you call overclock ? So, to what and how much did you "overclock it ? If it's manually set to less than 4.6GHz on all cores, it's actually underclocked comparing to what it can boost all by itself.
4.6GHz is what it should comfortably reach on all cores and 4.9GHz on single core boost.

Is setting the GHz based on what you set your Core Ratio to? so 46 would be 4.6? I watched a vid on yt and did the setting it told me and it said it was the maximum safe overclock. Core Ratio: 45, Core Voltage: 1.1875

 

[CountMike]

Is setting the GHz based on what you set your Core Ratio to? so 46 would be 4.6? I watched a vid on yt and did the setting it told me and it said it was the maximum safe overclock. Core Ratio: 45, Core Voltage: 1.1875

Yes, Frequency = multiplier * BCLK/FSB.Yes it's safe but not overclock at 4.5. It's holding it down actually by at least 100MHZ all core and also stopping single core boost by about 400MHz. That results in less performance but lover voltages which is direct cause of lower temperatures. If you are comfortable with performance, it's quite safe to keep it that way.

 

[ju1c3]

Yes, Frequency = multiplier * BCLK/FSB.Yes it's safe but not overclock at 4.5. It's holding it down actually by at least 100MHZ all core and also stopping single core boost by about 400MHz. That results in less performance but lover voltages which is direct cause of lower temperatures. If you are comfortable with performance, it's quite safe to keep it that way.

Oh so I can overclock further?? What should I increase core ratio or the voltage?? I just wanna see how much more performance it is

 

[CountMike]

Oh so I can overclock further?? What should I increase core ratio or the voltage?? I just wanna see how much more performance it is

Ryzen is peculiar beast. even more so with newer versions. It's boost algorithm is based on load and temperature. When all features are enabled it's already working at a peek performance leaving little space to OC, basically only OC margin is "Silicon lottery" (difference in silicon quality between 2 samples).
First stage is it's base frequency, in your case it's 3.4GHZ, which what all Ryzen in that class can achieve with minimal power and voltage. All above that is considered a "boost frequency". Given enough power, voltage and cooling, according to specs it should boost to 4.6GHz on all core load and 4.9GHz if full load is applied to one core (which is usually the best quality core). Now if you apply same OC rules as older generations of CPUs, true OC would be forcing all cores to frequency above 4.9GHz which because of algorithm is practically impossible without sub zero cooling. It takes high jump in voltage to go over that limit and it will throttle down when certain temperature (90c) is reached, no matter what BIOS commands it. Other options to tweak performance is to set all core frequency manualy to let's ay 4.5 GHz so it doesn't go bellow or idle/sleep which would force all programs/applications/games to run only at that frequency even if they can't normally push it, Those are also limited by OS/Windows task/core scheduling which attempts to equalize load on all cores or programs are written to utolize limited number of cores.
Set like that it precludes highest frequency which single core can achieve adn so produces lower results in single core applications which is the case in almost all Windows system tasks and many simple core/thread applications.
With last AMD and Intel generations, frequency is not only or largest factor in performance so increasing frequency doesn't always equal better performance.
Intel CPUs are simmilar in that fashion, except they have so called Economy cores that use less power and use so called Performance cores which kick in whe E Core capacity is exceeded.

 

[ju1c3]

Ryzen is peculiar beast. even more so with newer versions. It's boost algorithm is based on load and temperature. When all features are enabled it's already working at a peek performance leaving little space to OC, basically only OC margin is "Silicon lottery" (difference in silicon quality between 2 samples).
First stage is it's base frequency, in your case it's 3.4GHZ, which what all Ryzen in that class can achieve with minimal power and voltage. All above that is considered a "boost frequency". Given enough power, voltage and cooling, according to specs it should boost to 4.6GHz on all core load and 4.9GHz if full load is applied to one core (which is usually the best quality core). Now if you apply same OC rules as older generations of CPUs, true OC would be forcing all cores to frequency above 4.9GHz which because of algorithm is practically impossible without sub zero cooling. It takes high jump in voltage to go over that limit and it will throttle down when certain temperature (90c) is reached, no matter what BIOS commands it. Other options to tweak performance is to set all core frequency manualy to let's ay 4.5 GHz so it doesn't go bellow or idle/sleep which would force all programs/applications/games to run only at that frequency even if they can't normally push it, Those are also limited by OS/Windows task/core scheduling which attempts to equalize load on all cores or programs are written to utolize limited number of cores.
Set like that it precludes highest frequency which single core can achieve adn so produces lower results in single core applications which is the case in almost all Windows system tasks and many simple core/thread applications.
With last AMD and Intel generations, frequency is not only or largest factor in performance so increasing frequency doesn't always equal better performance.
Intel CPUs are simmilar in that fashion, except they have so called Economy cores that use less power and use so called Performance cores which kick in whe E Core capacity is exceeded.

Yeah if I try overclocking my Ratio past 47, my PC gets stuck in a boot loop until I change it back, is this because I'm not upping the voltage enough to support that high of a overclock? also if I put my ratio on 47 I get constant pc crashes, and issues.

 

[CountMike]

Yeah if I try overclocking my Ratio past 47, my PC gets stuck in a boot loop until I change it back, is this because I'm not upping the voltage enough to support that high of a overclock? also if I put my ratio on 47 I get constant pc crashes, and issues.

That's what I was talking about. It's already optimized for what AMD considers safe and within parameters. Some constrictions still apply even at manual settings. Temperatures as first, no matter what you do it will downclock above 90c and shut down soon after. It also needs higher voltage and power jump so some VRM may not be able to supply enough.

 

[ju1c3]

That's what I was talking about. It's already optimized for what AMD considers safe and within parameters. Some constrictions still apply even at manual settings. Temperatures as first, no matter what you do it will downclock above 90c and shut down soon after. It also needs higher voltage and power jump so some VRM may not be able to supply enough.

I was able to get Core ratio to 47.5 by upping the voltage to 1.35 and the performance is much to my liking. Will I have any problems with this configuration or will I have to find out by playing on it for a bit.

 

[CountMike]

I was able to get Core ratio to 47.5 by upping the voltage to 1.35 and the performance is much to my liking. Will I have any problems with this configuration or will I have to find out by playing on it for a bit.

Yes, you'll have to find out on your own, That's already in domain of "Silicone lottery" and your sample may be better or worse than most by small margin. 1.35v is still reasonable voltage if cooling is adequate.

 

[ju1c3]

Yes, you'll have to find out on your own, That's already in domain of "Silicone lottery" and your sample may be better or worse than most by small margin. 1.35v is still reasonable voltage if cooling is adequate.

Am I close to ruining my CPU or are you just saying I will run into problems like crashes etc

 

[CountMike]

Am I close to ruining my CPU or are you just saying I will run into problems like crashes etc

No, you are not going to "ruin" your CPU but it's possible to have some instability problems, maybe heating or crashing but that you can find only by running programs/games and benchmarks which pushes it to limit.