Question RYZEN 3600 OC - advice

Apr 4, 2020
22
1
15
0
Hello everybody!

I have upgraded my CPU from Ryzen 1600 to Ryzen 3600. As far as I know the overclocking is a bit different from Ryzen 1600. Basically, I have managed to manually overclock Ryzen 3600 to 4.3GHz on all cores by setting Vcore to 1.280 V.
There is a screenshot of HWinfo during Cinebench R20 run (towards the end of second run). Are there any "red flags" that I should be worried about (link to the picture can be seen down below)? I have been told that I should really be careful about CPU TDC, EDC and PPT values but as you can see from the screenshot I didn't exceed the limits, right? Temperature looks ok to me as well (69,9 °C full load, 35ish °C idle)
My question is this: Is this OC safe? (I only play games on PC)
PC specifications: Ryzen 3600
B350 Tomahawk motherboard (I know, it is no ideal to have this old motherboard, but it runs smoothly)
GTX 1070 TI
RAM: DDR4, 2x 8GB, 3200 MHz Vegeance LPX

HWinfo - the screenshot
HWinfo- the screenshot 2nd link
 
Last edited:
ryzen 3000 overclocks differently than 1st gen
while on 1st gen u could do all core overclock for more than boost clock offered
this doesnt apply for 3rd gen, here it has mixed cores with variable max clocks, and it autoclock itself to its self stable values
u just have to enable PBO and thats all

btw u linked wrong picture link
 
Reactions: Redittuser25
Apr 4, 2020
22
1
15
0
ryzen 3000 overclocks differently than 1st gen
while on 1st gen u could do all core overclock for more than boost clock offered
this doesnt apply for 3rd gen, here it has mixed cores with variable max clocks, and it autoclock itself to its self stable values
u just have to enable PBO and thats all

btw u linked wrong picture link
Hello! Thank you for the fast response. I know that there is the possibility to OC the CPU automatically but I would like to OC it manually because that way I can squeez more performance out of the CPU.
I have added second link so I hope it will work now.
 

delaro

Splendid
Ambassador
Auto OC should use PBO by default but the usage is going to scale with your power plan. A manual O.C is just going to stay at what you O.C to 100% of the time. The difference, either way, shouldn't be huge since you are looking at scaling between 4.17- 4.3ghz and staying at 4.3ghz.
 
Apr 4, 2020
22
1
15
0
Auto OC should use PBO by default but the usage is going to scale with your power plan. A manual O.C is just going to stay at what you O.C to 100% of the time. The difference, either way, shouldn't be huge since you are looking at scaling between 4.17- 4.3ghz and staying at 4.3ghz.
I undestand that. Now, here is an update: I have ran Prime 95 torture test and the results were rather uncomfortable - the temperature reached 89 degrees and I exceeded CPU TDC 72A and CPU PTT 112W. With these results in mind: What should I do now? The torture test seems to really push the CPU to its limits. However, it doesn't reflect gaming scenarios right? Anyway, thank you for responding!
 

Phaaze88

Splendid
Ambassador
It's really not worth 'treating Ryzen 3000 like Intel cpus' via the all core OC; the way they react to it just isn't the same.
Unlike the current Intel offerings, these cpus are temperature sensitive in a similar manner to Nvidia's gpus; the cooler it runs, the better.
Some people have actually managed to degrade and destroy their Ryzen 3000 cpus using the traditional Intel method: https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/ejgc6p View: https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/ejgc6p/1325v_is_not_safe_for_zen_2/?ref_source=embed&ref=share

Just put a good cooler on it and enable PBO if you wish, but leave the cpu alone.
 
Reactions: RodroX
Apr 4, 2020
22
1
15
0
It's really not worth 'treating Ryzen 3000 like Intel cpus' via the all core OC; the way they react to it just isn't the same.
Unlike the current Intel offerings, these cpus are temperature sensitive in a similar manner to Nvidia's gpus; the cooler it runs, the better.
Some people have actually managed to degrade and destroy their Ryzen 3000 cpus using the traditional Intel method: https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/ejgc6p View: https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/ejgc6p/1325v_is_not_safe_for_zen_2/?ref_source=embed&ref=share

Just put a good cooler on it and enable PBO if you wish, but leave the cpu alone.
But now hear me out: so I have decided to not mess around and set CPU voltage on auto as well as PBO. I enabled "Gaming boost" - basically it OCed to 4.2 GHz. And the results even in Cinbench R20 were terrible: Vcore was at 1.4! and it exceeded 2 out of 3 limits (PPT, TDC, EDC) What the hell? :D I am so confused right now. Also the temps were around 80 degrees. Then I set the CPU ration to 4.2, CPU voltage to 1.25 ovedrive and disabled PBO. I ran Cinebench R20 and the results were fine: temps around 60 degrees and I didn't exceed any of those limits.
 
Aug 10, 2019
148
21
95
1
I undestand that. Now, here is an update: I have ran Prime 95 torture test and the results were rather uncomfortable - the temperature reached 89 degrees and I exceeded CPU TDC 72A and CPU PTT 112W. With these results in mind: What should I do now? The torture test seems to really push the CPU to its limits. However, it doesn't reflect gaming scenarios right? Anyway, thank you for responding!
did you run the correct prime 95 settings?
 

TechyInAZ

Polypheme
Moderator
Ryzen 3rd gen is one of the worst architecture's to overclock due to it's extreme sensitivity to vcore. If you really wanted to overclock, you should have gone Intel.

Main reasons why it's an issue:
A. Nobody knows the max safe voltage for Zen 2. Even 1.3v is sketchy.
B. AMD has already basically maxed out the CPUs. Especially because they can run higher voltages at stock vs manually overclocking due to their silicon health monitoring AI systems.

For overclocking, stick with either auto or offset voltage which keeps the health monitoring stuff online. Then run PBO and increase core clock via AutoOC (whether in BIOS or in Ryzen Master).

But really it's not worth it, you gain so little performance from overclocking 3rd Gen Ryzen. You're way better off overclocking RAM and timings to get more FPS.

Yeah Prime95 puts a big strain on the CPU which is good, but for gaming workloads, your temps should be way lower.
 
I have my 3600x Oc'd @ 4.350ghz @ 1.319v on a asus rog strix X470 f gaming with Pbo / CBS in my advanced section of the bios disabled as it is not needed doing a all core oc which really helped drop the temps.
If you don't tick the avx box's in P95 your temp will skyrocket.
Do which ever p95 tests ticking the avx in the bottom right the the bottom left avx will be able to tick
disabling the Avx's.
 
Reactions: Redittuser25
Apr 4, 2020
22
1
15
0
Ryzen 3rd gen is one of the worst architecture's to overclock due to it's extreme sensitivity to vcore. If you really wanted to overclock, you should have gone Intel.

Main reasons why it's an issue:
A. Nobody knows the max safe voltage for Zen 2. Even 1.3v is sketchy.
B. AMD has already basically maxed out the CPUs. Especially because they can run higher voltages at stock vs manually overclocking due to their silicon health monitoring AI systems.

For overclocking, stick with either auto or offset voltage which keeps the health monitoring stuff online. Then run PBO and increase core clock via AutoOC (whether in BIOS or in Ryzen Master).

But really it's not worth it, you gain so little performance from overclocking 3rd Gen Ryzen. You're way better off overclocking RAM and timings to get more FPS.

Yeah Prime95 puts a big strain on the CPU which is good, but for gaming workloads, your temps should be way lower.
Well, I have dialed it back: 42 GHz with CPU voltage to 1.24 - in games like The Shadow of the Tomb Raider CPU's temperature is around 58 degrees. So I think I will keep it. I am quite dissapointed with the Auto OC - I have set everything to auto and enabled "Gaming Boost" and in the full load in Cinebench R20 it reached 1.4 V in CPU core! and the temps were atrocious as well (around 80 degrees).
 
Apr 4, 2020
22
1
15
0
I have my 3600x Oc'd @ 4.350ghz @ 1.319v on a asus rog strix X470 f gaming with Pbo / CBS in my advanced section of the bios disabled as it is not needed doing a all core oc which really helped drop the temps.
If you don't tick the avx box's in P95 your temp will skyrocket.
Do which ever p95 tests ticking the avx in the bottom right the the bottom left avx will be able to tick
disabling the Avx's.
Thank you! I am running the test right now! :) It seems that there are some stages to the test, right? Like the temps were around 60 and all of sudden it jumped to 71. I am currently running my CPU at 42 GHz with 1.24 core voltage.
 

TechyInAZ

Polypheme
Moderator
Well, I have dialed it back: 42 GHz with CPU voltage to 1.24 - in games like The Shadow of the Tomb Raider CPU's temperature is around 58 degrees. So I think I will keep it. I am quite dissapointed with the Auto OC - I have set everything to auto and enabled "Gaming Boost" and in the full load in Cinebench R20 it reached 1.4 V in CPU core! and the temps were atrocious as well (around 80 degrees).
If that "game boost" is from the motherboard manufacturer and not AMD directly, it's usually a bad idea. Auto overclocking from motherboard manufacturer's has almost always been pretty horrible.
 

Phaaze88

Splendid
Ambassador
Well, I have dialed it back: 42 GHz with CPU voltage to 1.24 - in games like The Shadow of the Tomb Raider CPU's temperature is around 58 degrees. So I think I will keep it. I am quite dissapointed with the Auto OC - I have set everything to auto and enabled "Gaming Boost" and in the full load in Cinebench R20 it reached 1.4 V in CPU core! and the temps were atrocious as well (around 80 degrees).
About that: it's the result of people complaining about the cpus not reaching their advertised boost clocks, which they weren't, but the difference was so small that it really wasn't worth complaining about, IMO, but AMD responded anyway.
AMD's 'fixed' this by increasing the power limits, but now they pull more power and voltage at lower loads... go figure.
Well, people got what they wanted, so... yeah. They're still not space heaters like Intel's while still rivaling them in performance and being a much better value - still a win for AMD, IMO.

Like TechyInAZ said, if you wanted to get that hung up on overclocking, then you really should have gone Intel... but that alone really isn't worth the extra cash you'd have to splurge for it.
 
Apr 4, 2020
22
1
15
0
About that: it's the result of people complaining about the cpus not reaching their advertised boost clocks, which they weren't, but the difference was so small that it really wasn't worth complaining about, IMO, but AMD responded anyway.
AMD's 'fixed' this by increasing the power limits, but now they pull more power and voltage at lower loads... go figure.
Well, people got what they wanted, so... yeah. They're still not space heaters like Intel's while still rivaling them in performance and being a much better value - still a win for AMD, IMO.

Like TechyInAZ said, if you wanted to get that hung up on overclocking, then you really should have gone Intel... but that alone really isn't worth the extra cash you'd have to splurge for it.
Well I haven't realised that this new architecture is so senstitive to Core voltage changes and temperatures. I vaguely remember reading about Ryzen 1600 and its OC capability. People were able to OC that CPU with ridiculous core voltages. So I was buying this new Ryzen with that in mind - I will be able to push it above the advertised 42 GHz clocks. Anyway I am still really happy that I made this upgrade. It is a much better match for my GTX 1070 TI in heavy CPU games like Battlefield 1. I have seen quite a great improvement in terms of FPS and frametimes... In conclusion I am going to leave these settings for my cpu for now: core voltage set to 1.24, clock speeds 42 GHz :) Thank you for replying!
 
Apr 4, 2020
22
1
15
0
If that "game boost" is from the motherboard manufacturer and not AMD directly, it's usually a bad idea. Auto overclocking from motherboard manufacturer's has almost always been pretty horrible.
True. Anyway like I have mentioned in my reply above. I am going to keep these settings for my CPU: 1.24 V with 42 GHz clock speed(temps in Prime were max. 72,5 degrees which is fine I guess. Furthermore, I won't even reach this type of workload in any game) :) Unless there is something more to look for other than TDC, EDC and PPT - they were within the accaptable range during the Prime 95 torture test.
 

RodroX

Commendable
Aug 4, 2019
1,289
367
1,340
56
Well, I have dialed it back: 42 GHz with CPU voltage to 1.24 - in games like The Shadow of the Tomb Raider CPU's temperature is around 58 degrees. So I think I will keep it. I am quite dissapointed with the Auto OC - I have set everything to auto and enabled "Gaming Boost" and in the full load in Cinebench R20 it reached 1.4 V in CPU core! and the temps were atrocious as well (around 80 degrees).
One question, How long have you been stressing the settings you say you are using?,

Did you run Realbench, prime95, aida64, etc. for hours to know the system is stable?

Just because a CPU can run Cinebench and prime95 for a few mins without issues, doesn't mean its stable.
Also if you wana caught a stable CPU fast I would run the small FFT test with AVX disable (and pay close attention to the workers, soon as 1 worker stops means you are too short on volatge, or too high on frecuency). The blend test should be left for later testing when you are 100% sure your CPU "seems" stable.

If your Ryzen 5 3600 is really rock stable at 4.2GHz @ 1.24v then you should be very, very , very, very, very, very gratefull, you got a crowns jewel. 1 in a millon amazing piece of silicon.
You basically got the MAX advertised turbo boost speed, from the worst binned CPU in Ryzen 3rd gen (I will keep the 3500X outside) with only 1.24 volts, thats just amazing (and imposible for 99.99% of the people out there with a R5 3600, me included :) ).
 
Aug 10, 2019
148
21
95
1
Options --> Torture test -->"blend all above " was ticked and I pressed OK. After few minutes the temps skyrocketed to 89 degrees. To be fair, this is my first time running Prime 95 so I am not sure whether that is a correct approach.

run prime95, use small FFt then disable the 3 boxes for AVX-512, AVX AVX2 this setting will do a full 100% load on your cpu, my 8700k which is 5Ghz @ 1.255v will max out at 78c during prime95, while gaming it sits at 50 -60 dephending on the game,
 
Apr 4, 2020
22
1
15
0
One question, How long have you been stressing the settings you say you are using?,

Did you run Realbench, prime95, aida64, etc. for hours to know the system is stable?

Just because a CPU can run Cinebench and prime95 for a few mins without issues, doesn't mean its stable.
Also if you wana caught a stable CPU fast I would run the small FFT test with AVX disable (and pay close attention to the workers, soon as 1 worker stops means you are too short on volatge, or too high on frecuency). The blend test should be left for later testing when you are 100% sure your CPU "seems" stable.

If your Ryzen 5 3600 is really rock stable at 4.2GHz @ 1.24v then you should be very, very , very, very, very, very gratefull, you got a crowns jewel. 1 in a millon amazing piece of silicon.
You basically got the MAX advertised turbo boost speed, from the worst binned CPU in Ryzen 3rd gen (I will keep the 3500X outside) with only 1.24 volts, thats just amazing (and imposible for 99.99% of the people out there with a R5 3600, me included :) ).
Ok. I am one hour in the Prime test you have suggested. So far It is passing all the test on all workers althouth there is one thing which is strange: On worker for example number 5 Self-test 16k passed at 10:46 but on worker number 3 it passed the same test at 10:44. I don't know whether that is normal or not. I am new to Prime95 :) I will post some screenshot as well later.
 
Apr 4, 2020
22
1
15
0
One question, How long have you been stressing the settings you say you are using?,

Did you run Realbench, prime95, aida64, etc. for hours to know the system is stable?

Just because a CPU can run Cinebench and prime95 for a few mins without issues, doesn't mean its stable.
Also if you wana caught a stable CPU fast I would run the small FFT test with AVX disable (and pay close attention to the workers, soon as 1 worker stops means you are too short on volatge, or too high on frecuency). The blend test should be left for later testing when you are 100% sure your CPU "seems" stable.

If your Ryzen 5 3600 is really rock stable at 4.2GHz @ 1.24v then you should be very, very , very, very, very, very gratefull, you got a crowns jewel. 1 in a millon amazing piece of silicon.
You basically got the MAX advertised turbo boost speed, from the worst binned CPU in Ryzen 3rd gen (I will keep the 3500X outside) with only 1.24 volts, thats just amazing (and imposible for 99.99% of the people out there with a R5 3600, me included :) ).
Ok. It has passed the test after 2 + hours. All workers were fine and working. Here is the screenshot of HWinfo: HWinfo - Prime95 test. What should I do now? Should I try the blend test? :) thank you for the replies! :)
 
If that test was the FFT's and no AVX's and temps are to your liking, you can move on to other test to confirm your OC.
IN any Oc changing of voltages and frequincies are the easy part but the most time Consuming part comes with the Testing Hours it takes to confirm.

I didn't consider my Oc stable until it could pass P95 for 8 to 10 hrs, Realbench Stress test which is a 8hr test using half the amount of your ram, Occt, Aida64 extreme stress test with cpu,cache and ram boxs checked for 8-10 hrs. then hrs of actual gaming hrs looking for any problems.
Good Luck
 
Reactions: RodroX

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS