TheFriendlyHacker

I've been playing around with "overclocking" my Ryzen 2600x. It's being cooled by a Corsair H100i AIO (240mm water cooler), which does a good job. Now, the 2600x is rated to clock up to 4.2ghz using AMD's own "turbo" (or whatever they call it). But I've noticed that mine rarely hits 4.2ghz on its own for more than a few seconds at a time (it usually stays at 4.0-4.05ghz). So I adjusted my CPU Multiplier to 42 (aka, 4.2ghz) and left the voltage alone (~1.44v). Thus, now my CPU is constantly running at 4.2ghz. Under some benchmark loads, the MAX temp reached was 72C. So, not tee bad imo. But what I'm wondering: are there any other negative side effects that come with having the CPU constantly clocked that high? Anything at all? Or is it completely fine to keep it pinned at 4.2ghz as long as I can cool it properly?

Ah, so my theory does not hold water! Out of curiosity, is there any benefit with having your non-gaming monitors running off of a secondary GPU?

Fair enough. Assuming I have YouTube / something else on the other monitors that uses a small amount of GPU power tho...

My rig is currently running three 1080p monitors (because why not, amirite?). My GPU is a GTX 1070. However, I have an old 750TI lying around as well. Which got me thinking.... I only use one monitor for gaming. And having other monitors plugged into the GPU will surely decrease my FPS by at least a little bit (what, maybe 5-10 FPS?). So if I were to shove the 750ti into my rig and plug my two non-gaming monitors into it (and thus have the 1070 dedicated to my gaming monitor only)...wouldn't that result in slightly higher FPS while gaming? Heh. Sounds good on paper, but will it work? I'm sure it's not necessary, but I have the spare card and a PSU that can handle both, so might as well do something with it.

I did double-check the cooler awhile back and even re-applied the thermal paste, so no dice there. Thank you all for the replies! I'm thinking I'll just let it run hot. Even if it does reduce the CPU's lifespan, I'll likely have upgraded by the time it kicks the bucket.

When I'm talking about the "Boost"/"turbo", I'm basically referring to the CPU's factory settings. Aka, base clock of 3.6ghz, can turbo up to 4.2ghz. And it happily does turbo up to that, even with this sh***y case! But in exchange, it runs 83-88C average lol. It runs games surprisingly well with turbo disabled (aka, 3.6 is its max speed)...but FPS are still noticeably lower. I've even encountered occasional bottlenecks with Minecraft when it's running at 3.6 lol (the "chosen" core that's running Minecraft will be at like 95%, but the 1070 will be chilling at like 55-75% usage....GPU usage is only that high because I use shaders lol). I might give better case fans a try. I'm guessing 12 Euros is what, $15 USD? Not too bad. But if all else fails, how much damage will I be causing by running at 83-88C for 10-14 hours per week?

@Mark Kaine Here's a pic of mine. I've got an MSI Bazooka V2 (Micro-ATX). There's a second exhaust fan directly above the CPU cooler that you can only barely see, and I removed the 3rd case fan for cable management (after much testing, I kid you not, the 3rd fan did not make an appreciable difference. Sounds crazy, but it really didn't). Mind you, the 95C temps are only spikes (aka, the "Max" column in CPUID). The average temps are 83-88C. There's also a pic of the front of my case. As you can see, it ain't great for air flow lol

I agree. And my case can fit 1 more fan. But it doesn't seem to make a huge difference how they're arranged. I've gone 2 intake + 1 exhaust, 2 exhaust + 1 intake, I've even tried putting a fan in over the PSU cage as an intake. But none of those combinations seem to make a difference. The front panel of the case is just kinda well...poorly designed for air flow. That stood out to me when I saw the case on Amazon, but I fell for the "surely all of these positive reviews aren't wrong" trap lol. So I'm quite confident that my case is a lost cause in terms of keeping a non-neutered 2600x under control while gaming (unless I keep the side panel off...which I really don't want to). My main question is "How bad is it for the CPU to run that hot for ~10-14 hours of gaming per week?"

I have 3 case fans total. 2 exhaust, 1 intake. I'm actually not quite sure what their speeds are, but I know they've worked well in other cases from personal experience. I've tried all sorts of combos with these fans, but it didn't make a difference (at least not a significant one). The case is just bad with airflow (look at a pic of the front panel and you'll understand. I was duped by positive reviews lol). The CPU fan is the stock cooler that comes with the 2600x. Which obviously isn't the best cooler, but should be able to do better than this. And on top of that, removing the side panel from the case brings temps back down to reason (which, I guess, "proves" it's a case airflow issue).

I'll give it a shot! Needless to say, I cheaped out on the PSU too. Got something that "Will work fine", but isn't exactly "good" (it's a SeaSonic S12, rated Bronze 80 lol)

Interesting... I have my PSU's fan facing down (since the case has a big gap underneath for the PSU airflow). And a GTX 1070 "mini" ("mini" as in, dual-fan). Think flipping the PSU over might make a difference?

TL;DR: My case sucks with air flow. My CPU runs between 83-88C average, peaks at 95C while gaming. Otherwise, it's fine. I can clock it down to reduce temps. But if I only game for 10-14 hours per week, are these temps particularly dangerous? My college budget doesn't really allow me to purchase any upgrades. Brief background: I have a Ryzen 5 2600x in a cheap case (AeroCool Cylon) that is absolutely terrible with air flow (regardless of # of fans / placement), thus resulting in quite high CPU temps while gaming. I have confidently confirmed that air flow is the issue via removing the side panel and watching temps drop by ~10-20C. When my CPU's "Turbo" is enabled in BIOS (aka, it's allowed to clock up to 4.2ghz), the average CPU temp while gaming is ~83-88C, with peaks up to 95C. However, if I disable turbo (thus it runs at its base clock of 3.6ghz), temps are perfectly under control. So my question: Just how bad is it for a desktop CPU to run in the mid-high 80's / peak in the mid 90's for hours at a time? I'm not a heavy gamer by any means; most of the time I'm using my desktop for college stuff (aka, not stressing the CPU). I maybe game for an average of 10-14 hours per week (just guessing). Basically, do you think I should continue to accept some performance loss when I do game in exchange for better temps, or do you think it's safe to let the CPU run that hot, given how often I game? I know there are some simple solutions to this issue: 1: Buy a liquid cooler 2: Why'd you buy such a bad case? (yes, judge me as you will) 3: Buy a better case But I'm on a College Budget(tm), and really can't afford upgrades. I'm willing to make do with what I have if I need to. But I just want to know if I'd be a fool to let my CPU run that hot for 10-14 hours per week, or if it won't really be a problem.

Yes, definitely - taking off the side panel drops temps by anywhere between 15 and 30C. So it's definitely an airflow issue.

That was the first thing I checked (and did indeed re-apply the paste). It did seem insane, and sadly didn't fix it. Definitely an air flow issue, because when I take the side panel off while running a game, the temps quickly drop by like 25-30C

I guess just buying a non-stupid case would also be a sensible option too. Probably shoulda thought of that haha. And I've heard good things about the stock Ryzen coolers, which is why I was surprised to see 96C lol. Definitely the case recycling hot air though. Because when I take the side panel off, the temps quickly drop to the 60's or 70's.

Ah, gotcha. My only gripes with that are...well, if the GPU does turns out to be significantly over-heating the CPU, then what? I definitely don't want to neuter my GPU by down-clocking it. And I'm not confident enough (in my skills nor in my PC case) to install a liquid cooler on the GPU. And the GPU, with air-cooling, doesn't have thermal problems to begin with. Which is why I'm wondering if a 140mm AIO liquid cooler on the CPU would perform well enough to be worth the cost.

@FasauceomeThat probably would make a difference, considering that airflow is a problem. But if I neuter my GPU like that, then I won't be any better off. Right now, my 2600x's clock speed is capped at 3.6ghz (and performance isn't suffering that badly), but the GPU is free to run as fast as it wants. If I were to cap the GPU, wouldn't that lead to even worse performance in games?

@FasauceomeIronically, the GPU does pretty well. It's a GTX 1070, dual-fan. Typically runs in the high 70's / low-mid 80's (mid 80's at worst). So I'm not so worried about that. BTW - I should have mentioned this in my original post (will edit now) - my Ryzen 2600X is using the stock cooler that it came with.

@Fasauceome This is true. Do you think it would be better to have the 140mm AIO fan blow into the case (aka take fresh air from outside), or blow out of the case (aka, take warm air from in the case)?

Yes, I know, a 140mm AIO liquid cooler is never recommended for a 95W CPU (in this case, a Ryzen 5 2600x with stock cooler). But hear me out.... I basically had no choice but to buy my case for $50 or less. I opted for the AeroCool Cylon ($43). Which is remarkably competently built...except for the front panel. The front panel basically restricts 80% of intake airflow in exchange for looking "cool" (I will not be mad if you give me sh*t in the comments buying this...yes, I regret it). Basically, if I'm gaming on this case and the CPU is allowed to "turbo" up to 4.2ghz, the case's crappy airflow is overwhelmed and the CPU starts running at 85-96C. Average of 88-92C. Not good! And this is regardless of how I position my 2 120mm fans (1 intake 1 exhaust, 2 exhaust 0 intake, 2 intake 0 exhaust - doesn't matter. And I doubt a 3rd fan would make the difference). Taking off the side panel quickly drops temps by 15-30C. It's gotten to the point where I've disabled AMD's "turbo boost" in BIOS, and thus the CPU is capped (neutered) at its base clock speed of 3.6ghz. So. Do you think that a 140mm AIO liquid cooler could consistently do better? And if so, do you think it would do better enough to justify the cost? Or should I stick with what I have (which is definitely functional) and live with my regrets? BTW, there is a vent hole on the top of my case that can fit either a 120mm or 140mm fan - so yes, a 140mm AIO will fit.

@LukeSavenije Ah, I hadn't considered that. I'll check with my friend and see if it's an option!

@LukeSavenije That's a pretty solid build! the only downside is that it does need to be a pre-built. 480GB of storage isn't that much, but it would only cost like $80 more to shove a 2TB HDD into that machine, so no big deal. But yeah, the only downside to that is the fact that it's not pre-built. As far as gaming goes, how do you suppose it would do at 1440p?

@LukeSavenije They already have a mouse and keyboard. Certain small things, like a mousepad and other minor accessories are not factored in, but that's easy enough to sort out afterwards. As for CPU (I should have mentioned this initially), we aren't tied to Ryzen or Intel per se. Basically whichever one offers the best price for performance.

I am helping a friend of mine get a new gaming PC. Their budget is $1000-$1500 (closer to $1000 ideally). They want to be able to game at 1440p, but are willing to settle for 1080p if necessary. Also, they are going to buy a pre-built (they aren't "tech savvy" enough to build from scratch). I'm thinking of recommending an RTX 2060 GPU for them. But how well can that card perform at 1440p? What FPS could one expect with that card at that resolution? And also, if you have a moment, what 1440p / 1080p monitor would you recommend (given the $1000-$1500 budget)?

@LienusLateTips Oh, sweet - thank you! I guess I was just bad at searching haha