Have I lost the silicon lottery with my Ryzen 1700?

[done12many2]

4 minutes ago, Damascus said:

Also, @done12many2 is the chip I sold golden?  I'm curious as to the grade of chip I used to have.

 

Lol. Yeah man.  The best of the best.  

[Damascus]

Just now, done12many2 said:

 

Lol. Yeah man.  The best of the best.  

Hmm, wish I had the cooling I've got now then.

[done12many2]

Just now, Damascus said:

Hmm, wish I had the cooling I've got now then.

 

Don't we all?  

 

I wouldn't put too much worry into it.

 

I'm just as guilty as the next guy with wondering if I've found a great chip or not, but one thing I've learned over time is that as the load increases, the variance from one chip's max speed to another chip's max speed gets smaller and smaller.

 

On average, we are running less and less aggressive stress testing today than we were 5 years ago.  This is both good and bad.  With more lenient test standards, one chip is able to clock higher than another, but when they are both subjected to a much heavier testing, they both end up much closer to one another than expected.  I tend to favor moderately aggressive stressing, without going overboard.  If we aren't subjecting our CPUs to those types of loads, there's no real need to verify the for hours on end at excessive loads.

 

@MageTank and I are good examples of people with completely different expectations of stability.  Neither is right.  It's just a matter of personal preference and needs.    

[MageTank]

19 minutes ago, done12many2 said:

 

Don't we all?  

 

I wouldn't put too much worry into it.

 

I'm just as guilty as the next guy with wondering if I've found a great chip or not, but one thing I've learned over time is that as the load increases, the variance from one chip's max speed to another chip's max speed gets smaller and smaller.

 

On average, we are running less and less aggressive stress testing today than we were 5 years ago.  This is both good and bad.  With more lenient test standards, one chip is able to clock higher than another, but when they are both subjected to a much heavier testing, they both end up much closer to one another than expected.  I tend to favor moderately aggressive stressing, without going overboard.  If we aren't subjecting our CPUs to those types of loads, there's no real need to verify the for hours on end at excessive loads.

 

@MageTank and I are good examples of people with completely different expectations of stability.  Neither is right.  It's just a matter of personal preference and needs.    

What? My expectation of stability is rather simple. I just take the most convoluted path to get there

 

Quote

You are stable until you are not

 

[Travercraig]

1 hour ago, done12many2 said:

 

I would not consider Cinebench a real load.  While it's indeed tough on the CPU, it's for a short duration.

 

If you have any concerns with your PC actually being stable, I'd suggest running a more aggressive stress test application for at least and hour or two. 

 

Don't worry too much about 3.8 or 3.9 GHz.  The difference in performance isn't worth being fixated on 3.9.  If you have to drop to 3.8 to obtain stability or safer voltages, you're only losing a theoretical max of 2.6% in performance.  In reality, probably less than that.

 

Good luck man.

Sorry to bother you again but what stress test program can i use to test overlock stability for longer durations than cinebench? I'm totally new to this overlocking business.

[Jonathan Lemmens]

Just now, GR412 said:

Sorry to bother you again but what stress test program can i use to test overlock stability for longer durations than cinebench? I'm totally new to this overlocking business.

I like Realbench 

https://rog.asus.com/articles/news/realbench-v2-43-new-version-available-now/

[Travercraig]

Just now, Jonathan Lemmens said:

I like Realbench 

https://rog.asus.com/articles/news/realbench-v2-43-new-version-available-now/

Ahh excellent, thanks a lot. I've learnt a lot in just 6 hours. Considering i had no bloody idea what i was doing at the start.

[Damascus]

@done12many2 the funny thing to me is that I actually only have the cooling I do now because I wanted to max out my gpu, and because I have that ceiling I'm going for a max OC on my 1700.  

 

I honestly didn't see enough of an impact going from 4.3 to 4.6 so I never bothered to push my cooler and cpu to the limits.  (Though if I had a 240mm aio or a beast like the NH-D15 custom loop etc. I tend to go for it, just because I can.)