Horrible Ryzen 7 Overclock!

[jjohnthedon1]

1 minute ago, MageTank said:

Might want to update that sig then...

No cause I run 4 ghz at 1.39 for lower temps as there isn't much gain

[LooneyJuice]

11 minutes ago, DildorTheDecent said:

That's mega. Sure they're stressed but 108C is nuts. Feel like your board is a factor here too. VRM is too hot and might be a bit unstable. 

 

That or AMD is binning the CPUs properly. A 1700X should clock better than your 1700. With the 1800X the CPU to push 4GHz and slightly beyond. So, if you really want all the clock, you'll need an 'X' part. In theory anyway. 

Regardless of SKU though, they're all arriving at broadly the same ceiling. Generally the consensus seems to be that the 1800X will essentially guarantee 4GHz operation without you having to tweak much, ergo, paying a premium for not having to really mess with it. Other than that, 3.9-4.1 isn't exactly a groundbreaking difference, and would be within variance observed for a single SKU, let alone the entire line. Binning is surely involved, but I believe mainly in order to hit TDP targets more than anything.

 

Edit: Edited phrasing for some inaccuracy

[MageTank]

Just now, jjohnthedon1 said:

No cause I run 4 ghz at 1.39 for lower temps as there isn't much gain

Then what does fully stable mean? lol

[er_gaming01]

8 minutes ago, DildorTheDecent said:

That's mega. Sure they're stressed but 108C is nuts. Feel like your board is a factor here too. VRM is too hot and might be a bit unstable. 

 

That or AMD is binning the CPUs properly. A 1700X should clock better than your 1700. With the 1800X the CPU to push 4GHz and slightly beyond. So, if you really want all the clock, you'll need an 'X' part. In theory anyway. 

I heard from both gamers Nexus and buildzoid that 108 is normal

[jjohnthedon1]

7 minutes ago, MageTank said:

Then what does fully stable mean? lol

69 max temp at 4.1

passed Aida 64 with r15 on loop for 5 hours 

4ghz max temp 55 

no point in cooking the cpu with high voltage and temps for 1 fps gain 

[MageTank]

Just now, jjohnthedon1 said:

69 max temp at 4.1

passed Aida 64 with r15 on loop for 5 hours 

4ghz max temp 55 

no point in cooking the cpu with high voltage and temps for 1 fps gain 

Neither of those temperatures are anywhere near harmful though. And (for the sake of this next part, let's pretend Aida64 gets hot) you shouldn't be hitting those thermals under "normal" workloads, right? Why compromise on clocks at all, if your everyday thermal load is still far below anything worrisome?

 

Disclaimer: MageTank has no problem with people using the word "stable". He only dislikes the word when a prefix is added to it.

[DildorTheDecent]

9 minutes ago, jjohnthedon1 said:

My 1700 is stable at 4.1 ...

Early processors are near enough the same since there's little time to sort out proper binning. Later chips should be more defined as to what clocks they can hit. Have to make the X parts worth it with an easy 4GHz. 

6 minutes ago, LooneyJuice said:

Regardless of SKU though, they're all arriving at broadly the same ceiling. Generally the consensus seems to be that the 1800X will essentially guarantee 4GHz operation without you having to tweak anything, ergo, paying a premium for not having to mess with it. Other than that, 3.9-4.1 isn't exactly a groundbreaking difference, and would be within variance observed for a single SKU, let alone the entire line. Binning is surely involved, but I believe mainly in order to hit TDP targets more than anything.

Sounds more like it. I'm just assuming that the X parts are more likely to push 4.0GHz - 4.2GHz if the chip is REALLY good. 

 

Binning for TDP is a good point too. 

 

3 minutes ago, er_gaming01 said:

I heard from both gamers Nexus and buildzoid that 108 is normal

Probably for that board. 108C is a bit much tbh. 

[Drak3]

12 minutes ago, MageTank said:

Then what does fully stable mean? lol

One can be stable and have a thermal load they're not comfortable with. Only reason I'm keeping my 5930K @4.5GHz.

[MageTank]

Just now, Drak3 said:

One can be stable and have a thermal load they're not comfortable with. Only reason I'm keeping my 5930K @4.5GHz.

 

2 minutes ago, MageTank said:

Disclaimer: MageTank has no problem with people using the word "stable". He only dislikes the word when a prefix is added to it.

 

[Drak3]

Just now, MageTank said:

 

 

Hey, you asked what fully stable was when someone else was talking about their OC, when they run lower than what they can achieve due to thermals and preference on the thing that that is.

 

Also, fully isn't a prefix. Psuedo is. Hexa, Hepta, Octo, and all the other numeral prefixes I like to use are prefixes. Fully isn't a prefix, it's a descriptor.

[LooneyJuice]

2 minutes ago, MageTank said:

Disclaimer: MageTank has no problem with people using the word "stable". He only dislikes the word when a prefix is added to it.

What do you have against a Horse Stable?

[jjohnthedon1]

4 minutes ago, MageTank said:

Neither of those temperatures are anywhere near harmful though. And (for the sake of this next part, let's pretend Aida64 gets hot) you shouldn't be hitting those thermals under "normal" workloads, right? Why compromise on clocks at all, if your everyday thermal load is still far below anything worrisome?

 

Disclaimer: MageTank has no problem with people using the word "stable". He only dislikes the word when a prefix is added to it.

I no there not but as I dont get a fps increase I'd rather be conservative 

1.45v is high

and while gaming with 2 980tis in the case cpu gets up to 50 when gaming at 4ghz 

i have a 144hz monitor so everything is running flat out 

 

 

[Drak3]

4 minutes ago, MageTank said:

as you cannot describe "stability" beyond what it already is.

You've used pseudostable to describe stability beyond the black and white thing you see it as.

 

5 minutes ago, MageTank said:

thank you @Drak3

You're welcome.

 

3 minutes ago, jjohnthedon1 said:

we were all happy

I'm more tired if anything.

[aisle9]

OP, I feel your pain. I'm bleeding voltage into my 1700 on a Gigabyte AB350 Gaming-3 and can't even get the thing to survive 8 hours of RealBench at 3.6GHz. It's bad enough that I picked up a Strix B350-F Gaming board with better VRMs and better cooling, not to mention better RAM compatibility, in hopes of getting myself to 3.8GHz at a reasonable voltage without giving up my stock cooler. It's clearly not the best binned CPU in the world based upon its relative lack of trustworthiness at 3.7GHz pulling down 1.33v, about as high as the stock cooler comfortably goes for me, but the laughably poor design of the Gigabyte board for overclocking (or, you know, using RAM that's on the QVL) could be a common thread with your MSI board.

[jjohnthedon1]

Also you can have a stable system for gaming but not for video editing 

it highly depends upon ur work load you use your machine for 

me saying fully stable was ment as stable for multiple types of workloads 

[Drak3]

Done12, I hope at least the read was entertaining.

[MageTank]

Just now, Drak3 said:

You've used pseudostable to describe stability beyond the black and white thing you see it as.

 

You're welcome.

 

I'm more tired if anything.

I used pseudostable to mock people that claim "gaming stable" or in the case of my best good friend @Lays "24/7 stable mang" only to crash mid-match on Overwatch, lol. Nowhere will you find a post of me claiming pseudostable is "beyond stable", nor does it fit in between. It's instability that is treated as stable, because it doesn't crash during X application.

 

I don't mock people for using their preference of a stress test, and I don't call out results (unless they are completely absurd). I am just confused by this notion that "24/7, 100%, fully, etc" stability exists, when it's impossible to actually test that. Stability is always fleeting. You can be stable today, and be unstable tomorrow, even after surviving the absolute worst stress tests. It's simply the nature of our hardware. I've seen stock CPU's become unstable over time. It's why I've always said (and you can go through my many posts on this forum): you are stable until you are not. It's the best way to describe stability, lol. 

 

1 minute ago, jjohnthedon1 said:

Also you can have a stable system for gaming but not for video editing 

it highly depends upon ur work load you use your machine for 

me saying fully stable was ment as stable for multiple types of workloads 

If it's not stable for video editing, then it is not stable. That falls under the "until you are not" part of stability. 

[done12many2]

1 minute ago, Drak3 said:

Done12, I hope at least the read was entertaining.

 

I was bud.  I don't even reply to certain things anymore.  Arguing with some folks about common shit stuff is exhausting.  

[Drak3]

1 minute ago, MageTank said:

lol.

You say that way to much. Like, WAY TOO much.

 

Just now, done12many2 said:

 

I was bud.  I don't even reply to certain things anymore.  Arguing with some folks about common shit stuff is exhausting.  

After a certain point, I stop caring, especially if it means digging around for a piece of info that is hard to find.

[LooneyJuice]

This was some pretty low-hanging fruit when it came to starting this whole argument. Hell, I would even have appreciated the grammatical nuances had they been worded in a slightly less confrontational manner. But of course this had to somehow devolve into a battle of wits and quips over a thread pertaining to the supposed poor overclocking performance of a 1700. Would have been cool to dissipate the ontological misunderstanding early on and maybe share some cool info in the meantime, but of course not .

[Drak3]

1 minute ago, LooneyJuice said:

This was some pretty low-hanging fruit when it came to starting this whole argument. Hell, I would even have appreciated the grammatical nuances had they been worded in a slightly less confrontational manner. But of course this had to somehow devolve into a battle of wits and quips over a thread pertaining to the supposed poor overclocking performance of a 1700. Would have been cool to dissipate the ontological misunderstanding early on and maybe share some cool info in the meantime, but of course not .

That's just not how conversation between Mage and I works. Simplistic thinker vs complex overthinker. One day, there just might be a clear winner.

 

Me, obviously.

[MageTank]

Just now, Drak3 said:

You say that way to much. Like, WAY TOO much.

 

After a certain point, I stop caring, especially if it means digging around for a piece of info that is hard to find.

I am flattered that you noticed, lol.

Just now, LooneyJuice said:

This was some pretty low-hanging fruit when it came to starting this whole argument. Hell, I would even have appreciated the grammatical nuances had they been worded in a slightly less confrontational manner. But of course this had to somehow devolve into a battle of wits and quips over a thread pertaining to the supposed poor overclocking performance of a 1700. Would have been cool to dissipate the ontological misunderstanding early on and maybe share some cool info in the meantime, but of course not .

I blame my way of speaking. I seem to always leave unintentional destruction in my wake. As for the thread, I would likely chalk his issue up with either the bios, or the board itself. Wouldn't be the first time we've seen a BIOS with super aggressive LLC settings (or in this case, a potentially saggy LLC).  It's also not the worlds greatest motherboard, given how cheap it is. Given how high the yields are for Ryzen, it's less common to get that bad of a bin (they are almost certainly saved for the lower end SKU's), I suppose it's still possible. Even so, I'd rather invest in a better board, before returning a  more expensive CPU.

 

1 minute ago, Drak3 said:

That's just not how conversation between Mage and I works. Simplistic thinker vs complex overthinker. One day, there just might be a clear winner.

 

Me, obviously.

Eh, it will continue until you find another forum dweller to be obsessed with. Until then, i'll carry this burden 

[done12many2]

4 minutes ago, LooneyJuice said:

low-hanging fruit

 

One of my all time favorite analogies.  

[LooneyJuice]

Just now, Drak3 said:

That's just not how conversation between Mage and I works. Simplistic thinker vs complex overthinker. One day, there just might be a clear winner.

 

Me, obviously.

The way I see it, you can convey your thoughts concisely enough, Mage can convey his thoughts concisely enough, so your combined input could amount to way more than The Battle of Etymology - 2017.

[LooneyJuice]

1 minute ago, MageTank said:

I blame my way of speaking. I seem to always leave unintentional destruction in my wake. 

Oh I know the drill, I don't stalk people but I remember their input, mannerisms and the like. I got the whole "what does fully stable mean? lol". It did take a bit to sink in, but yeah, I did understand that it was an issue regarding the definition of stable. If something can be fully stable, then it leaves room to not be fully stable, ergo unstable. Whatevs, I get it. But not everyone will go that far and "hilarity will ensue". It happens, that's fine. But it doesn't take much to cut through the BS, really. All these little skirmishes do is look like cat fights. It's just bugs me is all.