Convince me to keep the faith for a Ryzen cpu...

Pusher of Buttons

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 6, 2016
Messages
1,924
I've been waffling for months and months now on a build....hoping prices would stabilize a bit as releases came out.

I'm looking to do a pure gaming machine and trying to come in around $1500 total and another $500 on a new 2k Freesync monitor. I've been kind of dead set on a 1600/x but the i5 8600k review really makes it out to be the mid level gaming chip to have (if, ever available, of course). Planning to pair with a Vega 64.

I desperately -want- to stay with AMD but I don't have the $$ to piss away on brand loyalty....as much as I adore the Ryzen line the reality is all I really do on my home PC is game. I've been without a desktop gaming system since I sold my RX480 this summer....so I've been making do on the laptop but I'm fiending for a new build.

So...can anyone keep me loyal here?
 

Pusher of Buttons

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 6, 2016
Messages
1,924
Never stay loyal to anything but your wallet.

Yeah...I know....I haven't built anything AMD since my Phenom II. Vega makes sense to me $$ wise because of the Freesync savings but I'm not sure Ryzen makes any sense at my price point for just gaming. Upgradability of the AM4 platform is nice but frankly I've never "just" upgraded a CPU in a build, so not sure that's a strong selling point for me.
 

Brian_B

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 23, 2012
Messages
3,356
So long as you have 4+ cores, does the CPU you use really matter all that much in gaming?

Vega64, your probably gaming at 1080 or 1440. Just about anything modern, with an architecture that's less than 5 years old, is not a bottom bin SKU, with the capability to do any type of overclock at all -- is going to get you acceptable frame rates with a Vega64 in nearly every game out there.

You can talk about differences like frame rate variation, and one may get 145fps while the other does 185fps - sure, there can be only one top dog chip, and you can always find corner cases that one side or the other like to tout. But reality is that most CPUs today are perfectly acceptable for gaming, and have been for a really long time now.

Use AMD if you want to. Use Intel if you want to. You can build a nice gaming rig with either one.
 

sabrewolf732

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Dec 6, 2004
Messages
4,736
Go vega 56. Fuck vega 64 (I have one).

My ryzen is fine for gaming and does very well. The difference between i7 and ryzen in most games now a days with modern bios and memory speeds is not that great, but when you take into account the ability for the 8600k to hit 5Ghz that is where it picks up tons of ground.
 

Gideon

2[H]4U
Joined
Apr 13, 2006
Messages
2,898
I've been waffling for months and months now on a build....hoping prices would stabilize a bit as releases came out.

I'm looking to do a pure gaming machine and trying to come in around $1500 total and another $500 on a new 2k Freesync monitor. I've been kind of dead set on a 1600/x but the i5 8600k review really makes it out to be the mid level gaming chip to have (if, ever available, of course). Planning to pair with a Vega 64.

I desperately -want- to stay with AMD but I don't have the $$ to piss away on brand loyalty....as much as I adore the Ryzen line the reality is all I really do on my home PC is game. I've been without a desktop gaming system since I sold my RX480 this summer....so I've been making do on the laptop but I'm fiending for a new build.

So...can anyone keep me loyal here?

Are you big into overclocking or no, cause that can make a big difference in the answer.
 

Cranky1970

Weaksauce
Joined
Sep 2, 2017
Messages
72
Dude, My new rig that i built a couple of months ago i couldn't be happier with. Ryzen 1600x and a Vega 56 pretty much chews up anything i throw at it. Go with your gut and get the best you can afford.
 

SighTurtle

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 29, 2016
Messages
1,410
Intel would serve you much better. It just will for a pure gaming machine. If anything, console yourself with a AMD GPU and Freesync monitor as your loyalty buy if you want.
 

Pusher of Buttons

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 6, 2016
Messages
1,924
Are you big into overclocking or no, cause that can make a big difference in the answer.

Big? No...I will OC but I'm not going to go through the hassle of delidding or anything. Mid level air or low end AIO on the CPU, maybe one of the EKWB custom loop kits if I get a burr up my ass. I don't have the free time to play with tweaking as much as I used to so it'll be mostly what can I get for as cheap and little hassle. Not very [H] but is what it is :)
 

JustReason

razor1 is my Lover
Joined
Oct 31, 2015
Messages
2,483
I've been waffling for months and months now on a build....hoping prices would stabilize a bit as releases came out.

I'm looking to do a pure gaming machine and trying to come in around $1500 total and another $500 on a new 2k Freesync monitor. I've been kind of dead set on a 1600/x but the i5 8600k review really makes it out to be the mid level gaming chip to have (if, ever available, of course). Planning to pair with a Vega 64.

I desperately -want- to stay with AMD but I don't have the $$ to piss away on brand loyalty....as much as I adore the Ryzen line the reality is all I really do on my home PC is game. I've been without a desktop gaming system since I sold my RX480 this summer....so I've been making do on the laptop but I'm fiending for a new build.

So...can anyone keep me loyal here?
Depends on your frame rate and even then only if your looking to do extremely high frame rates. Ryzen will make you appreciate your purchase and the total cost is quite low compared to equal core count Intels. Also if trying to keep costs down the included fan in some of the Ryzens will do more than suffice and is very quiet even at 100%.

I bought the 1800X and Taichi board (actually the cheapest of the 370X boards and yet least issues) with the FlareX 16Gb memory, 500Gb NVME drive, and 1000W EVGA PSU for under $1100 (maybe less, it was a Microcenter buy, excluding memory from Newegg). My wifes is a 1600 (non x) And honestly I am not sure the 1800X is a huge upgrade performance wise. I did OC my 1800X to 4.0Ghz with little to no issue, but haven't bothered to OC hers since she only really plays Warcraft and came from a 7870K (she loves it). As I haven't played the same games on both I really cant compare but my gut says there likely is little reason for the full 8 cores over 6, especially considering the SMT giving you 12 threads anyway. That 1600, even the X, is far cheaper. Besides the next iteration of the Zen is supposed to be compatible with existing chipsets so you have an upgrade path with possible higher performance with an unknown degree.
 

Gideon

2[H]4U
Joined
Apr 13, 2006
Messages
2,898
Big? No...I will OC but I'm not going to go through the hassle of delidding or anything. Mid level air or low end AIO on the CPU, maybe one of the EKWB custom loop kits if I get a burr up my ass. I don't have the free time to play with tweaking as much as I used to so it'll be mostly what can I get for as cheap and little hassle. Not very [H] but is what it is :)

Well then I would go with the 1600, if you were big on overclocking then I would say a Intel might be a better choice cause if your willing to delid and what not you can get the clocks up quite a bit and keep thermals within a reasonable limit. That is why I asked. Also the new coffee lake chips are hard to find and are selling above msrp, so the 1600 is a much better deal for now and you will have access to the next version of Zen.
 

bobzdar

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 6, 2003
Messages
1,870
Given the price of the 8600k, the 1600x isn't really competition for it, the R7 1700 is. That comes with a Wraith and can do 3.7-3.8 all core with the stock cooler (mine does 3.8 without issue with peak of 72C under stress testing) and can hit 4.2 with high end cooling. That will be faster in threaded workloads, and, in my opinion, will have longer 'legs' so to speak as the trend is to more threading, not less, and it's 8c/16t vs. 6c/6t. In older games (that will likely have super high frame rates anyway), the i5 will be faster, but in stuff coming out in the next couple of years I don't think it will.

My opinion, but I put my money where my mouth was and got the R7, though I do some other stuff besides gaming.
 

tangoseal

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Dec 18, 2010
Messages
9,316
Truth be told...

Every last damned bench shows the same thing. Unless your gaming at 1080p Ryzen and I5 I7 have nearly identical perf at higher resolutions.

Since you want a higher resolution display and an AMD card you will find that Vega will probably perform better on Ryzen cpu and nVidia on Intel.

Either or will be just fine and the new coffee lake I5 is not mid range anymore as its about as high end in the IPC field as you can get for gaming. The loss of SMT on the I5 actually performs better in some titles. I may disable SMT aka HT on my 8700k for pure gaming.

My threadripper is also an amazing gaming rig at higher resolutions but the 8700k just plain kicks its ass at 1080p 240hz esports titles.
 

SixFootDuo

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 5, 2004
Messages
5,789
I was very loyal to AMD and for a lot longer than I should have been.

All I will say is ... NEVER ... EVER .... be brand loyal. When it comes to computers you need to stay performance loyal.

You're games don't care if it's AMD, Intel of Nvidia under the hood .... you're games just want to have the most FPS possible. Remember that.

Give your and yourself what you most desire in life .... massive FPS.
 

N4CR

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 17, 2011
Messages
4,806
If you want to build soon then good luck getting paper launch CPUs. It'll be sweet fuck all unless you're putting a Ti and 860Hz 480p monitor with it.
Can always upgrade when Zen2 is out if you want the extra 10-20fps. Will you really see those frames over 100Hz? Doubt it.
If you can get an 8600k go for it but good luck.
 

Pusher of Buttons

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 6, 2016
Messages
1,924
If you want to build soon then good luck getting paper launch CPUs. It'll be sweet fuck all unless you're putting a Ti and 860Hz 480p monitor with it.
Can always upgrade when Zen2 is out if you want the extra 10-20fps. Will you really see those frames over 100Hz? Doubt it.
If you can get an 8600k go for it but good luck.

Yeah, Coffee Lake seems vaporware-y right now....

But not in a huge rush.... I've put it off this long.

Not looking for yuuge fps, I take pretty over performance.
 

N4CR

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 17, 2011
Messages
4,806
Not looking for yuuge fps, I take pretty over performance.

Then if running 4k especially you'll be GPU limited so CPU means bugger all.
Another thing to keep in mind is the z370 platform is another Intel dead end for the z390 platform.
If you can wait it out till next year, Zen+ reduces gap, more 8xxx stock, revised mobos and lower prices etc, maybe cheaper ram too.
 

Pieter3dnow

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 29, 2009
Messages
6,784
Buy AMD for your next machine and that will get the ball rolling on future cpu as well. Without support AMD can not come back without AMD you have no hope for the future purchases you would be stuck with Intel.
 

dgacioch

Weaksauce
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
89
If your mainly using your machine for gaming, i myself would probably go with the Intel i7 8700 and a midrange z370 board. The non k version should be a bit over $300 when it becomes available sometime in the next month or so. Going with the non K part you can get away with a much cheaper midrange cooler. I agree the intel z370 is an end of life platform, but so was my z77 3570k when i bought that almost 6 years ago. I replaed my old 7850 radeon with a gtx 1080 last year and im doing fine. The IPC advantage of the intel over the ryzen system may not show up at 4k gaming now, but if your like most people and replace your graphics card 2 or 3 years out while keeping your pc's "guts" I feel the intel system will probably hold up a bit better if your strictly using it as a gaming rig. Even though the i5 8400/8600k is looking to be a budget gaming beast, I would still be looking at the 6core/12 thread part to future proof myself for the next 4 to 5 years. The turbo clocks on the non k 8700 are almost identical to the k version, and should probably come within 10% of the overclocked version for quite a bit less overall when you consider you dont need a beastly cooling system or top end board to overclock.
 

OrangeKhrush

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 15, 2016
Messages
1,673
I've been waffling for months and months now on a build....hoping prices would stabilize a bit as releases came out.

I'm looking to do a pure gaming machine and trying to come in around $1500 total and another $500 on a new 2k Freesync monitor. I've been kind of dead set on a 1600/x but the i5 8600k review really makes it out to be the mid level gaming chip to have (if, ever available, of course). Planning to pair with a Vega 64.

I desperately -want- to stay with AMD but I don't have the $$ to piss away on brand loyalty....as much as I adore the Ryzen line the reality is all I really do on my home PC is game. I've been without a desktop gaming system since I sold my RX480 this summer....so I've been making do on the laptop but I'm fiending for a new build.

So...can anyone keep me loyal here?

Loyalty to any brand is dumb, yes with AMD you will offset performance so that will factor in your decision. The issue is how much study into it hav eyou made? can AMD game well at the resolutions you want, if not then go Intel.
 

Pusher of Buttons

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 6, 2016
Messages
1,924
Loyalty to any brand is dumb, yes with AMD you will offset performance so that will factor in your decision. The issue is how much study into it hav eyou made? can AMD game well at the resolutions you want, if not then go Intel.

Study? Excessive....held AMD stock for awhile as well so kept up for that sake.

I guess my brain is more towards future-proofing. I like my systems to last moderately long. I got 5 years almost out of my 955BE/5850 build. My current system was supposed to be a stopgap waiting for Ryzen. More wondering if game development will take advantage of all those extra Ryzen threads or not. Aiming for a solid max details 2k rig, 4k still seems a bridge too far as 1080Ti + gsync is another $500 minimum on top.
 

Archaea

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Oct 19, 2004
Messages
11,427
I've been waffling for months and months now on a build....hoping prices would stabilize a bit as releases came out.

I'm looking to do a pure gaming machine and trying to come in around $1500 total and another $500 on a new 2k Freesync monitor. I've been kind of dead set on a 1600/x but the i5 8600k review really makes it out to be the mid level gaming chip to have (if, ever available, of course). Planning to pair with a Vega 64.

I desperately -want- to stay with AMD but I don't have the $$ to piss away on brand loyalty....as much as I adore the Ryzen line the reality is all I really do on my home PC is game. I've been without a desktop gaming system since I sold my RX480 this summer....so I've been making do on the laptop but I'm fiending for a new build.

So...can anyone keep me loyal here?
Brand loyalty? Meh. Buy what works and has the features you need.

Ryzen is fine, but so would be any Intel from Haswell up. (For gaming). You can’t for go too wrong here... (but yes Intel is typically faster strictly gaming in a 90% categorical sense)

I must recommend against Vega right now though. Their drivers are a hot mess. I had three Vega. I’m selling them all at a loss. They’ve really botched up the gaming drivers, freesync support, and mining support to this particular point. (2 months after launch). I’m more frustrated with Vega than any tech product I’ve owned in years.
 

Archaea

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Oct 19, 2004
Messages
11,427
Given the price of the 8600k, the 1600x isn't really competition for it, the R7 1700 is. That comes with a Wraith and can do 3.7-3.8 all core with the stock cooler (mine does 3.8 without issue with peak of 72C under stress testing) and can hit 4.2 with high end cooling. That will be faster in threaded workloads, and, in my opinion, will have longer 'legs' so to speak as the trend is to more threading, not less, and it's 8c/16t vs. 6c/6t. In older games (that will likely have super high frame rates anyway), the i5 will be faster, but in stuff coming out in the next couple of years I don't think it will.

My opinion, but I put my money where my mouth was and got the R7, though I do some other stuff besides gaming.
I’ve tested five 1700 chips under water on five different motherboards. None got about 3.9ghz stable - but all got 3.8Ghzstable. You certainly aren’t guaranteed 4.1 or 4.2 on water. It’d be the exception to get 4.0 or above and not the rule.
 

geok1ng

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 28, 2007
Messages
2,129
I say save some money on your PC budget and increase your display budget. Going Freesync means you can squeeze a 34" 3440x1440 100Hz in your budget, just visit the Displays forum [H]ere.
As 34x14 you will not be CPU limited with a Ryzen for at least the next 2 GPU generations, probably more. The 8600k is a better gaming CPU, but there is no value if one can not buy it. In doubt, wait for it to become really available so you can actually estimate real life costs of your build choices.
 

Pusher of Buttons

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 6, 2016
Messages
1,924
I say save some money on your PC budget and increase your display budget. Going Freesync means you can squeeze a 34" 3440x1440 100Hz in your budget, just visit the Displays forum [H]ere.
As 34x14 you will not be CPU limited with a Ryzen for at least the next 2 GPU generations, probably more. The 8600k is a better gaming CPU, but there is no value if one can not buy it. In doubt, wait for it to become really available so you can actually estimate real life costs of your build choices.

Yeah but I'm not seeing a Freesync vid card that can properly drive 4k. Vega seems a bit anemic there and crossfire seems dead. That doesn't bother me excessively as I think I'd be just peachy at 2k.
 

crazycrave

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Mar 31, 2016
Messages
1,131
When my wifi card comes in I am going see what my Ryzen 1400 /290x can do playing WoT 4K 60HZ .. I have already played it before with fx 6300/R9-280 and he is right as it becomes GPU depended . even a HD 7950 can run eyefinity in iRacing Sims at 5760 x 1080 as they are built with eyefinity in mind.
 

DuronBurgerMan

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
1,340
Gaming only? Go Intel. If you are concerned about the future, when gaming is using more threads, then get 8700k. 6c/12t will potentially have more future-proofing legs than either 4c/8t or 6c/6t. Ryzen makes more sense as a mixed use (gaming/productivity) build, or as a workstation build. It also makes sense as a budget gaming build - but given your proposed budget, you can afford the higher end Intel CPU, so not a concern. More of a concern for sub-$1000 build.

Alternatively, you can wait until February's Ryzen refresh. But given that there are no proposed IPC improvements for that release - only clockspeed - I doubt it will overtake the 8700k in gaming (only in multi-threaded productivity).
 

bobzdar

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 6, 2003
Messages
1,870
I’ve tested five 1700 chips under water on five different motherboards. None got about 3.9ghz stable - but all got 3.8Ghzstable. You certainly aren’t guaranteed 4.1 or 4.2 on water. It’d be the exception to get 4.0 or above and not the rule.

You won't get any argument from me. I didn't try anything over 3.8 as I don't have the cooling for it. I think 4.0 is achievable with high end air or aio cooling and a lot of tweaking, but that may be the limit unless you get a golden sample.

The main point is that even at 3.8, I think the r7 1700 is a better buy than an i5 8600k long term, and at current prices it's significantly less expensive.

A good b350 board+1700/wraith is around $370, i5 8600k + z370 is over $400 and you still need a cooler. You can bump up to an x370 and get a better cooler for the 1700 and still be cheaper than the 8600k setup, but for a gaming setup you probably don't need the x370. I was debating getting an x370 but realistically don't need any of the added io and have zero stability issues with the b350. The only reason I could see going x370 is if I had a ton of storage and/or I was going for really high oc's so needed the better power circuitry that a lot of them have.
 

DuronBurgerMan

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
1,340
I’ve tested five 1700 chips under water on five different motherboards. None got about 3.9ghz stable - but all got 3.8Ghzstable. You certainly aren’t guaranteed 4.1 or 4.2 on water. It’d be the exception to get 4.0 or above and not the rule.

My 1700X did 3.9 without any special effort, and did 4.0 with some tinkering. It'll boot as high as 4.2, but temps are way too high for my air cooler, and stability is not there (though it might be possible with higher voltage - which I can't try because heat).

So 1700X may be a better OCing choice than 1700, if your goal is to max it out. Then again, I have a friend who could only get 3975 out of his 1700X, and that was unstable and hot, so he had to dial back to 3.9, so could just be luck, too.
 

jmilcher

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 3, 2008
Messages
5,277
I've been waffling for months and months now on a build....hoping prices would stabilize a bit as releases came out.

I'm looking to do a pure gaming machine and trying to come in around $1500 total and another $500 on a new 2k Freesync monitor. I've been kind of dead set on a 1600/x but the i5 8600k review really makes it out to be the mid level gaming chip to have (if, ever available, of course). Planning to pair with a Vega 64.

I desperately -want- to stay with AMD but I don't have the $$ to piss away on brand loyalty....as much as I adore the Ryzen line the reality is all I really do on my home PC is game. I've been without a desktop gaming system since I sold my RX480 this summer....so I've been making do on the laptop but I'm fiending for a new build.

So...can anyone keep me loyal here?
You've answered your own question. If you game mainly, Intel it is.
 

noko

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 14, 2010
Messages
6,533
For gaming I've have not seen any significant difference in performance on any review between the 8 core Ryzens and 6 core Ryzens, so for a stricly gaming machine might as well go with the Ryzen 5 and put the money towards a higher end gpu.

For gaming experience, 1440p and up I don't see any significant gaming advantage from one to the next. I would shy away from a limited 6 threaded processor, some games now and future games will most likely leverage more available threads. Still Intel higher clock speeds may hold their own. If one is in the super niche and game at 144hz with reduced settings at times in games to maintain that frame rate for the monitor frequency - Intel.

The biggest downfall for me with Intel is upgradability. I have a 6700K, even though the so called newer CPU like the 7700K came out it was utterly pointless to upgrade and now Coffee Lake which makes you having to buy a new motherboard based on improved power capability for the same rated power processor. 95w is 95w and I see no reason why I would have to ditch/sell my current motherboard. With AMD you may get 3 significant CPU upgrades out of it and maybe even more. Also having to delide if you want to push your Intel to the max or keep the noise down is stupid.

Either Intel or AMD will make great gaming rigs as far as I am concern, Intel can make a better gaming rig for certain niches which some do fall into.
 

jardows

2[H]4U
Joined
Jun 10, 2015
Messages
2,078
Intel is only "better" at gaming when gaming at lower resolutions. If you're into 1080p gaming, you'll probably want Intel. If you want 1440 or above, unless you're spending for a 1080ti, you won't notice a difference. Of course, for the money you save if you go Ryzen 5, you might have enough in the budget to get a 1080ti, so......
 
Joined
Feb 20, 2017
Messages
992
That's easy. Coffee Lake isn't even available.

By the time you can find one in stock, Zen+ would be close to release anyway.
 

Archaea

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Oct 19, 2004
Messages
11,427
My 1700X did 3.9 without any special effort, and did 4.0 with some tinkering. It'll boot as high as 4.2, but temps are way too high for my air cooler, and stability is not there (though it might be possible with higher voltage - which I can't try because heat).

So 1700X may be a better OCing choice than 1700, if your goal is to max it out. Then again, I have a friend who could only get 3975 out of his 1700X, and that was unstable and hot, so he had to dial back to 3.9, so could just be luck, too.
- ???? unless you got lucky or I got unlucky......

Run a single pass of cinebench as a good stability test. I could boot into windows at 4.0ghz, even play games, but if I tried cinebench above 3.9Ghz on all five Ryzen systems - it would lock up. Cinebench was a good quick stability test for me with AMD Ryzen - and it's free. It's easy to tell if your O/C is up to the task. Now to be fair I never pushed the voltage over 1.35 in my tests --- because that's AMD's max officially recommend voltage for 24/7 use. (I did try up to 1.4 once, but when it still failed cinebench - I figured what's the point). Heat was not an issue. I don’t think they went over 55* C with the watercooling.

I used Ryzen Asrock Taichi boards, Asrock Fata1ty boards, MSI 350 gaming pro.
 

JustReason

razor1 is my Lover
Joined
Oct 31, 2015
Messages
2,483
- ???? unless you got lucky or I got unlucky......

Run a single pass of cinebench as a good stability test. I could boot into windows at 4.0ghz, even play games, but if I tried cinebench above 3.9Ghz on all five Ryzen systems - it would lock up. Cinebench was a good quick stability test for me with AMD Ryzen - and it's free. It's easy to tell if your O/C is up to the task. Now to be fair I never pushed the voltage over 1.35 in my tests --- because that's AMD's max officially recommend voltage for 24/7 use. (I did try up to 1.4 once, but when it still failed cinebench - I figured what's the point).

I used Ryzen Asrock Taichi boards, Asrock Fata1ty boards, MSI 350 gaming pro.
I thought the max voltage was stated as 1.45V. I got my 1800X to 4.0Ghz @ 1.375 just like that first time and it is 100% stable. Almost seemed too easy.
 

Archaea

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Oct 19, 2004
Messages
11,427

DuronBurgerMan

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
1,340
- ???? unless you got lucky or I got unlucky......

Run a single pass of cinebench as a good stability test. I could boot into windows at 4.0ghz, even play games, but if I tried cinebench above 3.9Ghz on all five Ryzen systems - it would lock up. Cinebench was a good quick stability test for me with AMD Ryzen - and it's free. It's easy to tell if your O/C is up to the task. Now to be fair I never pushed the voltage over 1.35 in my tests --- because that's AMD's max officially recommend voltage for 24/7 use. (I did try up to 1.4 once, but when it still failed cinebench - I figured what's the point). Heat was not an issue. I don’t think they went over 55* C with the watercooling.

I used Ryzen Asrock Taichi boards, Asrock Fata1ty boards, MSI 350 gaming pro.

I have an Asus X370 Prime. My usual stability test is Cinebench first, then if successful, the Intel Burn Test. If it survives that, I'm usually good. Everything all good at 4.0, though voltage is at 1.4. 4.1 and 4.2 will boot at that voltage, but not stable. Any higher voltage, and it gets too hot, too quick. If I had water cooling, I might try pushing the voltage more and seeing if I could squeeze 4.1 out of it, but not doing that on air.
 

Archaea

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Oct 19, 2004
Messages
11,427
guess I got lucky with 4.0Ghz at the same voltage they got 3.9Ghz.
Those guys sample hundreds if not thousands of chips to get their numbers. That's their whole business model - is buy chips - bin them, and sell them for a small uptick. My brother's former company only bought directly from them. They were in a high end PC business associated with the stockmarket trading. The small upcharge that silicon lottery charges for binned chips was worth it to this tech/finance company to just save time on their end. Pretty interesting market.
 
Top