First Ryzen build (5600x) frustrations(?)

S

Skull_Angel

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
May 31, 2010
Messages
1,664
Hey guys, just needed to vent a bit because this is the first build I've put together in over 20 years that's been so simple to tune that it's actually frustrating; I swear it's going to give me anxiety due to the lack of issues throughout stability testing.

I went into this build fully expecting to encounter some issues I've read about in various forums, but have been pretty lucky with nothing showing up, which is great. The only tuning problems I've had so far have been from manual RAM overclocking, but that's been ironed out with great success on settings I'm content with.

The CPU overclocking through PBO, auto-oc, and curve offsets has been what's driving me up the wall though; it's simple (too simple?? I've only ever done manual OCs before), but mostly undocumented and seemingly works even with horrible settings. I spent too long looking for info only to find users experiences, so decided to experiment myself until reaching the performance limits of what my chip and setup could do... In all that time testing and benching the only settings to cause any issues were curve optimizer and it's got me paranoid as to whether the damn thing is actually stable! It's run the gauntlet of tests from 10 cycles of y-cruncher, various OCCT tests and settings, 20+ hrs CoreCycler, TM5, 20+ hrs P95, ect. Is FIT just too aggressive at protecting the CPU? If it is, can this really be considered stable? Am I overthinking this??(probably)

For all intents and purposes tuning should be considered finished and all that's left to finalize it is a clean install. There's just that little voice that keeps saying "It can't be this easy, right??".

/rantoff

System specs for anyone interested:
AMD 5600x (aOC +150, PPT 114, TDC 72, EDC 104, minor curve offsets 0, -3, -12, -12, 0, -3)(NH-D15)
MSI x570 Tomahawk (1.2.0.3b)
G.skill FlareX 2x16gb (3800/1900 16-16-16-16-24-40 @1.43v)
Sapphire Nitro+ 6700xt (stock OC)
BeQuiet Straight Power 11 750w
 
Last edited:
learners permit said:
Relax and play some games or something entertaining. Good choices on the components makes it very simple enjoy it now as that’s a sweet little rig.
Click to expand...

Haha, thanks. It's likely boredom; I'm use to spending at least a month tuning a new rig, but after all that was said and done, this only took a little over a week worth of actually doing anything.
 
I've built at least 6 similar rigs for friends and family and had only minor issues with a couple of them. Most were built on the B450 Tomahawk which isn't as refined as your board but performance was always really good regardless of using the cheap solution.
 
learners permit said:
I've built at least 6 similar rigs for friends and family and had only minor issues with a couple of them. Most were built on the B450 Tomahawk which isn't as refined as your board but performance was always really good regardless of using the cheap solution.
Click to expand...

Nice, it's been a bit since I've put together builds for buds, kinda miss the free booze (y)

The x570 Tomahawk was mostly about the VRM, price (got it before the price hike), and feature set. Still seems like the bios/uefi is going to need more maturity, but it's enough for it's primary use in gaming for now. The only weak part has been the RAM so far; it's older RC type B-die on rc rev B1, so there have been issues with temperature stability past 42C when primary timings are tighter than 16 (tried everything from loose secondaries/tertiaries, voltage meddling, and cad_bus).

pendragon1 said:
yes its that simple now. go game.
Click to expand...

Haha, thanks. It feels wrong being that easy, but it's not like there was a lot of headroom for gains. The multi-core boost is definitely better than stock though; I just wish there was a bit more granularity to curve optimizer to keep max single/low-core boost VID under 1.45v (throttle) easier.
 
Skull_Angel said:
Nice, it's been a bit since I've put together builds for buds, kinda miss the free booze (y)

The x570 Tomahawk was mostly about the VRM, price (got it before the price hike), and feature set. Still seems like the bios/uefi is going to need more maturity, but it's enough for it's primary use in gaming for now. The only weak part has been the RAM so far; it's older RC type B-die on rc rev B1, so there have been issues with temperature stability past 42C when primary timings are tighter than 16 (tried everything from loose secondaries/tertiaries, voltage meddling, and cad_bus).



Haha, thanks. It feels wrong being that easy, but it's not like there was a lot of headroom for gains. The multi-core boost is definitely better than stock though; I just wish there was a bit more granularity to curve optimizer to keep max single/low-core boost VID under 1.45v (throttle) easier.
Click to expand...
have you tried just using a voltage offset with pbo +200? everyone ones gonna say thats not the way, but its is the simple way...
 
pendragon1 said:
have you tried just using a voltage offset with pbo +200? everyone ones gonna say thats not the way, but its is the simple way...
Click to expand...

vCore offset instead of curve optimizer offset? I haven't thought about it, does it not disable PBO? I've got 2 weak cores that don't hit 4850 boost, so limited it to 4800; I got a funky CPU, 2 ultra efficient cores (don't boost well), 2 normal cores, and 2 leaky cores that get hotter than the sun, but boost to the heavens (the heat is problematic for FIT boost algorithm), lol.
 
There is no such thing as overclocking anymore. Cpus are built to run to thier highest frequency sqfely and naturally now.

A good metaphor is akin to driving a Bugatti to 190mph. Is it overclocking the car? No. It just capable of that much speed.

Same with modern CPUs no one overclocks anymore. That died a decade ago.
 
pendragon1 said:
yeah. i have a -.075v offset, pbo on, fmax enabled and +200, i get all core 4850 and temps seem fairly even across cores.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the heads up, I'll give it a try when I've finished tweaking RAM again. Anta777 started posting on the ddr4 thread at overclock.net with some good info, so I'm trying to see if refining my timings with his info gets me better efficiency.
 
tangoseal said:
There is no such thing as overclocking anymore. Cpus are built to run to thier highest frequency sqfely and naturally now.

A good metaphor is akin to driving a Bugatti to 190mph. Is it overclocking the car? No. It just capable of that much speed.

Same with modern CPUs no one overclocks anymore. That died a decade ago.
Click to expand...

The analogy is close, but I'm not sure if it's quite correct. Using PBO is more akin to using an ECU or plug-in module that has some basic map presets you can select, but not modify (normal, sport, eco); the CPU is able to take care of it's personal safety due to FIT, but you can refine what it's fed [to a degree] for prolonged boost performance under certain circumstances (multi-core loads).

Manual overclocks sill have value in certain applications, but due to heat density [and wide variations in core quality on the same chip] on 7nm you're unlikely to reach the same clocks under high multi-core loads as you would under single/low-core loads.You would optimally want multiple profiles and the ability to swap them on-the-fly for a general use manually overclocked machine. But, even at that point you'd have to have a good way of assigning core affinity because Windows and AMDs solutions aren't always the best at figuring it out, and something like process lasso is sill going to add latency which may entirely negate any benefits...

Generally with AMD PBO*, the best performance will come from limiting voltage (PPT, off-sets) so that it doesn't reach the 1.45v VID limit [but really only for multi-core], and current (combination of PPT, EDC, off-sets, cooling solution) to reduce temperature based boost-throttling aggressiveness.

*edit: added for clarity
 
Last edited:
Skull_Angel said:
Haha, thanks. It's likely boredom; I'm use to spending at least a month tuning a new rig, but after all that was said and done, this only took a little over a week worth of actually doing anything.
Click to expand...
My first ryzen build annoyed me the same way. With all the ram compatibility issues and struggles to hit 3200mhz I was expecting a week to tune out the best ram timings.

Put all the pieces together, boot, enable XMP, it worked!? /cry.
 
tangoseal said:
There is no such thing as overclocking anymore. Cpus are built to run to thier highest frequency sqfely and naturally now.

A good metaphor is akin to driving a Bugatti to 190mph. Is it overclocking the car? No. It just capable of that much speed.

Same with modern CPUs no one overclocks anymore. That died a decade ago.
Click to expand...
and overclocking is removing the restrictor plate; aint exactly legal, better keep that on the down low.
 
travm said:
My first ryzen build annoyed me the same way. With all the ram compatibility issues and struggles to hit 3200mhz I was expecting a week to tune out the best ram timings.

Put all the pieces together, boot, enable XMP, it worked!? /cry.
Click to expand...

It's the primary reason I started RAM tuning! Played with PBO and got frustrated/bored, looked into more in-depth RAM tuning... And here I am, around 2 weeks later (mostly reading between testing), still messing with timings that already work to see if I can get better results :ROFLMAO:

Apparently got "shitty" early revision b-die, but getting good results so it doesn't bother me much. At least the whole process is leading me to accumulate even more knowledge I'll rarely use, hahaha.
 
tangoseal said:
Same with modern CPUs no one overclocks anymore. That died a decade ago.
Click to expand...

Um... err... ok. Not particularly true. But kind of true sort of...

These days the need, or desire, to overclock is not nearly as strong. There are experimenters (like me) who will overclock for the fun of it. There's still a lot of us out there.

Rather you might want to modify the statement to: "Very few people run their systems overclocked". Which may be more accurate.

Back in the day there was real motivation for overclocking. You could get a AMD Thunderbird or an Intel Coppermine and gain 20-50% performance boost on air. Build a custom water loop and even a bad chip might give you a 50% overclock (definitely true for the Thunderbirds).

Today... erhm... I'm not going to spend days tweaking a chip and tweaking the RAM for a 5% performance boost. Which is a far cry from achieving a 1.2Ghz overclock, on an 800Mhz chip, on air, or for less than $300.00 in hardware store parts. This is boring and not impressive.

I get a new chip, overclock it with stock cooling (for fun), and go back to stock. But run overclocked? Nah.
 
Spirit_Retro said:
Um... err... ok. Not particularly true. But kind of true sort of...

These days the need, or desire, to overclock is not nearly as strong. There are experimenters (like me) who will overclock for the fun of it. There's still a lot of us out there.

Rather you might want to modify the statement to: "Very few people run their systems overclocked". Which may be more accurate.

Back in the day there was real motivation for overclocking. You could get a AMD Thunderbird or an Intel Coppermine and gain 20-50% performance boost on air. Build a custom water loop and even a bad chip might give you a 50% overclock (definitely true for the Thunderbirds).

Today... erhm... I'm not going to spend days tweaking a chip and tweaking the RAM for a 5% performance boost. Which is a far cry from achieving a 1.2Ghz overclock, on an 800Mhz chip, on air, or for less than $300.00 in hardware store parts. This is boring and not impressive.

I get a new chip, overclock it with stock cooling (for fun), and go back to stock. But run overclocked? Nah.
Click to expand...
This. My old Tbird shaved load times on UT2k3 from 40 seconds to 15 seconds, which was VERY worth the effort. 9500 Soft mod to 9700 saved several hundred dollars. Etc.

Now? It's on water, auto-boost is set, and it's fast enough for anything I want to do. Pushing things gets me... an extra 2-3%? Meh, not worth the effort and the random crashes till you get it fully dialed in - unless you enjoy doing that as your hobby, which is totally cool (I used to play with autoexec/config.sys to get an extra k of memory free, even though I already had 604k!).
 
lopoetve said:
This. My old Tbird shaved load times on UT2k3 from 40 seconds to 15 seconds, which was VERY worth the effort. 9500 Soft mod to 9700 saved several hundred dollars. Etc.

Now? It's on water, auto-boost is set, and it's fast enough for anything I want to do. Pushing things gets me... an extra 2-3%? Meh, not worth the effort and the random crashes till you get it fully dialed in - unless you enjoy doing that as your hobby, which is totally cool (I used to play with autoexec/config.sys to get an extra k of memory free, even though I already had 604k!).
Click to expand...

Gosh. I'm old. You're old too.

Not many remember the innovation put forth by the original modders between 1995 and 2005. Every innovation we have now in cooling, case design, overclocking, and GPU hacking is relatively off the shelf technology now. It's Built in.

Blows my Mind. I have so much uselss knowledge in my head now.
 
Spirit_Retro said:
Gosh. I'm old. You're old too.

Not many remember the innovation put forth by the original modders between 1995 and 2005. Every innovation we have now in cooling, case design, overclocking, and GPU hacking is relatively off the shelf technology now. It's Built in.

Blows my Mind. I have so much uselss knowledge in my head now.
Click to expand...
Oh yes. So much ancient history that doesn’t do anything useful anymore. But it also means that we understand what the automatics are doing now and can adjust / troubleshoot too
 
travm said:
Oc'ing memory is where it's at these days. And still diminishing returns.
Click to expand...

Pretty much. Current RAM tune I'm in the process of finalizing will look like it's on the weaker side, but latency is good and seems to put less stress on the imc, so I'm seeing a slight gain in boost frequency duration when benching. Fingers crossed there are no issues, haha
 
Final settings for RAM for now. Probably took more work than it was worth, but it was a fun journey.

Final.png
 
pendragon1 said:
did you happen to do any before/after tests to compare, see if its worth it?
Click to expand...
Compared to stock, XMP? I don't think I even benched stock settings, XMP 3200 14-14-14-14-34 was ~58ns, iirc. Early 3600 stable averaged ~57ns, while earlier 3800 revisions were closer to ~55ns. Like I mentioned earlier the kit is an older b-die revision (type RC) on raw card revision B1, so it's got it's issues; what hurt me the most was heat instability when lowering primaries at higher frequencies, may revisit if I ever upgrade cooling solution, but it'll be a bit of work to tighten up.

test.png
test5.png


Later testing moved to ABSOLUT@anta777 config on TM5. A bit more brutal and took about 50min longer with suggested .cfg changes for 12 thread CPUs, but it may also need more than the standard 3 cycles as well. When nearing stable it always seemed to pass the first round of testing, but not a second round after start up (failures occurred near the end of cycle 3).

The toughest settings to work with were cad_bus since there are some standard combos that work well (24-20-24-24, 40-20-30-20, 60-20-30-20, etc.), but the closer you get to the edge of stable frequency, timings, and voltage the more you have to hone in on looking for settings unique to your individual setup which is a bit too time consuming for me.

travm said:
Best not to, it ruins the fun learning your hours of tweaking produced a 1% increase in performance. Best to just assume it's awesome.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure how a 8~9% latency improvement translates to realworld performance, but I'm going to assume it's about as good as upgrading from a 120hz monitor to 144hz :ROFLMAO:

edit: footnote about the TM5 ABSOLUT profile - it doesn't seem to pick up on imc related instability, so make sure to do a full suite of RAM related testing when finalizing results.
 
Last edited:
I realized that the ryzen 5600x goes up to 4850MHz, I used the ryzen master auto oc, so I have a few questions.
What should I set for PTT? My Ryzen master had a bug, it set the number 1 for PTT... I used automatic OC and the per core option.
In the end, I set a value for PTT of 105 myself (because my motherboard is up to 105W tdp, otherwise asrock b450m steel legend)

Do you have any advice on what to do, what value to set for PTT?

By the way, ryzen master automatically set TDC 114 and EDC 168, I left it as it is.

All of my offsets are set negatively and below -30 (from -19 to -29,depending on the individual core )
So I set the CPU boost clock override to +200 and the motherboard itself set the Precision boost overdrive scalar to 10X.
PPT limit is in watts and TDC and EDC in A (amps I guess)
 
pendragon1 said:
i saw zero benefit using ryzen master with my 5600x. so i just turn pbo on, fmax +200, set a -.25v offset and call it a da
Click to expand...
I have to use ryzen master for per core offsets, otherwise PBO is basically Auto Overclock.How can I put an offset when I don't know what to write and how much?
In my bios, under the amd overclocking option for Precision Boost Overdrive, the Advanced option was selected, and now there are other options like enabled, Motherboard and similar.
I am a little interested in these additional options for PPT and similar, how best to set them up.
I tested with cinebench r23, I got over 12200 points in the multi test, as far as I remember the default 4650MHz didn't want to go over 12000.The temperature is maybe 10 degrees higher, it goes up to 73-74 and the consumption is also higher.

I'm asking anyone who knows about overclocking a ryzen 5600x.
 
Strange bird said:
I have to use ryzen master for per core offsets, otherwise PBO is basically Auto Overclock.How can I put an offset when I don't know what to write and how much?
In my bios, under the amd overclocking option for Precision Boost Overdrive, the Advanced option was selected, and now there are other options like enabled, Motherboard and similar.
I am a little interested in these additional options for PPT and similar, how best to set them up.
I tested with cinebench r23, I got over 12200 points in the multi test, as far as I remember the default 4650MHz didn't want to go over 12000.The temperature is maybe 10 degrees higher, it goes up to 73-74 and the consumption is also higher.

I'm asking anyone who knows about overclocking a ryzen 5600x.
Click to expand...
no you dont, you can do it in bios. yup, thats the point. the voltage offset is in the cpu settings.
ok, thats normal. the "motheboard" setting will apply the makers settings to boost perf under certain tests, its next to useless AND is one of the issues on the intel side. dont use it.
no need to, its a waste of time.
yeah, 200mhz will do that....
and im telling you there is basically zero point
oh and as noted, the op hasnt been seen in 2 years....
 
pendragon1 said:
no you dont, you can do it in bios. yup, thats the point. the voltage offset is in the cpu settings.
ok, thats normal. the "motheboard" setting will apply the makers settings to boost perf under certain tests, its next to useless AND is one of the issues on the intel side. dont use it.
no need to, its a waste of time.
yeah, 200mhz will do that....
and im telling you there is basically zero point
oh and as noted, the op hasnt been seen in 2 years....
Click to expand...
I don't understand what exactly you want to say? Should I put PBO in the bios on enabled and not on advanced?
I don't know what these offsets -19, -20, etc. mean, they go up to -30. What exactly happens when the minus is larger and what happens when it is smaller? I have to determine that somehow with ryzen master.
How many points do you pendragon have in cinebench r23 for multi and single score with your R5 5600x w/PBO +fmax +200 (4850)?
I found the topic on a search engine, something similar so that I don't open a new one for nothing.

IMG_20240529_180624631.jpgIMG_20240529_180639042.jpg
 
Last edited:
pendragon, did you test it on cinebench r23, how much do you get multi so I can roughly know if it moves properly or not?
If the score is not satisfactory, it means that these options do not really work for me
 
Strange bird said:
pendragon, did you test it on cinebench r23, how much do you get multi so I can roughly know if it moves properly or not?
If the score is not satisfactory, it means that these options do not really work for me
Click to expand...
ran a quick one last night for you, i didnt reboot or close everything running in the back ground, got a little over 11k
 
thanks, that's it then, I get about 12100 or something more, without anything running in the background
Single core 1590
Cinebench r23 the test lasts 10 minutes,a little longer because it does not stop when it reaches zero, but continues until it finishes with the picture to the end
 
Strange bird
havent seen much benefit for the avg pbo user to use scalar of x4, +50 maybe 100mhz, and unless you have actually stability tested, i would go further than -5 for all cores,
not sure if there is a big diff on that vs me using 5800/5950.

set pbo to enabled (auto = disabled), with auto for everything else. increase power package limit to max recommend for 5600,
see what that does.
if you want to set manual numbers for PPT/TDC/EDC, i would first do some reading on oc guides for ryzen 5xxx, as there are certain things like one should be +xx% higher,
above certain levels, gains arent worth it (vari for diff cpus), and thats completely ignoring chip sample lottery.

much easier to check if your IF can do 1900 and run some 3800c16 on bdie or similar, with tweaked secondaries.
unless you have some serious money invested on the cooling side, i would keep pbo to do as last thing, after tweaking bus/ram/gpu,
as the gains tend to be smaller than doing any of the other things i mentioned, and basically a minor attempt to make up for the fact that amd (intel) now oc their cpus from the start (boost clocks),
and the avg tweaker not really gaining much more than ~5% compared to earlier days, short of some binned chip in a pre-build unit...
 
Waldorf Jr said:
Strange bird
havent seen much benefit for the avg pbo user to use scalar of x4, +50 maybe 100mhz, and unless you have actually stability tested, i would go further than -5 for all cores,
not sure if there is a big diff on that vs me using 5800/5950.

set pbo to enabled (auto = disabled), with auto for everything else. increase power package limit to max recommend for 5600,
see what that does.
if you want to set manual numbers for PPT/TDC/EDC, i would first do some reading on oc guides for ryzen 5xxx, as there are certain things like one should be +xx% higher,
above certain levels, gains arent worth it (vari for diff cpus), and thats completely ignoring chip sample lottery.

much easier to check if your IF can do 1900 and run some 3800c16 on bdie or similar, with tweaked secondaries.
unless you have some serious money invested on the cooling side, i would keep pbo to do as last thing, after tweaking bus/ram/gpu,
as the gains tend to be smaller than doing any of the other things i mentioned, and basically a minor attempt to make up for the fact that amd (intel) now oc their cpus from the start (boost clocks),
and the avg tweaker not really gaining much more than ~5% compared to earlier days, short of some binned chip in a pre-build unit...
Click to expand...
I have a noctua uh-u12d, no problem with cooling 5600x, with 2700x there was a problem.
I can overclock the memory above 3200MHz, but not much, so I keep it at 3200MHz.
I will try to test cinebench r23 with PBO on enabled and I will set everything auto except clock overdrive to +200MHz.
When I set PBO to enabled, all other options are lost, it seems that it boosts only up to 4649MHz.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top