Ryzen 1700 OC to 3.88

TType85

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 8, 2001
Messages
1,491
I got my 1700 together with a Asus B350 motherboard and let it run it's auto OC. It stopped at 3.88Ghz and it has been stable all day. I just loaded up the Ryzen Master software and it says my voltage is 1.1875 which I think is stock voltage. Does this seem right? Maybe I can get 4.0 out of this with a small voltage bump. So far max temps on the stock cooler have been 73ish. Ram ran 3000mhz on my i5-6600k, looks to be 2934ghz on Ryzen.

EDIT: idle temp is down to 41-42.

Ryzen Master
JyTntXi.png


Cinebench
tsvr8A4.png
 

SixFootDuo

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 5, 2004
Messages
5,824
My experience has been all over the place using the built in over-clocking feature Asus offers.

I'm going to guess that they are designed, built and executed about the same from one board model to the next.

If you're getting stock voltage then you're not getting the additional heat to the CPU that normally comes with raising voltage. It seems doubtful to me you hit your OC wall. You're so close to 4ghz. .. I would go straight there and see what happens.

Also, it's very important that you keep updating your mobo's bios as they are released. Asus is very very good about adding stability and fixing the rare issue on their mobo's.

Here's my Kaby Lake 7700K @ 5Ghz with 3265 Ram

vBvOOuQ.jpg
 
Last edited:

bwang

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 6, 2011
Messages
1,062
On that board Ryzen Master can't read the voltage correctly if it is set by the BIOS; what does the BIOS say Vcore is?
 

buttons

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 12, 2011
Messages
2,114
I tried the auto overclock feature and mine went to 3.3ghz. I manually set mine to 3.8ghz 1.275V and it benchmarks fine, but havent tested stability yet.
 

bobzdar

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 6, 2003
Messages
1,939
I got my 1700 together with a Asus B350 motherboard and let it run it's auto OC. It stopped at 3.88Ghz and it has been stable all day. I just loaded up the Ryzen Master software and it says my voltage is 1.1875 which I think is stock voltage. Does this seem right? Maybe I can get 4.0 out of this with a small voltage bump. So far max temps on the stock cooler have been 73ish. Ram ran 3000mhz on my i5-6600k, looks to be 2934ghz on Ryzen.

EDIT: idle temp is down to 41-42.

Ryzen Master
JyTntXi.png


Cinebench
tsvr8A4.png

What cooler are you using?
 

bobzdar

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 6, 2003
Messages
1,939
The stock spire cooler the 1700 comes with. I decided to give it a try before ordering something else.

Wow, so 3.9ghz on stock cooler? That's pretty impressive, if only Amazon would ship me my board! I'm going almost the same system as you except with the Asus B350M-A.
 

buttons

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 12, 2011
Messages
2,114
Wow, so 3.9ghz on stock cooler? That's pretty impressive, if only Amazon would ship me my board! I'm going almost the same system as you except with the Asus B350M-A.

I thought we were suppose to keep temps under 75C otherwise it would throttle? At 3.8ghz 1.275V heavy load i am up against that threshold with stock cooler. I really dig the stock cooler for its sound and apperance.
 

TType85

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 8, 2001
Messages
1,491
I thought we were suppose to keep temps under 75C otherwise it would throttle? At 3.8ghz 1.275V heavy load i am up against that threshold with stock cooler. I really dig the stock cooler for its sound and apperance.

I was seeing a max of 73.xx running aida 64. I am in a Haf-XB with 120MM PWM fans that speed up when the cpu gets hotter so the airflow is good.
 
Joined
Oct 23, 2010
Messages
38
do you guys think OC in BIOS is better or OC using Ryzen Master is better? I have a MSI board, which does allow me to set clock and voltage.
 

Nirad9er

2[H]4U
Joined
Feb 18, 2004
Messages
2,744
These 3.8 and 3.9ghz "overclocks" are very underwhelming considering 5960x's could get 4.4 to 4.5ghz.

Seems like such a huge gaming bottleneck unless of course people are doing zero gaming at such speeds.
 

buttons

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 12, 2011
Messages
2,114
im showing a 5960x is $650 used, where as my 1700 was $299 from microcenter. I havent had a chance to do much testing, but for me it was a huge upgrade.
 
Joined
Oct 23, 2010
Messages
38
These 3.8 and 3.9ghz "overclocks" are very underwhelming considering 5960x's could get 4.4 to 4.5ghz.

Seems like such a huge gaming bottleneck unless of course people are doing zero gaming at such speeds.
Huge gaming bottleneck? Like..... isn't 60fps enough@1080p?
 

CAD4466HK

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 24, 2008
Messages
1,309
I thought we were suppose to keep temps under 75C otherwise it would throttle? At 3.8ghz 1.275V heavy load i am up against that threshold with stock cooler. I really dig the stock cooler for its sound and apperance.

Ryzen CPUs won't throttle until you hit 85c and maximum safe temperatures as per AMD is 95c as 95c is core shutdown/thermal overload.
 

TType85

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 8, 2001
Messages
1,491
These 3.8 and 3.9ghz "overclocks" are very underwhelming considering 5960x's could get 4.4 to 4.5ghz.

Seems like such a huge gaming bottleneck unless of course people are doing zero gaming at such speeds.

Sure, if all you do is gaming. Believe it or not, PC's can do more than just game!

$675 for a 5960x, $200+ for motherboard vs $330 for 1700 and $100 for a motherboard. The 2011 has advantages of extra PCIe lanes and memory but I could build 2 Ryzen systems for the price of the 5960x.
 

FrgMstr

Just Plain Mean
Staff member
Joined
May 18, 1997
Messages
52,958
Are you sticking to Realbench for the 1700?
Yes. I am just using a full Bluray encode right now as I was having some GPU issues on this test sytem...not to do with the CPU, and RealBench cannot run without GPU.
 

FrgMstr

Just Plain Mean
Staff member
Joined
May 18, 1997
Messages
52,958
Are you using Handbrake? If so I would be interested in your settings for stability testing.
Yep, run a 5GB+ BD rip and encode it with High Profile setting. Nothing fancy. That will kill a lot more OCs than you think. IF you want, run two. :) I do.
 

Nirad9er

2[H]4U
Joined
Feb 18, 2004
Messages
2,744
Sure, if all you do is gaming. Believe it or not, PC's can do more than just game!

$675 for a 5960x, $200+ for motherboard vs $330 for 1700 and $100 for a motherboard. The 2011 has advantages of extra PCIe lanes and memory but I could build 2 Ryzen systems for the price of the 5960x.

Yes I do understand the cost difference. Maybe a better comparison is the 6800/6850k. 6 cores at 4.4 to 4.5ghz seems better overall if you do any gaming. If you don't game, then ryzen all the way.
 

TType85

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 8, 2001
Messages
1,491
Yes I do understand the cost difference. Maybe a better comparison is the 6800/6850k. 6 cores at 4.4 to 4.5ghz seems better overall if you do any gaming. If you don't game, then ryzen all the way.

Going with Microcenter prices I would be $664 in to a basic build with the 6800K (Asrock Tachi, 6800K, Hyper-212) vs $430 out the door on the 1700/B350 build. Again, yes, the 2011 build has some advantages with the quad channel ram but the 6800k only has 4 more pcie lanes than the Ryzen. That extra $230 pays for my GTX 1060.

My current gaming is occasional Skyrim and playing World of Warcraft with some friends. My 6600K oc'd to 4.4 gave a slight bit better frame rate in wow since it is single core heavy but the difference in actual game play is negligible.
 

BST4R

n00b
Joined
May 25, 2016
Messages
43
I would love to know what the 1700 with B350 mobo can do max stable . I hope It runs 4.0 In that case I will order once they have on stock
 

Revdarian

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 16, 2010
Messages
2,616
These 3.8 and 3.9ghz "overclocks" are very underwhelming considering 5960x's could get 4.4 to 4.5ghz.

Seems like such a huge gaming bottleneck unless of course people are doing zero gaming at such speeds.

Concern trolling but just in case:




The closing remarks are the most important point about current state of Ryzen, it boils down to a) Ryzen is actually targetting the 6800-6900 market and b) Ryzen's gaming is closer to the 7700k than the 7700k is to Ryzen on heavy workloads, meaning that it is more balanced and thus optimal for a great deal of peeps :)
 

Pieter3dnow

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 29, 2009
Messages
6,784
Concern trolling but just in case:




The closing remarks are the most important point about current state of Ryzen, it boils down to a) Ryzen is actually targetting the 6800-6900 market and b) Ryzen's gaming is closer to the 7700k than the 7700k is to Ryzen on heavy workloads, meaning that it is more balanced and thus optimal for a great deal of peeps :)


Jay makes a lot more sense and usually he does not come across like that at all. He does understand that it is a hot topic. But here is where I agree more with someone as AdoredTV. New architecture new cpu and incredible weird way of testing a product which made this so toxic "test on low resolution or it is not valid". I like the fact that he posts Computerbase analogy about Piledriver performance being a lot better today even tho this is also what is wrong with AMD. People this day and age demand instant gratification they should never have under estimated that and they did with this whole gaming performance mess as a result.

And it is popular to bash AMD for whatever but I thought that hiring people as James Prior and Scott Wasson which come from the www background could have told AMD that this would not go down well when your product has teething problems.
 
Top