Checking the actual performance of the Ryzen 5 1600 with non-"x" overclocking configurations.
Checking the actual performance of the Ryzen 5 1600 with non-"x" overclocking configurations.
Hey everyone,
I just started overclocking my Ryzen 5 1600 setup today. I'm using an ASRock B350 Pro4 with the newest BIOS and DDR-2400 RAM. I've kept the settings moderate, reaching about 3.7ghz at the default voltage of 1.2375v. Running Prime95 for an hour gave good results so far. Of course, I should extend the test time, but it's more stable than I thought for a first try.
My main concern is the voltage change. It seems reasonable to go above the default without needing a big jump, and the temperatures stayed under 77.4°C during Prime95. This looks solid, but I want to confirm before diving in fully. Any experienced overclockers have any advice? Thanks!
Sounds like you have realistic expectations are are willing to do what is needed. It does take time to configure and validate a stable overclock. The majority of people don't bother. That's why they are typically back here in about six months whining about "why am I getting all these errors all of a sudden?", "I think my motherboard is bad", "I think my graphics card is failing?", "I think I got a crappy CPU".
No, you have an operating system full of micro-errors due to not taking the time actually required to validate an overclocked configuration.
But then they do a clean install of Windows and now they are sure it was just a bad update.
No, you most probably corrupted the operating system with errors. This happens with unstable CPU...
The Ryzen (favorite expletive here) is cheap. There is no need to baby them. If you fry 'em, it is just another excuse to move up to the latest version. Chances are the Ryzen's have their own internal safeties too, if you try to run too much voltage at too high a frequency, the thing will automatically go into the safe limp mode, it liimits it to something stupid like 1.8 Ghz and ignores all your voltage settings when you cross over the threshold.
I got a R5 1600 that I am stably running at 4.0 Ghz with a +0.1V for an effective cap of VDDR of 1.3375 on my Asus B350M-E Prime see:
http://www.userbenchmark.com/UserRun/7865794
The important thing is to us a good cooler unless you want go deaf. The cheap AMD box coolers become jet engines with a migraine inducing droning sound. I just slapped on a hacked together Cooler Master Hyper 212 plus ripped off from an old I5-2500K. Works great, basically silent, until under heavy load, and no drone even then and temps all within expectations.
nobspls :
The Ryzen (favorite expletive here) is cheap. There is no need to baby them. If you fry 'em, it is just another excuse to move up to the latest version. Chances are the Ryzen's have their own internal safeties too, if you try to run too much voltage at too high a frequency, the thing will automatically go into the safe limp mode, it liimits it to something stupid like 1.8 Ghz and ignores all your voltage settings when you cross over the threshold.
Yeah telling people to do whatever there is a safety is BAD advice. We have had many users burn up recent Ryzen and Intel processors doing just this. You may think its cheap but not everyone can afford to burn up a $100-$400 processor, and the other damage that can go with it (ie take the motherboard too). Please avoid this type of advice in the future.
OP thats a great overclock to get on stock voltage, that just tells me you can probably conservatively add a little voltage and get some more out of it. Keep in mind your board is on the lower end so really you can only expect to get a bit more voltage out of it and still be stable, it has a small VRM setup.
I ran Prime95 for an hour, and everything appears to be progressing well thus far.
Which version of Prime95 were you using?
What specific stress test did you execute, and were custom configurations applied?
Have you tried Realbench? If not, that would be the ideal starting point. Prime95 is mainly suited for thermal compliance checks, whereas Prime95 version 26.6 on the Small FFT setting is more appropriate.
Large FFT is largely ineffective for thermal or stability evaluations of memory or CPU.
Blend works well for stability assessments, but it can generate overly high thermal loads if AVX versions are used, or it may skip AVX instructions in versions 26.6 and earlier.
Realbench simulates realistic AVX/Handbrake workloads and serves as a solid initial check for CPU overclock stability.
It’s important to complete all your CPU overclock configurations and tests before adjusting memory XMP settings or custom values in the BIOS, to avoid false instability signals from memory setup.
Once your CPU overclock is finalized and confirmed stable within realistic limits, consider setting memory XMP values or proceeding with further overclocking and timing adjustments. Use the Custom settings option, leave only the memory amount selected, and check system resources via Resource Monitor or HWinfo. Verify that unallocated or free memory is close to 75% of total free space in the "amount of memory to use" field.
Personally, I wouldn’t advance from CPU stability testing with Realbench until you can successfully complete an 8-hour stress test. In Realbench’s memory section, set the value to roughly half your installed memory capacity.
As mentioned by Rogue leader, this board isn’t ideal for overclocking—pay close attention to thermal performance and clock speeds to prevent VRM or thermal throttling. I suggest using HWinfo for overall system monitoring or CoreTemp for CPU core temperature tracking only.
I believe monitoring load voltage with cpu-z during stress tests will show the board operating at a higher level than your 1.2375v base voltage.
The board features a doubled 3-phase configuration, which is suitable for thermal overclocking but may cause it to adjust voltage excessively.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but normally core voltage decreases under load, not the other way around, which is why there are load line calibration options.
Unless this is something new and specific to Ryzen, I've never seen core voltage increase under a load. Demand will certainly increase, but that is why LLC or offsets are so important in order to avoid instability. Or maybe I'm missing what you're getting at here?
Darkbreeze :
Correct me if I'm wrong, but normally core voltage decreases under load, not the other way around, which is why there are load line calibration options.
Unless this is something new and specific to Ryzen, I've never seen core voltage increase under a load. Demand will certainly increase, but that is why LLC or offsets are so important in order to avoid instability. Or maybe I'm missing what you're getting at here?
No youre 100% right in general terms.
Im talking specifically about the b350 pro4.
It doesnt have any llc options configurable in bios at all,or any offset voltage settings.
You can leave the voltage on auto or set it manually & thats it.
While the board is fine for OC on a hardware component level imo its bios options are like going back in time 5 years.
Im assuming when OP said he left it 'default voltage' he means its set on auto (which it is at default out of the box)
If Im right that 1.2375v will be correct at low/idle loads but that particular board pumps excess voltage under load.
Then that would certainly be something I wouldn't want to push for overclocking on, nor endorse or suggest. Automatic setups are rarely something I rely on much. That means I'd never depend on an automatic or desktop overclocking tool or BIOS preset, because it often goes overboard—adding excess voltage, messing with timings, and so on—to be overly cautious.
It will certainly complicate thermal compliance at any given overclock level, but it's not impossible, as long as you stay realistic about what you're aiming for. Are all the low-end B350 boards like this, or is it mainly ASRock? Well, personally, if the VRMs and other parts on a board can't handle offset and LLC configurations, I strongly believe overclocking features should have been absent from the design altogether.
The VRM configuration matches the gaming K4 setup exactly. Even though it might seem like a cheat to claim a 6+3 phase when it's actually (3+3)+3, it still performs well at the hardware level. The K4 supports LLC and offset voltage settings, whereas the Pro 4 doesn't (it has gone through nine bios updates, so I'm puzzled about why these features are missing). I wouldn't completely rule out overclocking, but proceed carefully since the BIOS settings won't match real-world performance under stress. Make sure to verify the load voltage with CPU-Z to be safe.