Choose AMD PB2, PBO, or AutoOC based on your needs.
Choose AMD PB2, PBO, or AutoOC based on your needs.
I have 3900x with (what I think) PBO+AutoOC are active. However in my bios of my motherboard I have 2 different PBO options one with the "accept/decline" to enter into the option & than the PBO option without that message. I feel like I've watched so many videos on which to use. Does it matter? Should I just leave it on stock. The only things changed manually as of writing this is XMP/D.O.C.P. and fabric clock of memory. Should I put both PBO options on enabled. I don't see Precision boost 2 anywhere in bios but I know it's different. PBO+AutoOC+200mh is the settings currently.Everything else stock settings.
Precision Boost 2 is essentially the standard clock speed increase feature. PBO and AutoOC aim to push performance further by using more power, though they mostly mirror the default settings. PBO stays similar to PB2 but with higher limits, while AutoOC tries a fixed +200Mhz boost if conditions allow. In practice, neither significantly improves performance beyond regular PB2. If you choose one, activate it but remember it may void your CPU warranty. Zen 2 generally struggles with overclocking, whether manual or via PBO/AutoOC, so the real gain is usually minimal in real-world use. A detailed video on Gamers Nexus clarifies the differences and their limited impact.
The 360mm AIO should work with your motherboard even when PBO and AutoOC are active, though you might want to test it yourself. Performance gains won't be huge, and they can't confirm if PBO was actually turned on.
Many individuals overlook the fact that PBO functions as an "overclock," likely due to confusion with the standard PB2.
I reviewed the GN video and noticed two distinct PBO settings. The AMD overclocking area in the BIOS, followed by a PBO option in the AI tweaker section. It's a bit confusing. I wasn't aware that PB2 was enabled by default. My goal is to maximize performance, so I'm testing both configurations to find the best result. It appears my FPS dropped after moving from the 7700K model.
It's feasible and quite normal. The 7700K offers higher clock speeds, especially in single-core performance where you can achieve the advertised boost or something close. It also likely provides more overall overclocking potential, which I suspect you've already fine-tuned. The 3900x shines more in raw multi-core performance, especially with quad and octa configurations—meaning the more cores you use, the better it outperforms the 7700K. This advantage is usually less noticeable in gaming.
I achieved a 5GHz performance and kept temperatures under 71°C during the toughest testing. For streaming and rendering, I opted for the latest AMD CPUs to balance speed and efficiency. Currently, I'm seeing around 4.2GHz in games, but on Prime95 for extended sessions I only reached about 3.9GHz across all cores—considerably lower than expected.
The focus isn't solely on pure clocks. Artificial benchmarks also miss the mark completely. That's a bit too simplistic, but reasonable given the context. The core clock on that chip sits at 3.8. Anything above that indicates a boost, and you rarely experience a full-core improvement lasting 50 minutes. The boost clock stands at 4.6, but you'll typically only see one core, perhaps a few cores running at 4.5. This reflects typical CPU behavior. Intel follows the same pattern, though the 7700K originally boasted a higher base clock. Everyone also performs all-core optimization, which changes things. You might achieve stable performance around 4.4 by fully optimizing all cores, but you'd still lose about 200Mhz from the peak single-core speed. Still, it's not just about clock speeds—it affects how efficiently the processor handles tasks, especially with single-core workloads. Multi-core performance, however, operates differently and can outperform even lower clocked CPUs like the Ryzen.