F5F Stay Refreshed Hardware Desktop Experiencing odd behavior with your Ryzen 5 1600?

Experiencing odd behavior with your Ryzen 5 1600?

Experiencing odd behavior with your Ryzen 5 1600?

R
RepoSnipez
Member
128
01-06-2017, 10:58 AM
#1
Hello everyone! I encountered an issue with my Ryzen 5 1600 after overclocking it on my ASUS B350-F motherboard. Initially, it ran smoothly for gaming and browsing, but when I started rendering videos, the system would crash. I reduced all settings to stabilize it, yet the problem persisted. I checked the specifications: the base clock is 3.2GHz and the boost should be around 3.6GHz, but during stress tests like Cinebench R15, it only reached 3.4GHz. After updating the BIOS and trying to reset the CMOS by removing and reinserting the battery, nothing changed. Even after reinstalling Windows on a different drive with default settings, the CPU still didn’t hit its normal boost frequency. My Wraith Prism cooler keeps the CPU cool, so I suspect thermal throttling isn’t the cause (it’s around 62°C/143°F). Notably, my PC performed fine before overclocking, even with a poor airflow case that I no longer use.
R
RepoSnipez
01-06-2017, 10:58 AM #1

Hello everyone! I encountered an issue with my Ryzen 5 1600 after overclocking it on my ASUS B350-F motherboard. Initially, it ran smoothly for gaming and browsing, but when I started rendering videos, the system would crash. I reduced all settings to stabilize it, yet the problem persisted. I checked the specifications: the base clock is 3.2GHz and the boost should be around 3.6GHz, but during stress tests like Cinebench R15, it only reached 3.4GHz. After updating the BIOS and trying to reset the CMOS by removing and reinserting the battery, nothing changed. Even after reinstalling Windows on a different drive with default settings, the CPU still didn’t hit its normal boost frequency. My Wraith Prism cooler keeps the CPU cool, so I suspect thermal throttling isn’t the cause (it’s around 62°C/143°F). Notably, my PC performed fine before overclocking, even with a poor airflow case that I no longer use.

M
mangovip
Member
69
01-08-2017, 01:41 AM
#2
You're checking which tool measures your CPU performance. Task Manager typically shows the speed of the fastest core, while newer systems may report different metrics depending on the processor generation. First-gen Ryzen models often focus on individual core turbo rates rather than overall multi-core performance.
M
mangovip
01-08-2017, 01:41 AM #2

You're checking which tool measures your CPU performance. Task Manager typically shows the speed of the fastest core, while newer systems may report different metrics depending on the processor generation. First-gen Ryzen models often focus on individual core turbo rates rather than overall multi-core performance.

T
Taybaybay
Posting Freak
850
01-08-2017, 03:59 AM
#3
I track my CPU performance with HWMonitor
T
Taybaybay
01-08-2017, 03:59 AM #3

I track my CPU performance with HWMonitor

E
Evolution88
Member
216
01-08-2017, 11:14 AM
#4
Based on HWMonitor data, your CPU briefly reached 3.6GHz for about a second during high load, then dropped back to 3392MHz.
E
Evolution88
01-08-2017, 11:14 AM #4

Based on HWMonitor data, your CPU briefly reached 3.6GHz for about a second during high load, then dropped back to 3392MHz.

J
JesseSSinger
Member
169
01-12-2017, 03:20 PM
#5
3.6Ghz represents the peak boost frequency, typically reached with just one or two cores under load. With additional cores engaged, performance tends to decrease to around 3.3Ghz
J
JesseSSinger
01-12-2017, 03:20 PM #5

3.6Ghz represents the peak boost frequency, typically reached with just one or two cores under load. With additional cores engaged, performance tends to decrease to around 3.3Ghz

N
NinjagobobMC
Member
69
01-14-2017, 05:37 AM
#6
I’m not sure what’s happening since I thought my CPU ran at 3.6GHz across the board before you began tweaking it.
N
NinjagobobMC
01-14-2017, 05:37 AM #6

I’m not sure what’s happening since I thought my CPU ran at 3.6GHz across the board before you began tweaking it.

Y
Ytueur
Member
54
01-14-2017, 06:55 AM
#7
It shouldn't have happened this way. The 1600 didn't come with all the essential 3.6GHz built-in.
Y
Ytueur
01-14-2017, 06:55 AM #7

It shouldn't have happened this way. The 1600 didn't come with all the essential 3.6GHz built-in.