Sure, feel free to check your work!
Sure, feel free to check your work!
I upgraded to a Ryzen 5 5600X and checked Ryzen Master, which lists cores 02 and 04 as my top choices—04 is gold star and 02 silver. However, these exact cores handle the least negative curve optimizer offset; other cores drop to -20, but the two best ones can trigger Cinebench R23 crashes even with a -5 offset. These aren’t meant to support the most negative optimizer settings.
The throttle temperature reads 90°C. When operating under load and not reaching this level, you don’t need to apply under-voltage at all. In practice, increasing EDC and PPT limits lets the system run naturally, allowing the CPU to manage itself—this usually improves performance. The same applies when using a video card with higher power limits; it runs faster and more efficiently. Overclocking and under-volting both help, but lower temperatures yield better results without sacrificing power. Ryzen Master isn’t always precise about which core is optimal; it would be useful if the OS could enforce single-threaded tasks consistently. I’m not convinced by the current under-volting trends—maybe the cooling system is inadequate rather than just high temperature differences. (high idle temps, close proximity to load temp)
These are your quickest processors, yet they don’t guarantee stability if voltage is reduced.
I haven't seen any core not reaching its maximum frequency on a single core... That's unclear to me. Even though it makes sense, letting the PC sit idle long enough should let each core reach its advertised speed. If you overclock from BIOS, Core 0 is most important for getting the system running. That's what the core BIOS uses and stays active during BIOS mode. So even if Core 3 is the fastest, it only matters if Core 0 can keep up with the board, which would make Core 3 unnecessary for BIOS overclocking.