Overclocker Pushes AMD's Ryzen 7 5800X3D Beyond 5 GHz

News
By
published

Overclocking the non-overclockable

Ryzen 7 5800X3D
Ryzen 7 5800X3D (Image credit: AMD)

MSI team overclocker TSAIK has managed to push AMD's Ryzen 7 5800X3D processor past the fundamental milestone clock frequency of 5 GHz. Ahead of this processor's release, there was a lot of concern about whether it would be overclockable, making these feats all the more interesting to observe. Where there's a will, there's a way.

TSAIK's AMD Ryzen 7 5800X3D CPU-Z validated clock speed achievement was 5.14178 GHz, to be precise, and brought to our attention by Wccftech. Comfortably beyond 5 GHz, the achievement is also a sizable step above the HWBot verified world record we reported yesterday; the 4.74 GHz overclock by ScatterBencher, AKA Massman.

TSAIK's 5.14 GHz overclock of AMD's 3D V-Cache enhanced processor didn't offer much background information. However, the CPU-Z validation screen provides some tantalizing details. For example, we can see that TSAIK applied a BCLK of 113 MHz and a core voltage of 1.20V. The configuration contrasts against Massman's settings of a BCLK of 104 MHz and a core voltage of 1.294V.

Yesterday, we wrote about the 4.74 GHz AMD Ryzen 7 5800X3D overclock achieved by SkatterBencher (Massman). As well as discussing the methods employed to achieve his HWBot verified top clock speed, we looked at the potential pitfalls and hazards of the only apparent route to overclock this interesting new chip - base clock (BCLK) overclocking. In brief, BCLK overclocking isn't very practical for any significant overclock. It will overclock not just your CPU but many other components connected to the motherboard, and some of these components don't take kindly to being stressed. Furthermore, BCLK overclocking can introduce "RTC Bugs," and system stability can be adversely affected if you push the BCLK away from the expected value of 100 MHz.

AMD Ryzen 7 5800X3D OC validation (Image credit: Future)

Considering the BCLK overclocking drawbacks, this may be the reason that TSAIK, who has a significant presence on HWBot, hasn't yet submitted this AMD Ryzen 7 5800X3D clock speed to the site and hasn't done much else with it but run CPU-Z validator.

Being on the MSI team means that TSAIK has access to the best components from the company, and the motherboard behind the 5.14 GHz overclock was the alluring MSI MEG X570 Godlike. The motherboard was running the 1.G5T2 BIOS (AGESA 1.2.0.6 Patch C), but perhaps MSI facilitated some under-test BIOS tweaks that enhanced the overclocking capabilities of the Ryzen 7 5800X3D for its in-house OC expert.

We are sure there are more exciting feats to be achieved using the unique PC gaming champion that is the AMD Ryzen 7 5800X3D. Updated BIOS files and extra efforts from the extreme overclocking fraternity may precipitate more unexpected overclocking and benchmarking records from this CPU in the coming weeks.

See more CPUs News
Mark Tyson
Mark Tyson
News Editor

Mark Tyson is a news editor at Tom's Hardware. He enjoys covering the full breadth of PC tech; from business and semiconductor design to products approaching the edge of reason.

8 Comments Comment from the forums
  • $h0nuff
    Slightly confused about the state of board partners and manufacturers.

    AMD and Intel build the chipsets. The board partners buy the chipsets direct, build a board and, lately, are releasing BIOS updates supporting BCLK ocing for cpus designated as "locked".

    Understanding we see custom BIOS loads all the time which are community provided, why would board partners jeopardize their relationship with either company?
    Reply
  • hotaru.hino
    $h0nuff said:
    AMD and Intel build the chipsets. The board partners buy the chipsets direct, build a board and, lately, are releasing BIOS updates supporting BCLK ocing for cpus designated as "locked".
    When AMD and Intel says a processor is "locked", it means the multiplier either can't be adjusted or it can't be changed beyond the specifications and possibly the setting for Vcore cannot exceed a specified amount. The primary reason to do this is so people don't take a cheaper part, do an easy overclock, and try to sell it in a computer as a more expensive part.

    BCLK however is provided by the motherboard. In addition, overclocking using BCLK is a very tedious process because it affects every aspect of the system and due to the various high-speed buses we use now, a slight deviation is enough to throw everything off.
    Reply
  • Alvar "Miles" Udell
    BCLK overclocking, formerly HT Base, formerly FSB, is such a nightmare...

    But, again, AMD could have left the 5800X3D unlocked but capped the voltage at 1.35v, which is more than both this and the previous 4.7ghz took to hit their speeds.
    Reply
  • VforV
    5800X3D OC-ed at 5Ghz should smoke anything and everything in gaming... I would love to see a gaming benchmark with that CPU OC-ed.

    I should also smoke the 5800X in productivity, so all the complains would be moot.
    Reply
  • TerryLaze
    $h0nuff said:
    Slightly confused about the state of board partners and manufacturers.

    AMD and Intel build the chipsets. The board partners buy the chipsets direct, build a board and, lately, are releasing BIOS updates supporting BCLK ocing for cpus designated as "locked".

    Understanding we see custom BIOS loads all the time which are community provided, why would board partners jeopardize their relationship with either company?
    As long as the board makers only use it for "internal quality control" they can do whatever they want.
    Even if they release the bios, as long as it comes with all the disclaimers it's ok.
    VforV said:
    5800X3D OC-ed at 5Ghz should smoke anything and everything in gaming... I would love to see a gaming benchmark with that CPU OC-ed.

    I should also smoke the 5800X in productivity, so all the complains would be moot.
    Yeah it would also smoke itself...
    Or go back to settings that it can survive at which point it wouldn't smoke anything (more than previously) anymore.
    There is a reason that everybody overclocks this thing but nobody posts any performance numbers, it can barely load windows, and any load above that would probably make it crash.
    Reply
  • $h0nuff
    hotaru.hino said:
    When AMD and Intel says a processor is "locked", it means the multiplier either can't be adjusted or it can't be changed beyond the specifications and possibly the setting for Vcore cannot exceed a specified amount.

    Yep. When I say locked I mean locked. Shouldn't be overclocked via bus or multi. I'm referring specific. to bclk; ocing the chipset bus..

    If you ask me.. just another PR gimmick.

    TerryLaze said:
    As long as the board makers only use it for "internal quality control" they can do whatever they want.
    Even if they release the bios, as long as it comes with all the disclaimers it's ok.

    Contradictory statements but I get what you're saying. Intel didn't seem too keen with it to the point of asking it to be disabled.

    AMD is still using cheesy, influencer-based, marketing and I really wish they would drop it already. They make good stuff and can do better than this nonsense.

    My entire point is the lack of business ethics and the bleed-over between the enthusiast community and certain companies. They're simultaneously taking the fun out of the pastime and pre-loading performance metrics to inflate cost.

    Lame af
    Reply
  • Makaveli
    This 5Ghz overclock doesn't mean anything unless it can run benchmarks at this speed and BCLK overclocking is not something I would want to use since it overclocks other items on that bus.
    Reply
  • KananX
    $h0nuff said:
    Yep. When I say locked I mean locked. Shouldn't be overclocked via bus or multi. I'm referring specific. to bclk; ocing the chipset bus..

    If you ask me.. just another PR gimmick.



    Contradictory statements but I get what you're saying. Intel didn't seem too keen with it to the point of asking it to be disabled.

    AMD is still using cheesy, influencer-based, marketing and I really wish they would drop it already. They make good stuff and can do better than this nonsense.

    My entire point is the lack of business ethics and the bleed-over between the enthusiast community and certain companies. They're simultaneously taking the fun out of the pastime and pre-loading performance metrics to inflate cost.

    Lame af
    Can you proof that AMDs reasoning in locking overclocking because it’s bad for the 3DVcache is wrong? Otherwise your whole post makes 0 sense. That said, I trust AMD on this, they locked OC because the risk is too high with amateur overclockers or regular people. If it’s not a risk it’s not locked, very simple. There’s no need for negative PR unless you simply can’t allow it.
    Reply