AMD: Ryzen 3000-Series CPUs Lack Manual Overclocking Headroom

26

(Image credit: AMD)
Zhiye Liu
News Editor, RAM Reviewer & SSD Technician

Zhiye Liu is a news editor, memory reviewer, and SSD tester at Tom’s Hardware. Although he loves everything that’s hardware, he has a soft spot for CPUs, GPUs, and RAM.

  • jimmysmitty
    Thats all fine and dandy but they really take the fun out of being a PC enthusiast. Overclocking is one of the best ways to get a bit of extra performance and its fun to learn how to do it.

    When I got my Q6600 and tweaked it to 3GHz using less than the stock voltage it was great. Ran cool and performed well for years.

    I guess this means no reason to buy any of the really high end AMD boards.
    Reply
  • ingtar33
    this is a bit disappointing, but we knew that Ryzen's base design was never a high GHZ design. debauer proved back when Ryzen1 came out that the design is HIGHLY efficient at low clock speeds (per him, the sweet spot was right around 2.4-3.3ghz), this was how AMD could release an 8 core 16 thread cpu overclocked to 4ghz and have it use about the same power at the socket as an intel i7 with 4 cores 8 threads overclocked to 5ghz. very efficient cores that just don't like overclocking.

    It reminds me a bit of their PhenomII cpus, those disliked overclocking immensely. Well, when the node matures I'm sure the clock speeds will go up a bit, that's what usually happens. furthermore it is looking like AMD's auto clocking tools are getting more and more effective.
    Reply
  • King_V
    Maybe it's just me, but I don't think it's all that big of a deal.

    Overclocking has generally been hit or miss. Now, the CPU overclocks itself, but is paying attention to what it can and can't do, and, no warranty gets voided. No trial and error needed. No wondering if you've won or gone bust on the silicon lottery.

    I always found it baffling when people were looking to overclock a chip the moment they got it. At least, in recent years. Back in the day, yeah, I could see the desire for it. When you overclocked a Pentium 133 successfully to 166, that was a 25% jump in CPU speed. And likely, your CPU was officially a 133 because Intel wanted specific numbers of chips at each tier.

    These days it's what? Maybe a 5% increase without exotic measures for cooling? And these days, the GPU is more likely to be holding you back, rather than the CPU, in a lot of cases where gaming is involved.
    Reply
  • redgarl
    How about waiting for BIOS updates... duduh!...

    Typical toms...
    Reply
  • TJ Hooker
    jimmysmitty said:
    Thats all fine and dandy but they really take the fun out of being a PC enthusiast. Overclocking is one of the best ways to get a bit of extra performance and its fun to learn how to do it.

    When I got my Q6600 and tweaked it to 3GHz using less than the stock voltage it was great. Ran cool and performed well for years.
    To be honest, I think this is ultimately a move in the right direction for the consumer. Rather than playing the silicon lottery and potentially spending extra for OC-enabled components so that you can get some unknown level of performance increase, you can instead buy a CPU that provides its best right out of the box with little variability between one chip to the next. It's been years since you could really get major performance gains out of CPU overclocking anyway.

    I agree that it's not great if you find the acting of overclocking enjoyable in and of itself though.
    Reply
  • TJ Hooker
    redgarl said:
    How about waiting for BIOS updates... duduh!...

    Typical toms...
    You're ragging on TH for a statement that AMD made?

    Typical redgarl...
    Reply
  • jimmysmitty
    TJ Hooker said:
    To be honest, I think this is ultimately a move in the right direction for the consumer. Rather than playing the silicon lottery and potentially spending extra for OC-enabled components so that you can get some unknown level of performance increase, you can instead buy a CPU that provides its best right out of the box with little variability between one chip to the next. It's been years since you could really get major performance gains out of CPU overclocking anyway.

    I agree that it's not great if you find the acting of overclocking enjoyable in and of itself though.

    Yes and no. For the majority of consumers Intels idea is perfect. Regular CPUs with no OCing. But for enthusiasts, whcih AMD is marketing with a lot of this, they like having those features.

    It also takes away from their competitive aspect if performance is similar to the competition but the competition can just overclock and perform better.

    TJ Hooker said:
    You're ragging on TTH for a statement that AMD made?

    Typical redgarl...

    He is never a fan of anything somewhat negative about AMD even if its true or and official statement from AMD.
    Reply
  • TJ Hooker
    jimmysmitty said:
    It also takes away from their competitive aspect if performance is similar to the competition but the competition can just overclock and perform better.
    Oh, I agree that if two CPUs have the same stock performance but one can overclock and the other can't then the OC-able one is better. But let's say you have a CPU that a performance level X, and can typically be OC'd 5-10%. Now let's say we have a different CPU that has X+7.5% performance at stock, but virtually no OC-ability. What I was trying to say is that I think the latter would be a superior product, even for enthusiasts, as the average performance is the same but without the variability (and added cost) of overclocking. Again, just from a practical perspective, putting aside any enjoyment you get out of the tweaking process itself.

    So I don't think AMD's lack of OC-ability is a problem in itself. It's only a drawback because Intel's otherwise similarly performing CPUs are able to eke into the lead because they can be OC'd.

    jimmysmitty said:
    He is never a fan of anything somewhat negative about AMD even if its true or and official statement from AMD.
    Lol, yeah I've noticed.
    Reply
  • mitch074
    Let's be honest: most overclocks are here to squeeze some more power out of an already expensive part. With AMD now, only the challenge remains - you already get so much bang for buck that anything more is only icing on the cake.
    Reply
  • TCA_ChinChin
    jimmysmitty said:
    Thats all fine and dandy but they really take the fun out of being a PC enthusiast. Overclocking is one of the best ways to get a bit of extra performance and its fun to learn how to do it.

    When I got my Q6600 and tweaked it to 3GHz using less than the stock voltage it was great. Ran cool and performed well for years.

    I guess this means no reason to buy any of the really high end AMD boards.

    I was about to start roasting you until I actually read your comment and noticed you said AMD boards instead of processors lol. I disagree with your later comment on how Intel's idea is better for non-enthusiasts though. AMD's solution provides the best balance between consumers and a large portion of enthusiasts. Their method of PBO + auto-overclock will allow for maximum performance for everyone except overclockers (and other enthusiasts who overclock for various reasons). Everyone else won't be able to get crazy 20% clockspeed improvements from overclocking but its still there to tinker with. Not as exciting, but there. I would disagree about Intel having a competitive advantage once overclocked, Ryzen 3000 still takes the cake in most applications.
    Reply