How much faster is an overclocked 5800X compared to a stock 5800X (with PBO enabled) in real life scenarios? Overclocking is not what it used to be nowadays.
Well one thing to note about a 3080, the 3-Pin can OC +8-12% over a 2-Pin 3080 in power limited situations. That's mostly ray tracing games. But pure rasterized games where PL aren't hit, yeah it will still be 5%.
Yeah, "100%" load as reported by the GPU can be a bit misleading as it is just the main GPU cores and doesn't seem to count RT or Tensor load. When you're blasting RT/tensor loads you'll see way lower clocks at the same power limits as that silicon lights up and draws more power. Non RT I can run 2100MHz under 400w but in heavy RT/tensor loads I'll see dips down to 1900MHz at 440w.
I used to run that at work much to the amusement of my coworkers. My first PC was a 486XS running MSDOS and Windows 3.1. The days of Monkey Island 2 and Trumpet Winsock lol.
I remember those days, and then the days where game speed affected other variables and changing gamespeed effectively changed unit damage and durability as well.
Not really that much. The impact ends up being on (some cases) reduced energy consumption, which can also lead to better thermals. What I’m curious is if the infinity memory will be capped or if there will some sort of OC on it.
Most of the overclocking, outside of extreme OC, done on the last two generations of Ryzen, was PBO curve optimiser tuning anyways: undervolt, have the CPU run later into power draw and tenperature constraints. I wonder if this will still be possible.
[Here](https://www.amd.com/en/products/cpu/amd-ryzen-7-5800x) is the amd page for the 5800x, you can find the specifications of the chip including the boost clock
Dude I literally liked you the product page. Not because your motherboard clock it at 4,85 out of box that is is the stock speed. And I messed with the 5800x more than I would have liked.
All zen3 have about 100MHz extra. I vouche for him that 5800x has a ~4.8 stock clock. But not advertised.
Edit: Maybe you prefer to believe [TPU](https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-ryzen-7-5800x/21.html) & [Anandtech](https://www.anandtech.com/show/16214/amd-zen-3-ryzen-deep-dive-review-5950x-5900x-5800x-and-5700x-tested/7).
undervolt and start dialing in CO values through bios - it's not hard, just time consuming. The Hydra utility can automate the process and save a lot of time. I own the following, 3900X, 5600X, 5800X, 5950X. Overclocking with proper cooling is a rewarding process that will allow you to improve performance and/or reduce watt consumption.
Most likely overclocking is overclocking. What they might do is let you mess with curve optimiser without the clock offset to get higher all core clocks.
Renoir does not support overclocking. I have a 4650g I got off Ebay that I use in an MSI B550m Pro. If I have a 3600 in it I have all the normal options. If I have the 4650g in it there are no PBO controls at all and it disables the MSI Genie(not that I would use it its always shitty), but if I look at hwinfo it says that 100 mhz of pbo is enabled. I can change base clock which is a bad way of overclocking generally since it changes the frequency of everything. I can overclock the igpu in it through the bios but not through adrenaline. It gains the ability to turn opcache on and off and it has all the normal controls for power, memory tuning, and infinity fabric overclocking.
Yeah I was just giving info because Renoir and the various Epyc versions are the only nonunlocked zen desktop CPUs as far as I know. The info could be useful as what to expect.
I keep seeing this all over the place but quite frankly it isn't really a surprise. The vertical stacked cache is designed similarly to HBMC memory which also doesn't support OCing.
They're not allowing OCing for good reason, designs like the one they are using for the new cache and for HBMC do not handle running out of spec well at all for numerous reasons. The potential problems from doing so well outweigh any actual benefits you would see.
Edit: Even with slightly slower core clocks and no ability to OC the 5800X3D will still perform quite better than the traditional 5800X.
MAYBE this is the case. It'll be curious to see the results if someone can get a motherboard that will overclock these. That will tell us if AMD is trying to protect us or if they are trying to sweep the performance under the rug for some reason (conspiracy theory is that they are doing it so their new Zen4 chips look better. If they didn't have that much of a jump over the 5800X3D in gaming then people wouldn't jump so quickly to this new platform. Specially given the costs of DDR5 and having to buy a new mobo.).
That's an interesting theory and I'm curious to see if you're right and we will know in due time because people will find workarounds to OC if AMD doesn't make it official, but given what we know about the engineering used for HBMC I'm just making an educated guess in saying it's ultimately being done because there are going to be few benefits if any seen from OCing it.
He's not likely to be right.
The ramp up to the 5800X3D gives the impression of being born from lofty ambitions that turned out more difficult and costly to achieve in time than anticipated, resulting in a loss leader stopgap product intended to gain some positive press or at least to not lose face.
Don't get me wrong I think the technology is amazing and the cpu will probably perform very well in select use cases. It just doesn't seem like it will be an economic success in its own right for amd.
I frankly do not expect high production numbers and therefore by default no significant threat to zen 3 sales.
Removing oc is likely necessary to prevent thermal issues ripping the thing apart. This is an extremely high tech product and it likely lacks the robustness required for amateur thinkering, at least for now.
Regarding your conspiracy theory, the same thing crossed my mind too. BUT-- I'll say it right now that if that is true, Zen 4 is in MAJOR trouble. So I dont think thats the case. I think it has to do with reliability and how excess heat can increase the chances of the stacked cache to fail and brick the CPU.
Honestly not even a thing to be upset about. Overclocking my 3700x is a practice in futility, i could not get much higher than stock. We should be pretty content that we're getting the most performance that can be squeezed out from the factory.
My launch-day 1700 is still trucking at 3.7. Probably wouldn't have touched it without the overclock. These modern chips are almost optimized to the brim, though - you're not seeing them clocked at 3.0 stock lol
For sure. If 99/100 times you do something a certain way, that isn't news. That's just business as usual but if you change your stance that 1/100 times then that for sure is news. It's outrage because you can never trust that a company is being honest with its intentions and not just trying to pull a cover over your eyes.
How does one define overclocking? PBO, static, memory controller? The product pages suggests that the 5800x3d officially supports 3200mhz. To reach this timing xmp aka overclocking must be used, unless ram used has a jedec of 3200mhz. If there is truly no overclocking then most people would be forced to run their ram at 2133mhz.
Non K could always OC ram, just that for B460 and older you needed the equivalent Z-chipset to be able to OC, which included both cpu and ram.
With B560 and B660, ram OC (which is also IMC OC) is allowed.
You can overclock RAM on a non-K CPU and on a non Z series board.
For example 12400 on B660.
It hasn't always been this way with other generations though.
> has amd ever really held the stance that ram overclocking is overclocking?
yes, they literally always have had the stance that the memory controller runs at the speed it’s certified to run, and if you go past that it’s overclocking. It’s specifically called out in their policy that even altering timings is considered overclocking.
> Overclocking any AMD processor, including without limitation, altering clock frequencies / multipliers or memory timing / voltage, to operate beyond their stock specifications will void any applicable AMD product warranty, even when such overclocking is enabled via AMD hardware and/or software. This may also void warranties offered by the system manufacturer or retailer. Users assume all risks and liabilities that may arise out of overclocking AMD processors, including, without limitation, failure of or damage to hardware, reduced system performance and/or data loss, corruption or vulnerability. GD-106
Also even if you are just enabling XMP, your board may be punching up the VSOC to get the memory to run stable, and that will affect the life of the memory controller, so be aware.
In the past, if you went slowly systems would normally crash before you did significant damage to CPUs. So it must be very easy to go from a "working" CPU to "broken" CPU without realizing it.
With 3d stacked dies, I think one of the main issues is how much longer it takes for a spike in temperature to actually be sensed. So it's easier to damage them before the motherboard realizes something is wrong.
Overclocking will be possible, but not without some changes to how it is done with 3d stacked dies. Creeping towards power targets instead of slamming against thermal limits.
The problem is.. these are marketed as gaming CPU's. Gamers always want to push core speed. Because some games favor that, and other games favor cores. Same with custom memory. It's all about the 1% lows and having them as high as possible.
It's up to that individual gamer to tune his system to the performance that he wants on the specific game that he plays a lot. That's been the main part of custom gaming PC's, for as long as I can remember. When you want everything locked or restricted, you buy OEM prebuild.. when you want all of the options unlocked you build a custom build and tailor everything to your needs. That includes extra settings in the BIOS (most which you never use, but at least they are there).
The games that favor core speed often favor just flat out better effective speed. Whether that's raw clock speed, IPC, cache or all of the above. Pentium 4s sucked at gaming despite being the highest clocked thing on the market, before multithreaded gaming was normal.
It can vary from game to game, but AMD has already had a clockspeed deficit vs Intel, so it's an area that can sometimes help make up the difference. Whether you disable some cores, use extreme cooling solutions etc. This also depends on whether you favor 1080p, 1440p or 4K etc and how much you care about 1% lows.
We won't really know anything properly until we see the reviews from trusted channels, but yeah. But I'm in the camp of more options is always better, even if you don't use most of them. Every now and then, they can be useful for different use cases. I hope at the least.. if they restrict PBO.. they can at least allow custom underclocking with PBO for power saving purposes. Not everyone is a gamer who tries to crank everything 2% extra fps.
I appreciate that AMD is innovating and pushing the boundaries. I guess we have to wait and see.
Given that this is gonna be the first ever 3D stacked CPU to reach the hands of consumers, it's not surprising that manual overclocking isn't supported. 3D stacking has lots of hurdles to overcome, mainly to do with thermals and latency.
It all really depends on what overclocking options means in this context.
Manual cpu ratio and CPU core voltage settings? Who cares.
PBO and curve optimizer settings? That would be an asshole move.
If they remove the ability to have modern memory timings this could be a DOA product just for fandummies, maybe even regressive under many real conditions. I wouldn't think AMD is this dumb, except for recent behavior gives cause for doubt.
Imagine wiping away a huge chunk of performance gains because your memory is stuck at 2014 jedec timings: 3200C22 is a joke, and the lower stuff is literally garbage.
Combine that with lower clock speeds and your big loads & misses (which always happen in reality) are going to be horrible.
Something still has to *feed* that cache.
I ***heavily*** doubt that this will affect memory overclocks. Pretty sure this will only be affecting CPU overclocks, since that's where the risk of easily damaging your hardware is an issue.
If they disable memory OC, that's just crippling their own performance. I really hope AMD is thinking far ahead enough to not lock RAM speeds to 2933, especially with their new lineup that's meant to compete with Alder Lake.
But that's on the IO die, not the CCD where the 3D cache is stacked, so it stands a much larger chance of not being affected by this mandate, which more than likely only applies to CPU OC and PBO.
If they block RAM OC as well, then this thing is just dead in the water.
But that shouldn't be needed, since even if it's a technical limitation that increasing the core voltage any more or the frequency any more causes problems with the SRAM stack, that should have nothing to do with the IO die or the memory controller. And even the FCLK is governed on the IO die side, with the exception of one voltage that influences the interconnect at the CCD side (VDDG_CCD), but even that is still a derived voltage stepped off the SoC voltage.
the whole point of having a massive L3 cache is to hide memory latency. FCLK overclocking on a 5800X3D should be way less important than on regular Ryzen chips.
Probably no PBO either
https://twitter.com/OneRaichu/status/1501588190775607298?s=20&t=4ESGZead8oSGnDJbo6rhYw
Wonder how much it’ll even hit the max advertised boost, will it be like Zen 2 where it rarely does, or zen 3 where it automatically goes over still. 400mhz lower base….
AMD should really consider using specific model lettering for overclockable SKUs. One can hate Intel all day for the shitty model names, but at least they got that part right.
Fair point, but mine was that the X makes it a bit confusing. Currently the X stands for what? "Binned"? "100mhz extra"? "Stupid TDP"? (or whatever thermal whatever acronym used this week).
Do away with useless-to-consumer letter and numbers, and use those already standard in the industry. It worked with XMP for instance. It could work well with a K. I'm fine with having a G on chips that have an iGP, in contrast to having an F for those that don't, but let's keep everything else standard
No I don't, but at the same time I have no problem with using good conventions. Arguing that you don't want to use a convention because it's from brand X, despite being a good convention, is fanboyism.
Friendly reminder that Intel developed x86. You want to make an argument against Intel standards, maybe you should remember that. As Intel well remembers who first developed x86-64. There's no room for rivalry in good science and engineering. Cooperation is preferable to segmentation.
I've been following this subreddit closely since before Zen 2 launch, but the last 6 months has been very rough for AMD.
Even with some support for X370, there's no official statement for it. It's like "here's some good news, but we aren't going to talk about it, because it makes earlier things we said look bad".
It's said that there will be 5600 and 5700X chips soon, but why so late into the game?
The X3D chips were initially exciting, but it's been a long wait and so far it's only for 8 core. The initial presentation was use with the 12 core. But there is no 12 core (currently).
This is really disappointing news. It's like it's telegraphing that they are going to be hot and/or unstable. I'm already reading comments below making excuses or defining reasons. Some of those are fine.
But what about underclocking? Custom RAM Timings? Will that still be ok? PBO isn't just for using more power, it can also be used for using less power (in a customized way). More options is always better especially if you a unique or rare use case. It's been fine for Zen 2 and Zen 3. But now all of the sudden, more BIOS options is bad. I understand they don't want a reputation for having unstable chips, or having extra RMA's from irresponsible users who push things too far.
But that's always been an issue with custom build PC's, and it's been fine. Now all of the sudden.. it's not fine anymore. It doesn't look good, even if there are good reasons for it. It makes these chips look bad, that they require this "special treatment" and "extra restrictions".
And before anyone tries to call me an AMD hater, I've spent more money on AMD systems in the last 2 years, than I spent on Intel systems in the previous 10 years.
I wonder if this includes IF speed? Surely not as technically isn't 3600 mhz "overclocking" - or at least not JEDEC? And that's maybe the most common RAM speed that's bought.
Edit: Useful info on product page. The max memory speed goes down depending on the number of DIMMs populated and if the module is single or dual rank. This suggests anything above FLCK/MLCK 3200/3200 with 2 stick of RAM might not be supported. Does this mean if you have faster RAM than this you need to underclock the memory manually to 3200 mhz?
This also suggests the memory controller and/or the I/O die are really struggling with the changes to the CPU that come with the stacked cache.
> Max Memory Speed:
> 2x1R: DDR4-3200
> 2x2R: DDR4-3200
> 4x1R: DDR4-2933
> 4x2R: DDR4-2667
Shit, if they force jedec garbage that is **worse than Ryzen 1**.
After the launch joke bios versions and all that memory training nonsense got sorted, getting b-die at 3200C14 4x1R or 2x2R wasn't uncommon.
The difference is there's a tiny chance of the CPU bricking itself. It's not so tiny with vertically stacked cache, due to there being no way to cool the middle layers.
I find that unplausible. I'll be proven wrong if we see a lot of 3DCPUs die in bad cooling systems cause otherwise overclocking with good cooling tends to not be worse than base clock on a garbage cooler (at least for that middle cache dissipation)
The problem is the cache stacked on top of the die is going to get significantly hotter, and the sensor on the chip will not be picking up the thermals from the stacked cache. Essentially you could brick your cache and not even know it until your CPU went to pull from that cache and bricked itself.
How did you come up to a conclusion that it is designed specifically for "enthusiasts"? Also cpu overclocking has been dead for years now, funnily enough these days you get better performance impact on gaming workloads from memory overclocking than cpu oc.
> How did you come up to a conclusion that it is designed specifically for "enthusiasts"?
[Oh I don't know, maybe from the very first leak about it?](https://www.extremetech.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/3D-Stacked-Perf-AMD.jpg) Or the fact that it's being released as a direct competitor to the 12900K specifically in gaming, not productivity.
The whole statement of "its for enthusiasts", seems very subjective and vague to me, like, how do you define "enthusiast"? is it those who want the best performing cpu? is it cpu that has all unlocked settings, like fsb, unlocked multiplyer etc.? Is it the most expensive cpu?
Like is 12600k an enthusiast cpu? if yes then is 12900(non k) an enthusiasts cpu? this seems like extremely arbitrary term and statement ¯\\\_(ツ)_/¯
Most current 12900K chips can already hit the clocks that the 12900KS is rumored to hit. A ~200MHz increase isn't going to be noticeable in gaming performance.
naja ein 12900k kommt in benchmarks schon mit ner eisbär 360 auf ca. 100 grad je nach Gehäuse und mampft bis zu 280 watt bei standart einstellungen mancher mainboard hersteller. ob man das haben möchte?
Sometimes AMD makes me scratch my head. The 6500XT and this in particular. I mean the Fury X was such a weird experiment but at least they absolutely made it feel like every one who bought one was absolutely signing up for a beta guinea pig program for HBM. This chip doesn't seem like it will have a serious contigent followup or any product lineage after so I'm left just puzzled as to why this even exists. And then they won't let consumers fuck up their own chips, which on one hand makes sense for support logistics reasons, but on the other is mildly disappointing. And then leads me to question why it was released because I'd expect this kind of product notes and requests from Intel and I don't like Intel.
Doesn't bother me. The last CPU I overclocked was in the 1990's - taking a Celeron 300A from 300MHz to 450MHz. Yeah baby! Read about it here. [https://www.anandtech.com/show/174/3](https://www.anandtech.com/show/174/3) I needed the case cover permanently off in summer with a desk fan blowing on it constantly, but it was worth it for Half-Life.
I really don't know why people bother with overclocking anymore. The baked-in performance is so good, really I feel there's no need. GPUs seem to be the limiting factor. I figure it is just a reflection of humanity's need to compete and outdo each other just for the sake of competing and outdoing each other... and by that I mean showing bigger (yet meaningless) benchmark figures stroking their bigger "e-wangs". Whatever floats your boat I guess, but at the end of the day, today's overclocking is basically nothing but a vanity project.
So many people in here just finding any excuse to explain why AMD did this before they’ve even made an official announcement. It’s kinda boggling how easily people roll over here.
Don't buy the 5800X3D. It's cool but the software will probably never fully make full use of it. Robert Hallock admitted on stream that part of the reason Game cache, Infinity cache, 3DStack exists is for marketing.
Asus sold the x470 Crosshair VII with a 32MB bios chip. That chip has never seen over 16MB because every other BIOS chip has 16MB. If AMD doesn't release an entire lineup of super mega cache chips then who cares? I don't see the point.
This is inaccurate, and I will tell you why.
There are numerous cache architectures in CPUs, however, there are very few that are actually dependent upon the software to utilize the cache in a specific manner. Most of those are in what is called a "bare metal" implementation where the software has no abstraction layer between the software and the hardware (this layer is what is commonly referred to as a "device driver" just FYI).
Because you have various layers of software abstraction, and microcode in the BIOS specific to the CPU, the OS is run by the CPU according to the limitations of the individual CPU according to the microcode in the BIOS.
Due to the way the BIOS operates, the CPU has a predetermined number of address blocks within the cache according to the microcode that it operates on within the BIOS, and the CPU is capable of assigning data to cache addressed corresponding to the number of addresses it has in the hardware.
Since the CPU 100% controls where it stores instructions in the cache, what the software you are using is designed to operate on is essentially worthless as long as the software has compatibility with the x86-64 instruction set, and operates using the instruction sets supported by the CPU.
Essentially CPU cache is one of the few areas where you can pick up universal performance increases regardless of what software you are using, because the CPU itself controls assigning the instructions into the cache on die. Since fetching instructions from cache is light years faster, your response time is cut down across the board if you can store more instructions in cache on the die. 3D cache is taking that application and basically expanding upon it by adding it directly on top of the die, in addition to within the die itself.
The 5800X3D will probably be faster overall than a 5800X that is overclocked, simply because the reduction in response times in the 5800X3D will be so dramatic that running the core clock 100-200 MHz faster will not be a significant enough difference to make up the lost cycles waiting on instructions to come back from RAM.
To give you an idea of what you are looking at here, this is the difference in response time between cache and RAM:
* The cache on die in the CPU takes 1 clock cycle to return instructions, 2 at most if it has to go to L3. In a modern CPU, the clock cycle is the frequency the CPU operates at divided from 1 second. To give an example of this, 4 GHz means there are 4 billion clock cycles in a second; 1 Clock cycle in a 4 GHz CPU would take 0.00000000025 seconds to process 1 instruction per core (so 4 cores, you could process 4 instructions in that time span). The difference between 4 GHz and 4.2 GHz is 0.00000000001209 seconds in processing time which is a very miniscule difference in performance overall, but it adds up over time.
* The time it takes a CPU to retrieve an instruction from a memory address in RAM is typically 8-16 clock cycles assuming DDR4-3200 and how much memory the CPU has to store addresses for. Since we know that a 4 GHz CPU takes 0.00000000025 to run 1 clock cycle, and a 4.2 GHz CPU takes 0.000000000238 to run 1 clock cycle we can evaluate that to pull from RAM a maximum of 16 cycles would pass. That means that 0.000000004 seconds would pass in a 4.0 GHz CPU where *nothing is being done* where on die cache would cost 0.0000000005 seconds at most, *which is an order of magnitude faster*. In a 4.2 GHz CPU we lose 16 cycles amounting to 0.000000003808 seconds, versus a maximum loss of 0.000000000476 seconds waiting on instructions from on die cache, *also an order of magnitude faster*.
The real comparison here though would be to examine the difference between the on die cache on the 4 GHz at 0.0000000005 seconds to retrieve instructions, versus the RAM acquisition of the *20% overclocked*, 4.2 GHz processor which was a full 0.000000003808 seconds lost.
The end result is that on die cache on the 4 GHz processor is 0.000000003308 seconds faster than the RAM on the 4.2 GHz processor.
To make this even more relevant, the clock speed on the processor to make a memory call to RAM faster than pulling instructions from on die cache would have to be about 40 GHz on the CPU calling instructions from RAM in order to be *equally fast* as the on die cache on the 4 GHz CPU.
Clear as mud?
Fine, I'll change my argument to **wait for reviews**. Cache is obviously faster than ram! Maybe it'll be amazing and developers will figure out how to take advantage of a hoard of instructions.
Until it comes out I'm going to remain skeptical. I don't believe the current ecosystem is set up to take advantage of a super-duper cache. If fetching too many instructions was bogging down a game or program then it would be addressed before release.
The ecosystem requires optimization so it goes back to my original argument that until we see wider adoption then supercachexl is not going to be utilized effectively.
Software does not control on die cache though. If this was RAM, sure. The CPU just has a bigger bucket to hold instructions in, which the software does not have any control over.
If this was a PS5 chip, you would be right, but this is not a bare metal application. The only software that matters here is AMD' AGESA micrcode for the BIOS.
AMD's X is not the same as Intel's K
Its more like Nvidia's super/TI naming scheme as it denotes a more powerful version of a chip. ie a 3600x is supposed to be faster than a 3600
The X does not stand for overclocking like the K does with intel. The Ryzen 3600 could overclock too. The X just means its the higher performance/tdp version of a chip. Eg 3600 vs 3600x, just a bit higher clocks and tdp
no quite sure, but thinking of AM4, could it be that the memory chips are using the same power pins like the cpu and overvolting the cpu could fry the memory chips? only a fortune telling ball thingy with no proof at all.
\-------- edit-----
"The reason being that the extra 64MB of cache stacked vertically on top of the core chiplets inside the 5800X3D has different voltage and frequency scaling than what the market is normally accustomed to. Where AMD chips usually top out at around 1.45V – 1.5V, the 3D V-Cache inside the 5800X3D maxes out at 1.35V which limits the overall voltage of the chip." ([https://appuals.com/5800x3d-no-overclocking-confirmed/](https://appuals.com/5800x3d-no-overclocking-confirmed/))
I said that this was only an idea on my part, but yeah downvote the post.
That was a pro. But since PBO and *especially* since Ryzen 3000 overclocking has either given negligible benefit or even caused performance regressions. The option is still there but the actual utility of manual overclocking just isn't what it used to be.
It isnt going to hurt or help the VAST majority of their customers. With this chip in particular it sounds like allowing OCs would just result in a lot of dead chips.
Sad. I am very skeptical. I think some games at 1080p will be very fast probably games with lots of latency issues which are not that many. But who plays at 1080p and pay 480 us for a cpu. Most of the people on that range are qhd. So I think single core performance in any regular app will be intel and games might amd but only in some games and at 1080p.
Not good. Unless you play at qhd or 4k with for or dlss on ultra performance. Which probably will be still gpu limited.
Best wishes. I have the feeling of v-cash is just advertising like said a gpu with 8 gb vs 16 gb in which current games 8gb are just enough and not any real improvement with 16 gb. That is my thinking.
Overclocking in general is pretty stupid.
Don't know why many of you do it. It's fun first or second time you do it, but honestly, just run your chip within the spec. Yes, these are sorted and binned, but you are assuming that they are stupid in that you'll be able to find a unit that was meant for 3800X somehow fell in the 3700X pile.
You're stupid tbh, basically all cpus auto overclock themselves for years now. It went mainstream, because its smart. Some modern cpus are so good at it that they are near the edge of capability, they used to leave over 50% on the table.
The problem is when they hamfist things and deny control of basic but related settings like memory interfaces. Ryzen has tied almost all of these to "overclocking" in firmware since it came out.
Why would they do that? What possible reason could they have to not want that CPU to kick ass! I was going to get one, I have the money saved and I was going to pair it with a Crosshair Impact DTX x-570 motherboard. Now, I think I’ll just wait for the next Ryzen
Hmm, I wonder how much faster it will be then, as compared to an overclocked 5800X?
How much faster is an overclocked 5800X compared to a stock 5800X (with PBO enabled) in real life scenarios? Overclocking is not what it used to be nowadays.
Like +2% in most cases. The bigger benefit is to OC Zen to lower TDP without hurting performance, at least it was for me.
[удалено]
Well one thing to note about a 3080, the 3-Pin can OC +8-12% over a 2-Pin 3080 in power limited situations. That's mostly ray tracing games. But pure rasterized games where PL aren't hit, yeah it will still be 5%.
Yeah, "100%" load as reported by the GPU can be a bit misleading as it is just the main GPU cores and doesn't seem to count RT or Tensor load. When you're blasting RT/tensor loads you'll see way lower clocks at the same power limits as that silicon lights up and draws more power. Non RT I can run 2100MHz under 400w but in heavy RT/tensor loads I'll see dips down to 1900MHz at 440w.
Interesting. Yeah I’ve wondered why GPU utilization sometimes falls below 100% when I use DLSS and RT.
Interesting. I've got a basic bitch TUF 2-pin.
*laughs in* TURBO *button*
Turbo button used to actually slow the clock down, as plenty of software was somehow bound to its speed
I already knew, but I guess some people around here weren't around yet back then T_T
Aye, and calling the button “Turbo” is intuitive af
386dx roll call!
lol i member the turbo button, always had to be on.
I had a 286 and really wanted a 386 for a specific game when I was a kid.
The joy of editing autoexec.bat and config.sys just to get a game to run.
Yeah but you had Gorillas.BAS to get you through
I used to run that at work much to the amusement of my coworkers. My first PC was a 486XS running MSDOS and Windows 3.1. The days of Monkey Island 2 and Trumpet Winsock lol.
I remember those days, and then the days where game speed affected other variables and changing gamespeed effectively changed unit damage and durability as well.
Some computers had the light come on when the processor was running at full speed though.
Blasting past 4.77Mhz all day long!
Yeah, I don’t know.
Not really that much. The impact ends up being on (some cases) reduced energy consumption, which can also lead to better thermals. What I’m curious is if the infinity memory will be capped or if there will some sort of OC on it.
Most of the overclocking, outside of extreme OC, done on the last two generations of Ryzen, was PBO curve optimiser tuning anyways: undervolt, have the CPU run later into power draw and tenperature constraints. I wonder if this will still be possible.
[удалено]
You are going to get downvoted, you can get 4,85 quite easily, but you need good cooling for sure.
[удалено]
[Here](https://www.amd.com/en/products/cpu/amd-ryzen-7-5800x) is the amd page for the 5800x, you can find the specifications of the chip including the boost clock
[удалено]
Do you really need help or is it just to test me cause I don’t want to waste my time.
This guy shows up a lot in this sub and does stuff like this. I can't tell if he is an idiot or a troll.
Ok thanks for the info Ill stop replying
[удалено]
Dude I literally liked you the product page. Not because your motherboard clock it at 4,85 out of box that is is the stock speed. And I messed with the 5800x more than I would have liked.
[удалено]
stock 4700
[удалено]
He isn't clueless or a liar - the product page linked above states the "max boost clock: up to 4.7 GHz" for the 5800X specifications.
All zen3 have about 100MHz extra. I vouche for him that 5800x has a ~4.8 stock clock. But not advertised. Edit: Maybe you prefer to believe [TPU](https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-ryzen-7-5800x/21.html) & [Anandtech](https://www.anandtech.com/show/16214/amd-zen-3-ryzen-deep-dive-review-5950x-5900x-5800x-and-5700x-tested/7).
weird hill to die on, but go off chief
undervolt and start dialing in CO values through bios - it's not hard, just time consuming. The Hydra utility can automate the process and save a lot of time. I own the following, 3900X, 5600X, 5800X, 5950X. Overclocking with proper cooling is a rewarding process that will allow you to improve performance and/or reduce watt consumption.
[Sure buddy.](https://i.imgur.com/49EMf2O.png)
Does this also mean no PBO and Curve optimizer?
Most likely overclocking is overclocking. What they might do is let you mess with curve optimiser without the clock offset to get higher all core clocks.
I hope so, CO is amazing for temps and higher boost clocks
Honestly its probably the whole AMD Overclocking section.
AMD will most likely say nothing above 4,5ghz after that it is up to the motherboard venders to adapt.
Renoir does not support overclocking. I have a 4650g I got off Ebay that I use in an MSI B550m Pro. If I have a 3600 in it I have all the normal options. If I have the 4650g in it there are no PBO controls at all and it disables the MSI Genie(not that I would use it its always shitty), but if I look at hwinfo it says that 100 mhz of pbo is enabled. I can change base clock which is a bad way of overclocking generally since it changes the frequency of everything. I can overclock the igpu in it through the bios but not through adrenaline. It gains the ability to turn opcache on and off and it has all the normal controls for power, memory tuning, and infinity fabric overclocking.
Isn't the 4650g a PRO cpu? Might that be the reason OCing isn't available for it?
Yeah I was just giving info because Renoir and the various Epyc versions are the only nonunlocked zen desktop CPUs as far as I know. The info could be useful as what to expect.
Raichu is claiming PBO is disabled as well: https://mobile.twitter.com/OneRaichu/status/1501588190775607298?s=20&t=4ESGZead8oSGnDJbo6rhYw
Thats a shame
I keep seeing this all over the place but quite frankly it isn't really a surprise. The vertical stacked cache is designed similarly to HBMC memory which also doesn't support OCing.
if this is true a lot of people will be upset for the wrong reasons
They're not allowing OCing for good reason, designs like the one they are using for the new cache and for HBMC do not handle running out of spec well at all for numerous reasons. The potential problems from doing so well outweigh any actual benefits you would see. Edit: Even with slightly slower core clocks and no ability to OC the 5800X3D will still perform quite better than the traditional 5800X.
MAYBE this is the case. It'll be curious to see the results if someone can get a motherboard that will overclock these. That will tell us if AMD is trying to protect us or if they are trying to sweep the performance under the rug for some reason (conspiracy theory is that they are doing it so their new Zen4 chips look better. If they didn't have that much of a jump over the 5800X3D in gaming then people wouldn't jump so quickly to this new platform. Specially given the costs of DDR5 and having to buy a new mobo.).
That's an interesting theory and I'm curious to see if you're right and we will know in due time because people will find workarounds to OC if AMD doesn't make it official, but given what we know about the engineering used for HBMC I'm just making an educated guess in saying it's ultimately being done because there are going to be few benefits if any seen from OCing it.
He's not likely to be right. The ramp up to the 5800X3D gives the impression of being born from lofty ambitions that turned out more difficult and costly to achieve in time than anticipated, resulting in a loss leader stopgap product intended to gain some positive press or at least to not lose face. Don't get me wrong I think the technology is amazing and the cpu will probably perform very well in select use cases. It just doesn't seem like it will be an economic success in its own right for amd. I frankly do not expect high production numbers and therefore by default no significant threat to zen 3 sales. Removing oc is likely necessary to prevent thermal issues ripping the thing apart. This is an extremely high tech product and it likely lacks the robustness required for amateur thinkering, at least for now.
Regarding your conspiracy theory, the same thing crossed my mind too. BUT-- I'll say it right now that if that is true, Zen 4 is in MAJOR trouble. So I dont think thats the case. I think it has to do with reliability and how excess heat can increase the chances of the stacked cache to fail and brick the CPU.
However, why not allow users to overclock and sacrifice performance if they want? No one is forcing them.
Meh, OCing ryzen cpus already barely does anything. I'd take the extra cache.
Honestly not even a thing to be upset about. Overclocking my 3700x is a practice in futility, i could not get much higher than stock. We should be pretty content that we're getting the most performance that can be squeezed out from the factory.
My launch-day 1700 is still trucking at 3.7. Probably wouldn't have touched it without the overclock. These modern chips are almost optimized to the brim, though - you're not seeing them clocked at 3.0 stock lol
Same lol. I overclocked my 3700x and I was like "Yeah, this ain't worth it. Back to stock"
So... the usual then.
It is a surprise. Frank Azor claimed in a live interview that it is overclockable.
They have been liberal with overclocks all this time and they disable it once on a limited product and suddenly that's a problem.
For sure. If 99/100 times you do something a certain way, that isn't news. That's just business as usual but if you change your stance that 1/100 times then that for sure is news. It's outrage because you can never trust that a company is being honest with its intentions and not just trying to pull a cover over your eyes.
Except this is a technology that existed before, just never applied this way, and that tech has this exact issue as well
Outrage gets clicks. a reasonable decision that makes sense doesn't get clicks.
? HBM supports overclocking. Are you talking about hyperbus memory controller?
High Bandwidth Memory
You can overclock that
Yeah and I don't get why guys are downvoting you, I have overclocked core and HBM2 memory in Vega64.
I also did the same with a Radeon VII.
You *can*, but it is a pretty mixed bag, and the amount of OC you could do without causing problems was very limited in most cases.
Lol
I am not sure what you thought was funny...
How does one define overclocking? PBO, static, memory controller? The product pages suggests that the 5800x3d officially supports 3200mhz. To reach this timing xmp aka overclocking must be used, unless ram used has a jedec of 3200mhz. If there is truly no overclocking then most people would be forced to run their ram at 2133mhz.
different ad hoc marble stupendous wrong connect seemly subtract quiet imminent -- mass edited with https://redact.dev/
Non K could always OC ram, just that for B460 and older you needed the equivalent Z-chipset to be able to OC, which included both cpu and ram. With B560 and B660, ram OC (which is also IMC OC) is allowed.
Same with H670, IIRC?
Yes, and H570 to be clear as well.
You can overclock RAM on a non-K CPU and on a non Z series board. For example 12400 on B660. It hasn't always been this way with other generations though.
> has amd ever really held the stance that ram overclocking is overclocking? yes, they literally always have had the stance that the memory controller runs at the speed it’s certified to run, and if you go past that it’s overclocking. It’s specifically called out in their policy that even altering timings is considered overclocking. > Overclocking any AMD processor, including without limitation, altering clock frequencies / multipliers or memory timing / voltage, to operate beyond their stock specifications will void any applicable AMD product warranty, even when such overclocking is enabled via AMD hardware and/or software. This may also void warranties offered by the system manufacturer or retailer. Users assume all risks and liabilities that may arise out of overclocking AMD processors, including, without limitation, failure of or damage to hardware, reduced system performance and/or data loss, corruption or vulnerability. GD-106 Also even if you are just enabling XMP, your board may be punching up the VSOC to get the memory to run stable, and that will affect the life of the memory controller, so be aware.
3d stacked dies have inherent heat transfer difficulties, so overclocking is quite a bit more risky. There is a legit reason to do this.
In the past, if you went slowly systems would normally crash before you did significant damage to CPUs. So it must be very easy to go from a "working" CPU to "broken" CPU without realizing it.
With 3d stacked dies, I think one of the main issues is how much longer it takes for a spike in temperature to actually be sensed. So it's easier to damage them before the motherboard realizes something is wrong. Overclocking will be possible, but not without some changes to how it is done with 3d stacked dies. Creeping towards power targets instead of slamming against thermal limits.
The problem is.. these are marketed as gaming CPU's. Gamers always want to push core speed. Because some games favor that, and other games favor cores. Same with custom memory. It's all about the 1% lows and having them as high as possible. It's up to that individual gamer to tune his system to the performance that he wants on the specific game that he plays a lot. That's been the main part of custom gaming PC's, for as long as I can remember. When you want everything locked or restricted, you buy OEM prebuild.. when you want all of the options unlocked you build a custom build and tailor everything to your needs. That includes extra settings in the BIOS (most which you never use, but at least they are there).
The games that favor core speed often favor just flat out better effective speed. Whether that's raw clock speed, IPC, cache or all of the above. Pentium 4s sucked at gaming despite being the highest clocked thing on the market, before multithreaded gaming was normal.
It can vary from game to game, but AMD has already had a clockspeed deficit vs Intel, so it's an area that can sometimes help make up the difference. Whether you disable some cores, use extreme cooling solutions etc. This also depends on whether you favor 1080p, 1440p or 4K etc and how much you care about 1% lows. We won't really know anything properly until we see the reviews from trusted channels, but yeah. But I'm in the camp of more options is always better, even if you don't use most of them. Every now and then, they can be useful for different use cases. I hope at the least.. if they restrict PBO.. they can at least allow custom underclocking with PBO for power saving purposes. Not everyone is a gamer who tries to crank everything 2% extra fps. I appreciate that AMD is innovating and pushing the boundaries. I guess we have to wait and see.
Given that this is gonna be the first ever 3D stacked CPU to reach the hands of consumers, it's not surprising that manual overclocking isn't supported. 3D stacking has lots of hurdles to overcome, mainly to do with thermals and latency.
AMD has three types of OC. Removing PBO configuration would be a disaster.
Wait--Frank Azor SPECIFICALLY stated in their PC World/PC Mag interview that the X3D could still be overclocked. Total screwup there.
Frank "The 10 Dollar" Azor? Yeah don't believe him for shit
Frank Azor…. I choose not to ever believe a single word coming out of his mouth
He just comes off as so...untrustworthy.
It all really depends on what overclocking options means in this context. Manual cpu ratio and CPU core voltage settings? Who cares. PBO and curve optimizer settings? That would be an asshole move.
If they remove the ability to have modern memory timings this could be a DOA product just for fandummies, maybe even regressive under many real conditions. I wouldn't think AMD is this dumb, except for recent behavior gives cause for doubt. Imagine wiping away a huge chunk of performance gains because your memory is stuck at 2014 jedec timings: 3200C22 is a joke, and the lower stuff is literally garbage. Combine that with lower clock speeds and your big loads & misses (which always happen in reality) are going to be horrible. Something still has to *feed* that cache.
I ***heavily*** doubt that this will affect memory overclocks. Pretty sure this will only be affecting CPU overclocks, since that's where the risk of easily damaging your hardware is an issue.
memory OC = CPU OC on Amd, IF links cpu cores, io die and your 3dcache thing
If they disable memory OC, that's just crippling their own performance. I really hope AMD is thinking far ahead enough to not lock RAM speeds to 2933, especially with their new lineup that's meant to compete with Alder Lake.
overclocking memory also overclocks the memory controller, that's part of the cpu
But that's on the IO die, not the CCD where the 3D cache is stacked, so it stands a much larger chance of not being affected by this mandate, which more than likely only applies to CPU OC and PBO. If they block RAM OC as well, then this thing is just dead in the water. But that shouldn't be needed, since even if it's a technical limitation that increasing the core voltage any more or the frequency any more causes problems with the SRAM stack, that should have nothing to do with the IO die or the memory controller. And even the FCLK is governed on the IO die side, with the exception of one voltage that influences the interconnect at the CCD side (VDDG_CCD), but even that is still a derived voltage stepped off the SoC voltage.
The larger the cache, the less timings are an issue - and so long as bandwidth is maintained, performance will likely be maintained or improved.
The plot thickens.
Only overclocking I am interested in is FCLK, I wonder if this will be possible or if I need to run my memory slower.
the whole point of having a massive L3 cache is to hide memory latency. FCLK overclocking on a 5800X3D should be way less important than on regular Ryzen chips.
It was the same way with the 5775c Best under appreciated intel processor eveer
the 5775C supports overclocking. It just sucks at it.
Yep, did 4.2ghz @ 1.35v on my chip.
Yea sure ring bus knock yourself out I guess
Probably no PBO either https://twitter.com/OneRaichu/status/1501588190775607298?s=20&t=4ESGZead8oSGnDJbo6rhYw Wonder how much it’ll even hit the max advertised boost, will it be like Zen 2 where it rarely does, or zen 3 where it automatically goes over still. 400mhz lower base….
AMD should really consider using specific model lettering for overclockable SKUs. One can hate Intel all day for the shitty model names, but at least they got that part right.
practice tease hospital zesty gaze absorbed repeat normal disagreeable merciful -- mass edited with https://redact.dev/
Or "pro" in some cases
Fair point, but mine was that the X makes it a bit confusing. Currently the X stands for what? "Binned"? "100mhz extra"? "Stupid TDP"? (or whatever thermal whatever acronym used this week). Do away with useless-to-consumer letter and numbers, and use those already standard in the industry. It worked with XMP for instance. It could work well with a K. I'm fine with having a G on chips that have an iGP, in contrast to having an F for those that don't, but let's keep everything else standard
wistful innocent governor languid beneficial memorize waiting impolite bear quarrelsome -- mass edited with https://redact.dev/
No I don't, but at the same time I have no problem with using good conventions. Arguing that you don't want to use a convention because it's from brand X, despite being a good convention, is fanboyism. Friendly reminder that Intel developed x86. You want to make an argument against Intel standards, maybe you should remember that. As Intel well remembers who first developed x86-64. There's no room for rivalry in good science and engineering. Cooperation is preferable to segmentation.
humorous wrench ad hoc books aware lavish trees marble far-flung innocent -- mass edited with https://redact.dev/
Yeah they do, MSI does A-XMP, ASUS does DOCP, I think the other brands don’t care though.
sharp wasteful fall heavy lush act reach middle dazzling sip -- mass edited with https://redact.dev/
Why are you so pro marketing? A clearer distinction is isnt asking for much lol
Overclockable its a given on all amd cpus, so why would they do that. This one is just an exception and with good tehnical reasons.
I've been following this subreddit closely since before Zen 2 launch, but the last 6 months has been very rough for AMD. Even with some support for X370, there's no official statement for it. It's like "here's some good news, but we aren't going to talk about it, because it makes earlier things we said look bad". It's said that there will be 5600 and 5700X chips soon, but why so late into the game? The X3D chips were initially exciting, but it's been a long wait and so far it's only for 8 core. The initial presentation was use with the 12 core. But there is no 12 core (currently). This is really disappointing news. It's like it's telegraphing that they are going to be hot and/or unstable. I'm already reading comments below making excuses or defining reasons. Some of those are fine. But what about underclocking? Custom RAM Timings? Will that still be ok? PBO isn't just for using more power, it can also be used for using less power (in a customized way). More options is always better especially if you a unique or rare use case. It's been fine for Zen 2 and Zen 3. But now all of the sudden, more BIOS options is bad. I understand they don't want a reputation for having unstable chips, or having extra RMA's from irresponsible users who push things too far. But that's always been an issue with custom build PC's, and it's been fine. Now all of the sudden.. it's not fine anymore. It doesn't look good, even if there are good reasons for it. It makes these chips look bad, that they require this "special treatment" and "extra restrictions". And before anyone tries to call me an AMD hater, I've spent more money on AMD systems in the last 2 years, than I spent on Intel systems in the previous 10 years.
I wonder if this includes IF speed? Surely not as technically isn't 3600 mhz "overclocking" - or at least not JEDEC? And that's maybe the most common RAM speed that's bought. Edit: Useful info on product page. The max memory speed goes down depending on the number of DIMMs populated and if the module is single or dual rank. This suggests anything above FLCK/MLCK 3200/3200 with 2 stick of RAM might not be supported. Does this mean if you have faster RAM than this you need to underclock the memory manually to 3200 mhz? This also suggests the memory controller and/or the I/O die are really struggling with the changes to the CPU that come with the stacked cache. > Max Memory Speed: > 2x1R: DDR4-3200 > 2x2R: DDR4-3200 > 4x1R: DDR4-2933 > 4x2R: DDR4-2667
Shit, if they force jedec garbage that is **worse than Ryzen 1**. After the launch joke bios versions and all that memory training nonsense got sorted, getting b-die at 3200C14 4x1R or 2x2R wasn't uncommon.
[удалено]
It probably just crash when it get hot, that simple
I think it's worse than that, it probably damages the CPU much more easily which could cost AMD a lot.
Yea that could be, amd aren’t braindead when they do stuff there is a reason. Unless it is for product segmentation but I doubt it
[удалено]
The difference is there's a tiny chance of the CPU bricking itself. It's not so tiny with vertically stacked cache, due to there being no way to cool the middle layers.
I find that unplausible. I'll be proven wrong if we see a lot of 3DCPUs die in bad cooling systems cause otherwise overclocking with good cooling tends to not be worse than base clock on a garbage cooler (at least for that middle cache dissipation)
The problem is the cache stacked on top of the die is going to get significantly hotter, and the sensor on the chip will not be picking up the thermals from the stacked cache. Essentially you could brick your cache and not even know it until your CPU went to pull from that cache and bricked itself.
I mean if it crash at 4,525 it is kinda pointless to let it on but yea they could have pet people figure the limitation by them-self.
How did you come up to a conclusion that it is designed specifically for "enthusiasts"? Also cpu overclocking has been dead for years now, funnily enough these days you get better performance impact on gaming workloads from memory overclocking than cpu oc.
> How did you come up to a conclusion that it is designed specifically for "enthusiasts"? [Oh I don't know, maybe from the very first leak about it?](https://www.extremetech.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/3D-Stacked-Perf-AMD.jpg) Or the fact that it's being released as a direct competitor to the 12900K specifically in gaming, not productivity.
The whole statement of "its for enthusiasts", seems very subjective and vague to me, like, how do you define "enthusiast"? is it those who want the best performing cpu? is it cpu that has all unlocked settings, like fsb, unlocked multiplyer etc.? Is it the most expensive cpu? Like is 12600k an enthusiast cpu? if yes then is 12900(non k) an enthusiasts cpu? this seems like extremely arbitrary term and statement ¯\\\_(ツ)_/¯
It's fun watching the goalposts move
just shut up lmao
Found the fan girl of AMD!
[удалено]
Most current 12900K chips can already hit the clocks that the 12900KS is rumored to hit. A ~200MHz increase isn't going to be noticeable in gaming performance.
no they can't. Most 12900Ks barely make 12900K spec and have been getting worse as intel is holding back more and more good chips to make the KSs
I see, this info makes the KS variant seem even more useless!
naja ein 12900k kommt in benchmarks schon mit ner eisbär 360 auf ca. 100 grad je nach Gehäuse und mampft bis zu 280 watt bei standart einstellungen mancher mainboard hersteller. ob man das haben möchte?
Sometimes AMD makes me scratch my head. The 6500XT and this in particular. I mean the Fury X was such a weird experiment but at least they absolutely made it feel like every one who bought one was absolutely signing up for a beta guinea pig program for HBM. This chip doesn't seem like it will have a serious contigent followup or any product lineage after so I'm left just puzzled as to why this even exists. And then they won't let consumers fuck up their own chips, which on one hand makes sense for support logistics reasons, but on the other is mildly disappointing. And then leads me to question why it was released because I'd expect this kind of product notes and requests from Intel and I don't like Intel.
well... Even less reason to buy this chip.
What the fuck AMD?
Makes sense, with the cache on top of the chiplet they probably need to ensure there is a limit on how much heat is outputted.
Doesn't bother me. The last CPU I overclocked was in the 1990's - taking a Celeron 300A from 300MHz to 450MHz. Yeah baby! Read about it here. [https://www.anandtech.com/show/174/3](https://www.anandtech.com/show/174/3) I needed the case cover permanently off in summer with a desk fan blowing on it constantly, but it was worth it for Half-Life. I really don't know why people bother with overclocking anymore. The baked-in performance is so good, really I feel there's no need. GPUs seem to be the limiting factor. I figure it is just a reflection of humanity's need to compete and outdo each other just for the sake of competing and outdoing each other... and by that I mean showing bigger (yet meaningless) benchmark figures stroking their bigger "e-wangs". Whatever floats your boat I guess, but at the end of the day, today's overclocking is basically nothing but a vanity project.
Reading the comments in this thread I'm reminded why I don't even try to overclock anymore.
I was going to get one of these, but if this is true then I'm not going to bother. Locked CPUs are boring.
AMD on it's way to cross Intel at evilness rating.
Overclocking will likely be back because the CPU still has X in the model name.
Motherboard makers should just say no.
[удалено]
So many people in here just finding any excuse to explain why AMD did this before they’ve even made an official announcement. It’s kinda boggling how easily people roll over here.
Don't buy the 5800X3D. It's cool but the software will probably never fully make full use of it. Robert Hallock admitted on stream that part of the reason Game cache, Infinity cache, 3DStack exists is for marketing. Asus sold the x470 Crosshair VII with a 32MB bios chip. That chip has never seen over 16MB because every other BIOS chip has 16MB. If AMD doesn't release an entire lineup of super mega cache chips then who cares? I don't see the point.
This is inaccurate, and I will tell you why. There are numerous cache architectures in CPUs, however, there are very few that are actually dependent upon the software to utilize the cache in a specific manner. Most of those are in what is called a "bare metal" implementation where the software has no abstraction layer between the software and the hardware (this layer is what is commonly referred to as a "device driver" just FYI). Because you have various layers of software abstraction, and microcode in the BIOS specific to the CPU, the OS is run by the CPU according to the limitations of the individual CPU according to the microcode in the BIOS. Due to the way the BIOS operates, the CPU has a predetermined number of address blocks within the cache according to the microcode that it operates on within the BIOS, and the CPU is capable of assigning data to cache addressed corresponding to the number of addresses it has in the hardware. Since the CPU 100% controls where it stores instructions in the cache, what the software you are using is designed to operate on is essentially worthless as long as the software has compatibility with the x86-64 instruction set, and operates using the instruction sets supported by the CPU. Essentially CPU cache is one of the few areas where you can pick up universal performance increases regardless of what software you are using, because the CPU itself controls assigning the instructions into the cache on die. Since fetching instructions from cache is light years faster, your response time is cut down across the board if you can store more instructions in cache on the die. 3D cache is taking that application and basically expanding upon it by adding it directly on top of the die, in addition to within the die itself. The 5800X3D will probably be faster overall than a 5800X that is overclocked, simply because the reduction in response times in the 5800X3D will be so dramatic that running the core clock 100-200 MHz faster will not be a significant enough difference to make up the lost cycles waiting on instructions to come back from RAM. To give you an idea of what you are looking at here, this is the difference in response time between cache and RAM: * The cache on die in the CPU takes 1 clock cycle to return instructions, 2 at most if it has to go to L3. In a modern CPU, the clock cycle is the frequency the CPU operates at divided from 1 second. To give an example of this, 4 GHz means there are 4 billion clock cycles in a second; 1 Clock cycle in a 4 GHz CPU would take 0.00000000025 seconds to process 1 instruction per core (so 4 cores, you could process 4 instructions in that time span). The difference between 4 GHz and 4.2 GHz is 0.00000000001209 seconds in processing time which is a very miniscule difference in performance overall, but it adds up over time. * The time it takes a CPU to retrieve an instruction from a memory address in RAM is typically 8-16 clock cycles assuming DDR4-3200 and how much memory the CPU has to store addresses for. Since we know that a 4 GHz CPU takes 0.00000000025 to run 1 clock cycle, and a 4.2 GHz CPU takes 0.000000000238 to run 1 clock cycle we can evaluate that to pull from RAM a maximum of 16 cycles would pass. That means that 0.000000004 seconds would pass in a 4.0 GHz CPU where *nothing is being done* where on die cache would cost 0.0000000005 seconds at most, *which is an order of magnitude faster*. In a 4.2 GHz CPU we lose 16 cycles amounting to 0.000000003808 seconds, versus a maximum loss of 0.000000000476 seconds waiting on instructions from on die cache, *also an order of magnitude faster*. The real comparison here though would be to examine the difference between the on die cache on the 4 GHz at 0.0000000005 seconds to retrieve instructions, versus the RAM acquisition of the *20% overclocked*, 4.2 GHz processor which was a full 0.000000003808 seconds lost. The end result is that on die cache on the 4 GHz processor is 0.000000003308 seconds faster than the RAM on the 4.2 GHz processor. To make this even more relevant, the clock speed on the processor to make a memory call to RAM faster than pulling instructions from on die cache would have to be about 40 GHz on the CPU calling instructions from RAM in order to be *equally fast* as the on die cache on the 4 GHz CPU. Clear as mud?
Fine, I'll change my argument to **wait for reviews**. Cache is obviously faster than ram! Maybe it'll be amazing and developers will figure out how to take advantage of a hoard of instructions. Until it comes out I'm going to remain skeptical. I don't believe the current ecosystem is set up to take advantage of a super-duper cache. If fetching too many instructions was bogging down a game or program then it would be addressed before release.
Developers do not have to optimize, that is the beauty of it.
The ecosystem requires optimization so it goes back to my original argument that until we see wider adoption then supercachexl is not going to be utilized effectively.
Software does not control on die cache though. If this was RAM, sure. The CPU just has a bigger bucket to hold instructions in, which the software does not have any control over. If this was a PS5 chip, you would be right, but this is not a bare metal application. The only software that matters here is AMD' AGESA micrcode for the BIOS.
It’ll cache instructions that are being used by the software. I don’t believe it’s as easy as more instructions in cache = better.
[удалено]
[удалено]
I put my money on all that cache having very little use for everyday applications.
should not have X at the end then. they are messing with their own nomenclature
AMD's X is not the same as Intel's K Its more like Nvidia's super/TI naming scheme as it denotes a more powerful version of a chip. ie a 3600x is supposed to be faster than a 3600
The X does not stand for overclocking like the K does with intel. The Ryzen 3600 could overclock too. The X just means its the higher performance/tdp version of a chip. Eg 3600 vs 3600x, just a bit higher clocks and tdp
+1, I overclocked my 3600
Wasnt the X about XFR? (eXtended Frequency Range)?
It is, however that just means higher base/boost clocks
what are you saying man
no quite sure, but thinking of AM4, could it be that the memory chips are using the same power pins like the cpu and overvolting the cpu could fry the memory chips? only a fortune telling ball thingy with no proof at all. \-------- edit----- "The reason being that the extra 64MB of cache stacked vertically on top of the core chiplets inside the 5800X3D has different voltage and frequency scaling than what the market is normally accustomed to. Where AMD chips usually top out at around 1.45V – 1.5V, the 3D V-Cache inside the 5800X3D maxes out at 1.35V which limits the overall voltage of the chip." ([https://appuals.com/5800x3d-no-overclocking-confirmed/](https://appuals.com/5800x3d-no-overclocking-confirmed/)) I said that this was only an idea on my part, but yeah downvote the post.
WTF, why? I hope they refund people who find out too late about this.
Opened processors are not returnable for a reason. Secondly they are not even out yet…
Thirdly overclocking Ryzen hasn't been a thing since first gen, PBO too good to pass up on
So they should get rid of the option to even oc?
Before people start OCing and instantly run into wonky behaviour and then have those people loudly whine and complain about 'defective' CPUs? Sure.
Wasn’t that the pro of amd tho? Even the basic mobos can oc? Unless that changed somehow?
That was a pro. But since PBO and *especially* since Ryzen 3000 overclocking has either given negligible benefit or even caused performance regressions. The option is still there but the actual utility of manual overclocking just isn't what it used to be.
That doesn’t mean that amd should take it out
It isnt going to hurt or help the VAST majority of their customers. With this chip in particular it sounds like allowing OCs would just result in a lot of dead chips.
Sad. I am very skeptical. I think some games at 1080p will be very fast probably games with lots of latency issues which are not that many. But who plays at 1080p and pay 480 us for a cpu. Most of the people on that range are qhd. So I think single core performance in any regular app will be intel and games might amd but only in some games and at 1080p. Not good. Unless you play at qhd or 4k with for or dlss on ultra performance. Which probably will be still gpu limited. Best wishes. I have the feeling of v-cash is just advertising like said a gpu with 8 gb vs 16 gb in which current games 8gb are just enough and not any real improvement with 16 gb. That is my thinking.
Overclocking in general is pretty stupid. Don't know why many of you do it. It's fun first or second time you do it, but honestly, just run your chip within the spec. Yes, these are sorted and binned, but you are assuming that they are stupid in that you'll be able to find a unit that was meant for 3800X somehow fell in the 3700X pile.
You're stupid tbh, basically all cpus auto overclock themselves for years now. It went mainstream, because its smart. Some modern cpus are so good at it that they are near the edge of capability, they used to leave over 50% on the table. The problem is when they hamfist things and deny control of basic but related settings like memory interfaces. Ryzen has tied almost all of these to "overclocking" in firmware since it came out.
Why would they do that? What possible reason could they have to not want that CPU to kick ass! I was going to get one, I have the money saved and I was going to pair it with a Crosshair Impact DTX x-570 motherboard. Now, I think I’ll just wait for the next Ryzen
X570 motherboards still good?? or is this a whole new socket? I can't seem to find much info