add arrow-down arrow-left arrow-right arrow-up authorcheckmark clipboard combo comment delete discord dots drag-handle dropdown-arrow errorfacebook history inbox instagram issuelink lock markup-bbcode markup-html markup-pcpp markup-cyclingbuilder markup-plain-text markup-reddit menu pin radio-button save search settings share star-empty star-full star-half switch successtag twitch twitter user warningwattage weight youtube

Overclock | Ryzen 5 2600

FMoh

4 months ago

First time builder need some help.

I am looking to overclock my cpu but not looking for anything aggressive to begin with.

What is a safe GHz to start off with?

What should my ram run at?

Will be using the pc for gaming @ 1440p

All help appreciated.

https://uk.pcpartpicker.com/list/bc26WD

Comments

  • 4 months ago
  • 5 points

What is a safe GHz to start off with?

All speed settings are safe to try. Whether they will be stable is a different story.

The setting to be careful with, is voltage. My advise is to decide on a fixed "safe" voltage, then see how fast the CPU can run at that voltage through trial and error.

Since you have a really big CPU heatsink, you're not going to be limited by thermals on Ryzen, but good practice is to keep the CPU under 65C if it is being operated above non-degrading voltages.

The fixed voltage to try, sort of depends on how much chip longevity you want to trade off for performance. It also depends on a bit of guesswork, because there isn't a hard rule (just a lot of people all over the internet reporting various experiences and reiterating their interpretations of what AMD has published, which, fyi, has varied from media outlet to media outlet). To make matters more complicated, there are also going to be variations in the accuracy of the voltage measurement from board to board, so you have to choose how much of a leap of faith you're willing to make, and/or how much risk tolerance you have.

Roughly speaking, voltages of ~1.35V or less are considered by most to be "non-degrading" for Ryzen, meaning that barring other issues, the chip should last "forever" at voltages of ~1.35V or less regardless of load/temps. Voltages from 1.35-1.40V are considered minimally degrading, in this range, I think the general expectation is that the chip will outlast the useful life of the computer in this range even of under constant 100% load if temps are kept in check (this is where we start caring about keeping temps lower to extend life). Voltages of 1.40-1.45V are still considered safe but expected to degrade the chip more rapidly if exposed to these voltages and high load continuously, this is the range where you may have to start thinking in terms of risk tolerance. 1.45-1.50V is the maximum usable range for overclocking, and is likely to degrade chips somewhat rapidly, though with very powerful cooling this range may be usable for some applications. 1.50V+ is expected to cause rapid degradation if the chip is operated there continuously, especially at higher temps/loads.

Keep in mind that by default, when equipped with good cooling, the turbo/XFR profiles for "2600X/2700X" model chips will push 1.40-1.50V under moderate, short term loads with temps in check. There's a balancing act taking place here. The engineers have modeled this balancing act and in doing so, reveal a bit about what's "safe" with Ryzen.

With all of that said, you're going to be power limited by the weak VRM's on that motherboard long before you can make use of voltages north of ~1.35V anyway, so you may as well just dial in 1.35V and see how fast it will go at this voltage.


With the availability of 2600X/2700X, overclocking a Ryzen 2000 series chip seems sort of silly to me, when AMD has already created an overclocking profile that gets more performance and longevity out of the chip than we are likely to get by dialing in manual tunes.

On that subject, the cost of a 2600 + X62 would have easily bought a 2700X, which begs the question.. WHY BOTHER WITH THE 2600 for this build in the first place? A 2700X on its stock cooler would be a better CPU than an overclocked 2600 on any cooler.

  • 4 months ago
  • 2 points

Voltages of 1.40-1.45V are still considered safe

1.4v has been reported to degrade Zen+ (different than Zen) in a few months with great cooling, and I know people who had degraded multiple CPUs. Degradation is not suppose to happen ever. You have media outlets vs plenty of people with proof of degradation and who have done proper testing.

PBO + XFR2 are not pushing 1.4v across all cores under load, the spikes you see are for low core loads. Current kills, not voltage. So it pushing 1.4v across all cores when only two are doing anything is fine. AMD can do this because they have engineers who do this for a living, alongside a ton of data.

1.5v will quickly degrade a Zen+ CPU. I’d give you maybe a week or two unless you are running exotic cooling. And by exotic cooling, I don’t mean chillers since they don’t get cold enough. I mean single stage / cascade to get proper cold scaling.

  • 4 months ago
  • 4 points

You have media outlets

No I don't.

5v will quickly degrade a Zen+ CPU

5V will blow it up instantly.

you are running exotic cooling

I'm not.


context...


Otherwise, thank you for the heads up on the faster degradation than I had articulated. Like I said though, there seems to be a wide range of experiences on this matter, from people running long term ~1.45V without issue, and others seeing chips fry young below 1.4V... There's more too this story than meets the eye... There seems to be variability in voltage measuring accuracy from board to board, which may contribute to some of this. Like I said, risk tolerance needs to be considered, and anyone venturing into this should read around the web and try to figure out where there risk tolerance lies given the landscape of the situation as they see it.

I tinkered with my 1700X some more recently and found stability for 3.8GHZ at about 1.25V (~1.225V under load). 3.9GHZ requires ~1.35V and the power/thermals skyrocket at that point and I think the board fails to deliver clean/stable power at that point anyway (cheap B450 Pro4). Not worth it for 2.6%.

  • 4 months ago
  • 1 point

I find the people running 1.45v on Zen are the same people who think it’s normal for a CPU to lose 50-100mhz over time, then after you lose the top frequency it will take longer for more degradation (current draw went down).

Zen+ is a different game, different manufacturing node compared to revisions of an architect. People see that Skylake (14nm Intel) and any architect under it (Kabylake, Coffeelake, Coffeelake Refresh) have the same safe voltages and that assume AMD is the same, but Zen -> Zen+ isn’t a revision.

I find the biggest issue with recommending people the absolute safe limit hard to do, because of motherboards like you said. You can easy probe the end of the vcore VRM and see what the voltage is, should be pretty accurate to the software. But software can’t see transient spikes that can happen with load changes, so all the sudden your 1.38v becomes 1.45v (or worse) for a split second and even with low current draw that is bad. It’s why the Donimus Extreme has a quad 8 phase instead of a straight 32 phase, voltage might not be as clean but transient response is much better (from talking to Asus reps on Discord).

AMD has said what is ‘safe’ on Zen, and is pretty well backed up by people’s testing. While AMD said nothing on Zen+, working backwards from XFR2 / PBO and from others testing it’s been found that 1.4v is not safe for a daily overclock, unless you enjoy degrading some of your CPU.

Also taking half of a sentence as quote and ignoring any context is a ****** way to argue, and same with using what was clearly a spelling error (edit button disappears quickly). No motherboard can do 5v (my XOC Intel board does I think 2.2v with a LN2 BIOS?) and even if you could you would melt the socket / contacts / blue smoke the CPU the second a load happens (they don’t explode sadly). Like just quoting “you have exotic cooling” while ignoring the “unless” and rest of the context. You need serious cold to get resistance to drop (then current drops), and even then it most likely won’t be that safe for daily, cold scaling at safe voltages is a better idea. I know of people who degraded an 8086k at like 5.7ghz 1.55v (maybe 1.5v?) using chillers with subzero liquid temp.

When I said “media outlets” I meant when you look up “AMD safe voltages” you get media outlets quoting Zen numbers from AMD for Zen+, and just claims from around the launch that haven’t stood against testing.

And to build off what you say, Zen / Zen+ hits a voltage wall fast. It’s never worth the risk of degradation for 50-100mhz (couple of %s in benchmarks). If you can do 4.1ghz at 1.35v, don’t bother going up to 4.2ghz 1.425v (imagery numbers).

  • 4 months ago
  • 2 points

Also taking half of a sentence as quote and ignoring any context is a ****** way to argue

Yea that was the point I was making there. It seems like the obvious irony and sarcasm was missed.


The sentence I originally posted: Voltages of 1.40-1.45V are still considered safe but expected to degrade the chip more rapidly if exposed to these voltages and high load continuously, this is the range where you may have to start thinking in terms of risk tolerance.

The way you decided to quote that: Voltages of 1.40-1.45V are still considered safe

  • 4 months ago
  • 1 point

Thankyou for your help! Considering the 2600x is only 40£ more you think this would be the better option for a safer overclock over a long period? If yes what is a safe overclock for this chip as it has a boost of 4.2. I only chose the 2600 as i am a beginner so dont want to damage my parts when i dont really know what i am dealing with also i was recommended this cpu as its very similar to the 2600x. The X62 is a must for me for its appearance and will give me all the cooling i will need for overclocking. I have learnt now that i should start with standard Voltage and see what my CPU can handle at an average of 65C under load.

  • 4 months ago
  • 5 points

Considering the 2600x is only 40£ more you think this would be the better option for a safer overclock over a long period?

There's no difference in "safety" between overclocking a 2600X or 2600, they are just different "binnings" of the same product from the same fab. The 2600X will usually buy slightly higher clocks at equal voltage, so is better if you want to achieve better results. Also, the 2600X's standard clock speeds are likely to be very close to as good as you'll get from overclocking anyway, so that saves you the trouble of worrying about it, just run it stock and enjoy.

If yes what is a safe overclock for this chip as it has a boost of 4.2.

Like I said before, and like others in this thread have told you, there is no such thing as a maximum safe overclock, there is only such thing as a maximum safe voltage and temperature, and both of those figures have room for fudging with risk tolerance.

Pick a maximum safe voltage you're comfortable with. (this should be 1.35V or less for you, since the motherboard selected will probably not handle pushing more power than this anyway), then push clocks as high as they will go. When you hit instability, back off.

I have learnt now that i should start with standard Voltage and see what my CPU can handle at an average of 65C under load.

Yes, if you want to overclock with more than ~1.30-1.35V, then you should consider a motherboard with better power delivery. Consider bumping up to something like an MSI - X470 GAMING PLUS or PRO CARBON or ASROCK Taichi.

Though again, I return to the point that the "cost" of overclocking Ryzen isn't worth it. A 2700X on a B450 board with the stock cooler (or inexpensive cooler) offers more CPU performance than you'll get overclocking any lower model Ryzen chip at similar or lower implementation costs.

  • 4 months ago
  • 1 point

Great! thankyou so much for your help i know so much more about this now. I think i am going to go with the 2600x as i wont need to play around with the setting so much running at stock. Is the b450 tomohawk going to be enough for this build? or is there a better one i can go for to get the best results out of my system? I dont mind spending a little more if needed.

  • 4 months ago
  • 2 points

The b450 tomahawk is actually a great mid level board, perfect for minor-moderate overclocks. Don't go pushing 1.4 volts or god forbid 1.45+ on it though or as I learned the hard way it will crap out taking down the CPU with it.

  • 4 months ago
  • 1 point

Thankyou for your reply! Do you know of any compatible boards that are white? not looking to spend any more than £100

  • 4 months ago
  • 1 point

It’s nothing amazing but should be fine

  • 4 months ago
  • 1 point

Thanks for your reply, i have now chosen msi x470 gaming plus at an extra £27. Would you suggest anything? This seems like its bought with a lot of overlocking cpus. Not going for a red theme on this build but i dont mind.

  • 4 months ago
  • 1 point

i should point out that the difference in the 2600 to the 2600x is also extended into the type of silicon that is used to make it, also why they can get higher clock speeds even if you overclock the 2600

  • 4 months ago
  • 1 point

All Ryzen, EPYC, and Threadripper are the same product the only difference is how much voltage each chip shows in use, and how many acceptable cores are on each chip.

The top 5% are EPYC or Threadripper flagships.

The rest are split between lower end EPYC, TR, and finally Ryzen.

The flip side of scalability is everything uses the same parts.

  • 4 months ago
  • 1 point

What is a safe GHz to start off with?

What should my ram run at?

The highest possible while within safe voltages (1.38v with temps less than 65C)

RAM should just be at XMP since RAM overclocking is complicated and time consuming

  • 4 months ago
  • 1 point

What GHz would i need to set that too to achieve 65C & 1.38v ?

Thanks for the tips!

  • 4 months ago
  • 1 point

Silicon lottery means it depends

  • 4 months ago
  • 1 point

3.7 \ 3.8 for starting would be safe?

  • 4 months ago
  • 1 point

should start off at 3.9 ghz and work your way up. 3.9 is the stock turbo boost for 1 core. You should aim for 4.0-4.2 ghz for a max overclock.

  • 4 months ago
  • 1 point

Thankyou!

Sort

add arrow-down arrow-left arrow-right arrow-up authorcheckmark clipboard combo comment delete discord dots drag-handle dropdown-arrow errorfacebook history inbox instagram issuelink lock markup-bbcode markup-html markup-pcpp markup-cyclingbuilder markup-plain-text markup-reddit menu pin radio-button save search settings share star-empty star-full star-half switch successtag twitch twitter user warningwattage weight youtube