AMD Ryzen 5000 Builders Thread

[B-Riz]

	Cores Threads	Base Freq	Turbo Freq	L3 Cache	TDP	MSRP
Ryzen 9 5950X	16c/32t	3400	4900	64 MB	105 W	$799
Ryzen 9 5900X	12c/24t	3700	4800	64 MB	105 W	$549
Ryzen 7 5800X	8c/16t	3800	4700	32 MB	105 W	$449
Ryzen 5 5600X	6c/12t	3700	4600	32 MB	65 W	$299

5600X comes with cooler, the rest do not.

above from https://www.anandtech.com/show/1614...en-3-on-nov-5th-19-ipc-claims-best-gaming-cpu

 

[moshpit]

CORRECTION!!!!

AMD lists maximum boost clock for 5800X as 4.7Ghz. If you see 4.85Ghz, it is DEFINITELY overclocked. That is 150mhz above stock and a significant amount.

AMD's own listing is the end all, be all of what is stock.

If your motherboard is overclocking by 150mhz with everything at default base settings, something is wrong OR a default setting is not AMD stock certified.

https://www.amd.com/en/products/cpu/amd-ryzen-7-5800x

Edit: But I MUST note, mine does this too. 4.8Ghz is the "Asus Boost" at stock settings. Not AMD's boost.

 

[Makaveli]

lol end of story...

Even anandtech's own review sample was doing 4825mhz

"The Ryzen 7 5800X has a base frequency of 3800 MHz and a rated turbo frequency of 4700 MHz (we detected 4825 MHz), and uses a single eight-core chiplet with a total 32 MB of L3 cache. The single core chiplet has some small benefits over a dual chiplet design where some cross-CPU communication is needed, and that comes across in some of our very CPU-limited gaming benchmarks. This processor also has 105 W TDP (~142 W peak)."

AMD Zen 3 Ryzen Deep Dive Review: 5950X, 5900X, 5800X and 5600X Tested

www.anandtech.com

This can be confirmed by looking at other reviews and talking to others that own the chip. You have had the chip 1 day and know better cool story. lol anyways enjoy.

 

[moshpit]

lol end of story...

Even anandtech's own review sample was doing 4825mhz

"The Ryzen 7 5800X has a base frequency of 3800 MHz and a rated turbo frequency of 4700 MHz (we detected 4825 MHz), and uses a single eight-core chiplet with a total 32 MB of L3 cache. The single core chiplet has some small benefits over a dual chiplet design where some cross-CPU communication is needed, and that comes across in some of our very CPU-limited gaming benchmarks. This processor also has 105 W TDP (~142 W peak)."

AMD Zen 3 Ryzen Deep Dive Review: 5950X, 5900X, 5800X and 5600X Tested

www.anandtech.com

This can be confirmed by looking at other reviews and talking to other than own the chip. You have had the chip 1 day and know better cool story. lol anyways enjoy.

How many links to AMD do you need? Honestly. Motherboard overclocks at stock settings are well documented and known. It is NOT AMD stock speed.

Mine does that too. It's NOT stock. It's "Asus Stock" or "Gigabyte Stock" or "MSI Stock" which is not running the CPU at stock speed. That is an overclock. Whether it's motherboard factory overclocked or manually overclocked, it's still an overclock and outside of AMD's posted stock speeds.

Edit : Am I the ONLY person who actually looks at the manufacturer listed specs of a part to call it stock or not? It SEEMS more accurate that way, but perhaps this is a "terminology" issue here. I see "stock" as what the manufacturer of that part says is stock. Not what the "default result of the whole" is. The default result of the whole often varies from what individual parts list as stock operation, and noting those differences TO ME, seem important for accuracy? Maybe I'm being TOO rigid in definition?

 

[moshpit]

Makaveli, help me out here. Do you define stock as "Whatever the result of all the parts thrown together turn out as" or do you define stock as "Manufacturer listed specs"? I go with the later, but can see the former as valid too IF I understand that to be your definition.

This will help me understand what YOU mean by stock. Clearly we are operating under different definitions here.

 

[Makaveli]

Makaveli, help me out here. Do you define stock as "Whatever the result of all the parts thrown together turn out as" or do you define stock as "Manufacturer listed specs"? I go with the later, but can see the former as valid too IF I understand that to be your definition.

This will help me understand what YOU mean by stock. Clearly we are operating under different definitions here.

I'm well aware of what AMD list for boost clocks for the chip. But as someone that has owned this chip for 2+ months and based on all the reviews and bios's that I've have gone through the chip will boost higher than 4.7ghz. And that applies to all the Zen 3 chips.

Stock is bios defaults. On my Asus board PBO is set to auto without me changing anything in the bios.

 

[moshpit]

I'm well aware of what AMD list for boost clocks for the chip. But as someone that has owned this chip for 2+ months and based on all the reviews and bios's that I've have gone through the chip will boost higher than 4.7ghz. And that applies to all the Zen 3 chips.

Stock is bios defaults. On my Asus board PBO is set to auto without me changing anything in the bios.

Okay then, to you, stock is defined as "What the sum total of parts together default as" not "listed stock speed by manufacturer". Got it!

 

[moshpit]

I guess the reason that makes ANY difference at all to me is that when I first power on new hardware, I have a DEFINED list of what to expect per the manufacturer's web site and busily write down EVERY anomaly found that doesn't match those specs and track down WHY it's not matching.

Once I'm assured that it's a known thing like motherboard manufacturer "cheating for competition" default settings created for the sole purpose of competing outside of CPU manufacturer specs, then I can set a "base line", a "Default" and a "goal". And that "base line" is important to know what the manufacturer sets as the specs of each part so you know exactly where any inconsistencies that crop later may originate.

I may be too exact, but to me, stock isn't what you slap together, power on, and results in. Stock is a set of rigid specs set by each manufacturer of each part that they will guarantee the operation of that part at that speed.

Maybe I spent too much time helping customers and responsible reporting burned into me the value of hard specs, but this terminology thing about "stock" just being whatever result you get out of the box assembling varied parts from different manufacturers, I don't plan to change my definition. Stock is what AMD says is stock for the chip. They made it, they rated it, they sold it as such. Anything more than that I get is cherry on the sunday and labeled as such.

 

[Udgnim]

4.7 is AMD's guaranteed boost

4.85 is the potential cap a stock 5800X is allowed to boost up to on individual cores with a non PBO enabled motherboard.

motherboard cheating is an Intel thing

motherboard cheating with a Zen 3 CPU is more likely to cause a # of instability / CPU temp issues

 

[moshpit]

4.7 is AMD's guaranteed boost

4.85 is the potential cap a stock 5800X is allowed to boost up to on individual cores with a non PBO enabled motherboard.

motherboard cheating is an Intel thing

motherboard cheating with a Zen 3 CPU is more likely to cause a # of instability / CPU temp issues

Is there AMD documentation to support that? I'm not going to start telling people guesses. If AMD supports "4.85" officially somewhere on 5800X, once I see that data, I can take that to heart. Otherwise, you are doing nothing better than guessing and I won't consider that usable info that I can responsibly spread.

AND, to be fair, as I say this, I have seen that behavior you mention with my own eyes, I just don't buy that it's AMD supported behavior at all. I also claim that it IS motherboard cheating, exactly so. AMD documentation can prove me wrong and I will gladly accept such proof.

Edit: The MOMENT somebody posts AMD official documentation that I can see and share, i will change my tune of calling it motherboard cheating. But until AMD says this 4.85Ghz on 5800X is inside their spec, I do not buy any such assertion based on guessing.

 

[Udgnim]

Is there AMD documentation to support that? I'm not going to start telling people guesses. If AMD supports "4.85" officially somewhere on 5800X, once I see that data, I can take that to heart. Otherwise, you are doing nothing better than guessing and I won't consider that usable info that I can responsibly spread.

AND, to be fair, as I say this, I have seen that behavior you mention with my own eyes, I just don't buy that it's AMD supported behavior at all. I also claim that it IS motherboard cheating, exactly so. AMD documentation can prove me wrong and I will gladly accept such proof.

Edit: The MOMENT somebody posts AMD official documentation that I can see and share, i will change my tune of calling it motherboard cheating. But until AMD says this 4.85Ghz on 5800X is inside their spec, I do not buy any such assertion based on guessing.

there isn't AMD documentation on the actual max stock boost because AMD received a ton of flak for overstating boosts on past CPU gen releases

it's easy to infer the max stock boost though because if someone were to change the boost offset on a 5800X, a +0 offset results in a 4.85 boost, a +50 offset results in a 4.9 max boost, and a -50 offset results in a 4.8 max boost

 

[moinmoin]

Is there AMD documentation to support that?

No, it's only observation. But when Zen 2 launched the boost clock in many cases was close to a hard cap ST seldom reached and then for such a short time it was hard to verify. Over time several BIOS fixes and and better binning changed the picture considerably. When Zen 3 launched the boost clock was reachable and easily verifiable, with higher clocks commonly reached even at stock. This is the earliest post I'm aware of where one came to the conclusion that this is a conscious and significant change by AMD even if it's not publicly documented as such:

Looks like AMD took the right lessons from the Zen 2 boost ("but it never reaches that?"), OC (the complete lack of headroom for it) and PBO ("useless and even counter-productive") debacle. Now the boost clock advertised for both Zen 2 and RDNA2 is actually consequently the guaranteed lower end of the boost range.

(Second mention of Zen 2 should be Zen 3.)

 

[moshpit]

there isn't AMD documentation on the actual max stock boost because AMD received a ton of flak for overstating boosts on past CPU gen releases

it's easy to infer the max stock boost though because if someone were to change the boost offset on a 5800X, a +0 offset results in a 4.85 boost, a +50 offset results in a 4.9 max boost, and a -50 offset results in a 4.8 max boost

Well, it's not like I can say "Mine doesn't do that!" cause it absolutely does, lol. Hell, it does it and runs stupid cool in the process. Also, it's not like AMD is gonna strip my warranty from me over 4.85Ghz...

BUT, as a responsible builder and advisor to many, I cannot and will not tell anybody that their out of box experience with 5800X running 4.85Ghz is a "stock" experience when that is not the case at all for some OEM machines using the same processor and hard locking down the speed to AMD's listed specs, potentially. Because there is nothing concrete I can point a customer to and say "See, AMD says that out of box experience is to be expected, nothing is 'cheating' or misbehaving except the normal motherboard competitiveness stuff".

That doesn't fly with a good number of buyers. Some will get it, many will not. I'm going to HAVE to stick with the "motherboard cheating" explanation barring any evidence of AMD support for this behavior when explaining to customers why they see that. That is a concept they generally DO understand, motherboards pushing a CPU a bit past spec out of the box is not new, it is well known behavior and generally called "competition".

Edit: Multiple rephrases to better say what I mean.

 

[gdansk]

AMD had a PR issue last generation with certain CPUs not boosting to their advertised "Max Boost Clock" except in trivial workloads (basically NOP loops).

This time they market them with a low "Max Boost Clock". Many chips will surpass it even in non-trivial workloads. Almost everyone agrees this is a better way to do it. Who can be mad when your chip often exceeds the advertised specifications? But in the end it is still dependent on workload.

 

[LikeLinus]

Well, it's not like I can say "Mine doesn't do that!" cause it absolutely does, lol. Hell, it does it and runs stupid cool in the process. Also, it's not like AMD is gonna strip my warranty from me over 4.85Ghz...

Let's hope to God you never purchase wood or a car. Your head would explode and send you in to panic attacks.

 

[Noid]

I did some comparisons with my ASUS x470 and my MSI x570 with 3 different Zen chips.
In both MB's PBO set to AUTO = PBO ON ( enabled ).

( use HWINFO to determine the limits on each " preset " - [ not manual ]
depending your multiplier )

You will need to specify PBO DISABLED for no MB " overclocking ".
( PBO = Boost mode )

Leaving any BIOS setting to AUTO is still letting the MB make decisions on " defaults ".

These chips are supposed to be used with some degree of " PBO ". ( auto as default )

Set your CPU voltage to defaults and see what happens. ( Prime95 )
In my tests heat becomes an issue with PBO disabled in both mb's.
I had to specify LLC to Mode 3 in P95.
( my daily use is LLC mode 1 )
( There is no limit for PPT with PBO disabled - and thermal shutdown can occur with my current BIOS not using thermal protection warnings )

This is the 1st time I ever considered water cooling in all my years.
( I have always prefer an all core OC at default voltage )

I really don't think that any warranty claims would be denied.
( unless it smells like it was on fire ... lol )

Enjoy the fun you guys ... you have some nice setups.

 

[PJVol]

I cannot and will not tell anybody that their out of box experience with 5800X running 4.85Ghz is a "stock" experience when that is not the case at all

AMD can list whatever spec they want on their website, but you seem to miss the fact, that although mb vendors may cheat one way or other, allowing some light OC in a certain board's default settings, the CPU's have fused model specific limits or default initialization data . For example, my 5600X according to specs have 4.6Ghz max clock, but if you look at reported OP's, there are Fmax and Precision Boost limits set to 4650mhz either fused or set by AGESA initialization code, and they have little to do with motherboard's settings.
Not sure about 5800X, but for the 5600X max. clocks (including boost) is 4.65 Ghz.

Idk, may be spec doesn't take into account Precision Boost, though it considered default by AMD themselves.

 

[PJVol]

There is no limit for PPT with PBO disabled

Then something is messed up in your bios settings, since with PBO "disabled" (on my board same as Auto) - fused CPU limits should come into effect (76W on 5600X).

 

[moshpit]

AMD can list whatever spec they want on their website, but you seem to miss the fact, that although mb vendors may cheat one way or other, allowing some light OC in a certain board's default settings, the CPU's have fused model specific limits or default initialization data . For example, my 5600X according to specs have 4.6Ghz max clock, but if you look at reported OP's, there are Fmax and Precision Boost limits set to 4650mhz either fused or set by AGESA initialization code, and they have little to do with motherboard's settings.
Not sure about 5800X, but for the 5600X max. clocks (including boost) is 4.65 Ghz.

Idk, may be spec doesn't take into account Precision Boost, though it considered default by AMD themselves.

View attachment 42061

Not sure if you've ever built computers for more than yourself, but if you have, you'd know that none of what you said is an acceptable answer to tell customers without losing reputation for looking like you are guessing when the MANUFACTURER themselves don't list those clocks ANYWHERE on their site...

It's a bad look, professionally speaking. When asked WHY something runs outside of spec, responding with "Oh it's okay, it's supposed to do that. AMD sneaks you extra clocks under the table, but it's well known..." BS, that answer loses customers and makes a tech look dumb or worse, like their making crap up.

Professionally, pointing to the manufacturer and saying "They list this, so it runs like that exactly" is a major part of tech supporting builds. CLEARLY many of you don't have this burden on your plate or you'd be more concerned about actual FACTUAL published numbers. Saying "Oh AMD suffered from this, so they sneak you that, now..." BULLCRAP. That is not an explanation. That is a cop out.

So yeah, I'm sticking to "motherboard cheating" for this explanation because until I can show something from AMD saying that is normal behavior, that is professional hell of just throwing guesses with no sources out there. NOT how I do business...

FURTHERMORE, the excuse somebody else gave of "Who's gonna complain about it running faster?" was CLEARLY made out of professional ignorance because there ARE customers who will complain when ANYTHING is out of spec. I'm very GLAD most of you have simple customer demands from you, but SOME of us work in the real world where people DO make note of these things and complain about them... and outright return hardware when it's not EXACTLY what they expected.

It's real nice when all you have to worry about is yourself or a few friends around you. SOME of us do tech work outside of our own home, and deal with the general public. Conspiracy theories kill jobs, and saying AMD is sneaking clocks under the table to us sounds like a conspiracy theory. I know it's true, YOU know it's true... but most others are not gonna buy it. And I will lose jobs by sticking to that explanation. Screw that.

Edit: In the PROFESSIONAL world, there are customers who will lose their minds over 10Mhz off, plus or minus, they don't care, it's out of spec and MUST be killing their hardware, in their minds. They know it all. And I have to do business with them, I don't get to pick and chose my customers. SOOO nice that many of you can, some of us live in the REAL world.

Edit 2: This will inevitably lead to me having to listen to customers telling me why I should have built them an Intel instead.... and they're right! At least they get the advertised clock speeds exactly. And they WILL say that, regardless of anything else, I am the one who gets to face them and lose that job because I tried to tell them AMD sneaks extra clocks to them under the table...

I would think there would be more than me here with 30 years professional experience dealing with the general computing public and the insanity they bring to your desk daily. WHY add to it? Why make your job messier? It's already a hodge podge soup of standards as it is, and now we have to tell customers there IS no set clock standards on AMD? Yikes. Sounds fishy to me. Telling somebody the standards listed on the site are more like guidelines than rules is NOT how one sells computers...

 

[blckgrffn]

Not sure if you've ever built computers for more than yourself, but if you have, you'd know that none of what you said is an acceptable answer to tell customers without losing reputation for looking like you are guessing when the MANUFACTURER themselves don't list those clocks ANYWHERE on their site...

It's a bad look, professionally speaking. When asked WHY something runs outside of spec, responding with "Oh it's okay, it's supposed to do that. AMD sneaks you extra clocks under the table, but it's well known..." BS, that answer loses customers and makes a tech look dumb or worse, like their making crap up.

Professionally, pointing to the manufacturer and saying "They list this, so it runs like that exactly" is a major part of tech supporting builds. CLEARLY many of you don't have this burden on your plate or you'd be more concerned about actual FACTUAL published numbers. Saying "Oh AMD suffered from this, so they sneak you that, now..." BULLCRAP. That is not an explanation. That is a cop out.

So yeah, I'm sticking to "motherboard cheating" for this explanation because until I can show something from AMD saying that is normal behavior, that is professional hell of just throwing guesses with no sources out there. NOT how I do business...

Seriously.

If it bothers you that much then limit it manually.

It’s a no win situation. You can also be stuck with customers saying you lied and the system never hits advertised clocks (long enough for a human to see) as they did with previous Zen CPUs.

If you are this upset go build an Intel system right now and see what kind of controls you have over exact clock speeds. GLHF

Furthermore, I’ve custom built what has to be a couple hundred systems at this point and never, not once, have they ever brought up clock speeds after purchase. As long as the CPU matched what they were told they were getting, they were pleased.

That’s why they had me build it for them. They don’t have to bother trusting those companies because they put the trust in me to ensure it does what they needed it do. Actual clock speeds and the like are irrelevant details they don’t want to mess with.

 

[moshpit]

Here's a scenario that DOES happen... a lot, for professional builders.

Customer A says "I want a pure stable PC, there can be nothing overclocking related involved because -I- know that overclocking kills hardware and nothing you say will convince me otherwise... now advise me in those parameters."

Now, say out loud "AMD doesn't overclock their processors, they sneak you extra clocks because they got in trouble last generation and now sneak you free Mhz!"

Say that out loud and think about how the customer who said the first part is gonna react. Honestly.

Edit: Yanno what, nevermind. This is a waste of breath, there are no fellow pro builders here, or if so, they don't care what business they lose for "guessing" specs. I'm clearly out of place.

 

[PJVol]

Come on, are you serious ? I think you just trolling people here.

none of what you said is an acceptable answer to tell customers without losing reputation

Just thought, what a weird customers who are buying mainstream desktop CPU's or PC and are all as one with claims of concern about the clocks exceeds the specs, ...

 

[Hitman928]

Here's a scenario that DOES happen... a lot, for professional builders.

Customer A says "I want a pure stable PC, there can be nothing overclocking related involved because -I- know that overclocking kills hardware and nothing you say will convince me otherwise... now advise me in those parameters."

Now, say out loud "AMD doesn't overclock their processors, they sneak you extra clocks because they got in trouble last generation and now sneak you free Mhz!"

Say that out loud and think about how the customer who said the first part is gonna react. Honestly.

Edit: Yanno what, nevermind. This is a waste of breath, there are no fellow pro builders here, or if so, they don't care what business they lose for "guessing" specs. I'm clearly out of place.

The truth is, with precision boost on, the Zen3 CPUs are very opportunistic to boosting as high as possible given a set of conditions is true (Power limit, temp, etc.). Because CPUs aren't exact clones of one another and there is some variance in the process quality, even given the exact same environment, some CPUs will be able to boost higher than others. Thus, AMD lists the minimum boost frequency that can be achieved given the process variance in CPUs within that SKU. CPUs with better silicon will boost higher than this but the difference is really minor in the end. This isn't a motherboard cheat, it is simply AMD making a really smart boost algorithm that allows for process variance.

If the customer is that concerned about it, you should probably just turn off precision boost entirely as it causes the CPU to exceed advertised TDP spec to begin with. Of course they'll get less performance, but if they are neurotic about staying in spec, that is the only solution.

 

[Udgnim]

if you're building PCs for someone, then by all means use AMD's advertised boost for stating build specs

we're just saying the actual max boost is potentially higher than AMD's advertised boost.

AMD having a lower advertised boost than the potential actual max boost does 2 things for AMD. the lower advertised boost ensures that that target is either always hit or exceeded and the higher potential max boost allows for better benchmark #s from review sites.

 

[Justinus]

Not sure if you've ever built computers for more than yourself, but if you have, you'd know that none of what you said is an acceptable answer to tell customers without losing reputation for looking like you are guessing when the MANUFACTURER themselves don't list those clocks ANYWHERE on their site...

It's a bad look, professionally speaking. When asked WHY something runs outside of spec, responding with "Oh it's okay, it's supposed to do that. AMD sneaks you extra clocks under the table, but it's well known..." BS, that answer loses customers and makes a tech look dumb or worse, like their making crap up.

Professionally, pointing to the manufacturer and saying "They list this, so it runs like that exactly" is a major part of tech supporting builds. CLEARLY many of you don't have this burden on your plate or you'd be more concerned about actual FACTUAL published numbers. Saying "Oh AMD suffered from this, so they sneak you that, now..." BULLCRAP. That is not an explanation. That is a cop out.

So yeah, I'm sticking to "motherboard cheating" for this explanation because until I can show something from AMD saying that is normal behavior, that is professional hell of just throwing guesses with no sources out there. NOT how I do business...

FURTHERMORE, the excuse somebody else gave of "Who's gonna complain about it running faster?" was CLEARLY made out of professional ignorance because there ARE customers who will complain when ANYTHING is out of spec. I'm very GLAD most of you have simple customer demands from you, but SOME of us work in the real world where people DO make note of these things and complain about them... and outright return hardware when it's not EXACTLY what they expected.

It's real nice when all you have to worry about is yourself or a few friends around you. SOME of us do tech work outside of our own home, and deal with the general public. Conspiracy theories kill jobs, and saying AMD is sneaking clocks under the table to us sounds like a conspiracy theory. I know it's true, YOU know it's true... but most others are not gonna buy it. And I will lose jobs by sticking to that explanation. Screw that.

Edit: In the PROFESSIONAL world, there are customers who will lose their minds over 10Mhz off, plus or minus, they don't care, it's out of spec and MUST be killing their hardware, in their minds. They know it all. And I have to do business with them, I don't get to pick and chose my customers. SOOO nice that many of you can, some of us live in the REAL world.

Edit 2: This will inevitably lead to me having to listen to customers telling me why I should have built them an Intel instead.... and they're right! At least they get the advertised clock speeds exactly. And they WILL say that, regardless of anything else, I am the one who gets to face them and lose that job because I tried to tell them AMD sneaks extra clocks to them under the table...

I would think there would be more than me here with 30 years professional experience dealing with the general computing public and the insanity they bring to your desk daily. WHY add to it? Why make your job messier? It's already a hodge podge soup of standards as it is, and now we have to tell customers there IS no set clock standards on AMD? Yikes. Sounds fishy to me. Telling somebody the standards listed on the site are more like guidelines than rules is NOT how one sells computers...

These finicky customers had better never use a modern GPU, they would have a convulsive fit over modern GPU boost technologies going far above documented and advertised clockspeeds and how variable it is from sample to sample.

 

[turtile]

Here's a scenario that DOES happen... a lot, for professional builders.

Customer A says "I want a pure stable PC, there can be nothing overclocking related involved because -I- know that overclocking kills hardware and nothing you say will convince me otherwise... now advise me in those parameters."

Now, say out loud "AMD doesn't overclock their processors, they sneak you extra clocks because they got in trouble last generation and now sneak you free Mhz!"

Say that out loud and think about how the customer who said the first part is gonna react. Honestly.

Edit: Yanno what, nevermind. This is a waste of breath, there are no fellow pro builders here, or if so, they don't care what business they lose for "guessing" specs. I'm clearly out of place.

Why don't you give your customers what they want? Do they want a stable clock? Lock them at 4.7Ghz max. Do you offer them ECC memory?