3900X 오버클럭 가이드 - 3900X obeokeulleog gaideu

I have a ryzen 3900x and I want to boost the core speed to 4.4GHz on 1.4v since the speed is limiting my fps in valorant. I was wondering if 4.4GHz and 1.4v is safe for long term use. The temperatures when stress testing peaks at 65C and its completely stable. Is this safe or will my cpu degrade over time?

and 85C peak temp, my bad 😅

but could i increase to 4.4GHz if its stable?

i would say 4.4ghz up to 1.5v is safe for gaming, but i would monitor temps to make sure you are staying under 80c for long term use.

If you are rendering or something that uses very high power draw i would not recommend anything over 1.4v at again under 80c.

i would say temps are key and time is also key. if you push a cpu to 80c for hours it will probably be fine, if you push a cpu to 100c for days/weeks it could shorten the life span considerably.

Mind you its your cpu, you do what you are comfortable with. some will say nothing over 1.35v is safe. If it dies early is that ok with you? how much is a few extra frames really worth to you in $

In most games you will get more frames from tuning the memory for better latency and or better speed. but valorant i am not sure exactly.

What type of frames are you getting / what are you goals?
what are your current ram speed/timings
are you running PBO, stock, static oc?

I have a ryzen 3900x and I want to boost the core speed to 4.4GHz on 1.4v since the speed is limiting my fps in valorant. I was wondering if 4.4GHz and 1.4v is safe for long term use. The temperatures when stress testing peaks at 65C and its completely stable. Is this safe or will my cpu degrade over time?

From a quick Google search, it would appear Valorant is CPU-intensive and uses AVX (128) [although the 3000 series and below has a faulty way of implementing AVX2 that was fixed on the 5000 series - it basically makes it slightly slower].

With that in mind, I wouldn't go anywhere near 1.4V for "long term use" as it will degrade the CPU with that type of workload and voltage. Instead, see what clocks you can get achieve at ~1.30-1.35 max. If you can lower clocks to 4.2 GHz at 1.325V, that would be far better for constant use than 4.4 GHz at 1.4V.

i would say 4.4ghz up to 1.5v is safe for gaming

Not in a game which appears to be CPU-intensive and uses AVX (128). Most AAA titles now use AVX, albeit with only 3-6 cores, but the new consoles support AVX2. This means more games will utilise AVX (128) and AVX2(56). And recommending 4.40 GHz @ 1.5V for daily use is cruel IMO (obviously not deliberately so).

[Edit] An example: In Assassin's Creed: Odyssey, which uses AVX2, my CPU (5900X, stock) clocks up to 4.70 GHz

@ ~1.36V on (what seems like) six cores.

there's safer way to get 4.4avx under 12core load on that 3900x

bios versions around day1, the EDC bug works very well on Zen2

with my 3900x, +75mv vcore with EDC bug results in 4.4boost for 12core AVX and I still get 4.65 ST AVX.

I usually don't run older bios,they are mostly stable for 1800IF; 1900IF is very hard to get stable.

I like the new bios(rebar support), even with lower cpu boost, having 1900IF 3800cl14 bdie working gives the best FPS gains on Zen2

Still waiting on gigabyte to fix their new bios (c-state bug)

From a quick Google search, it would appear Valorant is CPU-intensive and uses AVX (128) [although the 3000 series and below has a faulty way of implementing AVX2 that was fixed on the 5000 series - it basically makes it slightly slower].

With that in mind, I wouldn't go anywhere near 1.4V for "long term use" as it will degrade the CPU with that type of workload and voltage. Instead, see what clocks you can get achieve at ~1.30-1.35 max. If you can lower clocks to 4.2 GHz at 1.325V, that would be far better for constant use than 4.4 GHz at 1.4V.
Not in a game which appears to be CPU-intensive and uses AVX (128). Most AAA titles now use AVX, albeit with only 3-6 cores, but the new consoles support AVX2. This means more games will utilise AVX (128) and AVX2(56). And recommending 4.40 GHz @ 1.5V for daily use is cruel IMO (obviously not deliberately so).

[Edit] An example: In Assassin's Creed: Odyssey, which uses AVX2, my CPU (5900X, stock) clocks up to 4.70 GHz

sustained

@ ~1.36V on (what seems like) six cores.

The thing is that i have a 240hz monitor and a 2080 super, although my fps was limited to around 150 because it was limited by the speed of the cpu. My goal is to boost the speed of the cpu as much as possible without turning into a pile of dust in 1 year

so if 4.2GHz and 1.325v is as fast as i can get without changing cpu every 2 years, im more than fine (i tried overclocking 6 months ago and turned everything to the max like an idiot and had to boot into safe mode 😅 )

there's safer way to get 4.4avx under 12core load on that 3900x

bios versions around day1, the EDC bug works very well on Zen2

with my 3900x, +75mv vcore with EDC bug results in 4.4boost for 12core AVX and I still get 4.65 ST AVX.

I usually don't run older bios,they are mostly stable for 1800IF; 1900IF is very hard to get stable.

I like the new bios(rebar support), even with lower cpu boost, having 1900IF 3800cl14 bdie working gives the best FPS gains on Zen2

Still waiting on gigabyte to fix their new bios (c-state bug)

I'm on 35b bios with Gigabyte all newer ones have that problem you mentioned. I can run 3800/1900 but with far looser timings than you have cl14 is that with GDM enabled? And what volts are you running for those tight timings?

I'm on 35b bios with Gigabyte all newer ones have that problem you mentioned. I can run 3800/1900 but with far looser timings than you have cl14 is that with GDM enabled? And what volts are you running for those tight timings?

1.56v, but that's mostly for getting very low trfc (might as well, it's bdie)

4x8Gb Patriot 4400cl19 kits, GDM off 1T is very hard, near impossible

I'm sitting at 62.x latency, IMC limit on Zen2

From a quick Google search, it would appear Valorant is CPU-intensive and uses AVX (128) [although the 3000 series and below has a faulty way of implementing AVX2 that was fixed on the 5000 series - it basically makes it slightly slower].

With that in mind, I wouldn't go anywhere near 1.4V for "long term use" as it will degrade the CPU with that type of workload and voltage. Instead, see what clocks you can get achieve at ~1.30-1.35 max. If you can lower clocks to 4.2 GHz at 1.325V, that would be far better for constant use than 4.4 GHz at 1.4V.
Not in a game which appears to be CPU-intensive and uses AVX (128). Most AAA titles now use AVX, albeit with only 3-6 cores, but the new consoles support AVX2. This means more games will utilise AVX (128) and AVX2(56). And recommending 4.40 GHz @ 1.5V for daily use is cruel IMO (obviously not deliberately so).

[Edit] An example: In Assassin's Creed: Odyssey, which uses AVX2, my CPU (5900X, stock) clocks up to 4.70 GHz

sustained

@ ~1.36V on (what seems like) six cores.

it all depends on cooling, if he can keep temps under 80c the rest really matter none. if he has too much voltage with not enough cooling his temps will be over 80c not much else to it. high temps kill. high speed with high voltage is just much harder to control temp. you can run 5ghz at 1.6vcore and be fine so long as you never put the cpu to work. hence why i said under 80c if he choses to ignore temperature thats on him.

with my 3900x, +75mv vcore with EDC bug results in 4.4boost for 12core AVX and I still get 4.65 ST AVX.

I thought that only resulted in clock-stretching, rather than Zen 3-like clocks. I'll re-read the EDC tweak to see if I misunderstood it.

so if 4.2GHz and 1.325v is as fast as i can get without changing cpu every 2 years, im more than fine

Obviously it's your CPU, your PC, and your money. If you want to run at 4.4 GHz at 1.4V then do it. But if you want a middle ground then I wouldn't suggest going over 1.35V for everyday use. A few thoughts/questions:

• Does your motherboard have any particular feature where you can set voltage per CCD/CCX? That might give you the performance you need (e.g. CCX0 = 1.375V 4.4 GHz / CCX1 = 1.300V 4.0 GHz)
• Since you don't need all 12 cores, how about using something like Project Lasso and setting Valorant to only run on the first 6 cores (which should be higher binned)? That make make your chip more likely to boost using PB to somewhere around 4.4/4.5 GHz. It would definitely be worth trying and I'd start with stock CPU settings and then a test with Project Lasso w/ Valorant.

(i tried overclocking 6 months ago and turned everything to the max like an idiot and had to boot into safe mode 😅 )

Everyone makes mistakes. No point in putting yourself down.

if he can keep temps under 80c the rest really matter none.

If a fixed overclock is used, which was the impression I got from the first post, then let's say the CPU is at 75°C / 1.45V / 120A / 135W. That really does matter and will kill the chip, or severely degrade it, with only a couple of months of use. Obviously 1.5V is fine if it's like my PC at (mostly) idle - 1.48V, 28A/26A/57W.

you can run 5ghz at 1.6vcore and be fine so long as you never put the cpu to work

But the point of this thread is to put the CPU to work on a title which uses an engine with AVX, and is reasonably optimised (in terms of thread utilisation).

2-300mhz is not limiting you in gaming.
2-300mhz is gonna give you 5 more fps, and 20ºC extra. Fix the ram if you didnt already. That should squeze you out another 15-20fps. Valorant should run 240fps on a 3900x no problem

2-300mhz is not limiting you in gaming.
2-300mhz is gonna give you 5 more fps, and 20ºC extra. Fix the ram if you didnt already. That should squeze you out another 15-20fps. Valorant should run 240fps on a 3900x no problem

wait what? when i look at how my cpu is used during valorant its around 30 percent but all the cores are set to the max mhz. so in my head it makes sense to boost it. even with 4.2GHz (400mhz boost) i gained an extra 10-125 fps. and what ram? im asuming the ram you put in the motherboard? cause i have 32gb 3600mhz ram, which seems like plenty.

What solution do you propose?

I thought that only resulted in clock-stretching, rather than Zen 3-like clocks. I'll re-read the EDC tweak to see if I misunderstood it.
Obviously it's your CPU, your PC, and your money. If you want to run at 4.4 GHz at 1.4V then do it. But if you want a middle ground then I wouldn't suggest going over 1.35V for everyday use. A few thoughts/questions:

• Does your motherboard have any particular feature where you can set voltage per CCD/CCX? That might give you the performance you need (e.g. CCX0 = 1.375V 4.4 GHz / CCX1 = 1.300V 4.0 GHz)
• Since you don't need all 12 cores, how about using something like Project Lasso and setting Valorant to only run on the first 6 cores (which should be higher binned)? That make make your chip more likely to boost using PB to somewhere around 4.4/4.5 GHz. It would definitely be worth trying and I'd start with stock CPU settings and then a test with Project Lasso w/ Valorant.

Everyone makes mistakes. No point in putting yourself down.
If a fixed overclock is used, which was the impression I got from the first post, then let's say the CPU is at 75°C / 1.45V / 120A / 135W. That really does matter and will kill the chip, or severely degrade it, with only a couple of months of use. Obviously 1.5V is fine if it's like my PC at (mostly) idle - 1.48V, 28A/26A/57W.
But the point of this thread is to put the CPU to work on a title which uses an engine with AVX, and is reasonably optimised (in terms of thread utilisation).

So your saying since is AVX it will make the chip pull more amps. But pulling more amps via AVX means it wont increase temps? 75c is NOT going to degrade a cpu in its functional life span. If it did the stock AMD boost would not push 90c. I am sorry but do you have any reason to say 75c is NOT safe? because i have yet to kill a cpu or any of my customers pc's. i have never had a cpu die. I have seen cpu's die from people that never watch temps and just let the cpu cook at stock speed. What makes you KNOW 75c is not safe? or maybe you dont know your just afraid it might.

We all know running cooler is going to make a cpu last longer. Some cpus might degrade before others. still tho it could take many years of 80c use to even see any degradation. I still have a few really old pc's in use that have been cooking for years. they still working 10+ years later. You also should keep in mind this is a game engine, not a synthetic burn test. or some other type of cache only workload that just cooks. Also he is only going to game for a few so many hours a day not 24/7. He is also there to monitor the temps and not just let the pc run on its own for weeks at a time. thermal sensors are much better in new cpu's. So you can see really high temps without damage to the cpu because the cpu's are much better at thermal management.

wait what? when i look at how my cpu is used during valorant its around 30 percent but all the cores are set to the max mhz. so in my head it makes sense to boost it. even with 4.2GHz (400mhz boost) i gained an extra 10-125 fps. and what ram? im asuming the ram you put in the motherboard? cause i have 32gb 3600mhz ram, which seems like plenty.

What solution do you propose?

working on your RAM's timing tables will probably net you better playability / smoother frames and even better average frames. CPU is only one part of the puzzle. The game will only run as fast as the weakest point. He is saying your latency is most likely the lowest hanging fruit in your system.

then let's say the CPU is at 75°C / 1.45V / 120A / 135W. That really does matter and will kill the chip

Amps x Volts = Watts

1.45 x 120 = 174W

Not sure what your even trying to say here tbh.