Monday, April 16th 2018

AMD Ryzen 7 2700X and Ryzen 5 2600X Overclock to 5.88 GHz

PC enthusiast "TSAIK" with access to AMD Ryzen 7 2700X and Ryzen 5 2600X chips put them through rigorous overclocking to achieve speeds as high as 5.88 GHz on both, with all cores enabled, demonstrating the improved overclocking headroom AMD achieved by switching to the newer 12 nm process. The 2700X achieved 5884 MHz with a 58.25X multiplier on a 101.02 MHz base clock, and a scorching 1.76V core voltage. The 2600X, on the other hand, reached 5882 MHz riding on the same 58.25X multiplier with 101 MHz base clock, and a slightly higher 1.768V. Both chips have all their cores and SMT enabled. The 2700X was overclocked on the MSI X470 Gaming M7 AC, while an MSI X470 Gaming Plus powered the 2600X overclock. A single 8 GB G.Skill Trident-Z DDR4 module was used on both feats. As expected, a liquid nitrogen evaporator was used on both chips.
Add your own comment

38 Comments on AMD Ryzen 7 2700X and Ryzen 5 2600X Overclock to 5.88 GHz

#1
lynx29
yawnfest 2018. liquid nitrogen testing is dumb as crap. realistic parameters or go home.

I'm only 600mhz behind on my 8600k, and i am on air. lulz.
Posted on Reply
#2
eidairaman1
The Exiled Airman
Good To Know, course ymmv still applies. It to me seems the Chip hits a thermal barrier pretty quickly hence the LN2 use.

I wonder if turning xfr off or removing it from chips would allow even better oc/yields.

lynx29, I'm on a 6 year old chip by architecture and it runs 5.0GHz on Air, so yours isn't special.
Posted on Reply
#3
HTC
Question: If it's all cores enabled @ this speed, why does CPU-Z validator show, under "Cores Frequencies" section, only one of the cores achieved that speed?

Here's the one from the 2700X, but this behaviour is also present on the 2600X's validation:



As can be seen, only one of the cores is @ the speed "advertised". Is this a problem with CPU-Z? I find it odd that there's such a disparity on the core's speeds.
Posted on Reply
#4
eidairaman1
The Exiled Airman
HTC said:
Question: If it's all cores enabled @ this speed, why does CPU-Z validator show, under "Cores Frequencies" section, only one of the cores achieved that speed?

Here's the one from the 2700X, but this behaviour is also present on the 2600X's validation:



As can be seen, only one of the cores is @ the speed "advertised". Is this a problem with CPU-Z? I find it odd that there's such a disparity on the core's speeds.
They did an XFR OC it would seem, my cpu shows in hardware monitor by CPUID or even openhardwaremonitor as 5.0 on all 8
Posted on Reply
#5
HTC
eidairaman1 said:
They did an XFR OC it would seem, my cpu shows in hardware monitor by CPUID or even openhardwaremonitor as 5.0 on all 8
I figure one of these is the cause:

- CPU-Z is incorrectly validating an "all cores enable" CPU when only one of the cores is @ the speed advertised
- CPU-Z is incorrectly reporting the speeds of the other cores

Can't think of anything else that might cause this.

EDIT

Just noticed that "all cores enabled" isn't the same as "all cores @ X speed". As such, it's properly validated: my bad.
Posted on Reply
#6
medi01
btarunr said:
a liquid nitrogen evaporator was used
Sigh... At least tell us previous gen figures.

lynx29 said:
my 8600k
Has 2 cores less.
Posted on Reply
#7
bug
Wth, 1.7V will fry that within a year.
Posted on Reply
#8
Tomgang
Its all great ans all. But i think what people really want to know is how high can it oc to on air/water cooling.
Posted on Reply
#9
Kommanche
Tomgang said:
Its all great ans all. But i think what people really want to know is how high can it oc to on air/water cooling.
I expect that they'll OC to mostly around 4.4Ghz with some samples hitting 4.5Ghz and very few hitting 4.6Ghz.
Posted on Reply
#10
bug
I still don't think there's much point left for overclocking these days.
I mean, in the old days you would take a cheap AthlonXP2500+, overclock it to 3200+ levels and you'd get the performance of a chip that was $100-200 more expensive.
Today, there are still some chips that overclock like crazy, but they overclock themselves by default, if there's thermal headroom. Overclocking manually rarely yields 20% on top of that. While at the same time throwing several levels of power saving under the bus.

I mean, sure, from a technical point of view, I'm still curious to see what each chip can do (and that includes air, water and LN2). It's just that real-life use cases aren't there anymore.
Posted on Reply
#11
Assimilator
I'm really getting tired of clickbait headlines on TPU.

Put "on LN2" in the damn headline so that the fanboys who don't read any further than that, don't flood the internet with "OMG Ryzen 2 overclok teh best intel r sux!!!!111oneoneone".
Posted on Reply
#12
Tomgang
Kommanche said:
I expect that they'll OC to mostly around 4.4Ghz with some samples hitting 4.5Ghz and very few hitting 4.6Ghz.
Thatis also where i would set oc to at least on air.
Posted on Reply
#13
Vayra86
Its funny how a soldered Ryzen is temperature limited at such a low frequency.

Puts certain things in perspective. :rolleyes:
Posted on Reply
#14
lynx29
medi01 said:



Has 2 cores less.
but probably still beats it in cinebench single score! LOL ;) 228 is my score, what is there score under liquid nitrogen, I probably still win, lulz. sad. im on air :D

see sig ;)
Posted on Reply
#15
bug
lynx29 said:
see sig ;)
See other sources :D
Not only did the Greeks lose a battle they should have won at Thermopylae, the Persians ransacked Greece for about a year after that.

Or maybe that's what you meant?
Posted on Reply
#16
lynx29
bug said:
See other sources :D
Not only did the Greeks lose a battle they should have won at Thermopylae, the Persians ransacked Greece for about a year after that.

Or maybe that's what you meant?
I am indeed hoping Ryzen 2 and Vega 2 make a comeback. ;)

but for now, I require ultimate performance, and only Sparta can give it to me.
Posted on Reply
#17
ZoneDymo
Vayra86 said:
Its funny how a soldered Ryzen is temperature limited at such a low frequency.

Puts certain things in perspective. :rolleyes:
I mean, idk, I still see a much bigger company going a much cheaper/consumer unfriendly route than the much smaller competition sooo things were already in perspective for most of us.
But do tell me what an untreated 8core Intel cpu has been clocked to.
Posted on Reply
#18
cdawall
where the hell are my stars
ZoneDymo said:
I mean, idk, I still see a much bigger company going a much cheaper/consumer unfriendly route than the much smaller competition sooo things were already in perspective for most of us.
But do tell me what an untreated 8core Intel cpu has been clocked to.
The record holding 5960X hit 6.6ghz almost 3 years ago...
Posted on Reply
#19
Vayra86
ZoneDymo said:
I mean, idk, I still see a much bigger company going a much cheaper/consumer unfriendly route than the much smaller competition sooo things were already in perspective for most of us.
But do tell me what an untreated 8core Intel cpu has been clocked to.
The logic here seems to fail miserably though, what you are now saying is that the cheaper, 'more crappy' solution nets better or at least equal results. Surely that can't be right? Or...
7820X is 8c16t and comes with 4.3 Ghz out of the box, on toothpaste, as a 140W TDP CPU as opposed to these 105W Ryzens on solder.

If you need reality checks, I am happy to provide...
Posted on Reply
#20
phill
I'm loving the news :)
Posted on Reply
#21
dalekdukesboy
Go AMD, they are only reason processor prices have come down and innovation has started in last year or so as Intel scrambles to wake up after years of coasting while AMD sucked....all good as they say!
Posted on Reply
#22
Slizzo
lynx29 said:
I am indeed hoping Ryzen 2 and Vega 2 make a comeback. ;)

but for now, I require ultimate performance, and only Sparta can give it to me.
You do know that in history, Sparta was actually a pretty backwards nation with a history of slavery, abuse and what would now be known as human rights violations? While Persia was a fairly modern nation in terms of how it handled pretty much everything?

Beyond that, yes, we know Intel is strong at single thread, but increasingly more and more things are getting multi-threaded. This is the way forward. I'd take a slightly slower single thread result for a better multi-thread result (thus the rig in my sig. When I bought it it was not the best single thread, but shed loads better multi-thread).
Posted on Reply
#23
bug
Slizzo said:
You do know that in history, Sparta was actually a pretty backwards nation with a history of slavery, abuse and what would now be known as human rights violations?
You've just described pretty much every nation till at least 1800.
Slizzo said:
While Persia was a fairly modern nation in terms of how it handled pretty much everything?
While still having slavery and the works. On a smaller scale, but slavery still.

Oh look, we didn't drift from the topic at all!
Posted on Reply
#24
Paganstomp


That's right! Throw some LN2 on it. It'll fix almost anything.
Posted on Reply
#25
lynx29
Slizzo said:
You do know that in history, Sparta was actually a pretty backwards nation with a history of slavery, abuse and what would now be known as human rights violations? While Persia was a fairly modern nation in terms of how it handled pretty much everything?

Beyond that, yes, we know Intel is strong at single thread, but increasingly more and more things are getting multi-threaded. This is the way forward. I'd take a slightly slower single thread result for a better multi-thread result (thus the rig in my sig. When I bought it it was not the best single thread, but shed loads better multi-thread).
meh, I am just being silly anyway, y'all shouldn't take life so seriously
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment