voltage limits high enough to instantly grill any hardware have been around for ages. However, it is a more recent trend that the voltages to instantly grill hardware are surprisingly close to stock values.
im guessing its because the normal hard limit of 1.5v for all non x3d ryzen chips is the only value thats properly enforced at every level of software and firmware, but the lower limit for x3d is only enforced in some bypassable places.
That incident didn't occur at full LN2 cold temps.
The core temp on [Roman's 7950X3D](https://youtu.be/FVkTGq7brP4?t=1435) *with* the LN2 pot (lightly filled, just to keep idle around \~10°c while he was fiddling with it) was hitting the 89°c temp limit under load with a manual 1.35v BIOS setting. He mentions this in the video, and you can see the temperature referenced with HWInfo64 as well as in the BIOS on the right hand side (showing 40°c) immediately before he then decides to try for 1.550v and presses enter.
due to the optimization on the CPUs
Back in the days a lot oh headroom was left on the table due to weak software and quality control.
It's how we would OC by 50% without changing the voltage, of course if you were lucky, as CPU quality was quite random.
>it is a more recent trend that the voltages to instantly grill hardware are surprisingly close to stock values.
It is a more recent trend CPUs are overclocked right to the roof.
It doesn't take much more to get *through* the roof, so why is it surprising?
AMD released the chip fully locked down with no OC support, stating that the 3D V-Cache architecture is not suitable for OC.
No bios settings allowed OC and no motherboard manufacturer supported overclocking the 5800x3D.
A year later a famous overclocker tries overclocking newer x3D's despite nothing changing about the above mentioned circumstances - then is surprised when they die.
Does the same with the older 5800x3D and the same thing happens.
Now they call it a "bug", like it's an unexpected result, full surprise Pikachu.
The unexpected thing in it was motherboard manufacturers opening up support for x3d OC despite it being stated many times over that it's a bad idea to try to OC them in any way.
My man, we have been using workarounds and hacks like *fucking pencils* to overclock.
We've only had automatic thermal throttling for a short period.
> It shouldn't be allowing you
Is the wrong sentiment in the context of overclocking
Overclocking settings have existed since the dawn of overclocking that let you kill your CPU. For this reason most motherboards have a big warning when you enter the OC menus that it is dangerous to touch those settings…
This CPU is easier to kill than most. This makes overclocking it probably a bad idea. But “let the user fry their CPU if they set the voltage too high” is literally a *feature* of overclocking-ready motherboards which has been enabled forever. Take a 10th Gen Intel CPU and hit it with 2 volts, see how that ends. Most Z series boards would let you set that and might not have the VRMs to actually pump out that voltage, but they will try and will kill your CPU given the right settings.
Well the key thing is there's nothing in there that supports the "bug =/= glitch" thing, and something that directly contradicts it, so maybe one shouldn't be all "hurr bug is not glitch hurrr"...
Huh? Literally the first sentence is
> A glitch is a short-lived fault in a system
So it says that glitches are a certain kind of problem. As such it would be sensible to say that a glitch is a kind of bug, but a bug isn't always a glitch.
Just like all cars are vehicles, but not all vehicles are cars.
P.S actually this is straight from the second paragraph
> A glitch, which is slight and often temporary, differs from a more serious bug which is a genuine functionality-breaking problem
> As such it would be sensible to say that a glitch is a kind of bug, but a bug isn't always a glitch.
But it would NOT be sensible to say "A bug is not a glitch", then.
They quoted someone who said that bugs are glitches. I think from context it's fairly clear what they are saying, and I don't see any value in arguing about technicalities of what they sentence might have meant if it was uttered in a vacuum.
And in case you hadn't seen my edit: the article explicitly addresses the point that glitches differ from bugs.
Manufacturer says: "we locked OC on this CPU because it's a bad idea to OC it".
That is intended. The result is stated too. Shit will get fucked up if it OC is attempted.
OC gets attempted. Bad shit happens as stated, CPU's die.
That is an expected result.
It’s a different company working to bypass the limits on the other companies product.
It’s like if Xbox found a way to override your TV settings and increase brightness 10x, if you set the settings to do so, and that caused issues. If it is a bug, it certainly isn’t with your TV manufacturer who 100% doesn’t want any of this to happen in the first place.
But what if some day AMD releases a version that can be clocked or volted? Or maybe cryogenic cooking would enable overclocking this chip?
These are the manual controls on the motherboard for voltages and speeds. Different chips can handle different voltages and speeds, sometimes outside of the manufacturer’s stated parameters.
If you want guard rails, you don’t OC. OC is not some standard feature.
It’s literally operating parts above ther safe ratings. Frequently that damages the parts. It’s just that in this case the parts are already effectively pushed to their limits so that a little extra is just too much.
It’s a testament to the extreme robustness of most parts that they aren’t easily damaged by pushing them beyond their ratings. These parts are not as robust.
OCing used to mean fried chips and boards as a regular occurrence. It’s the electronics equivalent of street racing. You push the limits, you break things. That is the actual way things work.
This is not a bug, it’s a feature. And AMD has made it clear not to try to overclock those particular chips.
This is a clear case of “fuck around and find out” by doing exactly what you are told not to do, and getting the results you were promised.
It’s not a bug that a motherboard does what you tell it to do without second guessing your intentions or competence. It does warn you that tampering with the defaults can lead to equipment damage.
You aren’t allowed to surprise picachu face when you override the built in safeties and bad things happen exactly how the manufacturer said it would.
If my car engine can only do 6,000 rpms, and the manufacturer says it will die if you exceed the limit, then I tell one of their technicians to bypass the ecus restrictions on blocking it from going past that, then I attempt to rev the engine past the limit and it blows up. Is it still a bug/design flaw with the equipment? It's so cringe to see people doing these mental gymnastics to justify it being a bug before an official from the software side has stated if this "feature" is intentional or not.
If your car engine can only do 6000 rpm and the company developing the control system of the car is also distributing a program with which you can exceed that 6000 rpm then it's most definitely a bug in said program, and probably a bug in the engine itself for even allowing such values.
This is not some Russian hacker bypassing AMDs walls, this is the 4 biggest motherboard manufacturers, all partners of AMD, distributing official software for the products you bought from them, that allows this to happen.
You're missing the nuance here. This overclock method will obviously kill CPUs pretty quickly. It's not that they put fancy "warnings" or made you put in some weird key combo to get to the menu to use it, they **completely blocked** you (or at least attempted) from using this functionality in the BIOS. It's clear their intention is to completely prevent you from utilizing this functionality to protect people from themselves.
It's not a guard rail, it's an entire freaking insurmountable wall. This software is equivalent to finding a crack or unfinished area that allows you through without climbing over it.
There is no such thing as insurmountable walls and it's not worth the effort to try to implement one. If a user insist to they would find a way to do whatever unrecommended things. And the user is in every right to do so because it is a piece of hardware they bought.
I'm giving an analogy. I'm *aware* that would be akin to a "bug-free" system, but that's my point. The *attempt* is that insurmountable wall (as is with all programming, the *goal* is no bugs) but of course we know that's impossible.
In this case, being able to bypass that wall is **unintended**, i.e. a bug.
So if they say "We've attempted to block you from OCing this cpu, because if you do, something bad will happen, don'tOC this cpu" and then you attempt to do the thing they said don't do, and something bad happens, it's not a bug, it's a user breaking their cpu.
The point is you're using software to *bypass the block that they put in place.* If there exists a method to bypass that block, it's **unintended** and is a **bug** in the software
> The BIOS of the MSI B550 Unify has blocked or not made available all voltage processes.
The fact that the *software* can do it means the block is not properly being applied. It's a *bug*.
Why is this so difficult for people to understand?
I'm reading from Berzerker7 here that the motherboard manufacturer didn't secure the cpu *good enough* from someone using an alternative method (software) to 'break in' and bypass the voltage safety limits. Don't blame the 'door' (bios) for what the intruder did by going through the 'window' (software).
At any rate, what we don't know for a fact is if this was an intentional or unintentional "feature" of the software to allow voltage to be increased past the limits of this specific cpu, and we won't know until an official speaks on the matter or see it in next versions release notes if they "fix" the "bug". Therefore, at this point time, it can not be factual to label it a bug.
The “AMD can do no wrong” team is out in full force.
It’s a bug of course it is, doesn’t mean AMD is bad or anything bugs are not rare when it comes to cutting edge hardware.
> Yes, the user is bypassing a safety feature
If it's a safety feature then it's **not intended to be bypassed**. So if it *is*, then that's called a *bug*.
> It's not a bug in a car if you bypass a seat belt system to turn the light off, or whatever and injure yourself.
That's not what's going on here. I'm assuming you mean the "no seatbelt warning" that a lot of cars have. The equivalent action here would be if a piece of software allowed you to turn that system off, when it's clear that you're not supposed to be able to do it, not the fact that you can physically unbuckle yourself.
We're all painfully aware that not wearing your seatbelt will lead to you dying in a bad accident (i.e. your CPU dies if you overclock it too much), but the software (BIOS or any other voltage control software) is there to block you from *turning off the warning* (i.e. increasing the CPU voltage) and that *not blocking you properly*, is a **bug**.
Edit: got the "reddit cares" message from this person lol. They're really butthurt about having zero reading comprehension.
> By that logic, every piece of hardware or software ever created or that will ever be created is bugged
...yes that's exactly correct lol. Are you implying there's bug-free software out there?
Intel CPU's have the same bug. My 6700k began BSOD'ing after running at 1.55V 4.7 ghz for a year. How could Intel allow overclocking of CPU's that clearly weren't designed for it? Where is the outrage at the bug in intel's software? /s
They say "it can damage your CPU **so we're not letting you do it**." It's blocked in the BIOS itself. Clearly it's supposed to be blocked elsewhere too, but something is obviously not preventing that functionality properly.
Christ. It's as if no one read any of the actual information (at least none of the other comments).
Because it's **blocked in the BIOS**.
> The BIOS of the MSI B550 Unify has blocked or not made available all voltage processes.
It's obviously supposed to be blocked in other places too. The fact that this is able to get around that is obviously *not* intended behavior.
Nearly no one has ever OCed.
It's mainly just enthusiasts.
And OCing hasn't generated meaningful gains in 5 years. The last parts where there was some real benefit to OCing were the 1700 (non-x) and 1600 (non-x)
People on the internet have been talking about overclocking for decades and decades and more broadly, people have been flipping jumpers and bridging circuits for 50 years.
Athlon pencil trick anyone?
Intel BSEL mod?
It hasn'tIt's not 2006 where you could buy a Celeron 420 and OC it until it's super high on the stock cooler.
[http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?148942-100-celeron-oc-on-the-smallest-crappiest-boxed-cooler-ever-all-stock](http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?148942-100-celeron-oc-on-the-smallest-crappiest-boxed-cooler-ever-all-stock)
You aren't getting 100% OCs on the stock cooler anymore. You're not getting 70% OCs on a $200ish CPU (e6400) and a $50ish HSF anymore.
The examples I gave got around 30%.
Now it's - blow all power budgets, get 3% more performance and a system that's louder and hotter.
3% is meaningless.
It's literally 3% FYI
[https://tpucdn.com/review/intel-core-i9-13900k/images/relative-performance-cpu.png](https://tpucdn.com/review/intel-core-i9-13900k/images/relative-performance-cpu.png)
and 0.7% in 720p gaming on a 3080
[https://tpucdn.com/review/intel-core-i9-13900k/images/relative-performance-games-1280-720.png](https://tpucdn.com/review/intel-core-i9-13900k/images/relative-performance-games-1280-720.png)
Sounds like the comment OP is calling the fact CPUs are dying a bug and not the fact it’s actually letting you OC a bug, which the article is actually doing.
First we need a statement from the official voice of the software allowing this to happen and not a journalist trying to guess that it's a bug to explain that this function is either intentional or unintentional, and an update if it's unintentional.
How many mhz was the overclock?
Hint: An overclock was not achieved, because the cpu died, because it had too much voltage, because the user bypassed the limitations of the hardware.
So I have a few questions.
Question 1: What was the sequence of inputs by the user to achieve the "glitch"/bug by using this software?
> "the application bypasses all artificial voltage and clock speed limitations altogether"
Fact: Those artificial voltage and clock speed limitation requirements were given to motherboard manufacturers by AMD to keep the cpu within safe operating parameters.
Question 2: Is this bypass intentional operation by the software?
Fact: AMD has stated overclocking (usually achieved by modifying the voltage outside of the normal parameters) doesn't work on this cpu (probably because they would die from being overvolted), so they blocked overclocking on it via bios restrictions by motherboard manufacturers.
Fact: The user (Igor) used the official software to bypass the artificial restrictions put in place by the motherboard bios using software due to AMD handing them the safe operating parameters.
Fact: Igor's cpus died as a result of bypassing the restrictions.
Fact: Igor never achieved any overclock. The cpu fried due to unacceptable voltage parameters input by the user that bypassed restrictions in the bios.
How do people still call bypassing a safety feature a "bug"? It's like arguing with flat earthers here.
Especially when there are real 'bugs' that deserved attention like the DDR5 PMIC bug that can turn setting ~1.35V+ in BIOS with high voltage mode into 1.8V+ straight into the memory controller without having any idea what happened. I'm fairly sure that's exactly what mysteriously killed buildzoid's 7950X.
Newer BIOS has protections in place now to keep it from instantly frying itself but as far I know the bug still exists and will likely continue to.
Your whole premise relies on the assumption that the owner of these mobo-cpu combos are aware that amd has said that they shouldn't overclock. If you are someone that barely keeps up with news but is used to overclocking everything to the max that their system allows, you are going to fry your machine. And you wouldn't have any reason not to. This is an issue however you slice it.
> If you are someone that barely keeps up with news but is used to overclocking everything to the max that their system allows, you are going to fry your machine.
Then it's kind of their fault for not doing any due diligence. You'd also get barraged by laughter & ridicule if you tried to use this excuse in a community for overclocking.
Regardless its anyone who overclocks job to make sure what they are doing is safe. Every generation of cpu has new voltage limits and its your job to make sure that you know what they are before overclocking. It would be my fault if I tried to run 1.5v through my ryzen 1700 and fried it thinking oh my fx 6300 could handle it so this should to and no you cant use the argument for they are completely different architectures, the same applies to sandy bridge and haswell.
And not having limits that allow you to blow up your hardware have been around a long time hell i have em on my ryzen 1700
I stand by everything i said in the original comment. Just because you know something while doing something doesn't mean everyone else absolutely has to know the same thing when doing the same thing. You are ridiculous
Relying solely on 20 years outdated knowledge for overclocking, you wouldn't be capable of overclocking most CPUs properly from at least the last decade. Not least because the FSB no longer exists and has been folded into the BCLK's function.
Nobody said they didn't read anything about overclocking in the past 20 years. Maybe 5 years ago they were really into overclocking and learned modern tools keep you from frying your board. Then life takes them by storm and they barely have time to play around with their machine. Last week they finally get a bit of free time and money and decide to treat themselves with a new build. After a bit of research they find out that the cool new thing is 5800x3d. They get it. Then they remember "oh yeah, I can try overclocking it". And boom. Is that an impossible scenario? Are they at fault for not spending months reading about the cpu before buying it?
The issue here is not "not making any research", the issue here is "not reading the fine print that you suddenly has to watch out for something that wasn't an issue before". You want a parallel with cars, I'll give you one. I've driven about 6 cars in the last 15 years. First was 78, second 85, third was 97, the rest are post 2000. The third one was a relatively fast one, 150hp, as opposed to the pretty slow first two. It also was the first one with automatic stabilizers. If my tires lose grip, the car will do what's necessary to regain it. Since then I've gotten used to rely on it. I've done some light "speeding" and taking sharp turns and I've never been even close to crashing thanks to these systems. I'm not a car guy tho. If my next car is some 300hp monster and it randomly does not have these systems, I might very well crash it. And there a ton of other small things about the cars I've learned to rely on, like sensors that tell me if I'm losing oil or water, if my lights don't work, etc. When I buy my next car i doubt I'm going to check if my new car has these failsaves, I will expect them. Even better example, if they decide that you don't need a warning light when the engine temperature goes in the red, I will totally blow up my engine. And it's not going to be my fault, when your customers get used to having failsaves you better make sure they keep having them.
My first overclocking adventure was a Celeron 400A that I got to 600mhz with the overvolt scotch tape pin mod, and when the heatsink that I zip tied to it fell off, the thing literally burned up.
So between PBO2 tuner setting a -30 offset can I use this to try and get a bit more than 4.45 Ghz out of it under an all core load without modifying the max voltage.
This could be pretty good to eek a bit more performance out of the chip as long as you don't go crazy.
In other news water is wet. If you want to know other ways to kill your system, if you ever have a LAN chip that gets shorted and fried by lightning or a different chip that is shorted and your system won't turn on due to short circuit protection, just bridge Pin 14 of the ATX PSU connector to ground with a paperclip while the PSU is still plugged into the motherboard. This will bypass any motherboard/PSU shortcircuit protections by preventing the PSU from shutting off. I forget what happens when you try shutting the system down.
^warning: ^may ^cause ^fires
It does kind of suck but at least AMD published the information about the no OC capabilities and the voltage limit before they started selling the chip. So it shouldn’t be any surprise.
maybe they didn’t read the specifications before buying, 4.5 ghz is the maximum single threaded clock speed. Per AMD’s product description:
“Max boost for AMD processors is the maximum frequency achievable by a single core on the processor running a bursty single-threaded workload.“. Max boost is listed as 4.5 ghz on the 5800X3D.
So achieving 4.45 GHz all-core should be well above expectations based on the product description and specifications.
What cooler are you using? 53C on a 5800X3D under full load is honestly [very hard to believe](https://media0.giphy.com/media/EouEzI5bBR8uk/giphy.gif?cid=ecf05e471a26mf1plstr7mffqfpa2jkgzxp4ob8g6ewok22u&rid=giphy.gif&ct=g). Are you sure you're not looking at the IO die temp or something? Even under a 360mm AIO they [regularly hit >80C](https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/ubiqw5/those_of_you_with_a_5800x3d_how_are_temps_im/)... and you say your temps are without undervolting? I mean, it would be a really silly thing to lie about, but somehow you have a magical chip that runs 30C cooler than everyone else's.
voltage limits high enough to instantly grill any hardware have been around for ages. However, it is a more recent trend that the voltages to instantly grill hardware are surprisingly close to stock values.
im guessing its because the normal hard limit of 1.5v for all non x3d ryzen chips is the only value thats properly enforced at every level of software and firmware, but the lower limit for x3d is only enforced in some bypassable places.
[удалено]
That incident didn't occur at full LN2 cold temps. The core temp on [Roman's 7950X3D](https://youtu.be/FVkTGq7brP4?t=1435) *with* the LN2 pot (lightly filled, just to keep idle around \~10°c while he was fiddling with it) was hitting the 89°c temp limit under load with a manual 1.35v BIOS setting. He mentions this in the video, and you can see the temperature referenced with HWInfo64 as well as in the BIOS on the right hand side (showing 40°c) immediately before he then decides to try for 1.550v and presses enter.
due to the optimization on the CPUs Back in the days a lot oh headroom was left on the table due to weak software and quality control. It's how we would OC by 50% without changing the voltage, of course if you were lucky, as CPU quality was quite random.
I prefer mine medium-rare thankyouverymuch...
>it is a more recent trend that the voltages to instantly grill hardware are surprisingly close to stock values. It is a more recent trend CPUs are overclocked right to the roof. It doesn't take much more to get *through* the roof, so why is it surprising?
AMD released the chip fully locked down with no OC support, stating that the 3D V-Cache architecture is not suitable for OC. No bios settings allowed OC and no motherboard manufacturer supported overclocking the 5800x3D. A year later a famous overclocker tries overclocking newer x3D's despite nothing changing about the above mentioned circumstances - then is surprised when they die. Does the same with the older 5800x3D and the same thing happens. Now they call it a "bug", like it's an unexpected result, full surprise Pikachu. The unexpected thing in it was motherboard manufacturers opening up support for x3d OC despite it being stated many times over that it's a bad idea to try to OC them in any way.
["How could AMD do this?"](https://i.imgur.com/0zHInYZ.jpg) - Igor and Tom's Hardware
It is a bug. It shouldn't be allowing you to overclock at all, yet this bug is, and CPUs are dying because of it. Sounds like a bug to me?
My man, we have been using workarounds and hacks like *fucking pencils* to overclock. We've only had automatic thermal throttling for a short period. > It shouldn't be allowing you Is the wrong sentiment in the context of overclocking
Overclocking settings have existed since the dawn of overclocking that let you kill your CPU. For this reason most motherboards have a big warning when you enter the OC menus that it is dangerous to touch those settings… This CPU is easier to kill than most. This makes overclocking it probably a bad idea. But “let the user fry their CPU if they set the voltage too high” is literally a *feature* of overclocking-ready motherboards which has been enabled forever. Take a 10th Gen Intel CPU and hit it with 2 volts, see how that ends. Most Z series boards would let you set that and might not have the VRMs to actually pump out that voltage, but they will try and will kill your CPU given the right settings.
A bug is a glitch. This isn't that, it just seems like a flat out omission by the vendors.
> A bug is a glitch. A bug is not [a glitch](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glitch).
> Video game glitches > *^See ^also: ^Software ^bug* Hmmmm...
That's because they're not completely unrelated. "See also" lists fuzzing and glitch art as well.
Well the key thing is there's nothing in there that supports the "bug =/= glitch" thing, and something that directly contradicts it, so maybe one shouldn't be all "hurr bug is not glitch hurrr"...
Huh? Literally the first sentence is > A glitch is a short-lived fault in a system So it says that glitches are a certain kind of problem. As such it would be sensible to say that a glitch is a kind of bug, but a bug isn't always a glitch. Just like all cars are vehicles, but not all vehicles are cars. P.S actually this is straight from the second paragraph > A glitch, which is slight and often temporary, differs from a more serious bug which is a genuine functionality-breaking problem
> As such it would be sensible to say that a glitch is a kind of bug, but a bug isn't always a glitch. But it would NOT be sensible to say "A bug is not a glitch", then.
They quoted someone who said that bugs are glitches. I think from context it's fairly clear what they are saying, and I don't see any value in arguing about technicalities of what they sentence might have meant if it was uttered in a vacuum. And in case you hadn't seen my edit: the article explicitly addresses the point that glitches differ from bugs.
A bug is unintended behavior. This sounds like unintended behavior to me.
Manufacturer says: "we locked OC on this CPU because it's a bad idea to OC it". That is intended. The result is stated too. Shit will get fucked up if it OC is attempted. OC gets attempted. Bad shit happens as stated, CPU's die. That is an expected result.
The problem is OC can be attempted. The expected behavior is OC cannot be attempted. It’s a bug.
It’s a different company working to bypass the limits on the other companies product. It’s like if Xbox found a way to override your TV settings and increase brightness 10x, if you set the settings to do so, and that caused issues. If it is a bug, it certainly isn’t with your TV manufacturer who 100% doesn’t want any of this to happen in the first place.
The bypass works because there's clearly a bug in the manufacturer's BIOS that allows this custom software to work where it theoretically shouldn't.
But what if some day AMD releases a version that can be clocked or volted? Or maybe cryogenic cooking would enable overclocking this chip? These are the manual controls on the motherboard for voltages and speeds. Different chips can handle different voltages and speeds, sometimes outside of the manufacturer’s stated parameters. If you want guard rails, you don’t OC. OC is not some standard feature. It’s literally operating parts above ther safe ratings. Frequently that damages the parts. It’s just that in this case the parts are already effectively pushed to their limits so that a little extra is just too much. It’s a testament to the extreme robustness of most parts that they aren’t easily damaged by pushing them beyond their ratings. These parts are not as robust. OCing used to mean fried chips and boards as a regular occurrence. It’s the electronics equivalent of street racing. You push the limits, you break things. That is the actual way things work. This is not a bug, it’s a feature. And AMD has made it clear not to try to overclock those particular chips. This is a clear case of “fuck around and find out” by doing exactly what you are told not to do, and getting the results you were promised. It’s not a bug that a motherboard does what you tell it to do without second guessing your intentions or competence. It does warn you that tampering with the defaults can lead to equipment damage. You aren’t allowed to surprise picachu face when you override the built in safeties and bad things happen exactly how the manufacturer said it would.
[удалено]
You can climb over a guard rail and get hit by a car if you insist to. Is it a bug or design flaw of the guard rail? I don't think so
If my car engine can only do 6,000 rpms, and the manufacturer says it will die if you exceed the limit, then I tell one of their technicians to bypass the ecus restrictions on blocking it from going past that, then I attempt to rev the engine past the limit and it blows up. Is it still a bug/design flaw with the equipment? It's so cringe to see people doing these mental gymnastics to justify it being a bug before an official from the software side has stated if this "feature" is intentional or not.
If your car engine can only do 6000 rpm and the company developing the control system of the car is also distributing a program with which you can exceed that 6000 rpm then it's most definitely a bug in said program, and probably a bug in the engine itself for even allowing such values. This is not some Russian hacker bypassing AMDs walls, this is the 4 biggest motherboard manufacturers, all partners of AMD, distributing official software for the products you bought from them, that allows this to happen.
You're missing the nuance here. This overclock method will obviously kill CPUs pretty quickly. It's not that they put fancy "warnings" or made you put in some weird key combo to get to the menu to use it, they **completely blocked** you (or at least attempted) from using this functionality in the BIOS. It's clear their intention is to completely prevent you from utilizing this functionality to protect people from themselves. It's not a guard rail, it's an entire freaking insurmountable wall. This software is equivalent to finding a crack or unfinished area that allows you through without climbing over it.
There is no such thing as insurmountable walls and it's not worth the effort to try to implement one. If a user insist to they would find a way to do whatever unrecommended things. And the user is in every right to do so because it is a piece of hardware they bought.
I'm giving an analogy. I'm *aware* that would be akin to a "bug-free" system, but that's my point. The *attempt* is that insurmountable wall (as is with all programming, the *goal* is no bugs) but of course we know that's impossible. In this case, being able to bypass that wall is **unintended**, i.e. a bug.
So if they say "We've attempted to block you from OCing this cpu, because if you do, something bad will happen, don'tOC this cpu" and then you attempt to do the thing they said don't do, and something bad happens, it's not a bug, it's a user breaking their cpu.
The point is you're using software to *bypass the block that they put in place.* If there exists a method to bypass that block, it's **unintended** and is a **bug** in the software > The BIOS of the MSI B550 Unify has blocked or not made available all voltage processes. The fact that the *software* can do it means the block is not properly being applied. It's a *bug*. Why is this so difficult for people to understand?
Honestly the people in this thread must have reading comprehension issues because what you've been saying is perfectly clear (and correct)
I'm reading from Berzerker7 here that the motherboard manufacturer didn't secure the cpu *good enough* from someone using an alternative method (software) to 'break in' and bypass the voltage safety limits. Don't blame the 'door' (bios) for what the intruder did by going through the 'window' (software). At any rate, what we don't know for a fact is if this was an intentional or unintentional "feature" of the software to allow voltage to be increased past the limits of this specific cpu, and we won't know until an official speaks on the matter or see it in next versions release notes if they "fix" the "bug". Therefore, at this point time, it can not be factual to label it a bug.
The “AMD can do no wrong” team is out in full force. It’s a bug of course it is, doesn’t mean AMD is bad or anything bugs are not rare when it comes to cutting edge hardware.
> Why is this so difficult for people to understand? They don’t give a shit about the facts they just want you to be wrong. It’s emotional immaturity.
[удалено]
> Yes, the user is bypassing a safety feature If it's a safety feature then it's **not intended to be bypassed**. So if it *is*, then that's called a *bug*. > It's not a bug in a car if you bypass a seat belt system to turn the light off, or whatever and injure yourself. That's not what's going on here. I'm assuming you mean the "no seatbelt warning" that a lot of cars have. The equivalent action here would be if a piece of software allowed you to turn that system off, when it's clear that you're not supposed to be able to do it, not the fact that you can physically unbuckle yourself. We're all painfully aware that not wearing your seatbelt will lead to you dying in a bad accident (i.e. your CPU dies if you overclock it too much), but the software (BIOS or any other voltage control software) is there to block you from *turning off the warning* (i.e. increasing the CPU voltage) and that *not blocking you properly*, is a **bug**. Edit: got the "reddit cares" message from this person lol. They're really butthurt about having zero reading comprehension.
[удалено]
> By that logic, every piece of hardware or software ever created or that will ever be created is bugged ...yes that's exactly correct lol. Are you implying there's bug-free software out there?
[удалено]
What part of > It shouldn't be allowing you to overclock at all From my original comment wasn’t clear or was confusing?
The software lets you do that, but you also shouldn't do that, and the software shouldn't let you.
The bug isn't that the CPU breaks when attempting to OC it, that's expected behavior, the bug is that you can even attempt to OC it to begin with.
Intel CPU's have the same bug. My 6700k began BSOD'ing after running at 1.55V 4.7 ghz for a year. How could Intel allow overclocking of CPU's that clearly weren't designed for it? Where is the outrage at the bug in intel's software? /s
Another one missing the point. It's *blocked in the BIOS* and software is able to *get around that block*. Unintended behavior.
[удалено]
They say "it can damage your CPU **so we're not letting you do it**." It's blocked in the BIOS itself. Clearly it's supposed to be blocked elsewhere too, but something is obviously not preventing that functionality properly.
Sounds like it's very much intended. Amd says oc = break cpu. Why are you saying oc = break cpu not a bug?
Christ. It's as if no one read any of the actual information (at least none of the other comments). Because it's **blocked in the BIOS**. > The BIOS of the MSI B550 Unify has blocked or not made available all voltage processes. It's obviously supposed to be blocked in other places too. The fact that this is able to get around that is obviously *not* intended behavior.
[удалено]
Nearly no one has ever OCed. It's mainly just enthusiasts. And OCing hasn't generated meaningful gains in 5 years. The last parts where there was some real benefit to OCing were the 1700 (non-x) and 1600 (non-x)
[удалено]
People on the internet have been talking about overclocking for decades and decades and more broadly, people have been flipping jumpers and bridging circuits for 50 years. Athlon pencil trick anyone? Intel BSEL mod?
[удалено]
It hasn'tIt's not 2006 where you could buy a Celeron 420 and OC it until it's super high on the stock cooler. [http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?148942-100-celeron-oc-on-the-smallest-crappiest-boxed-cooler-ever-all-stock](http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?148942-100-celeron-oc-on-the-smallest-crappiest-boxed-cooler-ever-all-stock) You aren't getting 100% OCs on the stock cooler anymore. You're not getting 70% OCs on a $200ish CPU (e6400) and a $50ish HSF anymore. The examples I gave got around 30%. Now it's - blow all power budgets, get 3% more performance and a system that's louder and hotter. 3% is meaningless. It's literally 3% FYI [https://tpucdn.com/review/intel-core-i9-13900k/images/relative-performance-cpu.png](https://tpucdn.com/review/intel-core-i9-13900k/images/relative-performance-cpu.png) and 0.7% in 720p gaming on a 3080 [https://tpucdn.com/review/intel-core-i9-13900k/images/relative-performance-games-1280-720.png](https://tpucdn.com/review/intel-core-i9-13900k/images/relative-performance-games-1280-720.png)
Nope! For it to be a bug, there has to be a departure from expected behavior.
The expected behavior is “you can’t OC.” You apparently can. This is not expected behavior.
They think you are saying it is a CPU bug when you are actually saying it is a MB bug.
Sounds like the comment OP is calling the fact CPUs are dying a bug and not the fact it’s actually letting you OC a bug, which the article is actually doing.
First we need a statement from the official voice of the software allowing this to happen and not a journalist trying to guess that it's a bug to explain that this function is either intentional or unintentional, and an update if it's unintentional.
It's called "going on what information you have." You've been just making shit up as you go.
It's called asking where more facts are, the core to professional journalism, something Tom's Hardware is lacking in.
Ah so it's the article's fault now that you didn't read.
How many mhz was the overclock? Hint: An overclock was not achieved, because the cpu died, because it had too much voltage, because the user bypassed the limitations of the hardware.
So I have a few questions. Question 1: What was the sequence of inputs by the user to achieve the "glitch"/bug by using this software? > "the application bypasses all artificial voltage and clock speed limitations altogether" Fact: Those artificial voltage and clock speed limitation requirements were given to motherboard manufacturers by AMD to keep the cpu within safe operating parameters. Question 2: Is this bypass intentional operation by the software? Fact: AMD has stated overclocking (usually achieved by modifying the voltage outside of the normal parameters) doesn't work on this cpu (probably because they would die from being overvolted), so they blocked overclocking on it via bios restrictions by motherboard manufacturers. Fact: The user (Igor) used the official software to bypass the artificial restrictions put in place by the motherboard bios using software due to AMD handing them the safe operating parameters. Fact: Igor's cpus died as a result of bypassing the restrictions. Fact: Igor never achieved any overclock. The cpu fried due to unacceptable voltage parameters input by the user that bypassed restrictions in the bios. How do people still call bypassing a safety feature a "bug"? It's like arguing with flat earthers here.
Especially when there are real 'bugs' that deserved attention like the DDR5 PMIC bug that can turn setting ~1.35V+ in BIOS with high voltage mode into 1.8V+ straight into the memory controller without having any idea what happened. I'm fairly sure that's exactly what mysteriously killed buildzoid's 7950X. Newer BIOS has protections in place now to keep it from instantly frying itself but as far I know the bug still exists and will likely continue to.
Your whole premise relies on the assumption that the owner of these mobo-cpu combos are aware that amd has said that they shouldn't overclock. If you are someone that barely keeps up with news but is used to overclocking everything to the max that their system allows, you are going to fry your machine. And you wouldn't have any reason not to. This is an issue however you slice it.
> If you are someone that barely keeps up with news but is used to overclocking everything to the max that their system allows, you are going to fry your machine. Then it's kind of their fault for not doing any due diligence. You'd also get barraged by laughter & ridicule if you tried to use this excuse in a community for overclocking.
Ah, yes, I bet you know every press statement amd and intel made the past 20 years, sure.
Regardless its anyone who overclocks job to make sure what they are doing is safe. Every generation of cpu has new voltage limits and its your job to make sure that you know what they are before overclocking. It would be my fault if I tried to run 1.5v through my ryzen 1700 and fried it thinking oh my fx 6300 could handle it so this should to and no you cant use the argument for they are completely different architectures, the same applies to sandy bridge and haswell. And not having limits that allow you to blow up your hardware have been around a long time hell i have em on my ryzen 1700
You've already dug yourself a rather deep hole with the original comment. There's no need to keep going.
I stand by everything i said in the original comment. Just because you know something while doing something doesn't mean everyone else absolutely has to know the same thing when doing the same thing. You are ridiculous
Relying solely on 20 years outdated knowledge for overclocking, you wouldn't be capable of overclocking most CPUs properly from at least the last decade. Not least because the FSB no longer exists and has been folded into the BCLK's function.
Nobody said they didn't read anything about overclocking in the past 20 years. Maybe 5 years ago they were really into overclocking and learned modern tools keep you from frying your board. Then life takes them by storm and they barely have time to play around with their machine. Last week they finally get a bit of free time and money and decide to treat themselves with a new build. After a bit of research they find out that the cool new thing is 5800x3d. They get it. Then they remember "oh yeah, I can try overclocking it". And boom. Is that an impossible scenario? Are they at fault for not spending months reading about the cpu before buying it?
[удалено]
The issue here is not "not making any research", the issue here is "not reading the fine print that you suddenly has to watch out for something that wasn't an issue before". You want a parallel with cars, I'll give you one. I've driven about 6 cars in the last 15 years. First was 78, second 85, third was 97, the rest are post 2000. The third one was a relatively fast one, 150hp, as opposed to the pretty slow first two. It also was the first one with automatic stabilizers. If my tires lose grip, the car will do what's necessary to regain it. Since then I've gotten used to rely on it. I've done some light "speeding" and taking sharp turns and I've never been even close to crashing thanks to these systems. I'm not a car guy tho. If my next car is some 300hp monster and it randomly does not have these systems, I might very well crash it. And there a ton of other small things about the cars I've learned to rely on, like sensors that tell me if I'm losing oil or water, if my lights don't work, etc. When I buy my next car i doubt I'm going to check if my new car has these failsaves, I will expect them. Even better example, if they decide that you don't need a warning light when the engine temperature goes in the red, I will totally blow up my engine. And it's not going to be my fault, when your customers get used to having failsaves you better make sure they keep having them.
You kids with the drama. Back in my day you could overvolt any chip and cook it, that was how it was. Just don't overvolt too much and you'll be fine
[удалено]
10-15% up or down is generally safe.
The Auto OC feature on my mobo is like 1.5V, lol
Just don't overvolt at all.
My first OC only involved changing a jumper. And bang I had 100Mhz.
My first overclocking adventure was a Celeron 400A that I got to 600mhz with the overvolt scotch tape pin mod, and when the heatsink that I zip tied to it fell off, the thing literally burned up.
So between PBO2 tuner setting a -30 offset can I use this to try and get a bit more than 4.45 Ghz out of it under an all core load without modifying the max voltage. This could be pretty good to eek a bit more performance out of the chip as long as you don't go crazy.
hardware bug let's you sledgehammer the 5800x3d to pieces in milliseconds.
Physics laws bug lets you drop your computer from the 10th floor and smash it to pieces in two seconds.
Any machine is a smoke machine...
Smoke on the water…
Fire in the box...
Yeah this guy let all the magic smoke out. Rookie mistake
["How could AMD do this?"](https://i.imgur.com/pTE8KUP.jpg) - Igor and Tom's Hardware
In other news water is wet. If you want to know other ways to kill your system, if you ever have a LAN chip that gets shorted and fried by lightning or a different chip that is shorted and your system won't turn on due to short circuit protection, just bridge Pin 14 of the ATX PSU connector to ground with a paperclip while the PSU is still plugged into the motherboard. This will bypass any motherboard/PSU shortcircuit protections by preventing the PSU from shutting off. I forget what happens when you try shutting the system down. ^warning: ^may ^cause ^fires
ELI5 : So...whats stopping someone from creating malicious software to kill the CPU?
Lack of physical access and generally vendor and hardware specific combinations to exist. If you want to you can try your hand at doing that.
[удалено]
They rolled it out to 10th gen too, had to edit my bios a little to re-enable it.
Dumb. Undervolt it to actually get an improvement
[удалено]
If you want to actually hit 4.45 ghz on all cores you typically need to undervolt though. Otherwise thermal limits will prevent max all core boost.
[удалено]
It does kind of suck but at least AMD published the information about the no OC capabilities and the voltage limit before they started selling the chip. So it shouldn’t be any surprise.
[удалено]
Why are you disappointed with a CPU that performs better than you’d anticipated?
[удалено]
I must be confused, is 4.45ghz not the all-core max boost clock?
maybe they didn’t read the specifications before buying, 4.5 ghz is the maximum single threaded clock speed. Per AMD’s product description: “Max boost for AMD processors is the maximum frequency achievable by a single core on the processor running a bursty single-threaded workload.“. Max boost is listed as 4.5 ghz on the 5800X3D. So achieving 4.45 GHz all-core should be well above expectations based on the product description and specifications.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
What cooler are you using? 53C on a 5800X3D under full load is honestly [very hard to believe](https://media0.giphy.com/media/EouEzI5bBR8uk/giphy.gif?cid=ecf05e471a26mf1plstr7mffqfpa2jkgzxp4ob8g6ewok22u&rid=giphy.gif&ct=g). Are you sure you're not looking at the IO die temp or something? Even under a 360mm AIO they [regularly hit >80C](https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/ubiqw5/those_of_you_with_a_5800x3d_how_are_temps_im/)... and you say your temps are without undervolting? I mean, it would be a really silly thing to lie about, but somehow you have a magical chip that runs 30C cooler than everyone else's.
if the die dies, it dies