Dont know how much more headroom you have left on your 1700.Nothing to show, but this 1700 has been running at 3.925 ghz with 103.3 bclk for three years now. Never bothered to push it farther.
In win10 I set the power plan to "performance" and then in advanced settings I think it is, there is the option to set the power states. 100% is standard but if the minimum is set to 40% or so the cpu downclocks just fine.
This is a pic I took after a gaming session on a hot day 6 days ago.
No sign of corruption for my setup so far,Ok, but if OS on them, will it not get corrupted like when SATA drives did.
That's interesting. I might up it & see what happens.No sign of corruption for my setup so far,
I am running my OS from the M2 drive in my sig and running BCLK of 107.5625 !
Please note I have to run PCIe Gen2 for this BCLK otherwise my VGA card does not like it.
Unsure as to what you mean by "sliding scale"That's interesting. I might up it & see what happens.
Is there a sliding scale or something when having to run at 107 + for PCIe v2?
What motherboard was that for the 131 BCLK, that is a stupendous frequency, for sure the motherboard must have had dedicated clock generator for PCIeI no longer have the hardware but I did 131.0 BCLK on Ryzen 1700 + X470 motherboard when I was testing it out.
I have to say gen 1 Ryzen had no benefit from it, they just run hotter for no increase in performance, just do a regular OC instead.
X570 just doesn't allow it due to SATA issues. (you need to stay on only m.2 there)
I hear B550 does allow for SATA to be used even with BCLK.
X470 was limited to ports 4-5 SATA to be used, you could not use 1-4 as far as I knew. (you would be severely limited otherwise)
Your VGA will have limits on what they accept. My RX 480 just would not give a display above 131.0BCLK and that was my limit.
Thanks for the reply, was going to answer earlier but forum updates...Unsure as to what you mean by "sliding scale"
I think I gather the gist of what are saying so will respond based on my understanding (which may bve incorrect).
Firstly, how BCLK acts is probably dependent on the motherboard.
My understanding is that some motherboard have a hardware component (seperate clock generator) for the BCLK while others are doing it through "software".
Now my motherboard does not have a seperate clock generator for BCLK so what I am about to describe may/will vary compared to other motherboards.
Initially I thought my motherboard could only go up to 101.7xx BCLK because anything higher would not post after applying the settings.
As I wasnt as familar with my motherboard with regards to BCLK as I could have been and as I was worried about "issues" it may cause I would simple reset the BIOS and accept that was the limit so never bothered using BCLK as at that time I had an 3600X CPU, importance in the "X"
Now when I sold that and bought a 3600 from the newer batches I knew the only real way to get the speeds up were through BCLK.
So this time, when going past the level of boot success, instead of shutting down and resetting the BIOS, I simply shutdown and then pressed the power button again and I found that it posted.
After this point (BCLK of over 101.7xx) it will successfully post each time up to my current 107.5625.
I stopped there as it gave me the 3800/1900 I was aiming for (using 3533/1767).
Now back to your reference to "scaling".
It seems to me that up to the 101.7xx "cut off" point is when the software alters something just as a clock generator would, hence the reason after this point I can use much higher BCLK.
Seems to be the software approach (having read others observation) is only handling the PCIe to CPU frequency divider not the PCIe to internal slots.
I say this as the first thing I see when using GEN3 with high BCLK is that the PC will post and boot into windows, but anything to do with graphics is so slow, i.e. mouse mover really slow, start menu open really slow, windows open really slow, everything is real laggy and than often a bluescreen will present itself.
Going down to GEN2, stops this issue.
It could just be that the VGA cant handle the higher BCLK, but that does not explain to me how dropping to GEN2 "fixes" this issue.
I must point out that my current 107.5625 is probably at the limit as I get 1 WHEA error when stress testing memory when using 107.5625 which I dont get when its at default, however to make things more clouded, this only started happening on Windows 2004, not earlier versions, but the fact it does not happen at all when using default 100 tells that no need to push further.
A Biostar X470GT8. Not a board I recommend though. There are other issues that drag it down to the dumps. Why I in the end gave it away.What motherboard was that for the 131 BCLK, that is a stupendous frequency, for sure the motherboard must have had dedicated clock generator for PCIe