chief-gunney Sounds good in principle, but my experience with Ryzen 3000 cpu so far has shown much better performance and lower temps from using an all-core over-clock and fixed voltage over any of the auto overclocking features currently implemented on zen 2. IME the current algorithms are using voltages that are much higher than what is required and thus causing the chips to over heat and down throttle all core frequency to a level around 200 mhz lower than max boost. I've found that temp is the best way to determine what settings you go for with Zen 2 as it appears to me to be the most critical performance determinant with these 7nm chips.

I'm sure that AMD will continue to evolve and improve their algorithms and reach the position that you have stated and they are aiming for but I don't think they are quite there yet.

Midland Dog that first part is a load of bs, zen 2 hits its boost on 1 core yet cant retain that boost while the rest of the cores are active, you should be able to have a 3900x running 1 core at 4.7ghz and the rest as high as they can go but u cant, even with per core oc that 1 core that would happily do 4.7ghz wont do it while other cores are working, thats just pathetic design, whereas on intel you put all cores to the clock u want and make the crappy core clock lower, rather than borking the best core down

Your independent observations contradict every professional review out there. Go and read Tom's Hardware or techspot's review. Tom's hardware specifically states they left out manual OC results because PBO achieves equal or better single threaded performance while using significantly less power.FYI the ryzen 3000 series only uses higher voltages for ms. It makes zero logical sense that a permenantly high manual OC on all cores would use less power then a dynamic system that spends most of it's time below 1.0v and sometimes boosts some cores for 1-10ms at 1.45v."IME the current algorithms are using voltages that are much higher than what is required and thus causing the chips to over heat and down throttle all core frequency to a level around 200 mhz lower than max boost."I'm going to call BS on this unless you provide a source. Not a single review found this problem. In fact with my own 3700X I've never had this problem. Heck my CPU hasn't even hit 80c under full load once, let alone throttle. For example, the 3700X maxes out at 64c on wPrime: www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/amd_ryzen_7_3700x_ryzen_9_3900x_review,7.html Lowering frequency based on number of cores under load is the same under Intel as it is AMD, just so you know. In addition, Intel also lowers clock speeds when running an AVX workload, massively so in some cases. AMD does not. You know that "AVX Offset" option in the BIOS of your Intel motherboard? That's how much in GHz you loose when running AVX."Whereas on intel you put all cores to the clock u want and make the crappy core clock lower, rather than borking the best core down"Like I pointed out earlier, you can do so on AMD as well. You should read that post again, as I already delineated why that's a bad idea. There are some extreme caveats to your statement as well. For one, not every Intel CPU can set a manual clock. You have to buy a K series CPU and a Z series motherboard, which cost $$$. Every Ryzen CPU can be OC'd on any B class (midrange) or above motherboard. In addition, those Intel CPUs don't come with CPU coolers, which costs more $$$. On top of that, it's not as simple as inputting the clock you want and it working. Selecting, buying, installing, and tuning all take time and those requirements push this mostly into the enthusiast arena. Assuming you are the 1% of the market that does meet those requirements as an enthusiast you then have to hope you win the silicon lottery and get a chip that actually OC's all core past stock clocks. I frequent the Intel reddit and there are posts daily of people not getting 5 GHz all core when they spent a ton on the motherboard and cooling. Luck of the draw. There are even less people who get 5 GHz with an AVX offset of 0. According to silicon lottery, only 30% of 9900Ks kit 5.0 GHz all core with an AVX offset of 2.This means your effective clock in games that use AVX is 4.8 GHz. I don't even want to know how many 9900Ks hit 5.0 GHz without an offset but it's likely astronomically low. Even overclocked after spending a ton more money and time you have far less then a 30% chance to escape that exact "pathetic" situation you accused AMD of.