Overclocking Ryzen 3000

Experience with the ASRock X570 Phantom Gaming-ITX/TB3

Sometimes it's assumed that smaller form factor motherboards tend to not overclock as well as larger ATX boards. In the real world, the differences are relatively minute, mostly being limited by cramped builds and cooling that doesn't perform as well. In an open environment, there have been mini-ITX motherboards capable of taking world records. Another issue is that on the smaller boards, there is certainly less room for some componentry and when it comes to overclocking, there is much less room for error with the need for vendors to get things right from the outset. But when the hardware is done right, users shouldn't expect much difference.

From the perspective of overclocking, ASRock's Phantom Gaming firmware is wholesome with plenty of options to overclock both processors and memory. To achieve most overclocks, users only need to concern themselves with settings including CPU Core Frequency, CPU VCore voltage, and with the excessive heat generated by AMD's 7nm desktop processors, adequate cooling. For memory overclocking, users can enable X.M.P profiles within the OC Tweaker section or go about customizing settings through the memory frequency, memory voltage, and the FCLK/Infinity Fabric frequency settings. For more advanced tuning, ASRock offers a DRAM Timing Configurator which allows users to tweak primary, secondary, and tertiary memory settings. 

Aside from a couple of high-performance memory overclocking profiles, enabling Precision Boost Overdrive, and an Eco CPU profile, there is nothing else terms of automatic overclocking options. Unlike some of ASRock's firmware, the main screen actually lacks anything of real substance and users looking to enable X.M.P memory profiles have to navigate around the OC Tweaker section looking for it. It would have been nice to have more options in regards to overclocking profiles, but it's not surprising given the limitations of overclocking the current generation of Ryzen 3000 processors. There's a lot of heat to deal with at what is considered the middle of the run overclocks such as 4.3 GHz, and if and when AMD's second-generation on 7nm comes around, users will be expecting a little more from firmware and core clock speeds.

Overclocking Methodology

Our standard overclocking methodology is as follows. We select the automatic overclock options and test for stability with POV-Ray and OCCT to simulate high-end workloads. These stability tests aim to catch any immediate causes for memory or CPU errors.

For manual overclocks, based on the information gathered from the previous testing, starts off at a nominal voltage and CPU multiplier, and the multiplier is increased until the stability tests are failed. The CPU voltage is increased gradually until the stability tests are passed, and the process repeated until the motherboard reduces the multiplier automatically (due to safety protocol) or the CPU temperature reaches a stupidly high level (105ºC+). Our testbed is not in a case, which should push overclocks higher with fresher (cooler) air.

Overclocking Results

The ASRock X570 Phantom Gaming-ITX/TB3 is a solid example of VDroop working correctly with the load line calibration settings set to default settings. When manually overclocking, the variation of VDroop ranges from 0.006 V at 4.3 GHz, to 0.013 and 0.019 V on the CPU VCore at full load when compared with what was set in the firmware. All of the VDroop observed was undervolted meaning it had a very positive impact on power consumption at full load, and we experienced very consistent POV-Ray performance as we went up in each 100 MHz increment. 

The highlight is the Eco mode which the firmware states is set to 45 W with our Ryzen 7 3700X processor. This is a 65 W TDP processor and when using the Eco Mode profile, we saw good POV-Ray performance with an equally good showing in power consumption too. In relation to manual overclocks, the Eco Mode on the ASRock X570 Phantom Gaming-ITX/TB3 performed similarly to our POV-Ray result at 3.8 GHz; not for users looking for high-performance, but perfect for small form factor enthusiasts looking for a good 24/7 mode where heat may be a limiting factor.

Unlike our experience with the GIGABYTE X570 Aorus Xtreme motherboard, enabling precision boost overdrive on the ASRock X570 Phantom Gaming-ITX/TB3 had little to no effect on performance over the default settings which suggests the firmware is at fault somewhere. Our default run did run a little on the warm side compared to what we have seen in previous X570 reviews and the extra heat can be attributed to a load CPU VCore value of 1.337; there is nothing 'leet' about this and we expected a little better.

Gaming Performance Power Delivery Thermal Analysis
Comments Locked

64 Comments

View All Comments

  • drexnx - Wednesday, October 9, 2019 - link

    even before I knew it was a blink 182 reference, I still read it as "all the...small things"
  • Tuxie - Wednesday, October 9, 2019 - link

    I'm still waiting for a Mini-ITX board with AM4, 2x M.2 and 10GbE. No need for WiFi, SATA, TB or onboard DP/HDMI.
  • jeremyshaw - Wednesday, October 9, 2019 - link

    The last part is what kills this board for me. It wastes space on DP and HDMI (technically, just HDMI, since the DP is an input for the TB3), when it already has a TB3/USB-C connection to handle video output. If someone insists on using a $220 board for a 3400G (and I am being extremely generous here), let them fall on their own sword. Let them spend the extra $20-30 on a DP-->HDMI adapter. Don't waste precious space on this board with a HDMI connector.

    Even worse, the Intel version of this board has all of the same outputs, PLUS two more USB ports and another M.2 slot. So no matter how I slice it, this board is down on features vs existing ASRock boards. From what I understand, ASRock didn't link the M.2 slot to the extra 4 PCIe lanes from the CPU, either, so it's sharing bandwidth from the chipset (with LAN & TB3), just like the Intel board. What a waste.
  • umano - Friday, October 11, 2019 - link

    I totally agree, let's hope in the future
  • FiveOhFour - Saturday, January 11, 2020 - link

    i agree but the hdmi part isn't fair it makes sense given how common this form factor is for use as a home theatre pc
  • FiveOhFour - Saturday, January 11, 2020 - link

    thats a major dissapointment though for sure, so whats the best option for x570 boards with thunderbolt, aside from the $1,000 white one. I don't need a certain form factor, though it would've been nice, just the best/most features and quality and price
  • Valantar - Wednesday, October 9, 2019 - link

    They're not going to make a premium ITX board without WiFi - too risky in terms of lost sales. A lot of SFF PC users move their PCs around, and not all places have Ethernet available. Also, ditching SATA seems early - people have legacy devices still (though cutting it down to 2 SATA probably wouldn't be a deal breaker for many). Likely all of this could be fit on board if they went with some sort of stacked m.2 layout like the Gigabyte or the Strix.

    Beyond that, I agree on faster networking though. Even one of those Realtek 2.5GB controllers would be a huge (well, 2.5x) improvement. Fitting a 10GbE controller might be too tight of a fit, sadly. But maybe on a daughterboard/some sort of vertical m.2 board like WiFi controllers?
  • DanNeely - Wednesday, October 9, 2019 - link

    I doubt we'll see many 2 sata boards anytime soon; but the total is dropping and starting to shift downward. Looking at newegg listings, and limiting AMD to x70 boards since the remainder of the 5xx series isn't out yet:

    x370 3x 4 ports, 29x 6 ports, 76x 8 ports, 2x 10 ports.
    x470 21x 4 ports, 147x 6 ports, 19x 8 ports
    x570 36x 4 ports, 181x 6 ports, 83x 8 ports.

    10 ports has disappeared as an option. 4 ports has grown from 3 to 11% of the total, and despite bouncing back a bit this year 8 port models are a minority of designs now vs the default in x370 boards.

    On the intel side, and sticking to Z series boards to stay with the same general market segment as AMD:

    Z170: 3x 2 port boards, 20x 4 port, 68x 6 ports, 8x 8 ports.
    Z270: 9x 4 port, 74x 6 port, 19x 8 ports.
    Z370: 43x 4 port, 129x 6 port, 1x 8 port
    Z390: 66x 4 port, 476x 6 port, 18x 8 port.

    Similar trends overall; 8 port is much less common on Intel boards because their consumer chipsets only have 6 sata ports available; 8+ requires a 3rd party controller and has been much less common for years as a result.

    With both brands I suspect the transition will be slow because consumer boards suffer from feature checkboxitis and the connectors are cheap. Reducing support on the chipset would push things faster but sata controllers are relatively small/cheap compared to top of the line USB/PCIe ones and both companies are doing variations of the flexible IO port thing so it doesn't cost them much either. It'll happen eventually, but I don't expect to see much movement until the price/GB gap narrows at lot between SSD and HDDs because of people wanting to make DIY NAS/Storage servers.
  • Heavenly71 - Wednesday, October 9, 2019 - link

    Sadly this board severly lacks USB ports. And it also doesn't have an internal header for front panel USB-C.
  • imaheadcase - Wednesday, October 9, 2019 - link

    That isn't really a issue considering all the options you can add usb to a system now-a-days.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now