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

  • TheinsanegamerN - Wednesday, October 9, 2019 - link

    Except there is no expansion do do so...oops.

    This is mini ITX. This stuff NEEDS to be on the board. You can tjust add it, there is nowhere to do so!
  • Death666Angel - Thursday, October 10, 2019 - link

    May I introduce you to the concept of USB hubs?
  • Valantar - Wednesday, October 9, 2019 - link

    Leaving the x4 m.2 PCIe link off the CPU on the table is bordering on criminal. Sure, the board is packed nonetheless, but when every single competing board has two m.2 slots, this is a no-go. Sure, TB3 would be nice, but to be realistic the only thing it would be used for would be TB3 networking when needing to do quick file transfers to a laptop. Not worth the loss of a second m.2 slot by a long shot. And sure, I could get a TB3 SSD case - and drive up the price of that second drive by 2-3x. No thank you. I'll likely go for the Gigabyte or the Strix.
  • Valantar - Wednesday, October 9, 2019 - link

    Worth adding: a legitimate use case for this would be connecting the upcoming Apple monitor. Not many SFF desktop PCs capable of that. But will that even work with non-Apple hardware?
  • Calamarian - Thursday, April 16, 2020 - link

    As far as I know no WinPC thunderbolt 3 connection would work as apple "over-clocks" it's TB3 connections to run the Apple display... :(
  • TheinsanegamerN - Wednesday, October 9, 2019 - link

    Could it be lack of trace room? Socket AM4 is bigger, leaving less space to run traces, and you already have a LOT going through a small space.
  • DigitalFreak - Thursday, October 10, 2019 - link

    While I agree with you, I'm guessing they did it because using the x4 link on the CPU for NVMe wouldn't allow the M.2 slot to support M.2 SATA drives as well. That said, they should have run the Thunderbolt controller off that x4 link if it wasn't being used.
  • TheinsanegamerN - Wednesday, October 9, 2019 - link

    Why dont they put this level of effort into micro ATX boards?
  • DanNeely - Wednesday, October 9, 2019 - link

    Because sales have imploded. The people who care about size have left for miniITX as the relevance of SLI/XFire has vanished and the price/performance penalty for the smaller size has withered away. The part of the market that doesn't care is sticking with full ATX because why not,
    their case holds a full size board, they might need one of the extra connectors someday, and besides the more spread out layout makes getting all the connectors in easier.

    Pushing higher PCIe standards more than a few cm is going to get increasingly expensive; which is why AMD hasn't offered a 550 chipset with PCIe4 yet. Cost reasons might push mainstream PCIe4 boards out of the full ATX range. PCIe5 is much worse; to the extent that it might not become a consumer standard at all; it's looking like just reaching from the CPU to the top PCIe slot or chipset will either need expensive redriver chips or PCBs that cost a few hundred dollars for a full sized board. Assuming it happens at all, I suspect that will put a lot of price pressure towards a revival for micro ATX.
  • jeremyshaw - Wednesday, October 9, 2019 - link

    I feel they'll just have the top slot be PCIe 4/5, then all of the other slots at PCIe 3 or even 2. Depending on chipset placement, it may not even be viable for the chipset to have PCIe5.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now