_:n6c8e065ec45c43b6bfab09e245732ccexb46
<http://schema.org/text>
"Wasn't this established pretty quickly after the processors came out?  Using memory outside the 1:1 FCLK range requires a massive overclock to offset the latency penalty to exceed throughput at lower speeds with 1:1 it's rarely worth it.  And in games it may not be possible to recoup the latency loss.  So basically you're stuck w/ 3800 memory on a 1900 FCLK if the chip can handle it (or possibly a few ticks higher).\n\nIn a way, yes. It was quickly clear that Zen 2 has no real headroom for OC to speak of, as at stock it already made good use of all the available room. Auto FCLK switching to 1:2 over 3800 and manually enforcing 1:1 there didn't earn any significant boost. Now we see increasing frequencies above what's Zen 2's normal range doesn't improve latency sensitive applications (in this case games). So all the different bottlenecks in Zen 2 appear to be pretty well optimized for each other, trying to go beyond in one area gets you stuck in one or some of the others.\n\nMay well be the case that this will be the biggest difference in Zen 3: a whole new sets of bottlenecks that are balanced/optimized in completely different ways than they have been in Zen 2. Though I don't expect any more headroom flexibility, the precedence of essentially maxing out nearly everything at stock has already been set, and I doubt AMD will move away from doing that again."
<https://forums.anandtech.com/threads/video-ryzen-7-3800x-5ghz-vs-core-i9-9900k-5-ghz.2580198/>