# AMD AGESA 1.0.0.3ABBA Detailed, Fixes Zen2 Boost Issues



## btarunr (Sep 10, 2019)

AMD is giving final touches to an AGESA microcode update that fixes the issue of underwhelming Precision Boost behavior on its 3rd generation Ryzen processors. Version ComboAM4 1.0.0.3ABBA is being pushed to motherboard manufacturers to integrate with their UEFI firmware, and one such dispatch to MSI got leaked to the web on ChipHell. Tom's Hardware grabbed the BIOS as it was compatible with the MEG X570 Creator motherboard they have, and tested the Ryzen 9 3900X and Ryzen 7 3700X with it. 

In its testing, posted in a mini-review article, Tom's Hardware observed that with AGESA 1.0.0.3ABBA, their 3700X sample was correctly hitting 4.40 GHz across the board at stock settings. With the older 1.0.0.3AB, it would touch 4.375 GHz. The Ryzen 9 3900X behaves slightly differently with this microcode. Tom's Hardware was able to raise its peak boost frequency from 4.575 GHz to 4.625 GHz (above the 4.60 GHz specification), but in certain tests such as POV-Ray and Cinebench, its boost frequency decays down to 4.250 GHz. Overall, the reviewer tabulated improved performance on the chips with the new microcode. The new microcode also apparently changes the processor's thermal thresholds.



 

 

 

 



*Update (10/9)* AMD posted an elaborate release detailing the AGESA 1.0.0.3ABBA update.



Hello, everyone! We're delighted by your support and the strong momentum of 3rd Gen AMD Ryzen processors in the marketplace, and we continue to watch your feedback closely. Today we have some important updates for you concerning processor boost behavior, desktop idle behavior, and a new monitoring SDK. The first two changes will be arriving in BIOSes based on AGESA 1003ABBA, and we are planning to make the SDK public on developer.amd.com with a target release date of September 30.

*Boost Changes*
Starting with our commitment to provide you an update on processor boost, our analysis indicates that the processor boost algorithm was affected by an issue that could cause target frequencies to be lower than expected. This has been resolved. We've also been exploring other opportunities to optimize performance, which can further enhance the frequency. These changes are now being implemented in flashable BIOSes from our motherboard partners. Across the stack of 3rd Gen Ryzen Processors, our internal testing shows that these changes can add approximately 25-50 MHz to the current boost frequencies under various workloads.

Our estimation of the benefit is broadly based on workloads like PCMark 10 and Kraken JavaScript Benchmark. The actual improvement may be lower or higher depending on the workload, system configuration, and thermal/cooling solution implemented in the PC. We used the following test system in our analysis: 
AMD Reference Motherboard (AGESA 1003ABBA beta BIOS)
2x8GB DDR4-3600C16
AMD Wraith Prism and Noctua NH-D15S coolers
Windows 10 May 2019 Update
22°C ambient test lab
Streacom BC1 Open Benchtable
AMD Chipset Driver 1.8.19.xxx
AMD Ryzen Balanced power plan
BIOS defaults (except memory OC)
These improvements will be available in final BIOSes starting in about three weeks' time, depending on the testing and implementation schedule of your motherboard manufacturer. Additional information on boost frequency in the 3rd Gen AMD Ryzen Processors can also be obtained from this separate blog update.

Going forward, it's important to understand how our boost technology operates. Our processors perform intelligent real-time analysis of the CPU temperature, motherboard voltage regulator current (amps), socket power (watts), loaded cores, and workload intensity to maximize performance from millisecond to millisecond. Ensuring your system has adequate thermal paste; reliable system cooling; the latest motherboard BIOS; reliable BIOS settings/configuration; the latest AMD chipset driver; and the latest operating system can enhance your experience.

Following the installation of the latest BIOS update, a consumer running a bursty, single threaded application on a PC with the latest software updates and adequate voltage and thermal headroom should see the maximum boost frequency of their processor. PCMark 10 is a good proxy for a user to test the maximum boost frequency of the processor in their system. It is fully expected that if users run a workload like Cinebench, which runs for an extended period of time, the operating frequencies may be lower than maximum throughout the run.

In addition, we do want to address recent questions about reliability. We perform extensive engineering analysis to develop reliability models and to model the lifetime of our processors before entering mass production. While AGESA 1003AB contained changes to improve system stability and performance for users, changes were not made for product longevity reasons. We do not expect that the improvements that have been made in boost frequency for AGESA 1003ABBA will have any impact on the lifetime of your Ryzen processor.

*Revisiting Calmer Idle*
In late July, we implemented a series of software changes that would help the processor ignore requests for voltage/frequency boost from lightweight applications. The goal was to make the processor more relaxed at the desktop, but poised to react for serious workloads. While many of you were happy with the effect of the software changes, some of you were still grappling with cases where the CPU was a bit overzealous with boost. We wanted to smooth those out, too.

Today we're announcing that AGESA 1003ABBA carries firmware-level changes designed to do just that. The changes primarily arrive in the form of an "activity filter" that empowers the CPU boost algorithm itself to disregard intermittent OS and application background noise. Example test cases might include: video playback, game launchers, monitoring utilities, and peripheral utilities. These cases tend to make regular requests for a higher boost state, but their intermittent nature would fall below the threshold of the activity filter.

Net-net, we expect you'll see lower desktop voltages, around 1.2 V, for the core(s) actively handling such tasks. We believe this solution will be even more effective than the July changes for an even wider range of applications.

Please keep in mind, however, that this firmware change is not a cap. The processor must still be free to boost if active workload(s) seriously require it, so you should still expect occasions where the processor will explore its designed and tested voltage range of 0.2 V to 1.5 V.

*New Monitoring SDK*
Obtaining reliable data about the operating behavior of a processor is important to enthusiasts such as myself. There are many monitoring utilities on the market, and we work with many of them to ensure they're accessing telemetry data in a sensible manner. Regardless of the utility, however, it's common sense that all the tools should roughly correlate when you ask a simple question like "what's my CPU temperature?"

Enabling a consistent experience across monitoring utilities is important to us. That's why we're announcing the September 30 release of the AMD Monitoring SDK that will allow anyone to build a public monitoring utility that can reliably report a range of key processor metrics in a consistent manner. Altogether, there are 30+ API calls within the first SDK release, but we've highlighted a few of the more important or interesting ones below: 
Current Operating Temperature: Reports the average temperature of the CPU cores over a short sample period. By design, this metric filters transient spikes that can skew temperature reporting.
Peak Core(s) Voltage (PCV): Reports the Voltage Identification (VID) requested by the CPU package of the motherboard voltage regulators. This voltage is set to service the needs of the cores under active load, but isn't necessarily the final voltage experienced by all of the CPU cores.
Average Core Voltage (ACV): Reports the average voltages experienced by all processor cores over a short sample period, factoring in active power management, sleep states, Vdroop, and idle time.
EDC (A), TDC (A), PPT (W): The current and power limits for your motherboard VRMs and processor socket.
Peak Speed: The maximum frequency of the fastest core during the sample period.
Effective Frequency: The frequency of the processor cores after factoring in time spent in sleep states (e.g. cc6 core sleep or pc6 package sleep). Example: One processor core is running at 4 GHz while awake, but in cc6 core sleep for 50% of the sample period. The effective frequency of this core would be 2 GHz. This value can give you a feel for how often the cores are using aggressive power management capabilities that aren't immediately obvious (e.g. clock or voltage changes).
Various voltages and clocks, including: SoC voltage, DRAM voltage, fabric clock, memory clock, etc.
*A Preview in Action*
This SDK will be available for public download on developer.amd.com on September 30. As a preview of what the new SDK can enable, AMD Ryzen Master (version 2.0.2.1271) has already been updated with the new Average Core Voltage API for 3rd Gen Ryzen Processors. It's ready for download today!

As noted above, Average Core Voltage shows you average voltages that all CPU cores are experiencing over a short sample period after you factor in sleep states, idle states, active power management, and Vdroop. Depending on the load on the processor, this value might be quite different from Peak Core(s) Voltage.

For example: if the processor is lightly loaded on a few cores, the overall activity level of all the CPU cores will be relatively low and, therefore, the Average Core Voltage will be low as well. But the active cores still need intermittently higher voltages to power boost frequencies, which will be reflected in the Peak Core Voltage. As the CPU comes under full load, these two values will eventually converge representing that all cores are active at approximately the same intensity. The overall goal of these two values is to show you what's happening moment-to-moment the most loaded cores (Peak), and what's happening more generally to the CPU cores over time (Average).

We hope new APIs like Average Core Voltage give you a better understanding of how our processors behave, and we can't wait to see more tools make use of the new monitoring SDK. Visit amd.com on September 30 for the first public release!

*What to Expect Next*
AGESA 1003ABBA has now been released to our motherboard partners. Now they will perform additional testing, QA, and implementation work on their specific hardware (versus our reference motherboard). Final BIOSes based on AGESA 1003ABBA will begin to arrive in approximately three weeks, depending on the testing time of your vendor and motherboard.

Going forward, we'll continue providing updates in this format as the updates are being prepped for release.

*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## TheLostSwede (Sep 10, 2019)

Gigabyte beta UEFI's here.





						GIGABYTE Latest Beta BIOS
					

Warning Some of beta BIOSes are still undergoing compatibility testing. GIGABYTE is sharing these BIOSes for testing purposes only and are not meant f




					forums.tweaktown.com
				




And yes, it fixes the issue and then some. Prior to this release, my highest boost speed was admittedly already 4,525MHz, but those same cores, now boosts an additional 50MHz.


----------



## The Quim Reaper (Sep 10, 2019)

Will be interesting to see if this is a geniune fix or AMD just relaxing the restrictions they thought were necessary to protect the CPU's lifespan.

Hope its the former because if its the latter, it could come back to bite them down the road.


----------



## sutyi (Sep 10, 2019)

*It's the AGESA 1.0.0.3...*


----------



## ZoneDymo (Sep 10, 2019)

The Quim Reaper said:


> Will be interesting to see if this is a geniune fix or AMD just relaxing the restrictions they thought were necessary to protect the CPU's lifespan.
> 
> Hope its the former because if its the latter, it could come back to bite them down the road.



I doubt anyone would care if someone mentions their cpu died after 6+ years of use tbh.


----------



## Aldain (Sep 10, 2019)

Going by amd reddit, it FIXED it completely and then some.. People are reporting 50+ MHZ  over the boost clock.


----------



## GeorgeMan (Sep 10, 2019)

I'll be glad to see my 3600 hit the advertised 4200MHz. Because right now it doesn't even boost higher than 4100. Not even for one second in completely single threaded task.


----------



## Ed_1 (Sep 10, 2019)

Is that 1.5v Vcore higher than before?


----------



## xkm1948 (Sep 10, 2019)

Wonder what all those “This is fine” AMD fanboiz gonna say now.


----------



## TheLostSwede (Sep 10, 2019)

Ed_1 said:


> Is that 1.5v Vcore higher than before?


In my case? No.
Looks like I've even hit 4,600MHz for a fraction of a second...


----------



## GeorgeMan (Sep 10, 2019)

Ed_1 said:


> Is that 1.5v Vcore higher than before?


This is not a problem if it's "auto" (aka stock) behavior, because of warranty and design. The product is designed to boost and it needs those volts to boost so. Actually 1,5v doesn't damage the processor, because the current is low. On the other hand, some people throw 1.4v+ all core, because "it's lower than AMD's 1.5v", but they don't take into account that the current on all core loads is waaay higher than single core temporary boosts, so they actually fry their CPUs...


----------



## Emu (Sep 10, 2019)

Ed_1 said:


> Is that 1.5v Vcore higher than before?



My 3900x has been hitting up to 1.5V on light loads ever since I installed it.  I currently have the ABBA BIOS from MSI for my x570 Gaming Pro Carbon and it looks like it is actually working properly which is nice because the last few BIOSes from MSI have left a lot to be desired.


----------



## TheinsanegamerN (Sep 10, 2019)

ZoneDymo said:


> I doubt anyone would care if someone mentions their cpu died after 6+ years of use tbh.


If haswell CPUs started falling like flies this year, people would be hooting and hollering about planned obsolescence and faulty hardware, and you bet there would be a class action lawsuit over it.

A properly designed CPU will not die at stock settings. Just because this is AMD doesnt make a lick of difference. At stock settings, CPUs shouldnt die, period. If they do, the stock settings are pushing the chip too far. There are plenty of pentium IV CPUs that are still running after 15+ years of service without issue, same with core 2 CPUs running after 12+ years of constant use, ece.


----------



## GeorgeMan (Sep 10, 2019)

TheinsanegamerN said:


> If haswell CPUs started falling like flies this year, people would be hooting and hollering about planned obsolescence and faulty hardware, and you bet there would be a class action lawsuit over it.
> 
> A properly designed CPU will not die at stock settings. Just because this is AMD doesnt make a lick of difference. At stock settings, CPUs shouldnt die, period. If they do, the stock settings are pushing the chip too far. There are plenty of pentium IV CPUs that are still running after 15+ years of service without issue, same with core 2 CPUs running after 12+ years of constant use, ece.



Agreed, but do we have any clue that the spikes up to 1.5v are causing the Ryzen 3000 to fail? I don't think so and I bet there won't be an issue, as AMD_Robert has many times thoroughly explained on reddit. The voltage is completely design relevant and should not be compared to Intel's.


----------



## AnarchoPrimitiv (Sep 10, 2019)

In spite of everything, at least AMD acknowledged the issue (yes, after being forced to) and is working to fix it. Compared to Intel, I see this as a plus (though I'll be the first to state that some other entity's guilty actions are never an excuse for your own).  Perhaps in a few more weeks they'll have it ironed out even more. 

When considering the totality of all this though, it doesn't profoundly affect the value of AMD's processors and I seriously doubt that any human being would be able to notice a 100mhz dip in performance.  Nonetheless, I can still understand why owners would like to get every ounce of performance for which they paid.


----------



## techmagnet (Sep 10, 2019)

Dunno what kind of workload people are doing  that would benefit for that second or two boosts clock.


----------



## Aerpoweron (Sep 10, 2019)

That is interesting, Asus has the bios updated on its X370 board first. Nothing on my X370 from Gigabyte and Asrock, or B350 from Gigabyte. When Gigabyte was usually very quick adopting the newer bios versions with Ryzen 3k in the last few weeks 

Oh, and the Asus Bios removes PCI-E 4.0 support again. Just to make sure it seems


----------



## Oberon (Sep 10, 2019)

techmagnet said:


> Dunno what kind of workload people are doing  that would benefit for that second or two boosts clock.



Nothing, but people aren't happy unless they're complaining. I'm sure they'll move on to picking apart margin of error level performance differences now that it seems like most CPUs are hitting their boost clocks and then some under normal circumstances.


----------



## ShurikN (Sep 10, 2019)

TheLostSwede said:


>


Isn't that 1.5V a bit on the high side?


----------



## Chrispy_ (Sep 10, 2019)

Clockspeeds are up slightly but boost degrades faster because temperature limits are hit faster.

The net result is probably that overall performance is about the same, but people who wanted their round numbers in synthetic benchmarks will stop whining. 

For some (probably Intel shill-invoked reason) 4475 MHz peak and 4350MHz averaged over 300 seconds caused uproar because 4475MHz isn't exactly 4.5GHz.
Now we're going to get 4500MHz or even 4525MHz peak and 4250MHz averaged over 300 seconds and everyone is happy. 

Same chip, just running a little hotter and a little less efficiently.

Maybe I'm weird but I'd gladly sacrifice some transient peak value for a higher long-term average clockspeed and lower temperatures.


----------



## TheLostSwede (Sep 10, 2019)

ShurikN said:


> Isn't that 1.5V a bit on the high side?


For the billionth time, NO. It's within AMD spec. Can people PLEASE stop commenting about the 1.5V already?

And it seems the cores are hitting even higher boosts given a bit of time.







Chrispy_ said:


> Clockspeeds are up slightly but boost degrades faster because temperature limits are hit faster.
> 
> The net result is probably that overall performance is about the same, but people who wanted their round numbers in synthetic benchmarks will stop whining.


And you base this on running a Xeon rig? Seriously?

So AMD fixes the issue, yet all the Intel Fanboi's are here slinging mud...


----------



## spectatorx (Sep 10, 2019)

techmagnet said:


> Dunno what kind of workload people are doing  that would benefit for that second or two boosts clock.


People are doing various things on their PCs, not just giving away ram to chrome and playing fortnite on 3900x+2080ti in sli but that's not the case. No matter what people do they did purchase products, in some cases they did thought through purchase by analyzing specification of products and they chose the best one fitting their needs or imaginary needs. Said specification was a reason of buying such specific product, not different one. So if product they bought doesn't meet specification which it was designed with then such customers have full right to complain about product not meeting specification and their right is to demand from manufacturer to fix product so it will meet specification. If product is designed to boost up to 4,6GHz (for example) and max it ever boosted was 4369MHz then there is something legitimately wrong because product doesn't meet specification.

Same with ISPs, they offer you connections with speeds up to, for example 100Mb/s (12.5MB/s) on download. If you are using such connection and you've never seen anything downloading with anything at least close said 12.5MB/s and your top download speeds were, say, 1.25MB/s then there are 3 reasons of such situation:
1. Your downloads were too small to even notice and meet download speed or server/other source doesn't keep up with speed
2. Your networking card is ancient 10Mb/s card
3. Problem is on ISP's side.
So if you meet all requirements (have decent mobo, psu and so on) what wouldn't hold down cpu then problem is on cpu or bios and amd has to fix it. Same with networking example, if your infrastructure is ok and meets all requirements to handle 100Mb/s connection then problem is on ISP's side and you have full right to demand from ISP to do anything possible to solve the problem.


----------



## Nordic (Sep 10, 2019)

Chrispy_ said:


> Maybe I'm weird but I'd gladly sacrifice some transient peak value for a higher long-term average clockspeed and lower temperatures.


Then do that with the settings available to you. You can do that. I want the advertised max boost speed I paid for that has been unavailable to me even if it doesn't help performance.


----------



## Arc1t3ct (Sep 10, 2019)

TheinsanegamerN said:


> If haswell CPUs started falling like flies this year, people would be hooting and hollering about planned obsolescence and faulty hardware, and you bet there would be a class action lawsuit over it.
> 
> A properly designed CPU will not die at stock settings. Just because this is AMD doesnt make a lick of difference. At stock settings, CPUs shouldnt die, period. If they do, the stock settings are pushing the chip too far. There are plenty of pentium IV CPUs that are still running after 15+ years of service without issue, same with core 2 CPUs running after 12+ years of constant use, ece.



My AMD K6-2 @450Mhz still runs fine. What’s your point exactly?

Are you implying that AMD cpus are not as well made?


----------



## TheLaughingMan (Sep 10, 2019)

The numbers don't seem like all this was worth it. So you get +50 Mhz and the clock will hold at the spec for a few seconds to net you less than 1% performance. For what?


----------



## TheLostSwede (Sep 10, 2019)

TheLaughingMan said:


> The numbers don't seem like all this was worth it. So you get +50 Mhz and the clock will hold at the spec for a few seconds to net you less than 1% performance. For what?


Uhm, you've clearly followed this topic then...
I've gained 200MHz boost on the highest boosting core, but I guess that's not worth it to you...
Not long ago, none of my cores would clock over 4,400MHz, now the slowest ones boost to 4,550MHz, but again, I guess that's not worth it either?


----------



## Aerpoweron (Sep 10, 2019)

So this Bios update make the intel "5GHz means 5GHz" statement baseless now?


----------



## TheLaughingMan (Sep 10, 2019)

TheLostSwede said:


> Uhm, you've clearly followed this topic then...
> I've gained 200MHz boost on the highest boosting core, but I guess that's not worth it to you...
> Not long ago, none of my cores would clock over 4,400MHz, now the slowest ones boost to 4,550MHz, but again, I guess that's not worth it either?


I am glad it corrected whatever issue was going on with your BIOS. I have been watching this very closely since I will be buying one of these chips in the next few weeks. Your numbers seem to be part of the fringe since you gained 200 Mhz. Most of the chips from the online survey that D8bauer put out were only 50 to 75 MHz off. And yes I don't think 50 MHz would be worth it. Yours clearly needed a fix.

I am happy they did something, I am just worried that like with the testing of this issue, once it gets push to the board makes we are going to get mixed results on the level of improvement.


----------



## kapone32 (Sep 10, 2019)

If nothing else it proves that AMD is listening to their customers. If anyone thinks it is because of Debaur's youtube challenge they would be wrong as AMD has probably been working on this since launch.


----------



## Nordic (Sep 10, 2019)

TheLaughingMan said:


> The numbers don't seem like all this was worth it. So you get +50 Mhz and the clock will hold at the spec for a few seconds to net you less than 1% performance. For what?


Think about it this way. You are paying for 50/10 mbps internet but are only getting 45/1 mbps? Sure it won't really affect what you are doing, and 99% of people won't notice the difference, but that is not what you are paying for. AMD admitted there was a bug, and has seemed to have fixed it. We will be getting the specifications we paid for and will be happy.


----------



## TheLostSwede (Sep 10, 2019)

TheLaughingMan said:


> I am glad it corrected whatever issue was going on with your BIOS. I have been watching this very closely since I will be buying one of these chips in the next few weeks. Your numbers seem to be part of the fringe since you gained 200 Mhz. Most of the chips from the online survey that D8bauer put out were only 50 to 75 MHz off. And yes I don't think 50 MHz would be worth it. Yours clearly needed a fix.
> 
> I am happy they did something, I am just worried that like with the testing of this issue, once it gets push to the board makes we are going to get mixed results on the level of improvement.



Why are we still discussing his flawed survey? And why am I a fringe case? Holy crap...
No, my CPU couldn't boost 1MHz beyond 4,400MHz until recently and it's an issue several other people have had here, that there has been a hard ceiling which can't be bypassed in any way whatsoever.
This was fixed on Gigabyte boards a few weeks ago and a couple of my cores would boost to 4,525MHz, but the rest would be 4,475MHz at the most. Now, as you can see, all cores boosts to a minimum of 4,550MHz, so this clearly changes things significantly. I.e. I'm now boosting up to 100MHz over AMD's claimed boost speed, on at least one core.

I wish people would stop making crap up on this topic, as people have had a wide range of issues and it's clear AMD is working on solving things. If you don't have one of the CPUs, please don't make assumptions.



Aerpoweron said:


> So this Bios update make the intel "5GHz means 5GHz" statement baseless now?


Well, depends on how you look at it, but mostly, yes.
Obviously all core boost is still not going to get any higher, but that wasn't promised either.


----------



## Eskimonster (Sep 10, 2019)

Im seriously *surprised*, cant wait til *Der8auer* calls out for another group test scenario again.


----------



## thesmokingman (Sep 10, 2019)

TheLostSwede said:


> Why are we still discussing his flawed survey? And why am I a fringe case? Holy crap...



Hey Swede, can you elaborate on the flawed part? I'm a bit out of the loop on that, thanks.


----------



## GeorgeMan (Sep 10, 2019)

TheLaughingMan said:


> The numbers don't seem like all this was worth it. So you get +50 Mhz and the clock will hold at the spec for a few seconds to net you less than 1% performance. For what?


Avoiding lawsuits.


----------



## TheLostSwede (Sep 10, 2019)

thesmokingman said:


> Hey Swede, can you elaborate on the flawed part? I'm a bit out of the loop on that, thanks.



1. Too small sample size. The only potentially valid results are for the 3700X.
2. Too many variables. It looks like there's a fair amount of user error in the "fringe" results, but he simply filtered those out so...
3. He doesn't quite understand statistics, as he's applying a very weird filter to the results.
4. The way he presents the data is flawed, although I guess that comes down to how it was collected as well. See 2.
5. In many cases "fringe" results were filtered out for no apparent reasons. See 3.
And so on...


----------



## thesmokingman (Sep 10, 2019)

TheLostSwede said:


> 1. Too small sample size. The only potentially valid results are for the 3700X.
> 2. Too many variables. It looks like there's a fair amount of user error in the "fringe" results, but he simply filtered those out so...
> 3. He doesn't quite understand statistics, as he's applying a very weird filter to the results.
> 4. The way he presents the data is flawed, although I guess that comes down to how it was collected as well. See 2.
> ...



Thanks for breaking it down. But it sure got him a jack ton of hits, lol. That was probably more important than adhering to the scientific method.


----------



## TheLostSwede (Sep 10, 2019)

thesmokingman said:


> Thanks for breaking it down. But it sure got him a jack ton of hits, lol. That was probably more important than adhering to the scientific method.


It's not all wrong, but he drew some flawed conclusions imho.
In all fairness, it showed how widespread the issue was, with not getting to the correct boost speeds. However, it also showed that a lot of DIY system builders that follows him, are not that great at building PCs...


----------



## thesmokingman (Sep 10, 2019)

TheLostSwede said:


> It's not all wrong, but he drew some flawed conclusions imho.
> In all fairness, it showed how widespread the issue was, with not getting to the correct boost speeds. However, it also showed that a lot of DIY system builders that follows him, are not that great at building PCs...



He should have read more Shamino...

In other news, moar Intel hax...









						Weakness in Intel chips lets researchers steal encrypted SSH keystrokes
					

DDIO makes servers faster. It can also allow rogue servers to covertly steal data.




					arstechnica.com


----------



## Nordic (Sep 10, 2019)

thesmokingman said:


> Thanks for breaking it down. But it sure got him a jack ton of hits, lol. That was probably more important than adhering to the scientific method.


Honestly, I really don't think that was his motivation. It would be hard to do an actual scientific survey in as short of time. I think what he did was okay because he was very upfront with the flaws with his methodology. It was not meant to be scientific.

What he did do was bring attention and validity to an existing problem. Regardless of if his efforts affected this, amd has a fix. I am EAGERLY waiting for asrock to get it out to us.


----------



## Xzibit (Sep 10, 2019)

Nordic said:


> Honestly, I really don't think that was his motivation. It would be hard to do an actual scientific survey in as short of time. I think what he did was okay because he was very upfront with the flaws with his methodology. It was not meant to be scientific.
> 
> What he did do was bring attention and validity to an existing problem. Regardless of if his efforts affected this, amd has a fix. I am EAGERLY waiting for asrock to get it out to us.



He did try to pass it as such. Roman in his video said he filtered out the "noise". How is that even possible when their wasn't a validation process for the survey. Anyone could fill in the survey with no proof at all.


----------



## hzy4 (Sep 10, 2019)

TheLostSwede said:


> Uhm, you've clearly followed this topic then...
> I've gained 200MHz boost on the highest boosting core, but I guess that's not worth it to you...
> Not long ago, none of my cores would clock over 4,400MHz, now the slowest ones boost to 4,550MHz, but again, I guess that's not worth it either?


I though the Agesa was released just for the board vendors, and the implementation into BIOS updates could take up to the 30th September. Is the Agesa available through AMD? Can you clarify where you got it from?


----------



## thesmokingman (Sep 10, 2019)

Nordic said:


> Honestly, I really don't think that was his motivation. It would be hard to do an actual scientific survey in as short of time. I think what he did was okay because he was very upfront with the flaws with his methodology. It was not meant to be scientific.
> 
> What he did do was bring attention and validity to an existing problem. Regardless of if his efforts affected this, amd has a fix. I am EAGERLY waiting for asrock to get it out to us.



If you followed Shamino of Asus, you'd know that AMD had been steadily lowering boost from initial release bios to presumably pad the cpus for longevity. Thus this whole controversy is actually blown way out of proportion by Roman. He gave the other team fuel to troll and make this issue much bigger than it actually is.


----------



## moproblems99 (Sep 10, 2019)

Nordic said:


> Think about it this way. You are paying for 50/10 mbps internet but are only getting 45/1 mbps? Sure it won't really affect what you are doing, and 99% of people won't notice the difference, but that is not what you are paying for. AMD admitted there was a bug, and has seemed to have fixed it. We will be getting the specifications we paid for and will be happy.



Paying for 50/10 and getting 45/1 is bit different than paying for 4600mhz and getting 4550mhz.

Your scenario should have been like: Paying for 50/10 mbps and getting 49.5/9.9 mbps.  Don't get me wrong, AMD should have had this figured out before launch but I think you are over dramatizing it just a tad.


----------



## Assimilator (Sep 10, 2019)

Lemme get this straight...

AMD releases a phenomenal product that gives far more value than the competition at a far lower price...

And people moan and complain and cry oceans of tears because in some cases their CPU only performs at 95% of what it "should" (4.4GHz vs 4.6GHz) or, in the most ridiculous cases, boosts all of 50MHz lower than they believe it should...

FIFTY
WHOLE
MEGAHERTZ.

1/20th of a gigahertz. On a 4GHz CPU, less than 1% of the clock speed. Yet wars have been lost, worlds destroyed, for fifty megahertz... or so it would seem given the hue and cry, because we all know that more megahertz = more performance, right? Right?

Because there's never been a scenario where lower clocks over a period produce better performance than higher clocks causing intermittent throttling, right? Right?

This sort of uninformed, immature, infantile BS is exactly why companies stop listening to their customers. Because it teaches them that when they do, their customers take that opportunity to s**t on them. The net result is that the people who have useful feedback also get ignored, which benefits nobody.

Seriously kids, grow the f**k up. Good on AMD for addressing this for those who are insecure about the size of their manhood, but god damn.



hzy4 said:


> I though the Agesa was released just for the board vendors, and the implementation into BIOS updates could take up to the 30th September. Is the Agesa available through AMD? Can you clarify where you got it from?



Tweaktown Gigabyte Beta BIOS forum.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Sep 10, 2019)

TheLostSwede said:


> Uhm, you've clearly followed this topic then...
> I've gained 200MHz boost on the highest boosting core, but I guess that's not worth it to you...
> Not long ago, none of my cores would clock over 4,400MHz, now the slowest ones boost to 4,550MHz, but again, I guess that's not worth it either?


To be fair, 200mhz out of 4400+mhz isn't enough to make a big deal about. That's less than 5%.



Eskimonster said:


> Im seriously *surprised*, cant wait til *Der8auer* calls out for another group test scenario again.


He's just trying to drum up business.


----------



## Vya Domus (Sep 10, 2019)

The Quim Reaper said:


> Will be interesting to see if this is a geniune fix or AMD just relaxing the restrictions



Not sure there's a difference, that's how this works, all you do is modify the restrictions. There is no fix of sorts, the silicon is already shipped.



Assimilator said:


> 1/20th of a gigahertz. On a 4GHz CPU, less than 1% of the clock speed. Yet wars have been lost, worlds destroyed, for fifty megahertz... or so it would seem given the hue and cry, because we all know that more megahertz = more performance, right? Right?



People felt cheated apparently because it didn't coincide with the number AMD wrote on the box to the nth decimal point. I am not sure, I wrote pages of comments trying to figure out what this is about since this wont affect the user experience in any tangible way but got no definitive answer, people got really defensive.

They took our megahertz ! That's all I understood, unfortunately, they got what they wanted I guess.


----------



## xorbe (Sep 10, 2019)

Am I the only one that installs the cpu, slaps in 3200 CL14, and just uses the PC as is?


----------



## moproblems99 (Sep 10, 2019)

Assimilator said:


> 1/20th of a gigahertz. On a 4GHz CPU, less than 1% of the clock speed. Yet wars have been lost, worlds destroyed, for fifty megahertz... or so it would seem given the hue and cry, because we all know that more megahertz = more performance, right? Right?
> 
> Because there's never been a scenario where lower clocks over a period produce better performance than higher clocks causing intermittent throttling, right? Right?



It will be interesting to see how all the before and after benchmark test thingies play out.  Perhaps specific chips will see more of an increase, perhaps not?

That said, I don't understand why they (AMD) created this whole fiasco (I use that word very lightly) in the first place.  If it made more sense to have the boost a little lower, then have them boost lower.  But print that on the box and materials - don't put the higher numbers because you know damn well stuff like this would happen.  I think what happened is they figured out dropping 50mhz or so from boost was able to get other metrics in a better position pretty late in the game.  Then they didn't want to lower the numbers on the box by 100 because that would have been too close to the Zen+ numbers or they already had that shit printed.

Either way, this shouldn't have happened and it rubs me the wrong way because I am not sure if they are trying to be sneaky or are just incompetent.  Neither are a good look.  Ultimately, I bet it won't make much of a difference when it is all average out.

I think it would be awesome if @W1zzard would do one when official bioses come out.  Hell, the beta ones will do as I imagine they will never leave beta status.


----------



## W1zzard (Sep 10, 2019)

moproblems99 said:


> think it would be awesome if @W1zzard would do one when official bioses come out. Hell, the beta ones will do as I imagine they will never leave beta status.


Just waiting for asrock taichi version to come out


----------



## Arjai (Sep 10, 2019)

Around here? You are going to be in the minority. Even I, a casual, have done some tweaking, based on the things I find here.


----------



## moproblems99 (Sep 10, 2019)

W1zzard said:


> Just waiting for asrock taichi version to come out



Thank you in advance!


----------



## sutyi (Sep 10, 2019)

lexluthermiester said:


> To be fair, 200mhz out of 4400+mhz isn't enough to make a big deal about. That's less than 5%.



Doesn't matter... it should do what it says on the box, simple as that. If it says 4.6GHz boost, it should boost to 4.6GHz on at least 2 cores even if it only holds it for a single second.

My 0.25$: This whole boost thing got a bit out of hand... Not to say something was not 100% OK with the boost algorithm, but most people experiencing wierd boost behavior is like 30% AMD, 20% user settings and 50% of MB vendors doing wierd stuff with their own tweaks to EDC, PPT and TDC behavior in their BIOS code ending up with clocks all over the place...  Just like ASUS turning on MCE along with XMP, but that might have been already fixed.



W1zzard said:


> Just waiting for asrock taichi version to come out



Great Tech Merlin may I have a question regarding that mobo? How are PCH temps with a graphics card in place in considering the fan placement on the board just under the first PCIe x16?


----------



## Chrispy_ (Sep 10, 2019)

TheLostSwede said:


> And you base this on running a Xeon rig? Seriously?
> 
> So AMD fixes the issue, yet all the Intel Fanboi's are here slinging mud...


I'm not slinging mud. I'm moaning that the fix is pointless because there was no issue in the first place. The net result of this AGESA patch is that the cores are pushed harder than before, and as a result they are generating heat faster than before. All other things being equal - that means they'll hit their power/temp/cooling equilibrium sooner so the steady-state, minimum boost will occur earlier.

And yes I have Xeons. I have a whole goddamn server room, 60+ node CPU compute farm, 200+ node GPGPU compute farm and access to around 2000 different machines spanning multiple disciplines, generations, vendors, purposes and price brackets. It's my job to select the best hardware and software for specific purposes, test it, and then buy that hardware in bulk for multiple companies. I have contacts in AMD, Intel, and Nvidia and haven't missed a SIGGRAPH or Computex in almost a decade.

I don't know how I can state this any more clearly; I am vendor agnostic. I want the best solution regardless of who makes it. I do not like marketing spin, because I don't get paid for marketing spin. I get paid for actual real-world results and that means I need performance/$ and no-nonsense approaches to everything. Yes, I am biased. I am biased AGAINST BS and AGAINST shilling, because that makes my job harder. I enjoy tech as a hobby and gaming enthusiast, but first and foremost I need to understand all of the tech because my livelihood is financed by it.


----------



## Nordic (Sep 10, 2019)

Xzibit said:


> He did try to pass it as such. Roman in his video said he filtered out the "noise". How is that even possible when their wasn't a validation process for the survey. Anyone could fill in the survey with no proof at all.


He did not try to pass it as such. Filtering out the noise in this case would be removing bad data so that the information becomes clearer. Filtering out the noise is a way to try and improve data quality.

He was very clear that he had data quality issues. He was very clear that his methodology was flawed. He did as scientific an analysis as he could given the data he collected.

Even though I think it was clear, it seems it wasn't enough for everyone to understand that.



Chrispy_ said:


> ... the fix is pointless because there was no issue in the first place.


AMD said there was a bug. Are you saying AMD was wrong?


----------



## lexluthermiester (Sep 10, 2019)

xorbe said:


> Am I the only one that installs the cpu, slaps in 3200 CL14, and just uses the PC as is?


Nope, most people do that.


----------



## Chrispy_ (Sep 10, 2019)

Nordic said:


> AMD said there was a bug. Are you saying AMD was wrong?


AMD said there was a bug in order to shut people up and the fix appears to be to just jam more voltage through the chips so that more of them hit the "up to" boost clocks than currently.

I suspect the AGESA version has two fixes rolled into one:

Workarounds for poor vendor implementations in popular motherboard BIOSes because those vendors haven't got it right yet. This applies to those chips that were hundreds of MHz short of the boost clock and locked at specific frequencies. The onus is on the motherboard BIOS vendor to fix their broken BIOS but AMD can patch around a bad BIOS just as AMD/Nvidia GPU drivers can patch around bad game engine coding. *Yes, this is a bugfix*. It shouldn't be necessary but AMD are fixing bugs that Asus/Gigabyte/MSI/Asrock/EVGA haven't because this issue has enough press coverage that it has become more their problem than the motherboard vendors' problem.


Increased voltage. Der8auer's survey showed that the number of people achieving the max boost clocks wasn't great - with the vast majority of chips falling 50MHz or 25MHz short. This extra voltage allows all of those 'almost there' chips to hit that exact, round-number 4.4/4.5/4.6GHz. Even if they were already doing that to the nearest significant figure. My only regret with this approach is that in fixing the peak clockspeed they seem to have hurt the overall performance. This image shows that despite the peak being momentarily higher at the very start of the test, the steady-state single-thread clockspeed is 25MHz lower for the vast bulk of the graph because the extra voltage hurts performance when the chips are temperature limited. This image shows that the voltage boost causes the chips to hit that temperature limit faster. So yes, the people whining that they were 50MHz short are now happy but the end result is that everyone's chips are now over-volted that little bit more, and hotter and slower overall because of it.


----------



## Vya Domus (Sep 10, 2019)

Nordic said:


> He did not try to pass it as such. Filtering out the noise in this case would be removing bad data so that the information becomes clearer. Filtering out the noise is a way to try and improve data quality.
> 
> He was very clear that he had data quality issues. He was very clear that his methodology was flawed. He did as scientific an analysis as he could given the data he collected.



You can filter out as much as you want the data and make sure you use the right methodology, it all amounts to nothing. The problem is not with the analysis, it's with the data. Everyone must eventually understand that asking people over the internet what a sensor reads it's the worst way you can go about to do this sort of thing.


----------



## Dave65 (Sep 10, 2019)

TheLostSwede said:


> For the billionth time, NO. It's within AMD spec. Can people PLEASE stop commenting about the 1.5V already?
> 
> And it seems the cores are hitting even higher boosts given a bit of time.
> 
> ...


That is what Intel fan babies do.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Sep 10, 2019)

Chrispy_ said:


> I don't know how I can state this any more clearly; I am vendor agnostic. I want the best solution regardless of who makes it. I do not like marketing spin, because I don't get paid for marketing spin. I get paid for actual real-world results and that means I need performance/$ and no-nonsense approaches to everything. Yes, I am biased. I am biased AGAINST BS and AGAINST shilling, because that makes my job harder. I enjoy tech as a hobby and gaming enthusiast, but first and foremost I need to understand all of the tech because my livelihood is financed by it.


Well said. Right there with you, though in a different part of the industry.



Dave65 said:


> That is what Intel fan babies do.


No it's a real problem. 1.5v will do bad things to 7nm circuit pathways at room temperature. Electron migration and migation become very real problems at that voltage.


----------



## Xzibit (Sep 11, 2019)

Nordic said:


> He did not try to pass it as such. *Filtering out the noise in this case would be removing bad data so that the information becomes clearer*. Filtering out the noise is a way to try and improve data quality.
> 
> *He was very clear that he had data quality issues. He was very clear that his methodology was flawed*. He did as scientific an analysis as he could given the data he collected.
> 
> Even though I think it was clear, it seems it wasn't enough for everyone to understand that.



Of course his data was flawed. Anyone could fill out the survey with what ever he/she intended and fill it out multiple times.  Roman never addressed that issue. All one had to do is click a few options (4), name a MB and that was it. *Nothing was checked ever!!! no proof that the submitees had the hardware or complied with his instructions at all.*

He used it as a soap-box.  Good or Bad.

He has CaseKing as a resource. He could of done actual controlled testing in the 10 days he had the survey open.


----------



## Redwoodz (Sep 11, 2019)

lexluthermiester said:


> Well said. Right there with you, though in a different part of the industry.
> 
> 
> No it's a real problem. 1.5v will do bad things to 7nm circuit pathways at room temperature. Electron migration and migation become very real problems at that voltage.


 PROOF.                     That's the most ubsurd thing I have ever heard. Room temp is like 26c. Secondly- the amount of voltage is not nearly as important as the power draw. Single thread w\ a millisecond of a .2 increase in volts is going to do ZERO to electron migration. You people are NOT even seeing the real time figures yet. Until AMD releases the new monitoring SDK.

 Stop the madness.








xkm1948 said:


> Wonder what all those “This is fine” AMD fanboiz gonna say now.



Told you so. 
Just because we knew it was no big deal we also knew it would be addressed by AMD. Fine wine baby....fine wine.


----------



## Nordic (Sep 11, 2019)

Chrispy_ said:


> This extra voltage allows all of those 'almost there' chips to hit that exact, round-number 4.4/4.5/4.6GHz.


I already had you on my ignore list, so it is totally my fault that I am in this stupid argument with someone who doesn't understand what is going on. I know you don't understand because of this one little statement. It is a hard wall that these chips hit that is preventing them from getting to those advertising boost clocks. More voltage doesn't fix that the chip hits a wall at some arbitrary point.


----------



## TheLostSwede (Sep 11, 2019)

hzy4 said:


> I though the Agesa was released just for the board vendors, and the implementation into BIOS updates could take up to the 30th September. Is the Agesa available through AMD? Can you clarify where you got it from?


See my first post in this thread.



xorbe said:


> Am I the only one that installs the cpu, slaps in 3200 CL14, and just uses the PC as is?


You don't even set the correct memory speed in the UEFI?


----------



## voltage (Sep 11, 2019)

ZoneDymo said:


> I doubt anyone would care if someone mentions their cpu died after 6+ years of use tbh.



one sided. If this was an Intel issue, you wouldn't be saying that. you would care if your cpu died in 6 years. I personally am not falling for amd's hype right now, but i would like a new system, as I am using a workstation that just turned 8 years old, but works like new. An old Intel i7, with a second gen plextor SSD, back when they were one of the best. Next year when amd had newer, and intel finally comes out with Tiger Lake, ill evaluate both, and buy a new laptop with either, and a new work station, but personally, I do care if my cpu lasts, and I know plenty of people who care also.


----------



## TheinsanegamerN (Sep 11, 2019)

Arc1t3ct said:


> My AMD K6-2 @450Mhz still runs fine. What’s your point exactly?
> 
> Are you implying that AMD cpus are not as well made?


No, the exact opposite, that AMD knows what they are doing and they are not going to push an update that reduces their CPU lifespan, and that ZoneDymo's insinuation that nobody cares if a 6 year old CPU cooks itself due to vendor BIOS is hilariously wrong. 

Glad to see the entire community took my comment the wrong direction. Made perfect sense to me.....


----------



## Crackong (Sep 11, 2019)

Next one :

ABBAB

or 

ABBAA 

?


----------



## lexluthermiester (Sep 11, 2019)

Redwoodz said:


> PROOF


Physics. Look into it.


Redwoodz said:


> Secondly- the amount of voltage is not nearly as important as the power draw.


Glad you mentioned that because even at the relatively low power draw of 65w, at 1.5v that's alot of amps to run through such small pathways. More wattage, more power drawn.


Redwoodz said:


> Single thread w\ a millisecond of a .2 increase in volts is going to do ZERO to electron migration.


Your understanding of electronics clearly needs improvement.


----------



## Nkd (Sep 11, 2019)

sutyi said:


> Doesn't matter... it should do what it says on the box, simple as that. If it says 4.6GHz boost, it should boost to 4.6GHz on at least 2 cores even if it only holds it for a single second.
> 
> My 0.25$: This whole boost thing got a bit out of hand... Not to say something was not 100% OK with the boost algorithm, but most people experiencing wierd boost behavior is like 30% AMD, 20% user settings and 50% of MB vendors doing wierd stuff with their own tweaks to EDC, PPT and TDC behavior in their BIOS code ending up with clocks all over the place...  Just like ASUS turning on MCE along with XMP, but that might have been already fixed.
> 
> ...



lol. So even though amd boost says max boost and max boost has always been single core. You want it to boost to two cores because that what you think it should do even though box doesn't say it? hmm lol.


----------



## mahoney (Sep 11, 2019)

TheLostSwede said:


> Gigabyte beta UEFI's here.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Whats up with your chipset fan temps?


----------



## TheLostSwede (Sep 11, 2019)

mahoney said:


> Whats up with your chipset fan temps?


That's the internal temp sensor, the chipset is fine at 56C.


----------



## Poul-erik (Sep 11, 2019)

I simply don't understand that it can excite people like that. When you buy a new car you are told that it can run 25km on a liter, but in reality it can only drive 23km. Should we all have new engine in or,  every man accepts the 23 km on a liter.


----------



## king of swag187 (Sep 11, 2019)

Chrispy_ said:


> Clockspeeds are up slightly but boost degrades faster because temperature limits are hit faster.
> 
> The net result is probably that overall performance is about the same, but people who wanted their round numbers in synthetic benchmarks will stop whining.
> 
> ...


3.5 Isn't exactly 4GB, No?


----------



## TheLostSwede (Sep 11, 2019)

Poul-erik said:


> I simply don't understand that it can excite people like that. When you buy a new car you are told that it can run 25km on a liter, but in reality it can only drive 23km. Should we all have new engine in or,  every man accepts the 23 km on a liter.



Again, this analogy is flawed, as there are too many variables involved when it comes to cars.
Also, no-one asked for a new engine, as this was a simple fix from AMD's side, as clearly proven.
I've not seen too much feedback from others, but in my case, it more than resolved the issue.


----------



## thesmokingman (Sep 11, 2019)

king of swag187 said:


> 3.5 Isn't exactly 4GB, No?



You trolling? Or is that like some Nvidia reference?


----------



## Chomiq (Sep 11, 2019)

thesmokingman said:


> You trolling? Or is that like some Nvidia reference?


I believe that's the reference to 970. Except I doubt that anyone sane would defend NV in that case.


----------



## sutyi (Sep 11, 2019)

W1zzard said:


> Just waiting for asrock taichi version to come out





Nkd said:


> lol. So even though amd boost says max boost and max boost has always been single core. You want it to boost to two cores because that what you think it should do even though box doesn't say it? hmm lol.



These days when everything is multi-threaded apart from some benchmarks, yes I do think it should do that boost clock on 2 cores and it actually did and does.

1T and 2T boost behavior is almost the same and then it drops off from 3T and above. Interestingly TPUs sample of the 3600 non-X held its 4200 boost clock flat.


----------



## RichF (Sep 11, 2019)

May I propose an auto-ban that will give people a 24 hour break or something for accusing other posters of being fans of any company? Intel. Nvidia. AMD. I don't care. I am so tired of seeing these accusations hurled in basically every discussion here and in comments in most other tech forums. I'm really tired of all the ad homs in general. Can't we have discussions without personal attacks? Is that so much to ask? I was just at another tech forum and a mod jumped in and locked a topic, after insulting the person who posted it, piling on after the previous poster had insulted that person with a lazy objection to the length of the post. There is too much toxicity online and too much knee-jerk laziness when responding to others' efforts. I don't want to see personal attacks from _anyone_ when I read/participate in tech discussions. I don't care how many posts they have and how many years they've been there. Ad homs should be off-limits. They're fallacies, not contributions.

Furthermore, please stop cheerleading for any company. I've seen arguments here that amount to worshipful demands, like how unreasonable it is to require companies' specs to be accurate — especially because failing to do that could enable a competitor to get some easy PR.

We're supposed to like competition. Well, when there is competition there is PR battling. Get used to it. If the PR is erroneous then call it out. If it's picking nits that's okay if those nits are true. If a product doesn't meet its claimed specs then that's noteworthy, even if the real-world impact is low. If the real-world impact is low then, logically, one can argue that the company could have made a lower claim to match the actual results.

We can handle the truth.


----------



## GeorgeMan (Sep 11, 2019)

Redwoodz said:


> PROOF.                     That's the most ubsurd thing I have ever heard. Room temp is like 26c. Secondly- the amount of voltage is not nearly as important as the power draw. Single thread w\ a millisecond of a .2 increase in volts is going to do ZERO to electron migration. You people are NOT even seeing the real time figures yet. Until AMD releases the new monitoring SDK.
> 
> Stop the madness.



They just don't like to see a number that they were seeing 15 years ago with their Intel CPUs. They are not going stop. Let them destroy their chips by forcing 24/7 1.35+ all core voltage there, because it's "safe".


----------



## RichF (Sep 11, 2019)

I recall The Stilt saying the chips can be killed with too-high a voltage, regardless of thermals and current. He said, for instance, that he reckoned that the FX's safe voltage limit is around 1.475. That's 32nm SOI.

His comments, which I don't have in front of me (and therefore must rely on memory from something I read years back) suggested to me that a chip could be degraded or fried very quickly, even without being subjected to a heavy load like Prime — without temperature nor load being needed. However, I have also read things that suggest that higher voltages won't kill chips if they're kept cold enough (i.e. nitrogen), so I'm a little confused.

He also said other things that seem to fly in the face of the conventional wisdom, like the widespread belief that a chip that needs less voltage is a better-quality one. I see that idea everywhere, from forum posts to professional reviews. He said it's basically the opposite. Higher leakage means less voltage required but he said, except under nitrogen, that's worse than higher voltage required and lower leakage. He said, for example, that the 9000 series FX chips were so poor-quality that they would have ended up in the crusher if AMD hadn't decided to create the 220 watt spec for AM3+. So, although the 9590 could hit, let's say 5 GHz, with less voltage than an 8370E, it would use more power and would die sooner at a given high voltage. Not only do the higher-leakage parts waste more power they are more sensitive to electromigration.

So, when we're looking at what safe voltages are it seems that it depends a lot on the leakage of the part. Maybe 1.5V is actually safe if the leakage is low enough? It seems really high to me but I don't know the technical details of the TSMC 7nm process AMD is using. I thought that safe voltage maximums are supposed to shrink as nodes shrink, although things like FinFET probably affect that quite a bit.

I remember Fermi (GF100) being described (in an Anandtech review I think) as an example of Nvidia's strategic intelligence. The notion was that Fermi intentionally had extra high-leakage transistors to increase performance. Given The Stilt's comments, or my understanding of them which may be flawed, I'm not sure how high-leakage transistors are a boon. Was it something about them being able to switch on and off more quickly? Does that apply to CPUs?

Also, some have been concerned that AMD may end up with a higher RMA rate because of this change. If it's the case that the RMA rate will increase one solution the company can do for future production is to realign the binning. This aligns with the improvement to the node that typically happens as it matures as well.


----------



## Chomiq (Sep 11, 2019)

lexluthermiester said:


> Well said. Right there with you, though in a different part of the industry.
> 
> 
> No it's a real problem. 1.5v will do bad things to 7nm circuit pathways at room temperature. Electron migration and migation become very real problems at that voltage.










Skip to 7:45

Just because the CPU boosts to 1.5 V for a brief second it doesn't mean that it's doing so at high current.


----------



## RichF (Sep 11, 2019)

Chomiq said:


> Just because the CPU boosts to 1.5 V for a brief second it doesn't mean that it's doing so at high current.


Is high current required for degradation at any particular voltage? If not, what is the voltage where significant degradation will occur without high current?

How does heat play into it? If significant degradation can occur without high heat (let's say 50C) but with high voltage what voltage would that be?

How does individual chip variability play into it, since different parts of a wafer have different levels of leakage? How perfect is the binning, when it comes to matching that with maximum voltage (including in terms of heat if that's quite important)?


----------



## TheLostSwede (Sep 11, 2019)

So many experts here...
Apparently the conclusion of these keyboard experts is that AMD is selling a product that will blow up instantly.
Strange, my CPU is working better than ever after three months...

In all fairness, I haven't had to wait three months for my past Intel CPUs to deliver the box spec, but based on my Ryzen 1700 experience, I already knew what I was getting myself into.


----------



## RichF (Sep 11, 2019)

1) Three months isn't very much time when it comes to electromigration unless you're being really aggressive with voltage, correct?

2) Variability in wafers results in different levels of quality. If the binning is imperfect then one chip that's rated for a specific product slot might not match another chip with the same name/slot. So, what's a certain level of safe for one might not be as safe for another.

3) Did I miss answers to my questions that occurred in prior posts in this topic? Because, instead of being an expert, I have a lot of questions.

There is also the issue of motherboard voltage accuracy. The ASUS Crosshair Formula Z AM3+ board had a reputation for underreporting voltage. And, there is LLC spiking.


----------



## TheLostSwede (Sep 11, 2019)

RichF said:


> 1) Three months isn't very much time when it comes to electromigration unless you're being really aggressive with voltage, correct?
> 
> 2) Variability in wafers results in different levels of quality. If the binning is imperfect then one chip that's rated for a specific product slot might not match another chip with the same name/slot. So, what's a certain level of safe for one might not be as safe for another.
> 
> ...



It's not? Sound like it should've exploded as soon as I powered on my system based on the comments here.

And you truly believe AMD's binning is that bad? Right...

That was a general reply to this thread, as everyone has an opinion, but no-one here works for AMD as far as I know.

As to what motherboard makers do or don't do, is hardly AMD's fault now, is it?

Also, looking at Ryzen Master, the Voltages are quite different from those in HWInfo, with the latter seemingly reporting up to 250mV higher numbers, doing a side by side comparison. This is especially true during mostly idle scenarios.


----------



## RichF (Sep 11, 2019)

TheLostSwede said:


> It's not? Sound like it should've exploded as soon as I powered on my system based on the comments here.


Hyperbole isn't productive.


TheLostSwede said:


> And you truly believe AMD's binning is that bad? Right...


Citation needed. I made no claims about AMD's binning.


TheLostSwede said:


> That was a general reply to this thread, as everyone has an opinion, but no-one here works for AMD as far as I know.


It was inaccurate and combative.


TheLostSwede said:


> As to what motherboard makers do or don't do, is hardly AMD's fault now, is it?


Irrelevant.

I was trying to point out that there are a lot of variables that may need to be taken into account. How, for example, can anyone make claims about safe/unsafe voltage when they don't know if their motherboard is giving them accurate information? What about LLC spiking? My understanding is that increasing the aggressiveness of LLC increases the risk of high transient spikes.

My posts have nothing to do with being pro-AMD or against AMD. I consider that topic superfluous.


----------



## TheLostSwede (Sep 11, 2019)

All your input is seemingly just opinions though.
Do you actually own a Ryzen 3000 setup?
If not, then please start your own thread where you can discuss pointless things.

I've provided details, but that's clearly being ignored, not just by you, but everyone else as well.

Yes, AMD is shit. Can we be done with it now?


----------



## RichF (Sep 11, 2019)

TheLostSwede said:


> All your input is seemingly just opinions though.


Nope.


TheLostSwede said:


> Do you actually own a Ryzen 3000 setup?


Nope.


TheLostSwede said:


> If not, then please start your own thread where you can discuss pointless things.


Nope. I am more interested in answers to my questions. Since you aren't providing any I'll wait for someone else to, here.


TheLostSwede said:


> I've provided details, but that's clearly being ignored, not just by you, but everyone else as well.


Oh?


TheLostSwede said:


> Yes, AMD is shit. Can we be done with it now?


----------



## Chomiq (Sep 11, 2019)

RichF said:


> Nope.
> 
> Nope.
> 
> ...


Unless they're AMD's employees you won't get any here.


----------



## RichF (Sep 11, 2019)

Chomiq said:


> Unless they're AMD's employees you won't get any here.


The Stilt, I've recently read, works for one of the motherboard companies. He has posted in quite a few forums over the years. Since he, and others, frequent forums I assumed that some people are able to answer these questions.

And, even if no one answers them they can be food for thought.


----------



## ArchStupid (Sep 11, 2019)

AnarchoPrimitiv said:


> In spite of everything, at least AMD acknowledged the issue (yes, after being forced to) and is working to fix it. Compared to Intel, I see this as a plus (though I'll be the first to state that some other entity's guilty actions are never an excuse for your own).  Perhaps in a few more weeks they'll have it ironed out even more.
> 
> When considering the totality of all this though, it doesn't profoundly affect the value of AMD's processors and I seriously doubt that any human being would be able to notice a 100mhz dip in performance.  Nonetheless, I can still understand why owners would like to get every ounce of performance for which they paid.



lol what a slimy post.


----------



## Mephis (Sep 11, 2019)

RichF said:


> The Stilt, I've recently read, works for one of the motherboard companies. He has posted in quite a few forums over the years. Since he, and others, frequent forums I assumed that some people are able to answer these questions.
> 
> And, even if no one answers them they can be food for thought.



Unfortunately you are not going to get the answers or discussion you are looking for here. I would love to hear the answers to your questions, but it's not going to happen here. As you can see, you will be branded a AMD hater or Intel fanboy.


----------



## Chrispy_ (Sep 11, 2019)

sutyi said:


> 1T and 2T boost behavior is almost the same and then it drops off from 3T and above.



Yep, as long as people are looking at the "max" values at the bottom of the chart rather than the "average" values on the chart itself. Some people in here don't seem to understand the distinction.

It's worth noting that the 3700X here only reaches 4.38GHz max clock. OH, THE HORROR! Deprived of that 0.45% performance for a few miliseconds I might as well boycott AMD forever.


----------



## TheLostSwede (Sep 11, 2019)

More from AMD on the topic.





						An Update on 3rd Gen AMD Ryzen Boost Frequencies
					

Listening to users on how our products operate in the real world is very important to AMD. Your collective voice is heard and is key to how we develop and build great products like our recently launched 3rd Gen AMD Ryzen processors.  With our newest processors, we set out to build a family of...




					community.amd.com


----------



## NoJuan999 (Sep 11, 2019)

Chrispy_ said:


> Yep, as long as people are looking at the "max" values at the bottom of the chart rather than the "average" values on the chart itself. Some people in here don't seem to understand the distinction.
> 
> It's worth noting that the 3700X here only reaches 4.38GHz max clock. OH, THE HORROR! Deprived of that 0.45% performance for a few miliseconds I might as well boycott AMD forever.


LMAO !
I agree the .25 Mhz lower Max Boost only makes a difference for me when Benchmarking as far as I can tell. 
I have a 3700x on an Asus ROG Strix B450-F (BIOS 2704 - AGESA 1.0.0.3ABB) that I installed last week and it hits 4.375 GHz with PBO off and 4.425 Ghz with PBO on.
And it idles around 32-34c and maxes out around 60-62c while gaming and under heavy loads (like video encoding).
And as I have stated in a few different threads, I am VERY happy with it as it is.
I certainly won't complain if the new AGESA nets me higher Boost clocks AND better performance though.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Sep 11, 2019)

thesmokingman said:


> You trolling? Or is that like some Nvidia reference?


Both likely. And very poorly done.



Chomiq said:


> Just because the CPU boosts to 1.5 V for a brief second it doesn't mean that it's doing so at high current.


While that is true, at 1.5v electronmigation(the process wherein electrons cause degradation to the circuit pathway) WILL damage the CPU over time. At 7nm the pathways are simply do not have enough mass to withstand the flow of electrons. When you increase the amps applied as well, the damage being done becomes exponential at a certain point.

However there is a variable to this equation that AMD has not made public. The voltage applied to the CPU package as a whole is not what is being delivered to the actual CPU core dies themselves. This is because of the difference in process nodes between the CCX and the CPU cores. So when the UEFI state tells a monitoring utility(such as Ryzen Master) what the voltage is, it's reading voltage delivery for the entire package instead of on a per die basis. So when a reading is saying that 1.475v is being applied to the package the actual voltage reaching the CPU cores is lower as it's been filtered through the power regulation circuitry within the package itself. The voltage supplied to the package is broken down and passed along to the CCX at one voltage and the CPU dies at a separate, lower level(what that ratio is was not disclosed). Don't ask for links, there aren't any as this info came from a phone call. However it makes sense given how the new Ryzen packages are made.


----------



## TheLostSwede (Sep 11, 2019)

lexluthermiester said:


> electronmigation



Why is it you keep making up words all the time?

You seem to at least have been given good info, by whoever you talked to.
Since my first response got quoted below, I was a bit too quick to reply after reading the first part.


----------



## mahoney (Sep 11, 2019)

TheLostSwede said:


> Why is it you keep making up words all the time?
> 
> And what you're trying to explain, is not how the AMD chips work. That said, I have no inclination of trying to explain it here, since everyone just wants to trash these garbage chips, so go ahead...


He forgot the letter R








						Electromigration - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## TheLostSwede (Sep 11, 2019)

mahoney said:


> He forgot the letter R
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You sure? He seems to think it's two different things. See bold text below.



lexluthermiester said:


> No it's a real problem. 1.5v will do bad things to 7nm circuit pathways at room temperature. Electron *migration* and *migation* become very real problems at that voltage.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Sep 11, 2019)

TheLostSwede said:


> Why is it you keep making up words all the time?


It's not "made up". Clearly you've not encountered the word. I'm certain there are many more you've not encountered. That term was created in 2004 when engineers using an electron microscope discovered damage done to IC pathways caused by over-voltage conditions.


mahoney said:


> He forgot the letter R
> 
> 
> 
> ...


No, that is a different term describing a different condition.


----------



## TheLostSwede (Sep 11, 2019)

lexluthermiester said:


> It's not "made up". Clearly you've not encountered the word. I'm certain there are many more you've not encountered. That term was created in 2004 when engineers using an electron microscope discovered damage done to IC pathways caused by over-voltage conditions.
> 
> No, that different term describing a different condition.



There is no such word, please. Show me one link where someone uses that "word". It can't be a spelling mistake.
This doesn't count either. 





						Urban Dictionary: migation
					

Any group of gay men flocking together, usually going from one bar to another




					www.urbandictionary.com


----------



## eidairaman1 (Sep 11, 2019)

xkm1948 said:


> Wonder what all those “This is fine” AMD fanboiz gonna say now.



Those who didn't have a problem before will have a potential gain just like for those who were having troubles, give credit where it's due.



lexluthermiester said:


> It's not "made up". Clearly you've not encountered the word. I'm certain there are many more you've not encountered. That term was created in 2004 when engineers using an electron microscope discovered damage done to IC pathways caused by over-voltage conditions.
> 
> No, that is a different term describing a different condition.



Current produces heat, too much heat damages insulators and breaks down conductors over time



RichF said:


> May I propose an auto-ban that will give people a 24 hour break or something for accusing other posters of being fans of any company? Intel. Nvidia. AMD. I don't care. I am so tired of seeing these accusations hurled in basically every discussion here and in comments in most other tech forums. I'm really tired of all the ad homs in general. Can't we have discussions without personal attacks? Is that so much to ask? I was just at another tech forum and a mod jumped in and locked a topic, after insulting the person who posted it, piling on after the previous poster had insulted that person with a lazy objection to the length of the post. There is too much toxicity online and too much knee-jerk laziness when responding to others' efforts. I don't want to see personal attacks from _anyone_ when I read/participate in tech discussions. I don't care how many posts they have and how many years they've been there. Ad homs should be off-limits. They're fallacies, not contributions.
> 
> Furthermore, please stop cheerleading for any company. I've seen arguments here that amount to worshipful demands, like how unreasonable it is to require companies' specs to be accurate — especially because failing to do that could enable a competitor to get some easy PR.
> 
> ...



Where are your syst specs at?

Give credit where it is due.



RichF said:


> I recall The Stilt saying the chips can be killed with too-high a voltage, regardless of thermals and current. He said, for instance, that he reckoned that the FX's safe voltage limit is around 1.475. That's 32nm SOI.
> 
> His comments, which I don't have in front of me (and therefore must rely on memory from something I read years back) suggested to me that a chip could be degraded or fried very quickly, even without being subjected to a heavy load like Prime — without temperature nor load being needed. However, I have also read things that suggest that higher voltages won't kill chips if they're kept cold enough (i.e. nitrogen), so I'm a little confused.
> 
> ...



I run 1.476 by bios and it creeps to 1.524 on mine under blender, no problems


----------



## Xuper (Sep 12, 2019)

Only game , up to 10% ( %1 low ).


----------



## Chomiq (Sep 12, 2019)

lexluthermiester said:


> It's not "made up". Clearly you've not encountered the word. I'm certain there are many more you've not encountered. That term was created in 2004 when engineers using an electron microscope discovered damage done to IC pathways caused by over-voltage conditions.
> 
> No, that is a different term describing a different condition.


Think the word you're looking for is MITIGATION.


----------



## TheLostSwede (Sep 12, 2019)

Chomiq said:


> Think the word you're looking for is MITIGATION.


But that means to reduce the severity of the problem...


----------



## Chomiq (Sep 12, 2019)

TheLostSwede said:


> But that means to reduce the severity of the problem...


Hey, I'm playing a guess game here, he can migate his electrons all day.


----------



## TheLostSwede (Sep 12, 2019)

Chomiq said:


> Hey, I'm playing a guess game here, he can migate his electrons all day.


In all fairness, his concerns are a real issue, but he also explained what's really going on so...


----------



## lexluthermiester (Sep 13, 2019)

eidairaman1 said:


> Current produces heat, too much heat damages insulators and breaks down conductors over time


This is true also. However to much voltage can cause "pitting" in electron pathways. This is a completely separate condition from what you described.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Oct 4, 2019)

lexluthermiester said:


> This is true also. However to much voltage can cause "pitting" in electron pathways. This is a completely separate condition from what you described.



Electrons are already in conductors, voltage is a electromotive force to cause current to flow in a conductor.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Oct 4, 2019)

eidairaman1 said:


> Electrons are already in conductors, voltage is a electromotive force to cause current to flow in a conductor.


Right. And too much movement at too great a rate can cause pathway degradation.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Oct 4, 2019)

lexluthermiester said:


> Right. And too much movement at too great a rate can cause pathway degradation.



Yup, break down just like heat breaking down the insulator, heat is a product of electron motion/migration/friction


----------



## NoJuan999 (Oct 5, 2019)

@ eidairaman1 and lexluthermiester,
While I personally appreciate your in depth explanations, I'm confident that I (and most other users) will never need to worry about electron level degradation.
I tend to only upgrade every 5 to 7 years and I'm quite confident that any degradation of my motherboard during that time is negligable.


----------

