# RyZen 3000 Boost Issue: What's your take?



## xkm1948 (Aug 28, 2019)

So apparently RyZen 3000 CPUs are not hitting their advertised boost clocks. As amazing as the performance of these processors are it left some sour taste for some RyZen3000 owners.









						Ryzen 3000: AMD deliberately limited Boost behavior in favor of longevity, says Asus staff
					

An Asus employee gas mentioned that AMD has reduced the boost behavior of the Ryzen 3000 processors to a more moderate level as it was too aggressive and now is a bit more limited in favor of longevit...




					www.guru3d.com
				




__
		https://www.reddit.com/r/pcgaming/comments/cusn2t

So what do you think?


----------



## TheLostSwede (Aug 28, 2019)

It seems to be UEFI related, I've posted I think a 100 posts here about it by now, but with the latest UEFI from Gigabyte, my CPU finally boosts to 4,525MHz, whereas before that, it would not get 1MHz past 4,000.25MHz.

The fact shamino hasn't seen a fix, doesn't really concern me, as clearly Gigabyte has solved it, so it seems fixable.


----------



## oxrufiioxo (Aug 28, 2019)

My 3900X seems to boost just fine. 

Overall performance is amazing and right in line with what I paid for.

I almost went 3800X but figured 100$ was worth the 4 extra cores if I had went 3800X I probably would have been bummed post reviews over how similar it is to the 3700X.

I think AMD should have done a better job with the 3600X and 3800X with binning they both seem rushed.


----------



## TheLostSwede (Aug 28, 2019)

oxrufiioxo said:


> My 3900X seems to boost just fine.
> 
> Overall performance is amazing and right in line with what I paid for.
> 
> ...


Which is a separate matter to the boosting issue, but I fully agree on your point about the SKUs being way too close this time around.


----------



## tabascosauz (Aug 28, 2019)

3700X. I actually don't mind the reduction of the boost. I never hit 4400MHz, but get pretty close at about 4360-70MHz. Irrelevant, because my potato seems to need a billion volts for anything over 4GHz, making boost clocks over 4.2GHz nothing more than transient anyways.

AMD needs to address the fact that it's all or nothing; either you go balls to the wall to max boost despite your silicon quality, or base speed only.


----------



## kartoffelotto (Aug 28, 2019)

actually, prices here have become as similar as the cpus for 3700x and 3800x. 3800x is now 368€, i lol at my impatience


----------



## Chomiq (Aug 28, 2019)

They should get their facts right. Or do they believe that settling out of court 10 years from now is cheaper than risking stock price drop now?


----------



## FinneousPJ (Aug 28, 2019)

Really bad poll. Super biased options.


----------



## phanbuey (Aug 28, 2019)

Option 3 - It's fine.  I DONT CARE AND I HATE SMALL CHILDREN.

Pretty sure that whole department is about to get cleared out anyways...





						AMD agrees to cough up $35-a-chip payout over eight-core Bulldozer advertising fiasco
					

A great deal or were consumers Bulldozed by the chip giant?




					www.theregister.co.uk
				




Lisa is about to go in there with a hatchet.


----------



## Tomgang (Aug 28, 2019)

Not gonna vote, but it seems boost has just as much to do with motherboards. Same cpu boost different on different boards.


----------



## biffzinker (Aug 28, 2019)

I'm sticking with a manual overclock of 4.175 GHz across all cores as long as I don't require the red voltage (1.45+) options for stability.


----------



## R-T-B (Aug 28, 2019)

I hate all forms of "boost" with a vengance.  So, let me just say that I won't be saying this is an AMD exclusive issue.  It's even present in the GPU scene.  Heck, it practically started there.


----------



## trparky (Aug 29, 2019)

R-T-B said:


> I hate all forms of "boost" with a vengance.  So, let me just say that I won't be saying this is an AMD exclusive issue.  It's even present in the GPU scene.  Heck, it practically started there.


It’s worse on the Intel side, unless you have really good cooling forget about consistent boost clocks unless of course you enable All-Core Boost.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Aug 29, 2019)

xkm1948 said:


> So apparently RyZen 3000 CPUs are not hitting their advertised boost clocks. As amazing as the performance of these processors are it left some sour taste for some RyZen3000 owners.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I've done many upgrades to existing systems and built a bunch of systems based on the Ryzen 3xxx CPU's and have not seen even one instance where the CPU failed to hit it's rated specs or boost clocks. I've seen a bunch of boards overvolting them by default, causing heat issues and thus throttling. Dropping the voltages to what they are supposed to be solves this issue instantly. Maybe this is the problem people are having? Just a guess though.


----------



## Nordic (Aug 29, 2019)

It is a bad poll but I do think amd messed up.


----------



## Divide Overflow (Aug 29, 2019)

Poll is full of troll.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Aug 29, 2019)

Divide Overflow said:


> Poll is full of troll.


While it seems biased, can't really call it a troll of a poll because it's addressing a very real issue people are having..


----------



## TheLostSwede (Aug 29, 2019)

lexluthermiester said:


> While it seems biased, can't really call it a troll of a poll because it's addressing a very real issue people are having..


The poll is full of troll, however, the question is legitimate.


----------



## Divide Overflow (Aug 29, 2019)

lexluthermiester said:


> While it seems biased, can't really call it a troll of a poll because it's addressing a very real issue people are having..


My 3900X seems to boost just fine.  Poll sure came across as trolling to me.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Aug 29, 2019)

Divide Overflow said:


> My 3900X seems to boost just fine.  Poll sure came across as trolling to me.


I think you might be confusing the term "trolling" with "biased", with it very much seems to be.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Aug 29, 2019)

lexluthermiester said:


> I've done many upgrades to existing system and built a bunch of systems based on the Ryzen 3xxx CPU's and have not seen even one instance where the CPU failed to hit it's rated specs or boost clocks. I've seen a bunch of boards overvolting them by default, causing heat issues and thus throttling. Dropping the voltages to what they are supposed to be solves this issue instantly. Maybe this is the problem people are having? Just a guess though.



The og is biased.



Divide Overflow said:


> My 3900X seems to boost just fine.  Poll sure came across as trolling to me.





lexluthermiester said:


> I think you might be confusing the term "trolling" with "biased", with it very much seems to be.


----------



## Octopuss (Aug 29, 2019)

Can anyone explain this longevity nonsense AMD claims to me? It sounds like utter nonsense to me. It's not like a CPU is overvolting itself while boosting (and even if it did, it doesn't matter, because it would last years anyway), so this feels like completely pointless change.


----------



## londiste (Aug 29, 2019)

Octopuss said:


> Can anyone explain this longevity nonsense AMD claims to me? It sounds like utter nonsense to me. It's not like a CPU is overvolting itself while boosting (and even if it did, it doesn't matter, because it would last years anyway), so this feels like completely pointless change.


It depends on what would be considered overvolting. Ryzen 3000 CPUs do run cores at 1.4-1.5V when boosting.


----------



## Vario (Aug 29, 2019)

This is my take:

They could have sold these as 3.5GHz processors with unlocked overclocking and a potential +800 MHz overclock.

The processor would then be poorly reviewed by hardware websites that cater to gamers, compared to Intel.

So instead, they found a way to make it beat or tie with Intel in nearly every possible circumstance: gaming, single thread workloads, and multithread workloads; with no remaining overclock headroom, and on some examples, strange voltages, high temperatures, and inconsistent turbos.

It seems a bit bait and switch and deceptive, as the earlier AMD statements to early adopter redditors on /r/amd were "your new Ryzen 3000 series processor is perfectly fine with high voltage transients and high temperatures because its a new architecture and popular hw monitoring tools are too sensitive at recording data"

__
		https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/cbls9g


----------



## silkstone (Aug 29, 2019)

xkm1948 said:


> So apparently RyZen 3000 CPUs are not hitting their advertised boost clocks. As amazing as the performance of these processors are it left some sour taste for some RyZen3000 owners.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I have every issue listed in that video. It's not really a deal breaker for me as I don't need the clocks, but obviously I want it to be fixed!


----------



## lexluthermiester (Aug 29, 2019)

londiste said:


> It depends on what would be considered overvolting. Ryzen 3000 CPUs do run cores at 1.4-1.5V when boosting.


I haven't seen that. The highest voltage bump during boost I've seen is 1.375.


----------



## londiste (Aug 29, 2019)

lexluthermiester said:


> I haven't seen that. The highest voltage bump during boost I've seen is 1.375.


Single/dual core boost or all-core boost? 
1.47-1.5V is what I see on one core. ~1.45V on two cores and less after that.
While high voltages are not sustainable on all cores anyway, the limiting factor is primarily power limit kicking in on 3+core load


----------



## silkstone (Aug 29, 2019)

londiste said:


> Single/dual core boost or all-core boost?
> 1.47-1.5V is what I see on one core. ~1.45V on two cores and less after that.
> While high voltages are not sustainable on all cores anyway, the limiting factor is primarily power limit kicking in on 3+core load



On my 3600 I get 1.45v idle and 1.35v on load, though I still need to look into setting bios voltage to 'normal'.
My idle clocks are pretty much always at boost, but I do have some background tasks that keep my cpu at a constant 10-20%


----------



## xtreemchaos (Aug 29, 2019)

ive not voted, all I can say is give it time, same happened with the 2700x at first my one wouldn't boost above 4.150 2 bios updates later I think f40 "Aorus"and it was hitting 4.300 like a good little processor. I agree where said its down to mobo and bios updates.


----------



## Nordic (Aug 29, 2019)

Divide Overflow said:


> My 3900X seems to boost just fine.  Poll sure came across as trolling to me.


You have made the common mistake of assuming your experience is the same as everyone elses. Most threads about ryzen 3000 have people including myself complaining about boost not working as it should.


----------



## Divide Overflow (Aug 29, 2019)

Nordic said:


> You have made the common mistake of assuming your experience is the same as everyone elses. Most threads about ryzen 3000 have people including myself complaining about boost not working as it should.


I made no assumptions on anyone else's experience.  I simply reported mine and my opinion on the poll.


----------



## Wavetrex (Aug 29, 2019)

Tbh I already forgot that my CPU was supposed to boost to "4.4"

After a month and a half of use, the only thing I care about is that my games play well and don't stutter, and my workloads complete fast enough, and especially... that it's faster (sometimes significantly) than what I had before.
if it does that at 4.3 or 4.4.... I stopped caring after first week of testing.

I didn't buy the CPU for the number written on the box, I bought it for the benchmark results which clearly showed how much faster it is than the previous one which I had. End of story (For me anyway).


----------



## TheLostSwede (Aug 29, 2019)

Apparently, Ryzen Pro can do 5GHz...


----------



## jesdals (Aug 29, 2019)

Well stil have to say, not worried with boost speeds when running 4500mhz on all cores


----------



## phanbuey (Aug 29, 2019)

jesdals said:


> Well stil have to say, not worried with boost speeds when running 4500mhz on all cores



Golden chip.


----------



## Octopuss (Aug 29, 2019)

TheLostSwede said:


> Apparently, Ryzen Pro can do 5GHz...


That makes no sense.


----------



## Wavetrex (Aug 29, 2019)

Octopuss said:


> TheLostSwede said:
> 
> 
> > Apparently, Ryzen Pro can do 5GHz...
> ...


Well, it can, under LN2, so it's not necessarily a lie ;-)

But one should not forget that when Intel switched to 14nm with Broadwell, it was barely able to scratch 4.3 Ghz, with maybe 4.4 golden sample chips, any more and heat went completely through the roof.
It took them a bit of + ++ ++++ +++++++ to actually hit 5Ghz with that process.

I won't be surprised at all if AMD releases a new stepping sometime early next year (maybe in Threadrippers?), that can boost to 5.0 (if lucky).
It's only about getting those manufacturing issues resolved.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Aug 29, 2019)

Im surprised by all this , my 2600X can be made to sit at 4.325 quite stable, stable enough to game If you can cool it which i can if the gpu is not also overclocked, which it never is, I actually game at 4.225 all core boost via a heavily abused Pbo algorithm so i cant help but wonder what gives , im so so tempted but dont think this a good value guy time to buy.


----------



## Vario (Aug 29, 2019)

Wavetrex said:


> Well, it can, under LN2, so it's not necessarily a lie ;-)
> 
> But one should not forget that when Intel switched to 14nm with Broadwell, it was barely able to scratch 4.3 Ghz, with maybe 4.4 golden sample chips, any more and heat went completely through the roof.
> It took them a bit of + ++ ++++ +++++++ to actually hit 5Ghz with that process.
> ...


Just a guess here but I think it most likely clocked poorly because of the L4 cache EDRAM / Iris Pro.


----------



## biffzinker (Aug 29, 2019)

Vario said:


> Just a guess here but I think it most likely clocked poorly because of the L4 cache EDRAM / Iris Pro.


Shouldn't of mattered since the L4 eDRAM was on a separate die.


----------



## Wavetrex (Aug 29, 2019)

Vario said:


> Just a guess here but I think it most likely clocked poorly because of the L4 cache EDRAM / Iris Pro.


That doesn't explain why Broadwell-E was clocking much lower than Haswell-E on the HEDT platform, as none of them had an iGPU or EDRAM.

It's just the process... the "brand new" 14nm was worse than the well understood 22nm.
And now history repeats itself with 10nm (but in a much worse way).

Actually, that seems to be the case for AMD and TSMC... current TSMC "7nm" is not exactly better than GloFo's "12nm", as @theoneandonlymrk just said... 2000 series clocked very similarly with 3000.

BUT... we'll see what 7nm+ brings. 2020 is going to be even more interesting than 2019 !


----------



## xrror (Aug 29, 2019)

I think AMD marketing got a little overenthusiastic with the numbers on the box. Which is a shame since they really didn't need to - and now there's this shadow over AMD with the perception that their clock speeds might be a lie.

Honestly they could have dialed back their box speeds by 200Mhz, and then everyone who did see the higher than 4.2Ghz would have been estactic, because it would be like AMD was giving you a bonus for nothing. That PR spin would have written itself.

"Hey everyone, AMD chips are actually faster than they advertised on the box!" ... says John and Jane Doe on reddit, etc.



R-T-B said:


> I hate all forms of "boost" with a vengance.  So, let me just say that I won't be saying this is an AMD exclusive issue.  It's even present in the GPU scene.  Heck, it practically started there.


Yea, the whole boost clock era we're in now is just a sad reminder that the days when a new process nodes = more performance are over. We're forced into this "mobile first" "power efficiency age" scraping for every last clock because physics is a harsh mistress. And there's no fun anymore with old school voltmods to crank clocks because this new stuff just burns immediately if you're not sub ambient.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Aug 29, 2019)

Nordic said:


> You have made the common mistake of assuming your experience is the same as everyone elses. Most threads about ryzen 3000 have people including myself complaining about boost not working as it should.


Then try the advice I offered earlier, lower your voltage to no higher than 1.3v and your boost clocks will be fine.


----------



## silkstone (Aug 30, 2019)

lexluthermiester said:


> Then try the advice I offered earlier, lower your voltage to no higher than 1.3v and your boost clocks will be fine.



My 3600 crashes when I do this.

Current all core boost = 3.9
single core boost = 4.1
load voltage 1.35
idle voltage 1.45-1.5

Updates bios and chipset driver as well as changing the bios config. Still have the same issues.


----------



## biffzinker (Aug 30, 2019)

silkstone said:


> My 3600 crashes when I do this.
> 
> Current all core boost = 3.9
> single core boost = 4.1
> ...


Yeah mine wants 1.43V for 4.175 GHz. I thought it was stable from stress testing but found out it was failing to run the Physics Test in Passmark's PerformanceTest.


----------



## tabascosauz (Aug 30, 2019)

lexluthermiester said:


> Then try the advice I offered earlier, lower your voltage to no higher than 1.3v and your boost clocks will be fine.



Bruh moment... that's not how it's working for a good number of us at all.

On Normal modes my board gives the chip an exact same dose of Vcore as it does on Auto, up to 1.4V full load. Why? Because it needs 1.3V for 4.0 and 1.35V for 4.1, that's why. Now scale that up to 4.35GHz and you'll see that not every Matisse is a golden egg like you assume them to be.

Now, if we're talking sub-4GHz, then you'd be wholly correct. 3.6GHz needs no more than 1V, which is probably where the hardware should be advertised, strictly speaking. But AMD wants to beat Intel and their own Pinnacle Ridge SKUs so we're demanding more than this 7nm experiment can currently deliver.


----------



## Nordic (Aug 30, 2019)

I don't think it is fair to say that 3.6ghz is where this hardware should be, but it certainly does not like going over 4.2ghz.


----------



## TheLostSwede (Aug 30, 2019)

lexluthermiester said:


> Then try the advice I offered earlier, lower your voltage to no higher than 1.3v and your boost clocks will be fine.


If I touch my CPU Voltages at all, my system won't boot, so there's that...


----------



## Vlada011 (Aug 30, 2019)

I would like to know how much boost AMD 3900X on temperatures up to 55-60C on all cores 12 with HT Enabled?
Not frequency of first 1-2 cores.
I still think that whole picture is not here and because of that it's not time for investing in AMD.
Yes I agree, investing in Intel with inferior Interface is bad but I have feeling that within 2 years max, maybe less, 1 or 2 important features of AMD X570 will be obsolete compare to Intel and AMD or only Intel.
PCI-E Interface or DDR5, or maybe both and that's period I could use X99 without problems.


----------



## mstenholm (Aug 30, 2019)

Vlada011 said:


> I would like to know how much boost AMD 3900X on temperatures up to 55-60C on all cores 12 with HT Enabled?
> Not frequency of first 1-2 cores.
> I still think that whole picture is not here and because of that it's not time for investing in AMD.
> Yes I agree, investing in Intel with inferior Interface is bad but I have feeling that within 2 years max, maybe less, 1 or 2 important features of AMD X570 will be obsolete compare to Intel and AMD or only Intel.
> PCI-E Interface or DDR5, or maybe both and that's period I could use X99 without problems.


I will tell once I get mine. 480 mm rad placed outside the case should give decent cooling. The rig have standing ready for at least five weeks now, well except the darn CPU. Ordered on the 7th of July.


----------



## silkstone (Aug 30, 2019)

TheLostSwede said:


> If I touch my CPU Voltages at all, my system won't boot, so there's that...



Mine neither. I set an offset voltage slightly lower, and I only notice boosts being reduced and instability.
When I dial the voltage down further. It refuses to boot and comes up with a continuous load-defaults bios pop-up.


----------



## Nordic (Aug 30, 2019)

mstenholm said:


> I will tell once I get mine. 480 mm rad placed outside the case should give decent cooling. The rig have standing ready for at least five weeks now, well except the darn CPU. Ordered on the 7th of July.


I am eagerly waiting to see your results.



lexluthermiester said:


> Then try the advice I offered earlier, lower your voltage to no higher than 1.3v and your boost clocks will be fine.


Alright. I finally tried this. I set voltage to a fixed 1.3v. It booted but CPUz reports that I am still getting voltage up to 1.45v. I will need to investigate further.


----------



## xtreemchaos (Aug 30, 2019)

ive just watch this I think this guys take is interesting.


----------



## tabascosauz (Aug 30, 2019)

Nordic said:


> I am eagerly waiting to see your results.
> 
> 
> Alright. I finally tried this. I set voltage to a fixed 1.3v. It booted but CPUz reports that I am still getting voltage up to 1.45v. I will need to investigate further.



It's been a couple of years since I used an ASRock BIOS (Z77 Extreme3, babyyy) but on my B450I Aorus it won't care what I put in the voltage boxes, with the lone exception of Vcore. And manual Vcore still only works if CPB is disabled (and therefore boost). Hence my comment about Ryzen taking matters way too far into its own hands and not giving a singular shit about what anything or anyone else thinks it should be doing.

I know that in theory, once you lower Vcore, Ryzen will adjust to the max frequency that it can stably sustain at those volts. In reality, it either doesn't care or doesn't boot.


----------



## Nordic (Aug 31, 2019)

Chomiq said:


>


Did you not see that posted 2 posts sooner than yours?


----------



## RealNeil (Aug 31, 2019)

trparky said:


> It’s worse on the Intel side, unless you have really good cooling forget about consistent boost clocks unless of course you enable All-Core Boost.


That really good cooling is key with my Intel chips. It doesn't work right without good cooling combined with good case airflow.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Aug 31, 2019)

So im sitting with my 2600X staring at a 3800X to buy, is now the time , or is the shit show to great on an x470(crosshair7) board to bother.


----------



## Khonjel (Aug 31, 2019)

theoneandonlymrk said:


> So im sitting with my 2600X staring at a 3800X to buy, is now the time , or is the shit show to great on an x470(crosshair7) board to bother.


Had no problem so far but if I hadn't sold my PC I'd have waited until B550 boards to show up or buy during holiday reason for discount.


----------



## silkstone (Aug 31, 2019)

theoneandonlymrk said:


> So im sitting with my 2600X staring at a 3800X to buy, is now the time , or is the shit show to great on an x470(crosshair7) board to bother.



No reason not to go for it, just so long as you know that you might not get the boost speeds advertised. It's still a great CPU for the price, especially if you compare it to the cost of switching platform.


----------



## xtreemchaos (Aug 31, 2019)

to tell the truth Guys im finding it hard not to buy the 3900x but im trying to wait for the 16core the moneys burning a hole in my pocket and im scared the misses might get wind of it  pray for me.


----------



## TheLostSwede (Aug 31, 2019)

xtreemchaos said:


> ive just watch this I think this guys take is interesting.


It's pretty much my experience as well, early UEFI's were not great, but by now, it seems everything is "working".
As I've mentioned elsewhere, Gigabyte delivered the first "final" F5 UEFI for my board and I now have working boost, my RAM runs at 3800MHz 1:1 at good timings for the RAM (better than spec) and I'm not seeing any issues. Some of the previous beta UEFI versions have had various issues that have prevent everything from working at once, except maybe F5l, but it was a bit buggy still for me.
I'm sure someone will say my boost Voltages are too high, but as AMD has said these are ok Voltages for boost, it's covered by their warranty, so I'm not worried about it.
I also think I've been, at least so far, one of the most frustrated and opinionated people here about the fact that my 3800X didn't behave as expected. So in all fairness, it seems like the board makers, or at least Gigabyte in this case, has fixed AMD's problems.

Not sure how many nano seconds my CPU has been over 4,500MHz though...


----------



## xtreemchaos (Aug 31, 2019)

to be fair to the mobo makers thay have been playing catch up, the last round 2000s my 2700x was under performing until the f40 bios update but now it gets a little over the 4.3 boost when the weather on the cooler side. its still early days.


----------



## TheLostSwede (Aug 31, 2019)

xtreemchaos said:


> to be fair to the mobo makers thay have been playing catch up, the last round 2000s my 2700x was under performing until the f40 bios update but now it gets a little over the 4.3 boost when the weather on the cooler side. its still early days.


Well, AMD works VERY differently to Intel when it comes to building the motherboard ecosystem.

Intel: Hands out reference boards with multiple ES CPUs and with full documentation, has local FAE people, works closely with the board makers months ahead of launches to try to iron out most bugs that haven't already been found by Intel (not talking CPU bugs here...) and they also work closely with the BIOS/UEFI vendors and even provides full UEFI reference designs for its platforms.

AMD: Here, have some chipsets and some documentation, please make us some boards. Oh, right, here's a very early alpha UEFI/AGESA that will get you going, along with some very slow, alpha silicon CPUs. Let us know if you have any problems and btw, we're launching in two months.

At least this is the impression I've gotten from talking to the board makers. In all fairness, AMD has a lot less budget than Intel, but this is now how you go about making a great product launch experience for end users. So there's no wonder it has taken some time to fix all the issues and AMD can only do so much to fix them, as they need help from the board makers.
That said, due to how the AGESA works, AMD apparently dictates a lot of the UEFI settings and even naming. I guess to some degree, this has something to do with making Ryzen Master work across all boards as well.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Aug 31, 2019)

silkstone said:


> No reason not to go for it, just so long as you know that you might not get the boost speeds advertised. It's still a great CPU for the price, especially if you compare it to the cost of switching platform.


Investigation of this imminent, r7 3700X on the way, i can't justify £50 for the 3800x and 100 mhz personally.
Can't really justify any purchase im homeless but their are more important things then homes lol.

I've taken all the likes the wrong way and upgraded to the 3800X :/


----------



## Darmok N Jalad (Aug 31, 2019)

To me, AMD is not misrepresenting if board makers can work through the issues and get things to as-advertised. It’s the downside to using the same socket for 3 generations, especially considering how much AMD has iterated over those three product lines. They are all on different manufacturing nodes, there have been architectural changes, support for new technologies, and even changes to how the chip is physically laid out on the package. You don’t see that with Intel, as they won’t push one socket across 3 generations. It sounds like board makers need time to get it refined, and in 6 months, this will all be behind us.


----------



## Xzibit (Aug 31, 2019)

TheLostSwede said:


> AMD: Here, have some chipsets and some documentation, please make us some boards. Oh, right, here's a very early alpha UEFI/AGESA that will get you going, along with some very slow, alpha silicon CPUs. Let us know if you have any problems and btw, we're launching in two months.



Wasn't Gigabyte the one who leaked the Computex X570 launch last year (7 months early) even the naming


----------



## Nordic (Sep 1, 2019)

95% of 3900x owners in his survey were not reaching boost clocks.


----------



## xkm1948 (Sep 1, 2019)

Nordic said:


> 95% of 3900x owners in his survey were not reaching boost clocks.


----------



## phanbuey (Sep 1, 2019)

i mean...  yes, amd marketing fail.... BUT we're talking about maybe 2% situational performance loss on a $500 12-core CPU that trades blows with Intel's $1070 9920x, and comes out on top most of the time.

It's just so hard to get upset about that.


----------



## xkm1948 (Sep 1, 2019)

phanbuey said:


> i mean...  yes, amd marketing fail.... BUT we're talking about maybe 2% situational performance loss on a $500 12-core CPU that trades blows with Intel's $1070 9920x, and comes out on top most of the time.
> 
> It's just so hard to get upset about that.




False advertising is false advertising. Do not sugar coat wrong doings simply because  "meh underdog AMD" As a multi-million for profit company AMD had every chance to decide what to put on their spec sheet regarding final clock speed. They choose to lie, and that is unacceptable. 

This is why we have laws. As much as I hate to say, lawyers need to get on this for another class action law suit. False advertising should never be tolerated.


----------



## phanbuey (Sep 1, 2019)

xkm1948 said:


> False advertising is false advertising. Do not sugar coat wrong doings simply because  "meh underdog AMD" As a multi-million for profit company AMD had every chance to decide what to put on their spec sheet regarding final clock speed. They choose to lie, and that is unacceptable.
> 
> This is why we have laws. As much as I hate to say, lawyers need to get on this for another class action law suit. False advertising should never be tolerated.



In principle I absolutely agree with you.  We should have manufacturers advertise boost clocks that the CPU hits.

But the two things I think the lawyers would have an issue with is 1) intent, and 2) actual damages to consumer.

1) Intent because of the way the AGESA patches rolled through, and because zen 2 is a brand new designed and AMD is known for getting caught with it's pants down on multitudes of issues in past releases (like not being able to use certain ram, not being able to run certain programs, instruction bugs etc.)  So it would be hard to say "AMD DELIBERATELY ADVERTISED FALSE CLOCKS" because they're a bunch of keystone cops over there -- Did they intend to make chips that could turbo at 4.6Ghz? Probably.  Did they deliberately manufacture a bunch of chips that can't hit turbo? most likely not.

2) Actual damages when you take into account the Boost clocks and the cost of the chip, how the actually behave, what is the % variance between chips?  It's a $499 chip, that performs 98% to spec when turbo'd so the WORST CASE scenario for damages is that they ripped you off by what? $10?

So on top of the fact that intent is unclear (which is a afaik is lesser degree of false advertising) and that the actual damages can be considered within margin of error (1-2% is typically margin of error in tech testing).  I'm really not sure this is the biggest deal.

I would be much more pissed about my RAM not posting or Destiny 2 not running, or the whole host of WHEA errors that are happening with NVIDIA cards than my 3600x hitting 4350 instead of 4400.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Sep 1, 2019)

xkm1948 said:


> False advertising is false advertising. Do not sugar coat wrong doings simply because  "meh underdog AMD" As a multi-million for profit company AMD had every chance to decide what to put on their spec sheet regarding final clock speed. They choose to lie, and that is unacceptable.
> 
> This is why we have laws. As much as I hate to say, lawyers need to get on this for another class action law suit. False advertising should never be tolerated.


you do realise GPu's have boost values rated in this way and Nvidia started it, I am not keen myself but hang them all or none for it, many describe that max Turbo/boost game clock whatever exactly the same but at the end of the day what do they all do, boost within your systems power and cooling envelope to the max If it can and drop when the going gets tough, who else ISNT making chips this way.
The Marketing sucks again not the only company passing off nonesense. IMHO.


----------



## phanbuey (Sep 1, 2019)

theoneandonlymrk said:


> you do realise GPu's have boost values rated in this way and Nvidia started it, I am not keen myself but hang them all or none for it, many describe that max Turbo/boost game clock whatever exactly the same but at the end of the day what do they all do, boost within your systems power and cooling envelope to the max If it can and drop when the going gets tough, who else ISNT making chips this way.
> The Marketing sucks again not the only company passing off nonesense. IMHO.



Agreed - just talk to ANYONE who bought a macbook pro in the last 5 years lol.  Those don't even run base clocks (on cpu OR gpu) if you push them.

Don't even get me started about phone battery/laptop battery advertisements.


----------



## Darmok N Jalad (Sep 1, 2019)

xkm1948 said:


> False advertising is false advertising. Do not sugar coat wrong doings simply because  "meh underdog AMD" As a multi-million for profit company AMD had every chance to decide what to put on their spec sheet regarding final clock speed. They choose to lie, and that is unacceptable.
> 
> This is why we have laws. As much as I hate to say, lawyers need to get on this for another class action law suit. False advertising should never be tolerated.


I doubt a class action lawsuit would hold water. Specs list the top frequency as a “max boost clock,” or the most the chip is capable of reaching. There is a base clock that you will get guaranteed, and I can see that argument holding. If it doesn’t, the Intel should also get sued for TDP ratings. AMD and Intel keep going back to clockspeeds as a major spec, but the reality is, workloads on multi core CPUs are so variable that a guaranteed max clock is hard to obtain or probably even measure. 

It’s not new either. My DD has a W3690 Xeon that is rated at 3.73GHz top clock. I have never seen it hit that—ever. One time it came close, hitting 3.68GHz on one core. The rest of the time, it reads at 3.6GHz, which it will happily do across all 6 cores. The W3690 is a 10 year old CPU. I think the reality is, these CPUs hit these max clocks at very brief intervals, maybe beyond the point of being accurately measured. What would matter to me is if I’m getting the performance results in real life, and/or if that matches my expectations for the money. Right now, I wouldn’t buy a 3000 Zen, but that is because I think the platform is immature, and I wouldn’t want to deal with the bugs as board vendors and AMD get their stuff together.


----------



## Vayra86 (Sep 1, 2019)

R-T-B said:


> I hate all forms of "boost" with a vengance.  So, let me just say that I won't be saying this is an AMD exclusive issue.  It's even present in the GPU scene.  Heck, it practically started there.



I must say that I do like the way Nvidia approaches boost; the way they market it, its like it just keeps on giving, royally boosting above spec.

With most others, boost feels like a weird trick of the mind indeed.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Sep 1, 2019)

Vayra86 said:


> I must say that I do like the way Nvidia approaches boost; the way they market it, its like it just keeps on giving, royally boosting above spec.
> 
> With most others, boost feels like a weird trick of the mind indeed.


It is better described ,marketed and i agree with the rest.


----------



## biffzinker (Sep 1, 2019)

xkm1948 said:


> This is why we have laws. As much as I hate to say, lawyers need to get on this for another class action law suit. False advertising should never be tolerated.


Well then get after Intel for advertising *95 *watts for the i9-9900K when in fact the CPU far exceeds the specified 95 watts unless you like a gimped CPU. Should I mention security sidelined in favor of absolute performance?


----------



## Eskimonster (Sep 2, 2019)

I want to see more winversion comparing to deside whats up.
I hear win 1908 is the one you need.


----------



## xkm1948 (Sep 2, 2019)

biffzinker said:


> Well then get after Intel for advertising *95 *watts for the i9-9900K when in fact the CPU far exceeds the specified 95 watts unless you like a gimped CPU. Should I mention security sidelined in favor of absolute performance?




Feel free to start a thread/poll on that. 

I don't buy that mentality of  "It's OK for company B to do bad things because company A did bad things"


----------



## biffzinker (Sep 2, 2019)

xkm1948 said:


> I don't buy that mentality of "It's OK for company B to do bad things because company A did bad things"


Hey now you said it yourself, "False advertising should never be tolerated." I honesty don't care who is misrepresenting their product. If AMD should be sued for false advertising so be it. In that case however Intel shouldn't be allowed to misrepresent their product to the consumer as well. Which it turns out has been going on for how long?


----------



## xkm1948 (Sep 2, 2019)

biffzinker said:


> Hey now you said it yourself, "False advertising should never be tolerated." I honesty don't care who is misrepresenting their product. If AMD should be sued for false advertising so be it. In that case however Intel shouldn't be allowed to misrepresent their product to the consumer as well. Which it turns out has been going on for how long?




Read thread title, this thread is about AMD's RyZen 3000 boost BS. Wanna talk about Intel's TDP BS then feel free to start your own thread/poll on that. I will be happy to discuss with you over there. Totally agree on Intel playing shady all these years. At the same time it is not an excuse for downplaying AMD's problem right now.


----------



## Fouquin (Sep 2, 2019)

My 3600X successfully reaches 4.4GHz at times despite the cooling and power limitations of the ITX form factor it's strapped to, no complaints from me.


----------



## Nordic (Sep 2, 2019)

theoneandonlymrk said:


> you do realise GPu's have boost values rated in this way and Nvidia started it, I am not keen myself but hang them all or none for it, many describe that max Turbo/boost game clock whatever exactly the same but at the end of the day what do they all do, boost within your systems power and cooling envelope to the max If it can and drop when the going gets tough, who else ISNT making chips this way.
> The Marketing sucks again not the only company passing off nonesense. IMHO.


The problem is that for 94% of 3900x users do not at all reach the advertised boost clocks at all, and it isn't because of power or heat constraints. Mine for example just hits a hard wall at 4525mhz, which appears to be pretty common.


----------



## TheMadDutchDude (Sep 2, 2019)

This has turned out to be a much larger issue than initially anticipated.

Roman released his results from his audience in this video: 








I've yet to watch it, but I am curious (and will watch in my nightly routine... hah!)


----------



## Wavetrex (Sep 2, 2019)

*Let's redo all these tests during winter, ok ?*
I'm quite sure at that time the exact opposite results will come up: 95% of the CPUs do reach the advertised boosts, while 5% do not.

it is the new reality of today's self-overclocking processors (GPU, CPU), temperature is a thing.

Here where I live, when it's raining and chilly at night that I need to actually put a sweater on... my R7-3700X goes to 4.4 Ghz a lot. With PBO I've even seen it at 4.525 !
But during the last week's heatwave, it wasn't even touching 4.25 ....
That 15 degrees difference in my room temp (15 night vs 30 day) was enough to add or subtract 200Mhz of my CPU's clocks.

Steve from GamersNexus was one of the first to put a video about this.









(He was talking about all-core overclock level, however the automatic boost ALSO depends totally on temperature!)

---
AMD's mistake was omitting this aspect in their presentations

This is what it should say on the slide:
Ryzen 9 3900X - Max boost 4600Mhz *at 20 degrees ambient* with fan curve on "Turbo" (or aftermarket cooler capable of 150W TDP)

---
Unfortunately derb8er completely neglected this aspect in his poll.
With added question: What is your ambient temp during testing?
- under 15 °C (I live in Siberia)
- 19 °C (AC on - I like it cold)
- 23 °C (Nice and pleasant)
- 28 °C (I'm poor and no AC)
- 35+ °C (Please kill me!)

I'm 99% convinced everyone with lower boosts have higher ambient, or they simply like a warm room where they use their PC, while those that did boost at advertised or higher live in colder climates.
And the reason most CPU's in the poll did not boost at advertised, is because probably most results come from Europe or USA, where right now it's a hot summer with plenty of heatwaves.


----------



## Xzibit (Sep 2, 2019)

I'm just curious why Roman didn't use his resources (CaseKing) to test his theory.

The only real take away from the survey was people liked 3700X the most.

He lost me when he started comparing his survey results to Hardware Unboxed. Controlled testing vs Online questions.


----------



## johnny-r (Sep 2, 2019)

My AMD Ryzen 3600 gets 4200mhz all cores, 4199.02 give and take to be precise, on CPU boost enabled and a standard XMP profile, no complaints from my side...


----------



## TheLostSwede (Sep 2, 2019)

xkm1948 said:


> False advertising is false advertising. Do not sugar coat wrong doings simply because  "meh underdog AMD" As a multi-million for profit company AMD had every chance to decide what to put on their spec sheet regarding final clock speed. They choose to lie, and that is unacceptable.
> 
> This is why we have laws. As much as I hate to say, lawyers need to get on this for another class action law suit. False advertising should never be tolerated.


Maybe give AMD another couple of months to try and solve this first? I mean, I've gone from hard locked at 4,400.25MHz on my 3800X, to boosting to 4,525.3MHz, which apparently puts me in a rather exclusive group based on der8auer's fairly small 3800X sample size. Even so, it goes to show that the board makers are clearly working on solving this issue, regardless of what Shamino is saying.


----------



## Frick (Sep 2, 2019)

TheLostSwede said:


> Maybe give AMD another couple of months to try and solve this first? I mean, I've gone from hard locked at 4,400.25MHz on my 3800X, to boosting to 4,525.3MHz, which apparently puts me in a rather exclusive group based on der8auer's fairly small 3800X sample size. Even so, it goes to show that the board makers are clearly working on solving this issue, regardless of what Shamino is saying.



But by then the issue might be resolved, and then we'll have nothing to talk about.


----------



## biffzinker (Sep 2, 2019)

Frick said:


> then we'll have nothing to talk about.


There's always Microsoft, Intel, Nvidia, Radeon Technology Group


----------



## tfdsaf (Sep 2, 2019)

silkstone said:


> My 3600 crashes when I do this.
> 
> Current all core boost = 3.9
> single core boost = 4.1
> ...


Switch to Windows balanced plan, it fixes the idle high voltages for some people.


----------



## Frick (Sep 2, 2019)

xkm1948 said:


> Feel free to start a thread/poll on that.
> 
> I don't buy that mentality of  "It's OK for company B to do bad things because company A did bad things"



Aye whataboutism is the death (or a death anyway, it's more of a thousand cuts kid of deal) of discourse.


----------



## biffzinker (Sep 2, 2019)

tfdsaf said:


> Switch to Windows balanced plan, it fixes the idle high voltages for some people.


The idle voltage drops but now the CPU is less responsive to boosting in relation to sudden short bursts of activity.


----------



## Chomiq (Sep 2, 2019)

I followed this guide to set up my rig:

__
		https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/cnoxgy

Idle temps around 38-39 with Ryzen Master. As for voltages - anything else running in the background will spike the result. I.e. task manager, CPU-Z and Ryzen Master, Firefox, etc. My take is - stop worrying about voltages. In the end most of it is down to UEFI updates from mobo manufacturers and AGESA updates from AMD.


----------



## Roddey (Sep 2, 2019)

Well my 3800x has been able to boost to 4.5 on the first 4 cores(that is if I dont mess with anything, if I do then all bets off) and the benchmarks show it above the average 3800x and on Ryzen fast performance plan the voltages idle down to .3 volt , so no complaints here. Everything is at default except for the ram timings and speed. Changing anything else doesn't seem to help with the amount of knowledge I have.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Sep 2, 2019)

xkm1948 said:


> Feel free to start a thread/poll on that.
> 
> I don't buy that mentality of  "It's OK for company B to do bad things because company A did bad things"


Yet no one can show us a post of you lamenting Intel or Nvidia for the same issues, I didn't look long though tbf.
Funny how the most offended often have the least invested in the issue though.


----------



## Roddey (Sep 2, 2019)

Roddey said:


> Well my 3800x has been able to boost to 4.5 on the first 4 cores(that is if I dont mess with anything, if I do then all bets off) and the benchmarks show it above the average 3800x and on Ryzen fast performance plan the voltages idle down to .3 volt , so no complaints here. Everything is at default except for the ram timings and speed. Changing anything else doesn't seem to help with the amount of knowledge I have.


The settings in Ryzen Master or the bios that I fiddled around with either bring scores down or just dont work. Like trying to change flck or go above 3600mhz for the ram. I don't seem to have the patient to go beyond basic settings. Resetting cmos is no fun. The only thing I have found to bring the benchmark scores up after the ram changes is ambient temp. I have chilled the room down till I was getting cold and seen the scores go up.


----------



## TheLostSwede (Sep 2, 2019)

Chomiq said:


> I followed this guide to set up my rig:
> 
> __
> https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/cnoxgy
> ...


I don't even have half of those settings in my UEFI, nor have I ever seen them in any earlier version. Makes you wonder if the poster really has the claimed hardware...



Roddey said:


> The settings in Ryzen Master or the bios that I fiddled around with either bring scores down or just dont work for me. Like trying to change flck or go above 3600mhz for the ram. I don't seem to have the patient to go beyond basic settings. Resetting cmos is no fun. The only thing I have found to bring the benchmark scores up after the ram changes is ambient temp. I have chilled the room down till I was getting cold and seen the scores go up.


I have changed very few settings in the UEFI. Let me grab a full set of screenshots to share here. Admittedly different brand, but even so. That said, it's taken a dozen or so UEFI updates to get me to this stage.


----------



## Chomiq (Sep 2, 2019)

TheLostSwede said:


> I don't even have half of those settings in my UEFI, nor have I ever seen them in any earlier version. Makes you wonder if the poster really has the claimed hardware...


The only thing that's missing is Cool 'n Quiet, rest is there. For Elite the only difference is that you can't set clock control to .01 as it accepts 100.01 as 101 Mhz.


----------



## Roddey (Sep 2, 2019)

TheLostSwede said:


> I don't even have half of those settings in my UEFI, nor have I ever seen them in any earlier version. Makes you wonder if the poster really has the claimed hardware...
> 
> 
> I have changed very few settings in the UEFI. Let me grab a full set of screenshots to share here. Admittedly different brand, but even so. That said, it's taken a dozen or so UEFI updates to get me to this stage.


OK sure. Thanks.


----------



## TheLostSwede (Sep 2, 2019)

Chomiq said:


> The only thing that's missing is Cool 'n Quiet, rest is there. For Elite the only difference is that you can't set clock control to .01 as it accepts 100.01 as 101 Mhz.


I can't find High Frequency Support under the memory settings, but maybe that's somewhere else?

Below are the settings I've changed. Only just changed the Global C-state Control option though.


----------



## Chomiq (Sep 2, 2019)

TheLostSwede said:


> I can't find High Frequency Support under the memory settings, but maybe that's somewhere else?
> 
> Below are the settings I've changed. Only just changed the Global C-state Control option though.


High Freq Sup shows up once you enable XMP.


----------



## TheLostSwede (Sep 2, 2019)

Chomiq said:


> High Freq Sup shows up once you enable XMP.


Ah, that'd be why, can't run XMP so...


----------



## biffzinker (Sep 2, 2019)

Chomiq said:


> For Elite the only difference is that you can't set clock control to .01 as it accepts 100.01 as 101 Mhz.


Any attempt at adjusting from 100 MHz to 101 MHz results in a black screen with a blinking cursor.

The only way out is to hold power button for 30 seconds then bridge the Clr_CMOS pins.


----------



## Chomiq (Sep 2, 2019)

biffzinker said:


> Any attempt at adjusting from 100 MHz to 101 MHz results in a black screen with a blinking cursor.


I didn't even attempt to boot at 101, "accepts" means that it registers value as 101 instead of 100.01. Once I've seen that I said "nope, nope, nope" and set it to 100. If it registers 100.01 as 100.01 it should be fine, otherwise stick to 100 instead of Auto.


----------



## TheLostSwede (Sep 2, 2019)

biffzinker said:


> Any attempt at adjusting from 100 MHz to 101 MHz results in a black screen with a blinking cursor.


Odd, I was running at 101MHz at one point, but I'm not going to say it was 100% stable at that point, more like 98%...


----------



## Liviu Cojocaru (Sep 2, 2019)

The highest boost I've seen on my 3600X was 4376mhz...I just OC'ed to 4250 on all cores with 1.3v for now, will try to lower the voltage and see where can I keep it


----------



## biffzinker (Sep 2, 2019)

Chomiq said:


> I didn't even attempt to boot at 101, "accepts" means that it registers value as 101 instead of 100.01.


My board doesn't allow a decimal value of .01. The only changes you can make are Auto, 100, and 101-3.


----------



## TheLostSwede (Sep 2, 2019)

biffzinker said:


> My board doesn't allow a decimal value of .01. The only changes you can make are Auto, 100, and 101-3.


Maybe the clock gen doesn't allow for it? Or ASRock didn't implement that fine grained settings in the UEFI.

Can't say enabling Global C-states makes any difference whatsoever. At least not that I can see.
Boosts are just as random and unnoticeable as before.


----------



## johnny-r (Sep 2, 2019)

I still disagree, I don't believe its the CPU:

I used the same app, CPU-Z and Aida64 reports 4199.xx MHZ per core...


----------



## 4rk4noid (Sep 3, 2019)

*Base Clock 3.8GHz  Max Boost Clock 4.6GHz*

I don't understand why so much talk about this. Is it working bellow base clock? Everyone knows max boost clocks depends on a few conditions, one of them is temperature.


----------



## Apocalypsee (Sep 3, 2019)

4rk4noid said:


> *Base Clock 3.8GHz  Max Boost Clock 4.6GHz*
> 
> I don't understand why so much talk about this. Is it working bellow base clock? Everyone knows max boost clocks depends on a few conditions, one of them is temperature.


Welcome to TPU. Its just how people talk to each other in this board.


----------



## Roddey (Sep 3, 2019)

Apocalypsee said:


> Welcome to TPU. Its just how people talk to each other in this board.


Ya I can just see me sitting here in a coat and long johns just to get those extra fps this winter! Or running benchmarks for fun!  Can't wait!


----------



## Nordic (Sep 3, 2019)

4rk4noid said:


> *Base Clock 3.8GHz  Max Boost Clock 4.6GHz*
> 
> I don't understand why so much talk about this. Is it working bellow base clock? Everyone knows max boost clocks depends on a few conditions, one of them is temperature.


Temperature is irrelevant to the problem. I still don't get max boost clocks. I cannot create conditions where I reach max boost clocks. Temperature, voltage, or workload are all irrelevant variables because I can not get more than 4525mhz.


----------



## Hellfire (Sep 3, 2019)

So I've only had my rig up for the day so far it's great.

First thing I did was change auto voltage to 1.25v in the bios, auto had it 1.47c and idle temp of 46c. 

1.25 dropped the CPU package to 36c.

Stock it was running Upto 4608mhz on some cores under load with more than one different core hitting it.

Day one, I've got 4350mhz all core boost stable at 1.25v but I bumped to 1.27 for headroom.

My aim is to try to get 4400mhz on all cores.


----------



## ShrimpBrime (Sep 3, 2019)

4rk4noid said:


> *Base Clock 3.8GHz  Max Boost Clock 4.6GHz*
> 
> I don't understand why so much talk about this. Is it working bellow base clock? Everyone knows max boost clocks depends on a few conditions, one of them is temperature.



What it is that most people believe that the Cpu should Max boost ALL cores to 4.6ghz. When in fact that is only the single core boost feature that reaches or ever has reached, in the past even on other AMD platforms. But insisted it is that all cores must reach this here max frequency.
In addition, to that note, It is unrecognized that the base frequency is actually a p-state where boost frequencies are not, therefor it should be considered a boost range frequency which means the difference between x and y systems.

You can tweak PBO for a higher all core frequency, but has it's limits in a variety of ways. Even if you could pull off the 4.6ghz all core boost, it's going to take 1.5v and some chilling to get there. That is part of design with top boards, Ryzen chips and LN2.

For the most part here, we have a lot of intermediate overclockers going for best performance but forgetting the wide range of possible overclocking outcomes a lot of times dependent on enthusiasm where you'd see enthusiasts using extreme cooling methods.
With a wide range low to high end boards, those with high end boards lack a little realization the board was meant for extreme cooling, and those with mid range boards lack a little realization they will never get to desired speeds, setting the bar too high on ambient air and AIO coolers.


----------



## londiste (Sep 3, 2019)

Straw man argument. Almost nobody insists it should boost on all cores.
It would be OK if it boosted to the spec max boost on one core but in many/most cases it does not.

I cannot find any way to make my 3600X boost to 4.4 GHz. I see 4.3 GHz max and that is for a split second, with any single-core load it consistently runs at 4.2GHz.


----------



## ShrimpBrime (Sep 3, 2019)

londiste said:


> Straw man argument. Almost nobody insists it should boost on all cores.
> It would be OK if it boosted to the spec max boost on one core but in many/most cases it does not.
> 
> I cannot find any way to make my 3600X boost to 4.4 GHz. I see 4.3 GHz max and that is for a split second, with any single-core load it consistently runs at 4.2GHz.


How are you running that 3600 Ryzen on a Z370 board? Update you system specs would ya?


----------



## londiste (Sep 3, 2019)

ShrimpBrime said:


> How are you running that 3600 Ryzen on a Z370 board? Update you system specs would ya?


I have more than one system. In addition to the primary one with i5 I have an internet box with B450/2400G and a test box with B350/3600X.
3600X is on an Gigabyte GA-AB350N Gaming WIFI with the latest BIOS - F42a (AGESA 1.0.0.3 ABB).


----------



## Nordic (Sep 3, 2019)

ShrimpBrime said:


> What it is that most people believe that the Cpu should Max boost ALL cores to 4.6ghz. When in fact that is only the single core boost feature that reaches or ever has reached, in the past even on other AMD platforms. But insisted it is that all cores must reach this here max frequency.


While it would be nice to have it possible to have a higher all core boost, this is at least a variable I can manipulate given voltage and temperature. I have been able to increase my average clockspeed with voltage and better cooling. 

It is as if you haven't kept up with the thread or the problem. I can not currently reach 4600mhz single core under any circumstances. Neither can 94% of 3900x owners according to debauer.


----------



## TheLostSwede (Sep 3, 2019)

4rk4noid said:


> *Base Clock 3.8GHz  Max Boost Clock 4.6GHz*
> 
> I don't understand why so much talk about this. Is it working bellow base clock? Everyone knows max boost clocks depends on a few conditions, one of them is temperature.


1. In this case, it has nothing to do with temperature.
2. People are experience all sorts of random "hard" upper limits, regardless of cooling or settings.
3. Some of us, like me, has actually gotten past the hard limit thanks to an updated UEFI, so it's highly unlikely to be a CPU issue.
4. PBO/PBO+ does nothing in most cases.
5. The overbearing silence from AMD isn't helping, which leads to more discussion...


----------



## Hellfire (Sep 3, 2019)

Nordic said:


> While it would be nice to have it possible to have a higher all core boost, this is at least a variable I can manipulate given voltage and temperature. I have been able to increase my average clockspeed with voltage and better cooling.
> 
> It is as if you haven't kept up with the thread or the problem. I can not currently reach 4600mhz single core under any circumstances. Neither can 94% of 3900x owners according to debauer.



94% did you calculate that or pull it out your butt. I've had no problems with 4600 on some cores.


----------



## TheLostSwede (Sep 3, 2019)

ShrimpBrime said:


> What it is that most people believe that the Cpu should Max boost ALL cores to 4.6ghz. When in fact that is only the single core boost feature that reaches or ever has reached, in the past even on other AMD platforms. But insisted it is that all cores must reach this here max frequency.
> In addition, to that note, It is unrecognized that the base frequency is actually a p-state where boost frequencies are not, therefor it should be considered a boost range frequency which means the difference between x and y systems.
> 
> You can tweak PBO for a higher all core frequency, but has it's limits in a variety of ways. Even if you could pull off the 4.6ghz all core boost, it's going to take 1.5v and some chilling to get there. That is part of design with top boards, Ryzen chips and LN2.
> ...



I think you've read some other forum than TPU, as I don't think anyone here is expecting all core boost to 4.6GHz, but when not even one core gets within 100MHz of boost, something is weird.

Read my points above-


----------



## Nordic (Sep 3, 2019)

Hellfire said:


> 94% did you calculate that or pull it out your butt. I've had no problems with 4600 on some cores.


I am quoting a survey conducted by debauer from a video earlier in this thread.

Edit: because I am certain that you will not go back and find the video, because it is clear you aren't actively keeping up with the thread, here is the video.









Edit 2: thelostswede beat my edit.


----------



## TheLostSwede (Sep 3, 2019)

Hellfire said:


> 94% did you calculate that or pull it out your butt. I've had no problems with 4600 on some cores.


Your reading comprehension needs improvement.
He said according to der8auer.
Please see.


----------



## xtreemchaos (Sep 3, 2019)

this could be clutching a straws but it merits consideration in my view.








we all know how to apply paste but the point about heat pipes and chip layout I found worth a look.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Sep 3, 2019)

londiste said:


> I have more than one system. In addition to the primary one with i5 I have an internet box with B450/2400G and a test box with B350/3600X.
> 3600X is on an Gigabyte GA-AB350N Gaming WIFI with the latest BIOS - F42a (AGESA 1.0.0.3 ABB).


That's you out the "It wont do max boost pot" then, since a bottom of the barrel 1st generation board not maxing a third generation chip, that its lucky it had a bios update to even run(given the rom size limits) is expected not extraordinary, shit what did they make x570 for when a 350 can do it all.

I wonder how many are like you in this poll, hoping for a unicorn while holding a donkey.

your argument diminishes the REAL issues others are experiencing.

@xtreemchaos I did try to point some to that vid indirectly but to most it deffinately isnt heat?? shame because that vid took 100+ CPU reseats to make and warrants more thought IMHO.


----------



## xtreemchaos (Sep 3, 2019)

I am not getting my 3000 chip until after Christmas but have a interest in sorting out as many problems before I get, its not very often I do forward thinking it makes my brain hurt   .


----------



## londiste (Sep 3, 2019)

@theoneandonlymrk are you saying that AMD and AM4 big argument about compatibility is complete bullshit then?


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Sep 3, 2019)

xtreemchaos said:


> I am not getting my 3000 chip until after Christmas but have a interest in sorting out as many problems before I get, its not very often I do forward thinking it makes my brain hurt   .


Im sat on the edge of my seat , screwdriver in hand waiting for delivery of my chip, coooome oooooon dpd u gits, it left at 9am 9 miles away.

@londiste Are you seriously saying that the fact that it works to a degree in that board is not enough, should they have prepped your 350 for a possible 24-32 core in 2020-21 with 12-16 phases?.

legacy compatibility does not equal MAX BOOST compatibility, your shit does'nt support XFR or PBO is that also AMD'S fault for not pre imagining those features, your stretching what compatibility means by far.

and if you are willing to spend such a lofty amount on a board 2 generations older then the chip,  I expect the same lower entry range CPU cooler or stock and a case with average cooling performance too.

Not ideal Boost scenario material in the real world.


----------



## tiggywombat (Sep 3, 2019)

I bought a Ryzen 5 3600 last week, paired with a Gigabyte B450M-S2H.

Left it at stock settings since overclocking seems to have little gain. During light loads, it boosts to 4145Mhz (never seen 4.2Ghz!!) and an all core stress test sees the CPU hovering around 3.9Ghz, my temperature was 75-80C, using a CM Hyper 212 cooler + Thermal Grizzly Kryonaut. My ambient temps are pretty high at about 30C as I live in a hot, humid country.

Can't imagine what load temps would be during stress tests with the stock Wraith stealth cooler...


----------



## HD64G (Sep 3, 2019)

tiggywombat said:


> I bought a Ryzen 5 3600 last week, paired with a Gigabyte B450M-S2H.
> 
> Left it at stock settings since overclocking seems to have little gain. During light loads, it boosts to 4145Mhz (never seen 4.2Ghz!!) and an all core stress test sees the CPU hovering around 3.9Ghz, my temperature was 75-80C, using a CM Hyper 212 cooler + Thermal Grizzly Kryonaut. My ambient temps are pretty high at about 30C as I live in a hot, humid country.
> 
> Can't imagine what load temps would be during stress tests with the stock Wraith stealth cooler...


Your boost isn't 4.2GHz just because of the ambient temps. Many here suggested that due to the very warm temps in the northern hemisphere, the ambient temps being very high affect that thing too. And in Gamers Nexus video with LN2 experimental OC, the Ryzen 3000 CPU continued increasing its clock in default settings close to 5GHz when temps were low enough. So, the most possible thing is that most who now see lower than the suggested clocks for single-thread loads will see more than the suggested ones in 2-3 months once the ambient temps go down by 10-15C. And to the rest who don't have high ambient temps, newer AGESA code will solve it in this month or the next one. I cannot see any problem at all to continue arguing with anyone.


----------



## londiste (Sep 3, 2019)

theoneandonlymrk said:


> @londiste Are you seriously saying that the fact that it works to a degree in that board is not enough, should they have prepped your 350 for a possible 24-32 core in 2020-21 with 12-16 phases?.
> 
> legacy compatibility does not equal MAX BOOST compatibility, your shit does'nt support XFR or PBO is that also AMD'S fault for not pre imagining those features, your stretching what compatibility means by far.
> 
> ...


I am not saying that, AMD has been saying compatibility and it's already kind of an axiom in the Internet that AM4 is AM4. 
The fact that it boosts less than spec is definitely not enough. AMD should have put a warning on box and perhaps website that max boost is only on X570. 200€ motherboard would have changed my value proposition considerably.

We are not talking about 24 or 32 cores here. We are talking about 6 cores. With TDP of 95W that is lower than fully supported 2nd generation Ryzen CPUs. I would say AMD's TDP shenanigans play a part here but given both results from reviews, internet and even this forum, 3600X tends to not reach 95W, much less higher.

Wraith Spire. It is a complete crap cooler and worthless for everyday use. For testing purposes it is running at full RPM or close to it. For single-core load CPU does not get over 60C and rarely even that high so temperatures should not be a problem.

No ideal Boost scenario material in the real world = false advertising. By definition.


----------



## johnny-r (Sep 3, 2019)

These are growing pains, different chipsets on different motherboards and the bios, we all have different results currently, anybody else having MSI with B450  motherboard ? we can compare our results,

I had booting problems after restarting windows, could not get a post sometimes, after the 2nd MSI bios release for Ryzen 3000 compatibility I got my new PC going and 2 weeks ago after the 3rd release  it started to work properly, this confirms that the manufactures are fine tuning bioses , there will be more releases, these CPU were launched less than 2 months ago, I know we all have lots of expectations, we need to be more patient.


----------



## Vya Domus (Sep 3, 2019)

londiste said:


> No ideal Boost scenario material in the real world = false advertising. By definition.



By definition ? Anything but that.

Boost scenarios are defined solely by ideal real life situations. That's the point, when things are not ideal you get the base clock. Everything is opportunistic and by no means deterministic when speaking about boost clocks.

And we should get this notion that boost clocks do not work already out of our heads. It works, otherwise every Ryzen 3000 CPU out there would run at it's base clock.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Sep 3, 2019)

londiste said:


> I am not saying that, AMD has been saying compatibility and it's already kind of an axiom in the Internet that AM4 is AM4.
> The fact that it boosts less than spec is definitely not enough. AMD should have put a warning on box and perhaps website that max boost is only on X570. 200€ motherboard would have changed my value proposition considerably.
> 
> We are not talking about 24 or 32 cores here. We are talking about 6 cores. With TDP of 95W that is lower than fully supported 2nd generation Ryzen CPUs. I would say AMD's TDP shenanigans play a part here but given both results from reviews, internet and even this forum, 3600X tends to not reach 95W, much less higher.
> ...


I respect your opinion but heartily dissagree , have you been under a stone because the boost mechanics your complaining about have been about a fair few years , yet you don't get what they advertised even! 

Base clock has for the last few years in cpus been The clock to largely expect in blue and red terms , the turbo clock on A core was introduced by intel then copied on ryzen one first by AMD , as far as i can see this tech and their definition of it is fair , your expectations are not.

we dissagree , might as well move on eh ,your not changing my mind with your perspective and kit, the lost swede and earthdog might but not you im affraid ,in my opinion your delusional with your expectations and a bad example to be talked about, 350 board and 3600 not boosting!.


----------



## londiste (Sep 3, 2019)

So, in short you are saying that expecting Ryzen 3000 series CPU to boost to the boost clock on 300-series motherboard is delusional?
And I love the nudge about bottom of the barrel board. The reason I have this board is that this was in Raven Ridge reviewers kit and indeed was quite problem free at launch.


----------



## Vya Domus (Sep 3, 2019)

There is no one single "boost clock", it's a range. You'll get something in that range with the maximum being written on the box.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Sep 3, 2019)

londiste said:


> So, in short you are saying that expecting Ryzen 3000 series CPU to boost to the boost clock on 300-series motherboard is delusional?


It's a long shot, I dont personally expect my X470 board to fully support every feature that my 3800X has(when it finally effin turns up) , and that's because I looked things up, so I wont be surprised when I don't get boost clocks at first boot or !PCIEX4!< the elephant in the room of your compatibility for boost on a 350 argument.


----------



## Animalpak (Sep 3, 2019)

You guys are so blind of the fact that AMD chips are cheap to have and give high value/performance for your money.

Even the fan on the motherboards chipset says a lot about these CPUs. A fan that will make noise in a few years and will be filled with dust.  As if we were in the early 2000s desktop tech...


----------



## londiste (Sep 3, 2019)

There are features that distinguish chipsets. 
X vs B is basically multi-GPU support and some extra IO - USB/SATA ports and IIRC couple extra chipset PCI-e lanes as well.
X570 has PCI-e 4.0 and faster USB ports

Precision Boost and XFR do not rely on chipset and have no requirements on chipset.
PBO does but that is overclocking and voids CPU warranty.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Sep 3, 2019)

londiste said:


> There are features that distinguish chipsets.
> X vs B is basically multi-GPU support and some extra IO - USB/SATA ports and IIRC couple extra chipset PCI-e lanes as well.
> X570 has PCI-e 4.0 and faster USB ports


Yes and generations distinguish improvements made in the last year and fixes found for any issues that were discovered that get built in With new features.


----------



## londiste (Sep 3, 2019)

theoneandonlymrk said:


> Yes and generations distinguish improvements made in the last year and fixes found for any issues that were discovered that get built in With new features.


Isn't CPU support pretty much purely AGESA thing?


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Sep 3, 2019)

londiste said:


> Isn't CPU support pretty much purely AGESA thing?


On AM4 that's a part of it but not the whole, your boards memory layout, southbridge ,pciex lane distribution and most importantly power regulation will vary greatly from later designs, such that support is solely up to and not usually guaranteed by the motherboard maker, Not AMD.

And as I said, and is apparent, support and compatibility , does not guarantee full feature use or stability , and no one afaik suggested that would ever be the case, you Are getting better performance then a 1600/2600 would achieve in the same board no?.


----------



## londiste (Sep 3, 2019)

Clocks of CPU have nothing to do with memory layout, southbridge or PCI-e lane distribution. 
Might have something to do with power regulation but how would one determine if power regulation is good enough?


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Sep 3, 2019)

londiste said:


> Clocks of CPU have nothing to do with memory layout, southbridge or PCI-e lane distribution.
> Might have something to do with power regulation but how would one determine if power regulation is good enough?


Im out , Im not here to convince you ,but start with reading the last 5 posts for a reply to that, that's where were now at , the merry go round.

boards and compatibilty are distinguished by ??


----------



## londiste (Sep 3, 2019)

Just for the record, I completely disagree with your opinion that compatibility can mean lower clocks. And I hope the compatibility not guaranteeing stability was a typo.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Sep 3, 2019)

londiste said:


> Just for the record, I completely disagree with your opinion that compatibility can mean lower clocks. And I hope the compatibility not guaranteeing stability was a typo.


yet without PBO and Xfr you cant get the same clocks as x570 could theoretically with the same chip, your chip is managing to boost to that speed in your config, IMHO it's fine, and stability at the highest clock the manufacturer has marketed you will see will depend on more things then were designed into your board it is that simple, They Have for example more clearly defined the exact layout of the memory to board makers, instead of there being some variance, the layouts on later boards are the same, no T topology at all, memory stability is directly tied to infinity fabric stability too and less directly the cpu.

Your issue would likely be VRM related though IMHO to be clear.


----------



## londiste (Sep 3, 2019)

XFR is a CPU feature, not motherboard or chipset one.
PBO is overclocking and voids warranty. PBO is intended to go past stock boost clock. Besides, my board does have PBO settings in the UEFI.


----------



## TheLostSwede (Sep 3, 2019)

It's official, it's a firmware bug.

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1168901636162539536


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Sep 3, 2019)

londiste said:


> XFR is a CPU feature, not motherboard or chipset one.
> PBO is overclocking and voids warranty. PBO is intended to go past stock boost clock. Besides, my board does have PBO settings in the UEFI.


Because it is lower teir ,three generations old and not ecpected to be overclocked too much.

Anyway once this bug is bios patched maybe you will get lucky.


----------



## Nordic (Sep 3, 2019)

TheLostSwede said:


> It's official, it's a firmware bug.
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1168901636162539536


I am very happy they have acknowledged it and plan to implement a fix.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Sep 3, 2019)

Here you go.









						AMD Issues Statement on Low Ryzen 3000 Boost Clocks, BIOS Update Soon
					

After AMD's Ryzen 3rd generation launch many users have reported that they are not seeing the advertised boost clocks that AMD promises in their specifications. This has been an ongoing issue, with various tweaks tried, with limited success. This lead to serious allegations about "false...




					www.techpowerup.com


----------



## Chrispy_ (Sep 3, 2019)

FinneousPJ said:


> Really bad poll. Super biased options.


Where's the option of "I don't care because Intel and Nvidia do the same thing as well", eh?


----------



## kartoffelotto (Sep 3, 2019)

i wonder what my apparently golden sample cpu will do after the fix


----------



## phanbuey (Sep 3, 2019)

it would be cool if they  let you control the floor p state.  just boost to 4.5 and then base at 4.1/4.0 that way you could even OC/undervolt for the base clock and still get the boost when you need it.


----------



## jesdals (Sep 3, 2019)

Well I cant complain, but is running 4500MHz all core instead


----------



## phanbuey (Sep 3, 2019)

jesdals said:


> View attachment 130920
> Well I cant complain, but is running 4500MHz all core instead



those minimums tho


----------



## kartoffelotto (Sep 3, 2019)

ryzen master reports even lower minimums, i wonder how much of this issue is really just the software used for reading the clocks


----------



## londiste (Sep 3, 2019)

phanbuey said:


> those minimums tho


Minimums are fine. 2.1GHz is high enough as it is. At idle my Ryzen easily goes down to 300-400mhz.


----------



## Nordic (Sep 3, 2019)

phanbuey said:


> those minimums tho


It is actually pretty cool that amd completely turns off cores when they aren't needed.


----------



## FinneousPJ (Sep 3, 2019)

Nordic said:


> It is actually pretty cool that amd completely turns off cores when they aren't needed.


Yeah and it's still faster than their legendary K5 CPU.


----------



## xkm1948 (Sep 3, 2019)

We shall wait and see if the incoming BIOS fix solve this problem.


----------



## ShrimpBrime (Sep 3, 2019)

TheLostSwede said:


> I think you've read some other forum than TPU, as I don't think anyone here is expecting all core boost to 4.6GHz, but when not even one core gets within 100MHz of boost, something is weird.
> 
> Read my points above-



What I read in forums is this = I can't get to X speed on all cores/threads, PBO doesn't hit the max clocks....
Yes, all power saving features and everything need to be set defaults. You change anything, you loose that single core boost. f
ROG PBO level 2 increase max all core, increased voltage and more heat.

AMD releases bios = Newbs Fri chips/boards on B350s lol. 
Hope it doesn't turn out to be a nightmare. Who knows what's going to happen. 

All core boost 4.6ghz 1.4250v and no post? Hangs? 

These stupid chips are optimized to the max right from the box. Stupid hot, 0 to go spike of 20-30c maybe more for some people. Max Temp 95c, smell PCB melting.....

My opinion doesn't quite matter to some. I've taken look at Zen+ white papers. HighTemp alarm is at 70c. If yous running stock and hit that temp, fan blades 100%. You people really should be careful running these chips hot. (just my opinion.) 

Do believe that's page 255 of the Open-Source Register Reference for AMD  Family 17h processors models 00h-2Fh 


> HiTempDec combine to specify the high temperature threshold. See 6.2.5 [SB-TSI Temperature and Threshold Encodings]. Reset value equals 70 °C.





			https://developer.amd.com/wp-content/resources/56255_3_03.PDF
		


Yes the temp may be slightly different for Ryzen 3000, but I wouldn't think much more than give/take 5c. White papers I have not seen yet.


----------



## Nordic (Sep 3, 2019)

ShrimpBrime said:


> What I read in forums is this = I can't get to X speed on all cores/threads, PBO doesn't hit the max clocks....


Where? Who is saying this? I am one of the people who can't reach the advertised max boost clocks and I am not saying that.


----------



## ShrimpBrime (Sep 3, 2019)

Nordic said:


> Where? Who is saying this? I am one of the people who can't reach the advertised max boost clocks and I am not saying that.


Whos not saying it?
Isnt it everyones expectation of all core boost to hit max freq?
Perhaps not. 
I read 4.2ghz wall on a lot of chips..... Being running all cores where overclockers try to overclock.
What some 4.4ghz is a good chip? 

At what state does 50% of people alter a bios setting to improve performance?


----------



## Nordic (Sep 3, 2019)

ShrimpBrime said:


> Whos not saying it?
> Isnt it everyones expectation of all core boost to hit max freq?
> Perhaps not.
> I read 4.2ghz wall on a lot of chips..... Being running all cores where overclockers try to overclock.
> ...


I would like to inform you that the ryzen boost issue is about the vast majority of ryzen 2 cpu's not being able to reach their advertised max boost clocks. For example, my 3900x hits a wall at 4525mhz and under nominal conditions can not reach the advertised 4600mhz boost speed. We are not discussing all core boost.


----------



## biffzinker (Sep 3, 2019)

Mine's boosting like it should but seems too aggressive with scaling the clock speed back when all cores are loaded.

Idle




Single Thread/Core Loaded




All Cores 12 Threads Loaded


----------



## NoJuan999 (Sep 4, 2019)

My 3700x didn't quite hit 4.4 GHz but it does hit 4.375 GHz on two cores:




I am perfectly happy with that BUT if they release an BIOS (AGESA/SMU) update to get me more performance I will certainly try it.


----------



## ShrimpBrime (Sep 4, 2019)

Nordic said:


> I would like to inform you that the ryzen boost issue is about the vast majority of ryzen 2 cpu's not being able to reach their advertised max boost clocks. For example, my 3900x hits a wall at 4525mhz and under nominal conditions can not reach the advertised 4600mhz boost speed. We are not discussing all core boost.


 I saw your post in another thread where despite the single core boost issue, you where still happy with the product. 

So then AMD fixes with a bios update (where there may be boards that don't need this "fix") for single core boosts, and every one is going to think their all core boosts should get higher as a result. See above where the all core boost is a must in demonstration. 

So much information is lacking. 
Which Motherboard makes and models work, which ones don't work. It's a bios issue? Has anyone tried a different bios previous or after the one they use now?
Which of the B series chihpsets don't work? Which of the X series chipsets don't work?

Does single core boosts even matter to those tweaking with PBO? 
Aren't we always after that all core boost for those R20 scores? 
Don't see much PiMod being compared any more. I think single core epeen went out the window once we saw SMT hit big with AMD consumers. lol


----------



## Nordic (Sep 4, 2019)

ShrimpBrime said:


> I saw your post in another thread where despite the single core boost issue, you where still happy with the product.


This is true. I am still happy with the product and would reccomend it to others. AMD still has a product not reaching its advertised boost conditions under nominal workloads.



ShrimpBrime said:


> So then AMD fixes with a bios update (where there may be boards that don't need this "fix") for single core boosts, and every one is going to think their all core boosts should get higher as a result. See above where the all core boost is a must in demonstration.


You are making an assumption about the future and arguing as if it is true. This is putting the cart before the horse. We are not talking about all-core boost.



ShrimpBrime said:


> So much information is lacking.
> Which Motherboard makes and models work, which ones don't work. It's a bios issue? Has anyone tried a different bios previous or after the one they use now?
> Which of the B series chihpsets don't work? Which of the X series chipsets don't work?


We KNOW that AMD found a bug in the firmware. This is a CPU issue.
We KNOW that some motherboard vendors have improved the situation with a bios update.



ShrimpBrime said:


> Does single core boosts even matter to those tweaking with PBO?


Tweaking PBO does nothing for me since I can not get above 4525mhz. I can tell it to set the max boost overclock to +200 higher but that doesn't change that I can't go higher than 4525mhz.



ShrimpBrime said:


> Aren't we always after that all core boost for those R20 scores?


Yes we want higher all core boost too. All core boost does not appear to be broken. I can manipulate the all core boost with voltage and temperature. Simply lowering the cpu temperature can increase all-core boost. Again, we are not talking about all-core boost. This thread is discussing the Ryzen 3000 Boost Issue which does not involve all-core boost. To be honest, it is frustrating to be having a conversation about single core boost in line with the topic when you keep bring up all core boost. It is not on topic and not relevant to the problem at hand.


----------



## ShrimpBrime (Sep 4, 2019)

I see.
Well I mention it because people keep posting it with images even! Read again, see the must to included all core loads.

Am hoping AMD resolves the boost issue. Really I do. 

Personally I care less about boosting. I prefer to manually set my pc up.

Ive actually been on the hunt to get TDP to 50w or lower and passively cool. But that experiment is on a different topic...

Was thinking to start a Ryzen delid thread. Just hopefully wont get too much negative feed back though... Wanna talk about something constructive.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Sep 4, 2019)

ShrimpBrime said:


> I saw your post in another thread where despite the single core boost issue, you where still happy with the product.
> 
> So then AMD fixes with a bios update (where there may be boards that don't need this "fix") for single core boosts, and every one is going to think their all core boosts should get higher as a result. See above where the all core boost is a must in demonstration.
> 
> ...



eyeoval has been doing sc boost since gen 1 ci possibly c2, no one griped about that.

I understand with any overclocking it's a box o chocolates-never knew my 8350 would do 5G without trying, since a bios update is coming for the gripers, great.

And last I recalled they said it was up to a certain clock speed not guaranteed


----------



## ShrimpBrime (Sep 4, 2019)

eidairaman1 said:


> eyeoval has been doing sc boost since gen 1 ci possibly c2, no one griped about that.
> 
> I understand with any overclocking it's a box o chocolates-never knew my 8350 would do 5G without trying, since a bios update is coming for the gripers, great.
> 
> And last I recalled they said it was up to a certain clock speed not guaranteed



Since when is overclocking ever guaranteed? Because it overclocks "boosts" for you? 

I see the reason they gripe. That's not my point..... my point is, do any of them actually care?? Like for real the end of earth because it's one quarter multiplier short of max single core boost? lol please. 98% of them want/need ALL of the cores to at the maximum speed possible. 

So you're right. They are just griping. BUT I agree, AMD should hold up to the speed said on the box. 
I don't agree that most people actually give a (word I can't use). It's all just FB acting skills. Get real. 

Or be a man. Have a beer, say oh well the single core doesn't boost. Have another beer, enjoy gaming. It won't be single core boosting anyways lol.


----------



## X800 (Sep 4, 2019)

This got posted by der8auer on youtube.

AMD just released this statement: “AMD is pleased with the strong momentum of 3rd Gen AMD Ryzen™ processors in the PC enthusiast and gaming communities. We closely monitor community feedback on our products and understand that some 3rd Gen AMD Ryzen users are reporting boost clock speeds below the expected processor boost frequency. While processor boost frequency is dependent on many variables including workload, system design, and cooling solution, we have closely reviewed the feedback from our customers and have identified an issue in our firmware that reduces boost frequency in some situations.  We are in the process of preparing a BIOS update for our motherboard partners that addresses that issue and includes additional boost performance optimizations. We will provide an update on September 10 to the community regarding the availability of the BIOS.”


----------



## HD64G (Sep 4, 2019)

After the video below from Steve over HU, one thing is sure: Some motherboards (the lower than the top-tier MSI mostly) are crap to allow the CPUs to boost properly. Another confirmation of how the board's VRMs affects the CPU boost performance especially for Ryzen 3000.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Sep 4, 2019)

Is this weighted, balls laden poll still up, so im either pitch fork in hand at AMD's door or , don't care or a fanboy, great choices.

My 3800X turned up , now im hunting out that pitch fork, the bastard wont do 4.4 never mind 4.5 , im stuck at 4.375, somebody should get fired for this issue jk


----------



## xtreemchaos (Sep 4, 2019)

at least you wasn't left out like me   ive a pitch fork if you want to borrow it but you would have to disengauge it from a few FX chips stuck in the forks.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Sep 4, 2019)

xtreemchaos said:


> at least you wasn't left out like me   ive a pitch fork if you want to borrow it but you would have to disengauge it from a few FX chips stuck in the forks.


To be fair , now i have one i do have issues with it's operation, it just ignores pretty much everything I do or set and just does what it wants , day 1 though ,since I did a booboo and had to do a second fresh install late on last night due to a wtaf drive moment ie I unplugged a drive (non Os) it wouldn't boot anymore, I deleted C within a few moments of that due to rage and started from scratch.


----------



## xtreemchaos (Sep 4, 2019)

I don't really dislike FX chips I love them and there qwirky ways ive one of each for oldtimes sake my fav being the 8350 because in winter it kept me warm.


----------



## ShrimpBrime (Sep 4, 2019)

xtreemchaos said:


> I don't really dislike FX chips I love them and there qwirky ways ive one of each for oldtimes sake my fav being the 8350 because in winter it kept me warm.


That's good!! You don't hear many people say that. 
My best clock with FX was 7685Mhz on 4+1 VRMs lol.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Sep 4, 2019)

xtreemchaos said:


> I don't really dislike FX chips I love them and there qwirky ways ive one of each for oldtimes sake my fav being the 8350 because in winter it kept me warm.


they were wonderful World community grid crunchers no doubt and definitely warmed my ass a few nights, probably why I'm so defensive of them, people don't see what a gift horse they were /5.5Ghz(a few times early days) ;D

In the process of doing all this updating system BS I hit upon a snag and slight revelation. 

obviously even into an existing board, a new arch CPU required a fresh Os install, but upon not getting max boost we got told of the issue, some Are seeing it boost though which is odd and hopeful at least but here's my point

How many did a return to day one from the OS(un optimal) or like me grabbed their trusty win10 usb and just installed nice and easy, but version 1809 not 1903 , while there clearly is an issue , they (AMD)said in some scenarios ,could 1809 be one, it wouldn't have the updated scheduler?

Didn't help me i await bios then:/


----------



## londiste (Sep 5, 2019)

AMD has pretty consistently said 1903 would be better for Ryzen 3000 series.


----------



## Octopuss (Sep 5, 2019)

xtreemchaos said:


> I don't really dislike FX chips I love them and there qwirky ways ive one of each for oldtimes sake my fav being the 8350 because in winter it kept me warm.


Could you rewrite the sentence with proper punctuation and grammar like a man with at least elementary education please? I have no idea what the hell are you trying to say.


----------



## xtreemchaos (Sep 5, 2019)

Dear Octopuss, I suffer from a brain injury which has left me word blind if you don't believe go on to the stargazer lounge and ask anyone whos been a member for morethan a year or more and thay will back me up. stop being a pompuss ass and get a life .


----------



## biffzinker (Sep 5, 2019)

Octopuss said:


> Could you rewrite the sentence with proper punctuation and grammar like a man with at least elementary education please? I have no idea what the hell are you trying to say.


He really likes FX and there quirky ways. I've one of each for old times sake. My favorite being the 8350 because in winter, it kept me warm.


----------



## xtreemchaos (Sep 5, 2019)

ShrimpBrime said:


> 7685Mhz on 4+1 VRMs lol.


that's a cracking speed mate, was that lnl ? the best ive had is 5250 on a 360 aio. well done.



theoneandonlymrk said:


> gift horse they were /5.5Ghz(a few times early days) ;D


I could not agree with you more. to tell the truth I never really had any complaints about any of the range and it never bother me about how many cores thay had thay gave me good  times to remember.
im sure everything will be good with the new zen when the new bios is out.


----------



## Octopuss (Sep 5, 2019)

biffzinker said:


> He really likes FX and *there* quirky ways. I've one of each for old times sake. My favorite being the 8350 because in winter, it kept me warm.


I am dying on the inside.


----------



## xtreemchaos (Sep 5, 2019)

oh mate don't get hung up on words there is so many more important things in life to get miffed about honist. yes im 3rd rate scum but I used to be 4th rate so at least im going forward   .


----------



## ShrimpBrime (Sep 5, 2019)

xtreemchaos said:


> that's a cracking speed mate, was that lnl ? the best ive had is 5250 on a 360 aio. well done.



Thanks, appreciated!
That was on Ln2...
Highest speed on custom liquid 5.6ghz. 
Dice runs getting me in the 6ghz range.
Super fun platform for overclocking. 
Even had hyper transport speeds into the 4ghz club actually.


----------



## xtreemchaos (Sep 5, 2019)

ShrimpBrime said:


> Thanks, appreciated!


your welcome mate. I run my telescope rig in my obsy for 5 years with a 8350 @ 5gzh pre processing images with no problems at all, ive since moved to a 7700k which is a bit faster at processing but dos the job the same, my son in law gave me the 7700k so I couldn't look a gift horse in the mouth.  charl. ps I ment Ln2 but it got lost while trying to put it in, darn words thay there my nemesis


----------



## ShrimpBrime (Sep 5, 2019)

xtreemchaos said:


> your welcome mate. I run my telescope rig in my obsy for 5 years with a 8350 @ 5gzh pre processing images with no problems at all, ive since moved to a 7700k which is a bit faster at processing but dos the job the same, my son in law gave me the 7700k so I couldn't look a gift horse in the mouth.  charl. ps I ment Ln2 but it got lost while trying to put it in, darn words thay there my nemesis



Its ok, I understand you. You do fine.
Ive had a coule Intel chips, but mainly stuck with AMD for the prices. Also theyve always had fsb overclocking which is nice. Now not so much. 
My Ryzen at 101 fsb makes errors, wont see HDDs and such. Or if it makes it to windows it wont load. 

FX chips Ive had quite a few. The cooler they run, the higher the clocks. The FX chips where only cooling limited. 
High leakage chips liked volts and low temps generally overclocked well.


----------



## Wavetrex (Sep 5, 2019)

How do you guys even change the bus frequency of AM4 chips !?

There is no such option anywhere, either in Bios or in Ryzen Master.
Mine for example shows 99.73 Mhz and it annoys the shit of out me because all the numbers (fclock, uclock, mclock) are all like 78382093.2397 instead of something nice with 000's.

I would very much like to set that to 100.00 ... somehow.


----------



## ShrimpBrime (Sep 5, 2019)

My Asus ROG B450-I has ALL the options the big boards do. 
The chip I have does not like over 100mhz... 

I have noticed that if vcore is too low the bus clocks droop compensating for it. 
But generally doesnt run the full 100mhz even stock.

Bumping LLC seems to help stabilize it, it does read 100 but usually 99.8mhz.

To compensate, raise multillier up one quarter


----------



## TheLostSwede (Sep 5, 2019)

Wavetrex said:


> How do you guys even change the bus frequency of AM4 chips !?
> 
> There is no such option anywhere, either in Bios or in Ryzen Master.
> Mine for example shows 99.73 Mhz and it annoys the shit of out me because all the numbers (fclock, uclock, mclock) are all like 78382093.2397 instead of something nice with 000's.
> ...


Your board doesn't have it. Some early X370 boards didn't.


----------



## Wavetrex (Sep 5, 2019)

TheLostSwede said:


> Your board doesn't have it. Some early X370 boards didn't.


Ah... so it's "optional" and some vendors implemented the setting while others did not.
Well... rats... 

Guess I'm slowly but surely on my way to an X570 board.


----------



## kapone32 (Sep 5, 2019)

Wavetrex said:


> How do you guys even change the bus frequency of AM4 chips !?
> 
> There is no such option anywhere, either in Bios or in Ryzen Master.
> Mine for example shows 99.73 Mhz and it annoys the shit of out me because all the numbers (fclock, uclock, mclock) are all like 78382093.2397 instead of something nice with 000's.
> ...


You have to get the right board like the Asus Crosshair 7, Gigabyte Gaming 7 or As Rock Taichi (all X470). Your prime board does not have that function built into the BIOS.


----------



## ShrimpBrime (Sep 5, 2019)

Prime ROG has bus clocks options even on mitx


----------



## xrror (Sep 5, 2019)

It really is hit or miss which boards have bclk. I used to think it was only the x70 boards but apparently not.

My AsRock AB350M Pro4 gained bclk adjustment after bios 5.00. Granted it's only 100-103 (basically you're just locking the spread spectrum range) but hey, it's something.
Asus ROG Strix B350-F Gaming - nope, NO bclk
Asus ROG Strix B450-F Gaming - yup, has full bclk

I know that's not much a sample size, but it's best to be sure and hopefully there are some other 450 boards out there with confirmed bclk.

That said bclk tended to make my systems get... weird since I run most of my stuff 24/7. Things like USB devices dropping after a few days, or where the machine won't ever restart correctly if you run it more than a day. Windows says "logging off" forever, which is super annoying if say a windows update 3 days ago means you've now lost 3 days of work in distributed computing.


----------



## TheLostSwede (Sep 5, 2019)

Wavetrex said:


> Ah... so it's "optional" and some vendors implemented the setting while others did not.
> Well... rats...
> 
> Guess I'm slowly but surely on my way to an X570 board.


Not so much optional, as in it was early days and AMD didn't specify it as a requirement, so apart from a few high-end X370, such as the Crosshair VI Hero, not many of them supports adjustable FSB. It doesn't do much, but hey...


----------



## ShrimpBrime (Sep 5, 2019)

Could use fsb to lower and tweak max mem clocks.??


----------



## Vya Domus (Sep 5, 2019)

xrror said:


> My AsRock AB350M Pro4 gained bclk adjustment after bios 5.00. Granted it's only 100-103 (basically you're just locking the spread spectrum range) but hey, it's something.



That's interesting, my 450M Pro4 never got this or maybe I don't know where to look for it. What's it called in the BIOS ?


----------



## biffzinker (Sep 5, 2019)

Vya Domus said:


> That's interesting, my 450M Pro4 never got this or maybe I don't know where to look for it. What's it called in the BIOS ?


FCH BCLK or FCH Base Clock, It might hard lock during POST or in Windows though since you're also changing the clockspeed of PCIe, SATA, Nvme, and USB.


----------



## jonup (Sep 5, 2019)

xrror said:


> It really is hit or miss which boards have bclk. I used to think it was only the x70 boards but apparently not.
> 
> My AsRock AB350M Pro4 gained bclk adjustment after bios 5.00. Granted it's only 100-103 (basically you're just locking the spread spectrum range) but hey, it's something.
> Asus ROG Strix B350-F Gaming - nope, NO bclk
> ...



I gained that functionality on my AB350M Pro4 with the bios update too. However, I have not noticed any abnormalities like that. Granted my memory had to be optimized for the new freq. Basically 31.33 multi to get 3200mhz.


----------



## kartoffelotto (Sep 5, 2019)

that reminds me of the olden days when i just increased the fsb on my parents computer


----------



## NoJuan999 (Sep 5, 2019)

My Asus ROG Strix B450-F Gaming has the BCLK setting but I personally haven't used it.
Some people said they had some luck setting it to 101, 102 or even 103 BUT it does effect every part connected to the motherboard so it can be risky.
I just didn't think the risks were worth it.
Especially since I had my Ryzen 5 2600 OC'd to 4 GHz with my 3200 MHz RAM at 3400 Mhz without touching BCLK.


----------



## ShrimpBrime (Sep 5, 2019)

NoJuan999 said:


> My Asus ROG Strix B450-F Gaming has the BCLK setting but I personally haven't used it.
> Some people said they had some luck setting it to 101, 102 or even 103 BUT it does effect every part connected to the motherboard so it can be risky.
> I just didn't think the risks were worth it.
> Especially since I had my Ryzen 5 2600 OC'd to 4 GHz with my 3200 MHz RAM at 3400 Mhz without touching BCLK.



Not worth it. Will brick your data drive.


----------



## Zach_01 (Sep 6, 2019)

R5 3600 (rated 3.6-4.2GHz)
Corsair H110i 280mm

Blender benchmark (~22min, all threads load)
Ambient temp 33*C: max CPU temp=74~75*C, all core clock 3.92~3.96GHz
Ambient temp 26*C: max CPU temp=68~69*C, all core clock 3.97~4.01GHz

CinebenchR20 (~10min, single thread)
Ambient temp 32*C: max CPU temp=54~57*C, all core clock 4.075~4.125GHz (95% 4.1), vcore 1.42~1.43 average.
Ambient temp 26*C: max CPU temp=46~47*C, all core clock 4.1~4.150GHz (90% 4.1), vcore 1.41~1.42 average.

ambient temp = radiator intake


----------



## biffzinker (Sep 9, 2019)

Legit Reviews said:
			
		

> For testing we followed the same setup that AMD recommended to der8auer when he did his AMD Ryzen 3000 Boost Clock Survey earlier this month. We downloaded Cinebench R15 and HWiNFO64. We then set HWiNFO64 to run with a 500ms polling rate (default is 2000ms) and ran the single-CPU benchmark in Cinebench R15. We did this three times and recorded the maximum boost clock shown on each of our Ryzen 3000 series processors.











			
				Legit Reviews said:
			
		

> Lastly, for those that are curious what the Cinebench R15 scores were for the Single Core CPU – we got you. You can see those results below.











						AMD Ryzen 3000 Series Boost Clocks Investigated - Legit Reviews
					






					www.legitreviews.com


----------



## londiste (Sep 9, 2019)

Legit Reviews said:
			
		

> Gigabyte X570 AORUS Master
> BIOS/UEFI version F6 (AGESA 1.0.0.3 ABB)


----------



## biffzinker (Sep 9, 2019)

Legit Reviews said:
			
		

> Gigabyte X570 AORUS Master
> BIOS/UEFI version F6 (AGESA 1.0.0.3 ABB)


@londiste
Is there something up with the firmware/AGESA version?


----------



## jesdals (Sep 9, 2019)

Its dificult to compare across platforms and settings



I still prefer running with Pstates set at 4500mhz running it on all cores instead of PBO


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Sep 9, 2019)

jesdals said:


> Its dificult to compare across platforms and settings
> View attachment 131509
> I still prefer running with Pstates set at 4500mhz running it on all cores instead of PBO


Miggt try this, ty.
For now anyway.


----------



## londiste (Sep 9, 2019)

biffzinker said:


> @londiste
> Is there something up with the firmware/AGESA version?


Nope. That was the first question I had and thought might be helpful for others as well


----------



## NoJuan999 (Sep 9, 2019)

My highest single core boost was 4.425 GHz with 4.4 GHz on a 2nd core during an R20 single core run.


http://imgur.com/WByR6zk


I got better score with a 4.4 Ghz Max Boost:


http://imgur.com/V250QAR




AMD bad marketing at it again, false advertising and lies should not be tolerated.
AMD bad marketing alright, they need to inform consumer/media/reviewers better
It is fine, this is fine. I am OK with AMD advertising like that because I DON'T CARE
There should be MORE Advertising like this. Necessary evil is needed to beat Intel
MY BLOOD IS RED! SHUT UP AND TAKE MY MONEY AMD
So My Answer to the Poll is NONE of these, If you have proper cooling and Set your BIOS up properly then it will hit the advertised boost clocks.


----------



## ShrimpBrime (Sep 9, 2019)

NoJuan999 said:


> Set your BIOS up properly then it will hit the advertised boost clocks.



You shouldn't have to "set up" your bios. In fact when you clear cmos or reset all defaults in bios, you should see single core boost hitting advertised clocks.

What I wonder is if changing the Memory in any way cancels single core boost. Anything changed to PBO, XFR and CPB may cancel single core boost. Any voltage settings changed, may cause loss of single core boost. Does turning off SMT cancel single core boost. 

Exactly what settings should NOT be changed is my question.


----------



## NoJuan999 (Sep 9, 2019)

^ That's a valid Point.
All I'm saying is that the chip Will hit it's advertised clock by just changing a few BIOS settings.


----------



## Nordic (Sep 9, 2019)

NoJuan999 said:


> ^ That's a valid Point.
> All I'm saying is that the chip Will hit it's advertised clock by just changing a few BIOS settings.


Which bios settings specifically? I have tried so many things.


----------



## NoJuan999 (Sep 10, 2019)

@ Nordic
I enabled PBO and set my Max PBO boost to +200 Mhz (and chose the Motherboard as the MHz limit control vs Auto or Manual) and set my Throttling Temperature from Auto to 80 (since that is the highest I have seen my CPU go while stress testing and should be safe for short periods of time).
And I have an Asus MB so I set my Performance Enhancer to Level 3 OC.
And I set Performance BIAS from Auto to None.
And I have my RAM set to 3200 MHz using the XMP profile, I have not attempted to OC it any farther yet.
I looked at a LOT of other settings But I haven't changed any of them to see if they hurt or help performance.
And just to be clear, enabling those settings increased my single core and multicore clocks and CB R15 and R20 scores.
Look here:








						What's your latest tech purchase?
					

Did not have a lot of time to play with the RAM, this is the best I got atm:    I will try this kit these days to see if I can get 3200mhz with lower timings Crucial Ballistix Sport LT BLS2K8G4D32AESCK 3200 MHz , I like this RAM as it is white and low profile and it was cheaper than the Patriot...




					www.techpowerup.com
				




Your Asrock MB should have similar PBO settings BUT I have no idea what other optimization settings it has.


----------



## thesmokingman (Sep 10, 2019)

biffzinker said:


> @londiste
> Is there something up with the firmware/AGESA version?



It's all about the firmware. That's where boost specifics are set. Early bios' hit boost but AMD has been dialing it back slightly for longevity but now ppl are bitching and moaning. They'll probably dial it back to where it was before. The newest bios' are the slowest btw. You can read about this from Shamino of Asus. He uses his personal acct here as to not whatever...

If yall want max boost run the earliest bios.









						ROG Crosshair VI overclocking thread
					

Some Christmas upgrades. Out went the 1080Ti and in Strix 4090. Was looking for the TUFF 7900XTX but that was out of stock, I found this one on stock and likely mis-priced by mistake by the store staff (500€ below normal price making it the cheapest partner card). Still very expensive.  Old card...




					www.overclock.net


----------



## Nordic (Sep 10, 2019)

NoJuan999 said:


> @ Nordic
> I enabled PBO and set my Max PBO boost to +200 Mhz (and chose the Motherboard as the MHz limit control vs Auto or Manual) and set my Throttling Temperature from Auto to 80 (since that is the highest I have seen my CPU go while stress testing and should be safe for short periods of time).
> And I have an Asus MB so I set my Performance Enhancer to Level 3 OC.
> And I set Performance BIAS from Auto to None.
> ...


With the exception of whatever this performance enhancer setting is, I have tried all that. Setting PBO +200 actually lowers my average clock speed but doesn't increase my max boost speed.

In this thread and others we have been saying that it isn't a settings problem. AMD even admitted there is a problem.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Sep 16, 2019)

So I got my 3800x boosting as it should to 4.5 on many cores on a crosshair VII hero bios 2703.
Initially I updated bios , swapped 2600x for 3800x cleared cmos , removed battery ,cleared cmos refit battery clr cmos then loaded optimised defaults and proceeded to find that only the core performance boost setting in the main tab did anything to gain core speeds , with it off i got 3900 , on i get 4375 max , none of the manual Pbo ,Xfr settings did anything at all regardless of other settings.

Last night i reflashed 2703(1.0.0.3.ABB) ,did a longer clr cmos , now my chip gets to 4500 on all cores using no pbo xfr just default settings, it was late at that point so I have more to try later.


----------



## Hellfire (Sep 17, 2019)

I've managed to lower voltage and get 4400 on all cores @1.35v today on my Crosshair VIII Formula on a 3900X

This is with Asus 1001 new bios


----------



## NoJuan999 (Sep 17, 2019)

Nordic said:


> With the exception of whatever this performance enhancer setting is, I have tried all that. Setting PBO +200 actually lowers my average clock speed but doesn't increase my max boost speed.


The performance Enhancer settings are an Asus BIOS feature to boost the PBO level.


> Level 1 & 2 are using constraints recommended by AMD for silicon reliability and life span.
> Level 3 & 4 are enhanced versions by the Stilt and ASUS and is basically an overclock.





> Information to note when using Performance Enhancer.
> 
> With eXtended Frequency Range (XFR) version 2, there are configurable options which can increase boost frequencies and duration.
> The available options are PPT, TDC and EDC under “Advanced\AMD CBS\NBIO Common Options\Precision Boost Override Configuration”.
> ...


----------



## Nordic (Sep 17, 2019)

NoJuan999 said:


> The performance Enhancer settings are an Asus BIOS feature to boost the PBO level.


I have an asrock board so that would make sense. Thanks for the information.


----------



## HenrySomeone (Sep 17, 2019)

Well, a couple more months and these 3rd gen Ryzens might actually start working as advertised - still no OC though


----------



## NoJuan999 (Sep 17, 2019)

HenrySomeone said:


> Well, a couple more months and these 3rd gen Ryzens might actually start working as advertised - still no OC though


Mine already does and I don't even have the newest AGESA (1.0.0.3ABBA) yet. 








						RyZen 3000 Boost Issue: What's your take?
					

Could use fsb to lower and tweak max mem clocks.??




					www.techpowerup.com


----------



## Nordic (Sep 17, 2019)

HenrySomeone said:


> Well, a couple more months and these 3rd gen Ryzens might actually start working as advertised - still no OC though


They overclock themselves. You can get the cpu to overclock itself by lowering the temperature.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Sep 17, 2019)

HenrySomeone said:


> Well, a couple more months and these 3rd gen Ryzens might actually start working as advertised - still no OC though


Epyc fail at understanding AMD's chips , they're made to boost to their max clock , same as ryzen +  2xxx series did.


----------



## Xzibit (Sep 17, 2019)

theoneandonlymrk said:


> *Epyc fail at understanding AMD's chips *, they're made to boost to their max clock , same as ryzen +  2xxx series did.



He is not alone.

*Anandtech: Reaching for Turbo: Aligning Perception with AMD’s Frequency Metrics*


----------



## the54thvoid (Sep 17, 2019)

I'm terribly disappointed my chip does not stay at the advertised base clock. I'm not overclocking it and it has the cheek to run at 4.2Ghz on all 8 cores while playing PUBG (and giving me very constant fps). I'm outraged by this foolish boosting process. I mean - it has an advertised base of 3.6Ghz - so shouldn't it stay at that unless I overclock it? False advertising AMD: base clock should be what it says, not 16% higher.

Please apply sarcasm tags and let people figure out that the boost issue is a non-issue. My single core boost is 4.367 (that's 4.4Ghz in round-up language).


----------



## Hellfire (Sep 18, 2019)

Guys. Topic about Ryzen Boost speeds, am I missing something here?


----------



## oxrufiioxo (Sep 20, 2019)

Boost and Score after bios update. I am seeing 4.6ghz or higher on 4-5 cores vs 2 prior though so that's nice. Temps Seem to be about the same.


----------



## Hellfire (Sep 20, 2019)

Got an R15 score?


----------



## oxrufiioxo (Sep 20, 2019)

Hellfire said:


> Got an R15 score?


----------



## phanbuey (Sep 20, 2019)

matching intel 5ghz sc runs at 4.6gz...


----------



## oxrufiioxo (Sep 20, 2019)

phanbuey said:


> matching intel 5ghz sc runs at 4.6gz...
> 
> View attachment 132327



Impressive stuff honestly. I am semi envious considering this is mainly my wife's pc lol. 

The way things are going my next main pc will be Ryzen maybe 5/6000 considering Intel seems to be stuck at the moment. The nice thing is both my systems are fast enough to wait and see how intel 10nm maybe 2nd generation fares.


----------



## Nordic (Sep 20, 2019)

phanbuey said:


> matching intel 5ghz sc runs at 4.6gz...
> 
> View attachment 132327


What cooling and settings do you have to maintain 4.6ghz?


----------



## oxrufiioxo (Sep 20, 2019)

Nordic said:


> What cooling and settings do you have to maintain 4.6ghz?



Corsair h115i Platinum but it doesn't stay at 4.6ghz it periodically hits it throughout a single core benchmark run bouncing from around 4.4-4.6 I would say.
Typical Ryzen 3000 behavior or at least how it has behaved for me since launch.

All core seems very temp and workload dependent for me I am seeing anywhere from 4.0-4.3 depending on workload.

The biggest change I am seeing from the new bios is instead of 4.6ghz on 1-2 cores I am seeing it briefly hit that on 3-5 cores depending on what mood it's in lol.


All setting in Bios are left to default btw other than manually tuning my ram.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Sep 20, 2019)

oxrufiioxo said:


> Corsair h115i Platinum but it doesn't stay at 4.6ghz it periodically hits it throughout a single core benchmark run bouncing from around 4.4-4.6 I would say.
> Typical Ryzen 3000 behavior or at least how it has behaved for me since launch.
> 
> All core seems very temp and workload dependent for me I am seeing anywhere from 4.0-4.3 depending on workload.
> ...


 Winters coming.

I can't wait for some windows wide open max bench runs


----------



## cucker tarlson (Sep 20, 2019)

theoneandonlymrk said:


> Epyc fail at understanding AMD's chips , they're made to boost to their max clock , same as ryzen +  2xxx series did.


they have no manual oc headroom.I don't know what was wrong with his statement.turbo freq was invented a decade ago.still,chips had manual oc headrom.that's what overclocking is,pushing freq over boost clocks,not base clocks.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Sep 20, 2019)

cucker tarlson said:


> they have no manual oc headroom.I don't know what was wrong with his statement.turbo freq was invented a decade ago.still,chips had manual oc headrom.that's what overclocking is,pushing freq over boost clocks,not base clocks.


And as such overclocking was never assured.

You can still manually overclock, you just wont beat AMD's PBO at it, without massive cooling or volts.

It's an evolutionary thing so yes shit was done differently before ,but like I said this isn't the first Amd chip to work like this and indeed Intel beat Amd to this punch a while back and only the fact their now on the 7th optimization of their node has reduced the effects of this.
But you still need to overdo cooling to push clocks , Even on intel.
I was moaning about OC headroom years ago when intel and Nvidia started this turbo bs now im over it , it's been years.


----------



## cucker tarlson (Sep 20, 2019)

theoneandonlymrk said:


> And as such overclocking was never assured.
> 
> You can still manually overclock, you just wont beat AMD's PBO at it, without massive cooling or volts.
> 
> ...


I kinda like how their best bins are put towards 3900x that pushes highest clocks from the entire lineup.4300mhz on 24 threads is good.But lower tier cpus,especially the 3600x,are a big disappointment as far as frequency goes.

same way you can disable turbo on intel and set the multi to max turbo.the frequency stays the same.3000 doesn't go over max boost so it does not overclock,no matter how you spin it.it turbo boosts,but does not overclock.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Sep 20, 2019)

cucker tarlson said:


> I kinda like how their best bins are put towards 3900x that pushes highest clocks from the entire lineup.But lower tier cpus,especially the 3600x,are a big disappointment as far as frequency goes.


Well it's not that important given the Ipc or at least that's the argument i got way back when my 5.5ghz fx benched against i7's.
Look at it this way with AMD each price point has actual meaning, if you need more cores or speed it's simple ,pay more.
At least they don't segregate features and i dissagree a 3600 non x at less than 200£ is within 10% of the performance of a 9900k in some games , that's the reality ,and it will sell well.


----------



## cucker tarlson (Sep 20, 2019)

theoneandonlymrk said:


> Well it's not that important given the Ipc or at least that's the argument i got way back when my 5.5ghz fx benched against i7's.
> Look at it this way with AMD each price point has actual meaning, if you need more cores or speed it's simple ,pay more.
> At least they don't segregate features and i dissagree a 3600 non x at less than 200£ is within 10% of the performance of a 9900k in some games , that's the reality ,and it will sell well.


ipc and cache too.but that doesn't make frequency "not important".think about this-higher clocks would make your ryzen go faster!
while 4.3ghz for a 12 core is nice,4.2ghz for an 8 core is pretty low.intel has a locked 9700f that boosts higher and costs the same or slightly less than 3700x.

and I said 3600x not 3600,you pay higher price but the chip still clocks pretty low.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Sep 20, 2019)

cucker tarlson said:


> ipc and cache too.but that doesn't make frequency "not important".
> 
> and I said 3600x not 3600,you pay higher price but the chip still clocks pretty low.


Thats why i said 3600 ,it's cheaper and like it's Xy bro , it's a very good cpu getting within 10% of a 9900k , Even at 7-800 mhz slower and four less cores.
I too would have loved to see 5ghz obviously, what an effin chip eh, but in a way im kinda glad it's not that case ,Intel Really would be fudged not that they are not now but man they couldn't fight that chip at all , they got lucky and still have that one pr point ,ish since that one pr point comes from years of optimization on one node and is conversely the cause of the issues they face.
They were Chipzilla , now they look as vulnerable and ordinary as ever and other foundries and companies are lauding achievement after achievement while intel stir a different batch of 10nm up , in the same crap way they failed st it last time.


----------



## cucker tarlson (Sep 20, 2019)

first of all,would it be a bad thing for intel to fail completely ? cause they're still holding up well considering their K skus push 5ghz and even non-k trade blows with ryzen in everything except for video and rendering tasks.
second of all,yes,a 3700x at 4.5ghz would be better for a consumer than 3700x at 4.2ghz.


----------



## phanbuey (Sep 20, 2019)

cucker tarlson said:


> first of all,would it be a bad thing for intel to fail completely ? cause they're still holding up well considering their K skus push 5ghz and even non-k trade blows with ryzen in everything except for video and rendering tasks.
> second of all,yes,a 3700x at 4.5ghz would be better for a consumer than 3700x at 4.2ghz.



It would because then you would have the AMD FX series pricing (back when k10 was prancing around like a happy happy pony) again.  Right now it's the sweet spot for us because as consumers there isn't really a bad mid-high end CPU on the market.  If one of them gets too far ahead, then we just get another stretch of overpriced stagnation (ahem, Nvidia)...


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Sep 20, 2019)

cucker tarlson said:


> first of all,would it be a bad thing for intel to fail completely ? cause they're still holding up well considering their K skus push 5ghz and even non-k trade blows with ryzen in everything except for video and rendering tasks.
> second of all,yes,a 3700x at 4.5ghz would be better for a consumer than 3700x at 4.2ghz.


Yes, one x86 cpu maker is not enough , we need 2-4 , competitively but your success marker is balls imho perhaps i should make a 6ghz cpu that cant actually do anything (possibly beyond me ) it would sell well to some though eh.
And,
Of course it would, but as I said IPC matter's more than frequency in this case and can't , despite your efforts be discounted.

Don't get so caught up on one unimportant part of a whole , and I think we should steer closer to the thread , especially since your throwing obvious stuff at me without any point now


----------



## cucker tarlson (Sep 20, 2019)

theoneandonlymrk said:


> Yes, one x86 cpu maker is not enough , we need 2-4 , competitively but your success marker is balls imho perhaps i should make a 6ghz cpu that cant actually do anything (possibly beyond me ) it would sell well to some though eh.
> And,
> Of course it would, but as I said IPC matter's more than frequency in this case and can't , despite your efforts be discounted.
> 
> Don't get so caught up on one unimportant part of a whole , and I think we should steer closer to the thread , especially since your throwing obvious stuff at me without any point now


my point was lower their tier cpus should be getting better bins,it's not my fault you're taking it somewhere else to muddy the waters to the point of saying frequency becomes irrelevant when you've made some ipc progress.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Sep 20, 2019)

cucker tarlson said:


> my point was lower their tier cpus should be getting better bins,it's not my fault you're taking it somewhere else to muddy the waters to the point of saying frequency becomes irrelevant when you've made some ipc progress.


I dissagree about the bins , and fair point I will mearly dissagree next time and let you tell the world where we should be at by now with Amd CPU's , that way we all get to know what to buy.

So, where's your list , since your now the man where is the list of parts prices and specs you Would have released if you were AMD.

Because personally I think your just trolling for an argument ,pm me for one if you want, at least then i could use the words i want.

This is a thread about Amd CPU's not hitting boost clocks , is that something your having an issue with or am i the issue because you started this by quoting me then bemoaning AMD'S non existent headroom for overclocking, ie irrelevant shite since ryzen 2.


----------



## Bones (Sep 20, 2019)

My take on this is I don't care since I don't use boost. 
I set mine to run where I want it to and that's it, none of the yo-yo'ing of CPU speeds boost makes happen.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Sep 20, 2019)

Bones said:


> My take on this is I don't care since I don't use boost.
> I set mine to run where I want it to and that's it, none of the yo-yo'ing of CPU speeds boost makes happen.


Exactly how i would have run but honestly , on a r2600X i beat AMD by 100Mhz , on this 3800X i beat AMD by 50 ATM  ,it;s not been worth the effort in that area lately for me, now memory and other bus clocking is a totally different beast .
on the 2600X i got 7200 physics score in 3dmark through this.(stck bench timespy)


----------



## Aquinus (Sep 20, 2019)

Yeah, so clearly someone is a little sour given the way the poll options are worded so I'm going to refrain from choosing any poll options. You might as well have just put "I'm pissed," into each option.

Honestly, I would just be happy that the algorithm is so well tuned already that you'd be hard pressed to manually overclock it better, so there is that, on top of conditions being right for maximum boost clocks, there is that too. A maximum doesn't mean you'll always get it. My Vega "boosts" to 1630Mhz or so, but it doesn't always hold it. Sometimes it doesn't even get there, but that doesn't mean AMD is being deceitful. Maximum attainable is not the same thing as what you'll always see under whatever workload you're putting on it.


----------



## Bones (Sep 20, 2019)

Speaking of "Take", some prefer it, some don't. 
I have my reasons for setting it to run the way I have it but TBF my reasons are specific to me only. 

I can't say it's better that way as a blanket statement, another's use of their machine may well make using boost a better way to run it. 
To each his/her own.


----------



## ShrimpBrime (Sep 20, 2019)

Bones said:


> Speaking of "Take", some prefer it, some don't.
> I have my reasons for setting it to run the way I have it but TBF my reasons are specific to me only.
> 
> I can't say it's better that way as a blanket statement, another's use of their machine may well make using boost a better way to run it.
> To each his/her own.



My Zen+ 2700X is at 3800mhz at 1.188v while max P-state is 3.7ghz at 1.212v. I found the chip to be super efficient at this speed and voltage. Runs very cool. 

Single core boosts go to 4350mhz with PBO and auto is 4ghz. OC setting 3 is 4.1ghz and OC setting 4 at 4.2ghz and right at 1.5v while I can produce the same at slightly lower voltages, on long crunching durations throttles as far down as 3.9ghz while crossing that 90c t-case.

Neat the chips boost and all that, but seems to me like a lot of energy is actually wasted while people play games with 4-8 core loads and a bunch of idle threads eating epeen.

Personally I prefer the SMT feature disabled at higher clocks. Other than showing off Cinebench scores, I get better performance for daily use.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Sep 20, 2019)

ShrimpBrime said:


> My Zen+ 2700X is at 3800mhz at 1.188v while max P-state is 3.7ghz at 1.212v. I found the chip to be super efficient at this speed and voltage. Runs very cool.
> 
> Single core boosts go to 4350mhz with PBO and auto is 4ghz. OC setting 3 is 4.1ghz and OC setting 4 at 4.2ghz and right at 1.5v while I can produce the same at slightly lower voltages, on long crunching durations throttles as far down as 3.9ghz while crossing that 90c t-case.
> 
> ...


ill try Smt off.


----------



## ShrimpBrime (Sep 20, 2019)

theoneandonlymrk said:


> ill try Smt off.


Interested in the temp difference. It will speak a lot on how much heat the SMT produces virtually for nothing. 
Indeed turn it on when needed, but meh a few percent increase is a likable thing too


----------



## oxrufiioxo (Sep 21, 2019)

ShrimpBrime said:


> Interested in the temp difference. It will speak a lot on how much heat the SMT produces virtually for nothing.
> Indeed turn it on when needed, but meh a few percent increase is a likable thing too




I honestly think it's only going to cause people to go threadripper instead. Especially if its easier to cool with it's much larger ihs. The 16 core AM4 is going to be harder to cool than a 9900k I'm sure.  

My 3900X already behaves similarly stock vs stock (all limits disabled) to my 9900k.


----------



## ShrimpBrime (Sep 21, 2019)

Threadripper....

Epic Rome 7502 32 core 3.5ghz.

For FFXV lol...


----------



## Nordic (Sep 21, 2019)

I have tested with smt on and off. I have not seen a difference in single threaded benchmark scores or heat.


----------



## cucker tarlson (Sep 21, 2019)

theoneandonlymrk said:


> I dissagree about the bins , and fair point I will mearly dissagree next time and let you tell the world where we should be at by now with Amd CPU's , that way we all get to know what to buy.
> 
> So, where's your list , since your now the man where is the list of parts prices and specs you Would have released if you were AMD.
> 
> ...


some oc is bettter than no oc,not gonna argue about that since it's pretty obvious for someone that doesn't look at this through red glasses.I never said 6ghz.I said manual 4.5 over stock 4.2.you're being so defensive that all you can say is that I'm trolling.do you realize that is trolling ?


----------



## thesmokingman (Sep 21, 2019)

Aquinus said:


> Yeah, so clearly someone is a little sour given the way the poll options are worded so I'm going to refrain from choosing any poll options. You might as well have just put "I'm pissed," into each option.
> 
> Honestly, I would just be happy that the algorithm is so well tuned already that you'd be hard pressed to manually overclock it better, so there is that, on top of conditions being right for maximum boost clocks, there is that too. A maximum doesn't mean you'll always get it. My Vega "boosts" to 1630Mhz or so, but it doesn't always hold it. Sometimes it doesn't even get there, but that doesn't mean AMD is being deceitful. Maximum attainable is not the same thing as what you'll always see under whatever workload you're putting on it.



I noticed the same type threads on other forums also had salty as hell wording as well.


----------



## biffzinker (Sep 21, 2019)

Nordic said:


> I have tested with smt on and off. I have not seen a difference in single threaded benchmark scores or heat.


Ryzen 5 3600 with SMT On vs Off (Stock clocks +100 MHz over the rumored 3500X.)

Geekbench 5
SMT On








SMT Off















						AMD Ryzen 5 3500X CPU Listed
					

I woudn't be suprised at all if one of these turns out to be similar to what the i5's have been for gaming vs the i7's. Related to a bang for the buck investment, I don't see these as being a bad -  Would probrably be an excellent value in the end.  However it's still too early to really know...




					www.techpowerup.com


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Sep 21, 2019)

cucker tarlson said:


> some oc is bettter than no oc,not gonna argue about that since it's pretty obvious for someone that doesn't look at this through red glasses.I never said 6ghz.I said manual 4.5 over stock 4.2.you're being so defensive that all you can say is that I'm trolling.do you realize that is trolling ?


I've explained adequately why i dissagree , this still is not a thread about overclocking, we dissagree ,so what.

Red glasses , so now im a fanboi , not red glasses man, but the glasses of time Oc went west a while back, keep up with the news, moan when it might make sense like years ago possibly ryzen gen two Would have been the time if you're blue glasses fogged up.
Not gen 3.


----------



## Aquinus (Sep 21, 2019)

biffzinker said:


> Ryzen 5 3600 with SMT On vs Off (Stock clocks +100 MHz over the rumored 3500X.)
> 
> Geekbench 5
> SMT On
> ...


1.9% single threaded increase for an 18% decrease in multi-core throughput. Doesn't seem like a worthwhile tradeoff. I would run it another 2 time for each because you might find that the numbers are within error on the single-thread side. A only a few points more or less on a second run would be close enough to say that it's with error to be honest.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Sep 21, 2019)

Aquinus said:


> 1.9% single threaded increase for an 18% decrease in multi-core throughput. Doesn't seem like a worthwhile tradeoff. I would run it another 2 time for each because you might find that the numbers are within error on the single-thread side. A only a few points more or less on a second run would be close enough to say that it's with error to be honest.


Had a go, I have to say it did seam even smoother with regards to gaming , no big change , close to naught but not nothing and game benchmarks nudged up if gpu centric.

Crosshair hero VII bios 2801 just dropped, back in a bit. .


----------



## cucker tarlson (Sep 21, 2019)

theoneandonlymrk said:


> I've explained adequately why i dissagree , this still is not a thread about overclocking, we dissagree ,so what.
> 
> Red glasses , so now im a fanboi , not red glasses man, but the glasses of time Oc went west a while back, keep up with the news, moan when it might make sense like years ago possibly ryzen gen two Would have been the time if you're blue glasses fogged up.
> Not gen 3.


no but you seems awfully defensive about the point I made as far as binning and clocks,and now I just discovered why looking in your specs.
I hope the extra investment is either paying off or gonna in the future cause that's a 20% premium over 3700x.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Sep 21, 2019)

cucker tarlson said:


> no but you seems awfully defensive about the point I made as far as binning and clocks,and now I just discovered why looking in your specs.
> I hope the extra investment is either paying off or gonna in the future cause that's a 20% premium over 3700x.


Im not That skint , and im not bothered about your point regarding binning , it's made soley from a consumer Pov ,im an engineer though and was talking about it from a technical pov no red lenses just engineering common sense, no one Has to buy it (lower teir ryzen)and you won't find me on here trying to push people to buy anything i just pointed out that despite the frequency concerns and despite your points a r5 3600 is within spitting distance of a 9900K so THAT is why your points are irrelevant, that and the off topic nature, IMHO, chill im not defensive in any way i like a debate and I am short of time and direct.

On topic , bios 2801 is showing lower volts at any given clock and very ,very marginal boost improvement, nothing to write home about really hitting 4.55 on a single core ,4.5 on three others ,none won't do 4.75, at 18 ambient 56 on tdie.


----------



## cucker tarlson (Sep 21, 2019)

theoneandonlymrk said:


> I am short of time and direct.


I noticed that over the years


----------



## ShrimpBrime (Sep 21, 2019)

cucker tarlson said:


> no but you seems awfully defensive about the point I made as far as binning and clocks,and now I just discovered why looking in your specs.
> I hope the extra investment is either paying off or gonna in the future cause that's a 20% premium over 3700x.



Always gotta pay more for a better binned chip.
But they dont bin to user overclocks.
Basically the 3800x is going to always have that high base clock stability no user intervention needed. So going to a 3800 from 3700 is performance increase right from the box



biffzinker said:


> Ryzen 5 3600 with SMT On vs Off (Stock clocks +100 MHz over the rumored 3500X.)
> 
> Geekbench 5
> SMT On
> ...



Nice. I got just about the same increase and decrease as you did percentage wise. Granted mines a zen plus, but all my point was looking at the per core increase.

As small as it is, it would be similar percentage to overclocking memory for that extra %.

Good stuff thank you


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Sep 21, 2019)

cucker tarlson said:


> I noticed that over the years


So stop wasting it then.

You didn't talk back to my point in several posts way back that this method of chip production , to boost to it's max possible has been AMDs way since ryzen 2000 and arguably the first gen with an X and Xfr.

But now it's an issue.

Or that intel and Nvidia pioneered this method and still use it.


----------



## cucker tarlson (Sep 21, 2019)

theoneandonlymrk said:


> So stop wasting it then.
> 
> You didn't talk back to my point in several posts way back that this method of chip production , to boost to it's max possible has been AMDs way since ryzen 2000 and arguably the first gen with an X and Xfr.
> 
> ...


lol,there is no law in the universe that forces you to respond to me in a thread like this,where it's opinion vs opinion.


----------



## Nordic (Sep 21, 2019)

biffzinker said:


> Ryzen 5 3600 with SMT On vs Off (Stock clocks +100 MHz over the rumored 3500X.)
> 
> Geekbench 5
> SMT On
> ...


I know techpoweup did a review with smt off. I did my own testing. I found no difference in average single threaded benchmark scores. For example Cinebench r20 averaged 500 points with and without smt. Multithreaded performance suffered without smt though.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Sep 21, 2019)

cucker tarlson said:


> lol,there is no law in the universe that forces you to respond to me in a thread like this,where it's opinion vs opinion.


And no law that limits the dodging of valid points lucky for you since they make your opinion dubiously flawed.
Bye


----------



## ShrimpBrime (Sep 21, 2019)

Nordic said:


> I know techpoweup did a review with smt off. I did my own testing. I found no difference in average single threaded benchmark scores. For example Cinebench r20 averaged 500 points with and without smt. Multithreaded performance suffered without smt though.



SMT is a nice featuer for sure. 

Still trying to find a game that would scale the 16 thread cpu I have lol.

Only F@H gives me real world 16 thread scaling ( to my personal needs)


----------



## HTC (Sep 21, 2019)

the54thvoid said:


> I'm terribly disappointed my chip does not stay at the advertised base clock. I'm not overclocking it and it has the cheek to run at 4.2Ghz on all 8 cores while playing PUBG (and giving me very constant fps). I'm outraged by this foolish boosting process. I mean - it has an advertised base of 3.6Ghz - so shouldn't it stay at that unless I overclock it? *False advertising AMD: base clock should be what it says, not 16% higher.*
> 
> Please apply sarcasm tags and let people figure out that the boost issue is a non-issue. My single core boost is 4.367 (that's 4.4Ghz in round-up language).



Don't you hate it when that happens?

AMD ... really ... the nerve ...


----------



## Nordic (Sep 21, 2019)

ShrimpBrime said:


> SMT is a nice featuer for sure.
> 
> Still trying to find a game that would scale the 16 thread cpu I have lol.
> 
> Only F@H gives me real world 16 thread scaling ( to my personal needs)


I don't think smt will be useful for gaming at this thread count for a long time. Smt is useful for other things


----------



## biffzinker (Sep 21, 2019)

Aquinus said:


> 1.9% single threaded increase for an 18% decrease in multi-core throughput. Doesn't seem like a worthwhile tradeoff. I would run it another 2 time for each because you might find that the numbers are within error on the single-thread side.


I tried again a couple of more times and I'm not getting the bump on single thread.









Geekbench 5.0.1


----------



## ShrimpBrime (Sep 21, 2019)

biffzinker said:


> I tried again a couple of more times and I'm not getting the bump on single thread.
> View attachment 132407
> 
> View attachment 132408
> ...


All the multi thread scores are nnearly the same? Is SMT just off on all these screen shots anf if so in conparison to your first test then?


----------



## biffzinker (Sep 21, 2019)

ShrimpBrime said:


> All the multi thread scores are nnearly the same? Is SMT just off on all these screen shots anf if so in conparison to your first test then?


Yeah, I switched SMT off again to check the variation. Didn't know about the .01 update which is showing a higher single thread score though.


----------



## ShrimpBrime (Sep 21, 2019)

Yea thats something that makes a difference. A benchmark that updates and changes scoring is not really great for testing with imo.

Maybe try single thread cinebench or wprime or pimod something of that nature. Good known stable benchmarks.


----------

