# Updated AMD Ryzen 3000 chipset drivers and power profile



## TheLostSwede (Jul 31, 2019)

Community Update #5: Let’s Talk Clocks, Voltages, and Destiny 2
					

Hello! Thank you for all of the interest and excitement around 3rd Gen AMD Ryzen™ Processors. We have some important updates today on our voltages, clockspeeds, and Destiny 2!     We diagnosed and resolved the issue causing software monitoring tools to report high voltages and clockspeeds at the...




					community.amd.com
				




Well, it did, f-all for me.
No higher clocks and their new power profile got me stuck again around 4.2-4.3GHz so this is clearly a dud...
This is loading one CPU core at 100% and then leaving the system at idle.

Actually, it seems to sort of work, but you have to select the Better Performance Power mode, or the CPU doesn't throttle.
If y you select Best performance, it stays at high Voltages and high frequencies all the time, which doesn't seem quite right to me.

Still not 1MHz above 4.4GHz, even with PBO enabled


----------



## Psychoholic (Jul 31, 2019)

My 3800x boosts to 4.5ghz from time to time..  It's installed in an Aorus X570 Ultra.
Here are the best settings that have worked for me:

PBO: Disabled (in both places)
Any voltage settings in bios set to "normal" and not "auto"
Using windows high performance power mode with Processor Min and Max set to 1 and 100% respectively.

Give those a shot.


----------



## TheLostSwede (Jul 31, 2019)

Psychoholic said:


> My 3800x boosts to 4.5ghz from time to time..  It's installed in an Aorus X570 Ultra.
> Here are the best settings that have worked for me:
> 
> PBO: Disabled (in both places)
> ...



Sadly, that made almost zero difference in my case  
Yeah, one core boosted an extra 25MHz...
AMD really shouldn't have launched the 3800X, as it has no tangible benefits over the 3700X and at this point I'm almost about to call it a fraud, since it doesn't deliver what they claim.
I've never felt so cheated when it comes to buying a high-end SKU of a product.


----------



## Space Lynx (Jul 31, 2019)

I mean 100-200 mhz shouldn't matter too much for games, so just leave everything at stock and leave BIOS at default? and XMP ram?


----------



## TheLostSwede (Jul 31, 2019)

lynx29 said:


> I mean 100-200 mhz shouldn't matter too much for games, so just leave everything at stock and leave BIOS at default? and XMP ram?


XMP doesn't work either. But the RAM runs just fine.

My issue is that I paid for a CPU that's supposed to boost to 4.5GHz, it never really goes beyond 4.4GHz, so what's the point of this SKU, when the 3700X boosts to 4.4GHz.
I threw $100 in the toilet for something I don't get, yet paid for. Not really cool.
Yes, the 100MHz most likely will make zero difference, but I still feel cheated out of my money, as you would think that the higher TDP SKU would boost better than the lower TDP SKU, but alas, that's not really the case.
No matter what I change or try, I can't get this CPU to behave as it's intended to, PBO on/off, Voltages on Auto/Normal, new drivers, nothing...
Maybe, but that's a hail Mary, the new AGESA and UEFI will fix it, but I have zero hope at this point.


----------



## the54thvoid (Jul 31, 2019)

TheLostSwede said:


> XMP doesn't work either. But the RAM runs just fine.
> 
> My issue is that I paid for a CPU that's supposed to boost to 4.5GHz, it never really goes beyond 4.4GHz, so what's the point of this SKU, when the 3700X boosts to 4.4GHz.
> I threw $100 in the toilet for something I don't get, yet paid for. Not really cool.
> ...



I've held off upgrading while I watch this fairly common theme. One question though, does it run all cores at 3.9 base? Because the 3700X info says it runs 3.6 all core base. I'd rather have a cpu that runs 3.9 on all cores and boosted to 4.4, rather than 3.6 - 4.4.


----------



## TheLostSwede (Jul 31, 2019)

the54thvoid said:


> I've held off upgrading while I watch this fairly common theme. One question though, does it run all cores at 3.9 base? Because the 3700X info says it runs 3.6 all core base. I'd rather have a cpu that runs 3.9 on all cores and boosted to 4.4, rather than 3.6 - 4.4.



Hard to say, as I can't load all the cores to something like 50%. With the driver changes and power profile updates, the CPUs goes to sleep or clock back to really low speeds if they're not loaded. If I load 14 cores (well, 7 + HT) at 100%, Ryzen Master reports the 7 cores running at 4,125MHz.
Problem is, my best performing cores, according to Ryzen Master, is core 4 and core 8, i.e. the last core in each CCX, which means they best performing cores, are often not loaded...

In all fairness, my system feels more responsive than my old Ryzen 7 1700 at 3.85GHz all core OC. Maybe it's because of the overall platform and CPU improvements, but it's weirdly noticeable. I'm not disappointed as such, I just feel like I wasted money on something I see no benefit from.


----------



## Space Lynx (Jul 31, 2019)

well you helped me decide to just roll with ryzen 3600 non-x if I do do a new ryzen build. that sounds crappy. all of it.


----------



## TheLostSwede (Jul 31, 2019)

lynx29 said:


> well you helped me decide to just roll with ryzen 3600 non-x if I do do a new ryzen build. that sounds crappy. all of it.



It could just be a combination of my parts, as other people are having better luck with the 3800X, as you can see above.
But the 3800X doesn't seem worth it, as of today at least, over the 3700X in any way whatsoever.


----------



## cucker tarlson (Jul 31, 2019)

the54thvoid said:


> I've held off upgrading while I watch this fairly common theme. One question though, does it run all cores at 3.9 base? Because the 3700X info says it runs 3.6 all core base. I'd rather have a cpu that runs 3.9 on all cores and boosted to 4.4, rather than 3.6 - 4.4.


and what would be the difference? both would go 4.4 when needed.

@TheLostSwede is that stock?cause 1.47v seems very high


----------



## Wavetrex (Jul 31, 2019)

Do they have that rule in the place you live that you can return online purchases within a certain amount of time ?
Because it seems to me that that's what you should do.

To put a bit of salt on your wound, since it got cooler in Europe, my 3700X boosts on occasion to 4.525 (which is the PBO+125 which I've set in bios.... on a cheap X370 board). Doesn't stay there long, it's extremely short bursts, but it does reach it.

So yea 3800X should not have existed, it's a ripoff... the chip is identical to 3700X for all intents and purposes, and both are subjected to the silicon quality.



cucker tarlson said:


> @TheLostSwede is that stock?cause 1.47v seems very high


Apparently that's quite normal for these chips... they up the voltage for a few fractions of the second to nearly 1.5 to kick in those boosts, then drop back.
Even AMD representatives said that the voltage can be anywhere between 0.3 an 1.5...

Not sure why people still think in previous gen terms... "1.4... 1.5 too high, too hot"... obviously new process, new manufacturer (TSMC), new CPU logic, new everything...
AMD didn't release millions of CPUs in the world so they all burn out from too high _default_ voltage.


----------



## TheLostSwede (Jul 31, 2019)

cucker tarlson said:


> @TheLostSwede is that stock?cause 1.47v seems very high


Yes, all the Voltages are set to Normal in the UEFI.



Wavetrex said:


> Do they have that rule in the place you live that you can return online purchases within a certain amount of time ?
> Because it seems to me that that's what you should do.
> 
> To put a bit of salt on your wound, since it got cooler in Europe, my 3700X boosts on occasion to 4.525 (which is the PBO+125 which I've set in bios.... on a cheap X370 board). Doesn't stay there long, it's extremely short bursts, but it does reach it.
> ...



Yeah, a week, so we're way past that.

See, that's what's so insane, either I got a dud, or the 3800X is just a means for AMD to charge more to "stupid" people like myself who expected to get a bit more for that extra money.
Obviously It's boost clock, but with a 280mm liquid cooler, I should easily surpass 4.4GHz...

I actually emailed AMD's support today to ask what's going on, as this isn't what I paid for.
Sure, it might be, as I said, an AGESA or UEFI related issue, but this chip is clearly marketed as something that it doesn't deliver in comparison to the 3700X.


----------



## FYFI13 (Jul 31, 2019)

That's really sad, AMD should change their marketing a bit. Yes, every chiplet is slightly different, but when 3700X can boos higher than much more expensive 3800X then there's something definitely wrong.  People who spent 25% extra should be getting more, not less. 
I was about to get 3700X myself, but then all posts with different issues started to show up and... I don't even know now, might just end up with 3600(non X). Some of their SKUs makes no sense.

By the way, is it actually idling at +59C? That's with 280mm liquid cooler??


----------



## TheLostSwede (Jul 31, 2019)

FYFI13 said:


> By the way, is it actually idling at +59C? That's with 280mm liquid cooler??



No no, that was just after loading the CPU, so ignore that. It idles somewhere around 40C, as I've set all the fans to run on low speeds.


----------



## Vya Domus (Jul 31, 2019)

It should have been obvious to many that the 3800X is of much worse silicon quality than the 3700X. You can tell that from the TDP ratings, 105W vs 65W, that's a massive difference for not a whole lot of extra clock speed. 

AMD can now sell chiplets that vary a lot in terms of quality, the 3800X is still not a rip off in my opinion you still get a CPU with a higher overall clockspeed under many conditions. It's just that people should look more carefully before buying something.


----------



## HTC (Jul 31, 2019)

Question: what's the ambient temp in your location?


----------



## TheLostSwede (Jul 31, 2019)

Vya Domus said:


> It should have been obvious to many that the 3800X is of much worse silicon quality than the 3700X. You can tell that from the TDP ratings, 105W vs 65W, that's a massive difference for not a whole lot of extra clock speed.
> 
> AMD can now sell chiplets that vary a lot in terms of quality, the 3800X is still not a rip off in my opinion you still get a CPU with a higher overall clockspeed under many conditions. It's just that people should look more carefully before buying something.



Sorry, but this is just plain wrong. The reason for the different TDP ratings in this case is that the 3800X is supposed to have more headroom than the 3700X, i.e. it should be more capable to run at higher speeds, just like previous generations of X and non-X CPUs from AMD.
The 3800X should've been the 8-core flagship, just like the 1800X and well, there was no 2800X so...
Obviously these chips don't really overclock, but there should be more headroom on the 3800X than the 3700X, which doesn't seem to be the case. So either the CCX:es ended up being of much better quality than anticipated and AMD put higher bins in the 3700X than they intended, or they're saving the higher quality CCX's for other products (3900X etc.) and screwed those getting the 3800X, by giving them the same binned CCX:es as the 3700X.
It's obvious that the 3900X performs better than the 3800X when it comes to boost speeds, so something is just plain wrong here.

And how could anyone look more carefully? AMD didn't seed 3800X CPUs to reviewers. So what can "people" look at to be more careful?  



HTC said:


> Question: what's the ambient temp in your location?



I have AC, although I can't tell you the exact temperature in the room, but it should be around 25 degrees C.


----------



## kapone32 (Jul 31, 2019)

TheLostSwede said:


> Sorry, but this is just plain wrong. The reason for the different TDP ratings in this case is that the 3800X is supposed to have more headroom than the 3700X, i.e. it should be more capable to run at higher speeds, just like previous generations of X and non-X CPUs from AMD.
> The 3800X should've been the 8-core flagship, just like the 1800X and well, there was no 2800X so...
> Obviously these chips don't really overclock, but there should be more headroom on the 3800X than the 3700X, which doesn't seem to be the case. So either the CCX:es ended up being of much better quality than anticipated and AMD put higher bins in the 3700X than they intended, or they're saving the higher quality CCX's for other products (3900X etc.) and screwed those getting the 3800X, by giving them the same binned CCX:es as the 3700X.
> It's obvious that the 3900X performs better than the 3800X when it comes to boost speeds, so something is just plain wrong here.
> ...


----------



## Vya Domus (Jul 31, 2019)

TheLostSwede said:


> Sorry, but this is just plain wrong. The reason for the different TDP ratings in this case is that the 3800X is supposed to have more headroom than the 3700X, i.e. it should be more capable to run at higher speeds, just like previous generations of X and non-X CPUs from AMD.
> The 3800X should've been the 8-core flagship, just like the 1800X and well, there was no 2800X so...
> Obviously these chips don't really overclock, but there should be more headroom on the 3800X than the 3700X, which doesn't seem to be the case. So either the CCX:es ended up being of much better quality than anticipated and AMD put higher bins in the 3700X than they intended, or they're saving the higher quality CCX's for other products (3900X etc.) and screwed those getting the 3800X, by giving them the same binned CCX:es as the 3700X.
> It's obvious that the 3900X performs better than the 3800X when it comes to boost speeds, so something is just plain wrong here.



They wouldn't put up a TDP figure that's 50% higher just because the chip is supposed to have more headroom, that would make no sense, this simply means the chip will use more power. The 3950X , a 16 core that also runs at higher clocks is also rated for 105W, come on think for a moment here. The gaps in silicon quality AMD has right now are colossal.

But let's say that's true, 50% more TDP for *100mhz *higher max boost clock ? No matter how you look at it, the 3800X is one of the worst quality silicon AMD sells right now and I am convinced that plays somewhat of role in what you've experienced.

The very moment I've seen the specs of the 3800X I knew it wasn't meant to be sharpest tool in the shed so to speak. There's a reason AMD provided the 3700X and 3900X first to reviewers.



TheLostSwede said:


> So what can "people" look at to be more careful?



They can simply look at the AMD's website and infer all of this from that. Admittedly it's not something most people would even think about but for me the TDP ratings were a big red flag.  The 3800X would be the last CPU I would pick from AMD's entire stack.


----------



## TheLostSwede (Jul 31, 2019)

AMD only has two TDP's so far, 65W and 105W.
Also, if you'd read up on things, you'd see that the 65W chips have the power limit set to 88W/90A and the 105W TDP parts have the power limit set to 142W/140A.








						The AMD 3rd Gen Ryzen Deep Dive Review: 3700X and 3900X Raising The Bar
					






					www.anandtech.com
				




And yes, the 3900X and the 3950X are both 105W, which indeed makes the 3800X look a bit odd. 

Again, why are you saying it's the worst quality silicon? Do you have some proof? Yes, my chip doesn't boost as it should be, but as I said, but I don't know the actual reason. 
Maybe I did get a dud. Some people here are having a bit more luck with theirs. Sure, it looks crap in comparison to the 3700X and this is my issue.
I paid to get something that's better than the 3700X, but it seems I got something worse.
I also expected the 3800X to have higher overclocking or at least PBO headroom, but alas, PBO does nothing and my one attempt at overclocking, which was a single core, resulted in a system reboot after 5 minutes load...

Well, AMD is selling the 3800X as a superior product to the 3700X and the way things are, this isn't cool, since it's not a better part, as far as I can tell...


----------



## HTC (Jul 31, 2019)

TheLostSwede said:


> I have AC, although I can't tell you the exact temperature in the room, but it should be around 25 degrees C.



I thought you possibly had a high ambient temp, thus causing issues but those temps are reasonable so that doesn't seem to be it.



Vya Domus said:


> They wouldn't put up a TDP figure that's 50% higher just because the chip is supposed to have more headroom, that would make no sense. The 3950X , a 16 core that also runs at higher clocks is also rated for 105, come on think for a moment here. The gaps in silicon quality AMD has right now are colossal.
> 
> But let's say that's true, 50% more TDP for *100mhz *higher max boost clock ? No matter how you look at it, the 3800X is one of the worst quality silicon AMD sells right now and I am convinced that plays somewhat of role in what you've experienced.
> 
> The first time I've seen the specs of the 3800X I knew it wasn't meant to be sharpest tool in the shed so to speak. There's a reason AMD provided the 3700X and 3900X first to reviewers.



That TDP is for base clock, regardless of the (Ryzen) CPU. In the case of 3700X VS 3800X, the latter has 300MHz higher base clock.

*Supposedly*, the 3800X has higher clock frequency average VS the 3700X:






It *should* drop less from 1T to 16T.

I do agree that there's a colossal gap in silicon quality as far as Ryzen 3000 series is concerned.

What the 3800X has for sure is, with PBO disabled, an all core of 3.9GHz under heavy load while the 3700X, in the same circumstances has an all core of 3.6GHz


----------



## Wavetrex (Jul 31, 2019)

That 65W TDP means jack squat.

Out of the box, no tweaks or whatever, the CPU consumes up to ~95-100W or so on 100% load, measured by the motherboard (complete SoC, not just cores) ... so basically the amount of heat that the cooler needs to dissipate.

You _can_ restrict it to 65W intentionally, but that would also make it _A LOT slower_.
I tested that, with 65W it only boosts all-core to about 3.7-3.8, and single core below 4.2. Nowhere near the 4.4 written on the box.

Add 10W and you get 3800X - that is, if it's not a dud like the one from *TheLostSwede*
The difference between them is extremely minor, it's not that one is better quality than the other... it's not.



HTC said:


> ... with PBO disabled .... while the 3700X, in the same circumstances has an all core of 3.6GHz


But that is *not* what happens. The CPU boosts between 4.0 to 4.1 during CB R20. My sample anyway. Yes, with PBO disabled. And it consumes more than 65 for sure while doing that...
Either my ASUS board is "dumb" for not intentionally choking the CPU to that 65W, or the CPU is simply designed to go higher than 65W from the factory.

(And that seems to be inline with reviewers, including TPU - The difference is that they have AC rooms, not my hot 30+ degrees attic.
I'm quite sure that during the winter my CPU will boost to 4.2 as well during CB run)

This is exactly the 9900K story with it's 95W TDP which in reality is about 150+ when actually using the CPU...
(which btw it would lose badly to 3700X if it would actually run at that 95W instead of getting hotter than the surface of the sun to clock to that magical 5.0 Ghz)

Basically, both vendors are selling now "factory overclocked" CPUs.
End of the story.


----------



## Vya Domus (Jul 31, 2019)

TheLostSwede said:


> Again, why are you saying it's the worst quality silicon?



An educated guess based on the fact that this CPU looks like it should have absolutely no place in the 142W/140A range you mentioned if there wasn't something peculiar about it.

Let's put things into perspective one more time.

3700X - 8 core - 3.6/4.4 Ghz - 88W/90A
3800X - 8 core - 3.9/4.5  Ghz - 142W/140A
3900X - 12 core - 3.8/4.6  Ghz - 142W/140A
3950X - 16 core - 3.5/4.7  Ghz - 142W/140A

Somehow doubling the cores *and *the max boost clock still makes the 3950X stay within the 145W limit but just a slight bump in clock speed made AMD want to rise the limit of the 3800X from 88W to 145W. You may chose to believe this doesn't mean anything in particular and that it's just supposed to have more headroom, but what am I to gather from this ? That the 3700X, 3900X, 3950X don't have any headroom ? Why would AMD pick the the 3800X of all CPUs and give it a disproportional amount of headroom compared to the rest of the stack. None of this makes sense.

I for one can't get over it knowing how these things work, this non-linearity sticks out like a sore thumb. Therefor my only conclusion is that the 3800X is simply of worse quality.

I do agree that AMD is selling the 3800X under dubious promises, all I am saying is that there are red flags that could have pointed out to that fact.


----------



## HTC (Jul 31, 2019)

Vya Domus said:


> 3800X - 8 core - *3.9*/4.5  Ghz - 142W/140A



The base clock is 300MHz higher, VS the 3700X.


----------



## kapone32 (Jul 31, 2019)

The thing is that this is really no different than the first gen Ryzen chips. The 1700 was a 65W TDP and the 1800X was a 95W TDP. Even though the 1800x was faster as base OC the 1700 to 3.9 would put it near to the 1800x which had a maximum 4.1 GHZ OC based on what I have seen.


----------



## TheLostSwede (Jul 31, 2019)

HTC said:


> The base clock is 300MHz higher, VS the 3700X.



The thing is, with the design of Ryzen 3000, it seems no chip really runs at that base clock, as all the Ryzen 7 and Ryzen 9 parts at least, seem to hover around 4.0-4.2GHz, regardless of what you're running. It doesn't matter if you load one core, or all cores, as you showed above.
So even a higher base clock, seems to have no impact on the average clock speeds of the chips.



kapone32 said:


> The thing is that this is really no different than the first gen Ryzen chips. The 1700 was a 65W TDP and the 1800X was a 95W TDP. Even though the 1800x was faster as base OC the 1700 to 3.9 would put it near to the 1800x which had a maximum 4.1 GHZ OC based on what I have seen.



Well, the 1700 had worse silicon than the 1700X and 1800X, as it simply wouldn't clock as high. Again, it was 100-200MHz difference, but it was a very hard ceiling at 3.9GHz for the 1700, whereas the X parts could hit 4.0-4.1GHz. 

The situation is seemingly reversed now, with the 3700X hitting the same speeds as the 3800X, which is just plain odd imho, or the first batch of 3700X chips are actually 3800X parts or something along that line...


----------



## HTC (Jul 31, 2019)

TheLostSwede said:


> The thing is, with the design of Ryzen 3000, *it seems no chip really runs at that base clock*, as all the Ryzen 7 and Ryzen 9 parts at least, seem to hover around 4.0-4.2GHz, regardless of what you're running. It doesn't matter if you load one core, or all cores, as you showed above.
> So even a higher base clock, seems to have no impact on the average clock speeds of the chips.



It will if both PBO and XFR are disabled.

Think of it like the 9900K being forced to "obey" the 95W TDP: pretty much the same thing.


----------



## TheLostSwede (Jul 31, 2019)

Wavetrex said:


> That 65W TDP means jack squat.
> 
> Out of the box, no tweaks or whatever, the CPU consumes up to ~95-100W or so on 100% load, measured by the motherboard (complete SoC, not just cores) ... so basically the amount of heat that the cooler needs to dissipate.
> 
> ...



Keep in mind that AMD's TDP and what they say the actual max power draw is, differs quite a bit, as pointed out above.
You shouldn't break 88W though, unless you enable PBO.

My problem is that my chip, regardless of PBO on or off, just won't do what it's supposed to do, which is annoying and not at all what I expected. If i enabled PBO, it draws more power, but doesn't clock higher...



HTC said:


> It will if both PBO and XFR are disabled.
> 
> Think of it like the 9900K being forced to "obey" the 95W TDP: pretty much the same thing.



Never seen my CPU run at 3900MHz. 
Idle looks like this






A light load looks like this


----------



## jesdals (Jul 31, 2019)

It seems like the speed also depends on the workload tested with HWiNFO64 during CPUid Bench and it never went above 4200 on all cores, then did an our of gaming and got these timings



During the CPUid Benchmarks the picture where as follows


----------



## TheLostSwede (Jul 31, 2019)

HTC said:


> It will if both PBO and XFR are disabled.
> 
> Think of it like the 9900K being forced to "obey" the 95W TDP: pretty much the same thing.



For some reason PBO was still enabled, apparently auto in the UEFI means on for Gigabyte...
No difference at idle though.





1 core load





All core load


----------



## kapone32 (Jul 31, 2019)

TheLostSwede said:


> For some reason PBO was still enabled, apparently auto in the UEFI means on for Gigabyte...
> No difference at idle though.
> 
> View attachment 128169
> ...



I seriously thing your problem comes down to temp. 74 degrees is pretty high for an AM4 chip. 1.45 volts on a single core is really high too.


----------



## Zareek (Jul 31, 2019)

jesdals said:


> It seems like the speed also depends on the workload tested with HWiNFO64 during CPUid Bench and it never went above 4200 on all cores, then did an our of gaming and got these timings
> View attachment 128166
> During the CPUid Benchmarks the picture where as follows
> View attachment 128168


Yeah, I see the same kind of thing with my 3800X. I think @TheLostSwede either got a dud or one of the programs on his machine is stealing too much cpu time to allow single core boosting. I regularly hit 4.5Ghz and even 4.55Ghz but it doesn't last long. I did a little experiment last week, I watched the clocks on my second screen while playing F1 2018. I had an average of over 4.3Ghz all core for my over 4 hour gaming session.


----------



## EarthDog (Jul 31, 2019)

kapone32 said:


> I seriously thing your problem comes down to temp. 74 degrees is pretty high for an AM4 chip.


No, it isn't. 

Ryzen from the beginning could easily handle more than that. Now, previous AMD CPUs had a much lower limit, but Ryzen was all 100C Tjmax IIRC....


----------



## TheLostSwede (Jul 31, 2019)

jesdals said:


> It seems like the speed also depends on the workload tested with HWiNFO64 during CPUid Bench and it never went above 4200 on all cores, then did an our of gaming and got these timings
> 
> During the CPUid Benchmarks the picture where as follows



Gaming makes no difference, still stuck at 4,425MHz as the highest boost speed...







kapone32 said:


> I seriously thing your problem comes down to temp. 74 degrees is pretty high for an AM4 chip. 1.45 volts on a single core is really high too.


That's 100% load on all cores...

As you can see, it's not that hot during gaming.



Zareek said:


> Yeah, I see the same kind of thing with my 3800X. I think @TheLostSwede either got a dud or one of the programs on his machine is stealing too much cpu time to allow single core boosting. I regularly hit 4.5Ghz and even 4.55Ghz but it doesn't last long. I did a little experiment last week, I watched the clocks on my second screen while playing F1 2018. I had an average of over 4.3Ghz all core for my over 4 hour gaming session.



I have killed off all the background tasks that I can and the remaining uses almost zero CPU.

Then there's this... Although most of it is known already.








						Our Tests Show Not All Ryzen 3000 Cores Are Created Equal
					

Not all cores in AMD's Ryzen 3000-series processors can reach the boost frequency.




					www.tomshardware.com


----------



## Wavetrex (Jul 31, 2019)

Article about this.








						Our Tests Show Not All Ryzen 3000 Cores Are Created Equal
					

Not all cores in AMD's Ryzen 3000-series processors can reach the boost frequency.




					www.tomshardware.com
				



_Edit_... was that an edit or it was just posted as I was posting this ?
Anyway...

----

The thing is, it appears to boost to that advertised frequency *only* on the "fastest core".
If your single thread software is running on any other core than the best one, it will not go to max boost.

So this is not a general "max", but a very specialized max, that is relevant to _only one_ core out of all.

Very very shady marketing this time...

@TheLostSwede maybe you can try to Set Affinity to each one of the cores individually and run tests ( 8 times ? ), to see if there's any difference between cores ?

(p.s. - I see that in your case that is Core 8, the golden star)


----------



## TheLostSwede (Jul 31, 2019)

Wavetrex said:


> Our Tests Show Not All Ryzen 3000 Cores Are Created Equal
> 
> 
> Not all cores in AMD's Ryzen 3000-series processors can reach the boost frequency.
> ...


I've tried that, makes no difference...


----------



## Wavetrex (Jul 31, 2019)

TheLostSwede said:


> I've tried that, makes no difference...


Oh man, that reminds me of my previous 6800K, which only went to 4.1 before crashing and had a terrible voltage wall, while other people were OC'ing those to 4.5.
Wanted to pull my eyes out when seeing those results...

Feels so bad to have a dud...

But in the end, it's just $70 and 100Mhz, so no big deal really... or you can try to return it on the reason that it doesn't work as advertised.. and see what happens.


----------



## TheLostSwede (Jul 31, 2019)

Wavetrex said:


> Oh man, that reminds me of my previous 6800K, which only went to 4.1 before crashing and had a terrible voltage wall, while other people were OC'ing those to 4.5.
> Wanted to pull my eyes out when seeing those results...
> 
> Feels so bad to have a dud...
> ...



It's a $100 here...
So $1 per MHz...

Returning is not going to happen, as I'm past that deadline, unless AMD accepts it as an RMA.

And yes, my 8th core is the fastest one, but I have yet to see it boost any higher than the supposedly not so fast.
In fact, core 2 and 7 (if you count 1-8 rather than 0-7) are the fastest when it comes to boost clocks.

Also, the so called "thread pinning" is clearly not working in my case, as the fastest cores are not the ones being utilised the most.


----------



## Zareek (Jul 31, 2019)

TheLostSwede said:


> I have killed off all the background tasks that I can and the remaining uses almost zero CPU.


Okay, so you got a dud apparently. I'm very sorry and I bet you aren't the only one, hopefully AMD will resolve your problem. The only reason I said something about it again was  in your screenshot two other cores were awake. You won't see the the full boost unless they are asleep.


----------



## Wavetrex (Jul 31, 2019)

TheLostSwede said:


> So $1 per MHz...


Still cheaper than Inkjet ink...

Well if returning is not an option, we can then make fun of your dud for the next 10 pages 

The pains and sorrows of early adopters ...


----------



## TheLostSwede (Jul 31, 2019)

Zareek said:


> Okay, so you got a dud apparently. I'm very sorry and I bet you aren't the only one, hopefully AMD will resolve your problem. The only reason I said something about it again was  in your screenshot two other cores were awake. You won't see the the full boost unless they are asleep.
> 
> View attachment 128173


Eh? Other people have clearly had more than one core awake to be able to boost that high, just look at post #29. He was playing games while his CPU was boosting to 4.5GHz.

Also, at idle on the desktop...





And here's repeating your test with the affinity set to what's supposed to be my fastest core...
In other words, a bunch of bollocks.


----------



## Zareek (Jul 31, 2019)

TheLostSwede said:


> Eh? Other people have clearly had more than one core awake to be able to boost that high, just look at post #29. He was playing games while his CPU was boosting to 4.5GHz.


That is a good point but we don't really know what else was happening when it hit those boosts. I just noticed your screenshot had the two awake and mine had 7 asleep. I'm not even sure how I even ran Ryzen Master, took a screenshot and ran SuperPi with 7 cores asleep. Like I said, I think you got a dud. Hopefully, AMD gives you a replacement chip. This new boosting system they have is pretty cool but it really makes these higher clocked SKUs worthless. I wouldn't have paid an extra $70 for a 1% improvement in performance. That being said, I still think if the 3700X didn't exist, I would think the 3800X was a great value. I think the real impact is on the people who upgrade just for the sake of their next overclocking fix. This boosting system basically makes overclocking worthless unless you want to do LN2 but that is a whole different sort of beast.


----------



## jesdals (Jul 31, 2019)

Btw gaming is done in post 29 with Division 2 in 5700x1200 with all settings on max except for FOG, thats on the second highst setting.

Early review etc said that Ryzen Master could be a bug, so I run without and I dont use the Gigabyte Apps software either, everything else is setup according to the optimization from this video









Though I dont overclock but use the PBO as he recommend in the video


----------



## TheLostSwede (Jul 31, 2019)

Zareek said:


> That is a good point but we don't really know what else was happening when it hit those boosts. I just noticed your screenshot had the two awake and mine had 7 asleep. I'm not even sure how I even ran Ryzen Master, took a screenshot and ran SuperPi with 7 cores asleep. Like I said, I think you got a dud. Hopefully, AMD gives you a replacement chip. This new boosting system they have is pretty cool but it really makes these higher clocked SKUs worthless. I wouldn't have paid an extra $70 for a 1% improvement in performance. That being said, I still think if the 3700X didn't exist, I would think the 3800X was a great value. I think the real impact is on the people who upgrade just for the sake of their next overclocking fix. This boosting system basically makes overclocking worthless unless you want to do LN2 but that is a whole different sort of beast.



See updates above, with the second screenshot being Super Pi with nothing else loading the CPU.

I don't have an issue with how the CPUs work, or the overall performance of the CPU I bought, I have an issue with the fact that it doesn't deliver what AMD says it should deliver.
Had I known there was no discernible difference, I wouldn't have wasted the extra $100 either and that's what's pissing me off.


----------



## kapone32 (Jul 31, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> No, it isn't.
> 
> Ryzen from the beginning could easily handle more than that. Now, previous AMD CPUs had a much lower limit, but Ryzen was all 100C Tjmax IIRC....



Understood I personally have never had a CPU go that high but 100C is very comforting.


----------



## TheLostSwede (Jul 31, 2019)

jesdals said:


> Btw gaming is done in post 29 with Division 2 in 5700x1200 with all settings on max except for FOG, thats on the second highst setting.
> 
> Early review etc said that Ryzen Master could be a bug, so I run without and I dont use the Gigabyte Apps software either, everything else is setup according to the optimization from this video
> 
> ...



First post in this thread has a link to the latest version, as well as the latest drivers, which is what I'm using.
Anything else, doesn't report the proper clocks either, so I don't know what to trust any more.
Hardware Info can't see the low clocks or cores that are asleep...

I guess I should ask Steponz, he might have an idea or two what I might be able to try...


----------



## kapone32 (Jul 31, 2019)

TheLostSwede said:


> First post in this thread has a link to the latest version, as well as the latest drivers, which is what I'm using.
> Anything else, doesn't report the proper clocks either, so I don't know what to trust any more.
> Hardware Info can't see the low clocks or cores that are asleep...
> 
> I guess I should ask Steponz, he might have an idea or two what I might be able to try...



You have a Corsair H115!. You could download the Corsair Link software (First version)  and it does a pretty good job of providing the voltage, clock and temps of the CPU. In terms of raw CPU performance I use Windows task manager performance tab and set the CPU view for all cores. It provides clock speed and usage of each individual core.


----------



## EarthDog (Jul 31, 2019)

kapone32 said:


> You have a Corsair H115!. You could download the Corsair Link software (First version)  and it does a pretty good job of providing the voltage, clock and temps of the CPU. In terms of raw CPU performance I use Windows task manager performance tab and set the CPU view for all cores. It provides clock speed and usage of each individual core.


I've found Hwinfo64 to be the most accurate, next to Ryzen master...... which doesn't seem to want to work properly on the Biostar X570GT8.

ick on 3rd party software like that being accurate... those tend to be hit or miss. 

Where do you see each clock speed listed for each core in task manager/performance? It shows a general speed, but I don't think it lists individual core speeds.....


----------



## Zareek (Jul 31, 2019)

TheLostSwede said:


> See updates above, with the second screenshot being Super Pi with nothing else loading the CPU.
> 
> I don't have an issue with how the CPUs work, or the overall performance of the CPU I bought, I have an issue with the fact that it doesn't deliver what AMD says it should deliver.
> Had I known there was no discernible difference, I wouldn't have wasted the extra $100 either and that's what's pissing me off.


Well I obviously don't have an answer for you then. It seems to me you didn't get what you paid for and you have a right to be pissed. I would ask AMD to make it right.


----------



## kapone32 (Jul 31, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> I've found Hwinfo64 to be the most accurate, next to Ryzen master...... which doesn't seem to want to work properly on the Biostar X570GT8.
> 
> ick on 3rd party software like that being accurate... those tend to be hit or miss.
> 
> Where do you see each clock speed listed for each core in task manager/performance? It shows a general speed, but I don't think it lists individual core speeds.....



It won't give you the individuals clocks but you will see usage for each core. You have to change the view to all logical processors. I will check again but I think it might give you core speeds too. I will confirm when i get home today.


----------



## TheLostSwede (Jul 31, 2019)

Well, it might not be the CPU after all.
Gigabyte just released a new UEFI with AGESA 1.0.0.3ABB (I really wish AMD would use better naming conventions for the AGESA) and lo and behold, now it goes over 4.4GHz, not quite 4.5GHz, but still...


----------



## EarthDog (Jul 31, 2019)

kapone32 said:


> It won't give you the individuals clocks but you will see usage for each core. You have to change the view to all logical processors. I will check again but I think it might give you core speeds too. I will confirm when i get home today.


I know how to see all the logical processors... I'm looking at it now. 

What it doesn't show is each core's speed.....and there isn't a way to do it with task manager.



TheLostSwede said:


> Well, it might not be the CPU after all.
> Gigabyte just released a new UEFI with AGESA 1.0.0.3ABB (I really wish AMD would use better naming conventions for the AGESA) and lo and behold, now it goes over 4.4GHz, not quite 4.5GHz, but still...


Big! I need to check this and update......


----------



## TheLostSwede (Jul 31, 2019)

Well, well... The new AGESA seems to really have improved things.

Note that each of the cores were tested individually to hit 4,475. It's not an all core boost to that speed. But at least, all cores are capable of hitting that speed, which is a big jump up from what I had before flashing the new UEFI.

XMP is still not working for my RAM though, despite the manual timings being tighter...





Cinebench 20 is also up in terms of performance, best score I've gotten so far.


----------



## kapone32 (Jul 31, 2019)

TheLostSwede said:


> Well, it might not be the CPU after all.
> Gigabyte just released a new UEFI with AGESA 1.0.0.3ABB (I really wish AMD would use better naming conventions for the AGESA) and lo and behold, now it goes over 4.4GHz, not quite 4.5GHz, but still...
> 
> View attachment 128180



I 


EarthDog said:


> I know how to see all the logical processors... I'm looking at it now.
> 
> What it doesn't show is each core's speed.....and there isn't a way to do it with task manager.
> 
> Ok thanks I wasn't sure but it does give you the general speed (not for each core) right?


----------



## EarthDog (Jul 31, 2019)

How do you keep replying INSIDE other people's quotes? LOL

It does give you speed, yes, but not for each core.


----------



## kapone32 (Jul 31, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> How do you keep replying INSIDE other people's quotes? LOL
> 
> It does give you speed, yes, but not for each core.



Haha I have to figure that one out. Thanks I thought so too but I wasn't sure.


----------



## TheLostSwede (Jul 31, 2019)

And it seems PBO is also doing something now, not much, but something...
Still in 3700X territory...


----------



## kapone32 (Jul 31, 2019)

TheLostSwede said:


> And it seems PBO is also doing something now, not much, but something...
> Still in 3700X territory...
> 
> View attachment 128187



it is obvious that you are a relieved and happy customer.


----------



## TheLostSwede (Jul 31, 2019)

kapone32 said:


> it is obvious that you are a relieved and happy customer.


Hahaha...
Well, it's at least a step in the right direction.
Happy, maybe not, as it's still too close to the 3700X to be worth the extra $100, but at least now, it's kind of delivering on the claimed numbers.


----------



## jesdals (Jul 31, 2019)

Hmm the download isnt available at Gigabyte support any more


----------



## Zareek (Jul 31, 2019)

TheLostSwede said:


> Hahaha...
> Well, it's at least a step in the right direction.
> Happy, maybe not, as it's still too close to the 3700X to be worth the extra $100, but at least now, it's kind of delivering on the claimed numbers.


Yeah if you think about it like that you won't be happy about it. I've decided to think about it as if the 3700X never existed. If you think of it like that and the performance the chip offers for it's price it seems like a deal. When you factor in the cost of the 3700X it is just irritating.


----------



## TheLostSwede (Jul 31, 2019)

jesdals said:


> Hmm the download isnt available at Gigabyte support any more


You're not in the know? 





						GIGABYTE Latest Beta BIOS
					

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




					forums.tweaktown.com
				






Zareek said:


> Yeah if you think about it like that you won't be happy about it. I've decided to think about it as if the 3700X never existed. If you think of it like that and the performance the chip offers for it's price it seems like a deal. When you factor in the cost of the 3700X it is just irritating.


That's the problem, AMD released a product that there really was no need for. Sure, there's that supposed 300MHz higher base frequency, but even with all cores loaded, they never seem to drop below 4.x GHz and I have a feeling the 3700X is the same. So even that brings little to no benefit.


----------



## gerardfraser (Jul 31, 2019)

It is all in the BIOS and power plan for me 4525 Mhz in light loads/gaming
MSI X470 Gaming Plus
AGESA AMD ComboPI1.0.0.3 
AMD Ryzen™ Power Saver Plan 

3600X Hitting 4500Mhz Cinebench 20


----------



## Space Lynx (Jul 31, 2019)

the i9-9900 non-k boosts to 5ghz, i am wondering if i turn on max boost on a msi z390 mobo, if it will sustain 5ghz all cores no downclock... even though its just a 65w chip... if so... this is the real game changer chip imo... $440 not bad really, and temps will be great... but so far no one has confirmed this is possible. i only read a lot of people who dont make BIOS changes say all core boost is around 4.7... but MSI has that setting in BIOS that makes it easy... 

honestly leaning towards this if it works over ryzen. about $40 more than what you paid, but I am not impressed with all the driver issues with ryzen at the moment. but security is also important to me, which means maybe I should go ryzen. bleh.


----------



## jesdals (Aug 1, 2019)

Managed to download the new bios from Gigabyte and tried some new setting - im not sure how to make printscreens in bios, but here is the result



A lift from 5700/530ish score



I have made a setting in bios enableing 4500 MHz and PBO, fixed Vcore 1,4 volt and XMP on mem with fixed Voltage of 1,35



I did try 4550MHz but was not stable, need further benchmarking in game to se stability, but looks interesting



Bios is the f5k for the Gigabyte Aorus Master


----------



## the54thvoid (Aug 1, 2019)

jesdals said:


> Managed to download the new bios from Gigabyte and tried some new setting - im not sure how to make printscreens in bios, but here is the result
> View attachment 128213
> A lift from 5700/530ish score
> View attachment 128214
> ...



That's not an all core at 4.5, is it? Or is that just the individual boosts per core?


----------



## jesdals (Aug 1, 2019)

HWinfo shows it as a stable all vore setting. I did try to make printscreens from bios, but no luck - but heres som not to sharp pics from my Ipad - sorry. But these are the settings + a higher fan curve than standard on cpu






Fixed voltage for cpu/mem




Custom setting at Pstates - did try 4550MHz, but not stable - going to try again if these setting holds




Infinity Fab set to match memory - looking forward to bether mem



Enable PBO


----------



## chief-gunney (Aug 1, 2019)

cucker tarlson said:


> and what would be the difference? both would go 4.4 when needed.
> 
> @TheLostSwede is that stock?cause 1.47v seems very high


1.47v is not high, they are designed to go to 1.5v. have a read of this post on Reddit -https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/cjzax5/amd_cant_say_this_publicly_so_i_will_half_of_the/?st=jysk1f3k&sh=935bb0a9


----------



## cucker tarlson (Aug 1, 2019)

chief-gunney said:


> 1.47v is not high, they are designed to go to 1.5v. have a read of this post on Reddit -https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/cjzax5/amd_cant_say_this_publicly_so_i_will_half_of_the/?st=jysk1f3k&sh=935bb0a9



this makes no sense



> *My CPU is running hot during idle because of the 1.5v voltage!*
> Short answer: it's not due to the voltage, it's due to actual boosting, by design.



why is is boosting so high then ? and why does low load boost require same voltage as high load boost ?


the guy can say whatever he wants to defend amd,but sitting in 80s at 1.5v during gaming is not ideal for a cpu.I think amd could do it cause of the solder and low tdp and went with cause otherwise they'd achieve no frequency improvement over ryzen 2000.

he calls 50 degrees in idle "a you-problem",what an amd bot.doesn't he know the cooler will ramp up too ?


----------



## TheLostSwede (Aug 1, 2019)

jesdals said:


> Managed to download the new bios from Gigabyte and tried some new setting - im not sure how to make printscreens in bios, but here is the result



Plug in a USB drive and then it's one of the F keys, hit F1 for help and it should tell you.

You got much, much higher CPU-Z numbers than I can get, highest score I've manged is in my signature.


----------



## jesdals (Aug 1, 2019)

Did some gaming and its stable, going to test for a longer period befor making any changes. But it seems that chipset runs hot. 80,5c will follow that closely.



Its the temp marked with red. I am not sure if its the southbridge or the chipset surronding the cpu?

Edit: well did not go higher, so cranked it up to 4525MHz all cores, going to se how it behaves here. Wanted to se if it where capped at 4500MHz in some way. My privious highest on core speed is 4604MHz but if this is stable I might leave it here


----------



## TheLostSwede (Aug 1, 2019)

jesdals said:


> Did some gaming and its stable, going to test for a longer period befor making any changes. But it seems that chipset runs hot. 80,5c will follow that closely


There's a manual option for setting the chipset fan now, so you can increase the speed it runs at.


----------



## HD64G (Aug 1, 2019)

TheLostSwede said:


> Plug in a USB drive and then it's one of the F keys, hit F1 for help and it should tell you.
> 
> You got much, much higher CPU-Z numbers than I can get, highest score I've manged is in my signature.


If you check his max voltage numbers, he is 0.1 lower than what you got. Might help with lower temps allowing higher clocks.


----------



## TheLostSwede (Aug 1, 2019)

HD64G said:


> If you check his max voltage numbers, he is 0.1 lower than what you got. Might help with lower temps allowing higher clocks.


I've had some many problems with this damned chip, that at this point, I'm just happy to get what I'm getting.
I'm trying to get AMD to have a look at what's going on, as my chip is not behaving like a 3800X, it's behaving like a 3700X.


----------



## HD64G (Aug 1, 2019)

TheLostSwede said:


> I've had some many problems with this damned chip, that at this point, I'm just happy to get what I'm getting.
> I'm trying to get AMD to have a look at what's going on, as my chip is not behaving like a 3800X, it's behaving like a 3700X.


Did you try manual lowing the cpu voltage at least by 0.05V in order to see if you can get more stable boost clocks?


----------



## FinneousPJ (Aug 1, 2019)

You could try increasing the BCLK









						(Gigabyte X570 AORUS Owners Thread)
					

Will be getting the Gigabyte X570 AORUS XTREME after all with some issues with not getting delivery of some other parts I had tried to get earlier had to cancel those and try elsewhere and went with this overkill out of anger as it was in stock at least.  Will be pairing it with a Ryzen 7 3800X...




					www.overclock.net


----------



## spectatorx (Aug 1, 2019)

Since few releases, this one including, chipset driver installers do not come with power plans anymore. Can anyone else confirm it? Usually these plans were listed next to driver versions.


----------



## Vya Domus (Aug 2, 2019)

I always thought the power plans were a separate thing that you would had to install from the driver folder manually.


----------



## W1zzard (Aug 2, 2019)

Vya Domus said:


> I always thought the power plans were a separate thing that you would had to install from the driver folder manually.


No, it's supposed to get installed automatically when you install the chipset driver download.


----------



## ShurikN (Aug 2, 2019)

TheLostSwede said:


> I've had some many problems with this damned chip, that at this point, I'm just happy to get what I'm getting.
> I'm trying to get AMD to have a look at what's going on, as my chip is not behaving like a 3800X, it's behaving like a 3700X.


At least you're getting 4500 now. 
But yeah, looking at your results and jesdals' results, your silicon quality is leagues below his. It's just how it is sometimes.


----------



## TheLostSwede (Aug 2, 2019)

ShurikN said:


> At least you're getting 4500 now.
> But yeah, looking at your results and jesdals' results, your silicon quality is leagues below his. It's just how it is sometimes.


In benchmarks only...

This is during a game of BF1...
The CPU is clearly not heavily loaded and should boost much higher, but alas...


----------



## HD64G (Aug 2, 2019)

TheLostSwede said:


> In benchmarks only...
> 
> This is during a game of BF1...
> The CPU is clearly not heavily loaded and should boost much higher, but alas...
> ...


Did you have any microstutters? Run a benchmark session and check the average and minimum FPS. If all is good and comparable to what others get in performance numbers, then don't try to understand why and how cores are boosting in every app you throw at the CPU. That is a motter of the game engine and dev choice. As the graphs show in @W1zzard 's Zen2 CPUs review, the clocks get lower for every adding thread a program uses. You hit 4.3GHz in 3 cores as I see in the screenshot, what it is not to like?


----------



## TheLostSwede (Aug 2, 2019)

HD64G said:


> Did you have any microstutters? Run a benchmark session and check the average and minimum FPS. If all is good and comparable to what others get in performance numbers, then don't try to understand why and how cores are boosting in every app you throw at the CPU. That is a motter of the game engine and dev choice. As the graphs show in @W1zzard 's Zen2 CPUs review, the clocks get lower for every adding thread a program uses. You hit 4.3GHz in 3 cores as I see in the screenshot, what it is not to like?



Not that I noticed. It all felt smooth, but BF1 used to be a pig when it came to CPU utilisation on my Ryzen 7 1700...

As I mentioned elsewhere, I contacted AMD support and I was asked if all my cores run at, at least 3.9GHz during load, to which I replied, how can I tell?
The 3800X should have all the cores running at base clock during load according to what their support guy was telling me, but that's clearly not the case here, with some of them half asleep. And the CPU should boost higher if that's the case, since PBO is enabled, but clearly doing nothing.

Again, my issue is that I have a 3800X, that seems to perform like a 3700X, or worse and I feel like I was sold a bait and switch.


----------



## jesdals (Aug 2, 2019)

Running 4525mhz with these settings


----------



## EarthDog (Aug 2, 2019)

HD64G said:


> You hit 4.3GHz in 3 cores as I see in the screenshot, what it is not to like?


A single core isn't reaching its rated speed is what he keeps saying. 


jesdals said:


> Running 4525mhz with these settings


Screencaps... 1999 anyone? 

You can hit F12 to take a screenshot and it saves to a USB stick... 

It looks like you customized the P-states, no?


----------



## jesdals (Aug 2, 2019)

Could not make it save the darn things, but yes its just the p-states - currently with 4525mhz stable. I just got new 3600mhz memory and will return with test with them


----------



## EarthDog (Aug 2, 2019)

It looks like you have changed quite a bit from stock and simply enabling PBO. A user should simply need to enable PBO to reach and get past those, not tweak to get there.


----------



## HD64G (Aug 2, 2019)

TheLostSwede said:


> Not that I noticed. It all felt smooth, but BF1 used to be a pig when it came to CPU utilisation on my Ryzen 7 1700...
> 
> As I mentioned elsewhere, I contacted AMD support and I was asked if all my cores run at, at least 3.9GHz during load, to which I replied, how can I tell?
> The 3800X should have all the cores running at base clock during load according to what their support guy was telling me, but that's clearly not the case here, with some of them half asleep. And the CPU should boost higher if that's the case, since PBO is enabled, but clearly doing nothing.
> ...


To load all cores fully you need something else than a random game. Maybe the AC:Odyssey load more than 50% but all other games don't even manage this. In some of your previous posts you seem to managed and reach 4,5GHz for the single-core boost, so why do you keep posting about the clocks?


----------



## Xzibit (Aug 2, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> It looks like you have changed quite a bit from stock and simply enabling PBO. A user should simply need to enable PBO to reach and get past those, not tweak to get there.



You mean that 12in fan on a stand pointed at his system (in the monitors reflection) is not stock ?


----------



## jesdals (Aug 2, 2019)

Well its my old core duo setup you can see in the background


----------



## TheLostSwede (Aug 3, 2019)

HD64G said:


> To load all cores fully you need something else than a random game. Maybe the AC:Odyssey load more than 50% but all other games don't even manage this. In some of your previous posts you seem to managed and reach 4,5GHz for the single-core boost, so why do you keep posting about the clocks?


Oh, I'm sorry, did I offend you somehow? 

I keep posting about, because the CPU clearly doesn't behave as expected. Others here have had it boost to over 5GHz in games when all cores aren't heavily loaded, I'm not even getting close.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Aug 3, 2019)

TheLostSwede said:


> Oh, I'm sorry, did I offend you somehow?
> 
> I keep posting about, because the CPU clearly doesn't behave as expected. Others here have had it boost to over 5GHz in games when all cores aren't heavily loaded, I'm not even getting close.



Let the motherboard maker know along with AMD.

Griping here won't get anything done considering how biased this site is towards AMD to begin with.


----------



## TheLostSwede (Aug 3, 2019)

eidairaman1 said:


> Let the motherboard maker know along with AMD.
> 
> Griping here won't get anything done considering how biased this site is towards AMD to begin with.


Well, the motherboard maker just released AGESA 1.0.0.3ABB the other day and it did seem to improve things slightly, as posted earlier in this thread. Not sure what else they can do.
But as you can see, there's one 3700X and one other 3800X owner in this thread that are getting much more reliable boost speeds (the latter has the same board) and they're seeing boost speeds in games, whereas I seem to get nada.
But hey, your input really made a difference...


----------



## biffzinker (Aug 3, 2019)

TheLostSwede said:


> But as you can see, there's one 3700X and one other 3800X owner in this thread that are getting much more reliable boost speeds


Wonder what the odds are your 3800X was intended to be a 3700X? Mix up in binning or packaging?


----------



## HD64G (Aug 3, 2019)

TheLostSwede said:


> Oh, I'm sorry, did I offend you somehow?
> 
> I keep posting about, because the CPU clearly doesn't behave as expected. Others here have had it boost to over 5GHz in games when all cores aren't heavily loaded, I'm not even getting close.


Why you suppose I try to persuade you abut something to make AMD look better? I just say that the clocks they declare that your CPU can reach for 1-thread boost is what you get now after the BIOS and chipset update. So, why bother anymore with a problem that doesn't exist after those updates? Just wondering. No hard feelings I hope.


----------



## TheLostSwede (Aug 3, 2019)

biffzinker said:


> Wonder what the odds are your 3800X was intended to be a 3700X? Mix up in binning or packaging?



Yeah, that's what it feels like at least.



HD64G said:


> Why you suppose I try to persuade you abut something to make AMD look better? I just say that the clocks they declare that your CPU can reach for 1-thread boost is what you get now after the BIOS and chipset update. So, why bother anymore with a problem that doesn't exist after those updates? Just wondering. No hard feelings I hope.



Again, only in benchmarks...
Everyone else that have posted results here, get it during gaming or software load, not just during benchmarking.
I have yet to see it boost past 4.3GHz in any game or any application.
I don't know about you, but to me, that doesn't feel like getting what I paid for, especially not when there are people with 3700X and 3600X boosting higher and more frequently, during actual usage.


----------



## HD64G (Aug 3, 2019)

TheLostSwede said:


> Again, only in benchmarks...
> Everyone else that have posted results here, get it during gaming or software load, not just during benchmarking.
> I have yet to see it boost past 4.3GHz in any game or any application.
> I don't know about you, but to me, that doesn't feel like getting what I paid for, especially not when there are people with 3700X and 3600X boosting higher and more frequently, during actual usage.


Have you tried setting the voltage to a lower number (1,2-1,3V) than the one given by the BIOS? It might allow higher all-core boost in games as I have seen in some videos about Ryzen 3X00 CPUs. Try that through the Ryzen Master. Works better in setting the voltage than the BIOS for now at least.


----------



## cucker tarlson (Aug 3, 2019)

eidairaman1 said:


> Let the motherboard maker know along with AMD.
> 
> Griping here won't get anything done considering *how biased this site is towards AMD* to begin with.


finally willing to admit that.


----------



## enmanueljeffren (Aug 20, 2019)

TheLostSwede said:


> Community Update #5: Let’s Talk Clocks, Voltages, and Destiny 2
> 
> 
> Hello! Thank you for all of the interest and excitement around 3rd Gen AMD Ryzen™ Processors. We have some important updates today on our voltages, clockspeeds, and Destiny 2!     We diagnosed and resolved the issue causing software monitoring tools to report high voltages and clockspeeds at the...
> ...


I was about to get 3700X myself, but then all posts with different issues started to show up and... I don't even know now, might just end up with 3600(non X). Some of their SKUs makes no sense.


----------



## tabascosauz (Aug 20, 2019)

TheLostSwede said:


> Not that I noticed. It all felt smooth, but BF1 used to be a pig when it came to CPU utilisation on my Ryzen 7 1700...
> 
> As I mentioned elsewhere, I contacted AMD support and I was asked if all my cores run at, at least 3.9GHz during load, to which I replied, how can I tell?
> The 3800X should have all the cores running at base clock during load according to what their support guy was telling me, but that's clearly not the case here, with some of them half asleep. And the CPU should boost higher if that's the case, since PBO is enabled, but clearly doing nothing.
> ...



I can't help but feel that the 3800X is in a bit of a pinch this generation. This time around, it's not the top dog - that title belongs to the 3900X and soon to be 3950X. And this time, it's really feeling the clock constraints of 7nm. If anything, from a marketing standpoint, the 3800X should have the frequency crown, not the 3900X and 3950X, which should logically be clocked slightly lower for the reward of another CCX.

At the same time, the 3700X is a much more potent SKU than its counterparts were last and last last generation. The frequency gap is much smaller between the two compared to Ryzen 2000 and 1000, where 3.6GHz is actually pretty respectable. The 1700 and 2700 felt more like Core-S/T processors than anything, sacrificing steady state performance to meet an artificially imposed TDP (the 1700 being an even lower end product due to having an extra SKU (1700X) as buffer between it and the 1800X). This time around, with the 3800X, it really doesn't have much to gain over the 3700X. In addition, with the wild game that is 7nm consistency, that gap is narrowed even further.



enmanueljeffren said:


> I was about to get 3700X myself, but then all posts with different issues started to show up and... I don't even know now, might just end up with 3600(non X). Some of their SKUs makes no sense.



That's not the problem...if you don't want to put up with Ryzen 3000's current issues, don't buy Ryzen 3000 before AMD and the vendors fully iron out these issues that come with a new platform. What makes you think a 3600 is going to be any smarter than a 3700X at managing idle clocks, voltages and boost speeds? It's still governed by the same Matisse logic. What makes you think a 3600 is going to be any less susceptible to AMD's typical wild silicon lottery?

Now, if you want to get a CPU with great value, then the 3600 is for you. But don't make it about the 3600 being somehow a more solid product than the other SKUs.


EDIT: Here is my HWInfo as of the 8/1/19 chipset drivers and F42a BIOS, 1.0.0.3ABB. Cores 5 and 6 (two of the slowest according to Ryzen Master) like to do this 0.2V idle thing, whereas the rest never dip below 0.9V.





EDIT 2: Core 0 hit 0.2V briefly right after I took the screenshot, so maybe it's random? Anyways, on Ryzen balanced VCore never actually comes below 0.9V anyways.


----------



## phanbuey (Aug 20, 2019)

tabascosauz said:


> I can't help but feel that the 3800X is in a bit of a pinch this generation. This time around, it's not the top dog - that title belongs to the 3900X and soon to be 3950X. And this time, it's really feeling the clock constraints of 7nm.
> 
> At the same time, the 3700X is a much more potent SKU than its counterparts were last and last last generation. The frequency gap is much smaller between the two compared to Ryzen 2000 and 1000, where 3.6GHz is actually pretty respectable. The 1700 and 2700 felt more like Core-T processors than anything, sacrificing steady state performance to meet an artificially imposed TDP (the 1700 being an even lower end product due to having an extra SKU (1700X) as buffer between it and the 1800X). This time around, with the 3800X, it really doesn't have much to gain over the 3700X. In addition, with the wild game that is 7nm consistency, that gap is narrowed even further.
> 
> ...



800x's are always kind of not worth it - 1800x at $499 was in the same boat.  They scrapped 2800x altogether and 3800x is again not worth it.  They push the mid range products so far that the 'high end' has an extra 50-100 mhz, which is basically nothing.


----------



## tabascosauz (Aug 20, 2019)

phanbuey said:


> 800x's are always kind of not worth it - 1800x at $499 was in the same boat.  They scrapped 2800x altogether and 3800x is again not worth it.  They push the mid range products so far that the 'high end' has an extra 50-100 mhz, which is basically nothing.



I mean, they are all unlocked, so there's really nothing that a 2700 can't do, but I was more referring to their base clocks. Without changing anything, the 2700 seemed to be particularly intent on saving power compared to the 2700X, and the 500MHz base clock difference seemed to actually make a difference in game benchmarks, for example. 

That was one of the reasons I held off on the upgrade for so long, despite the fact that my rig was really feeling the age and weariness. Then came along the 3700X; I guess it's a great thing that AMD achieved this kind of efficiency/performance on just a 65W TDP and 88W socket power cap, but the 3800X is having an identity crisis now because of it. This whole "get higher clocks the more money you pay" rule doesn't seem to make any sense at the top end.


----------

