# Der8auer: Only Small Percentage of 3rd Gen Ryzen CPUs Hit Their Advertised Speeds



## AleksandarK (Sep 2, 2019)

World famous overclocker Der8auer published his survey of boost clocks found on 3rd generation Ryzen CPUs. Collecting data from almost 3,000 entries from people around the world, he has found out that a majority of the 3000 series Ryzen CPUs are not hitting their advertised boost speeds. Perhaps one of the worst results from the entire survey are for the 12-core Ryzen 9 3900X, for which only 5.6% of entries reported have managed to reach the boost speeds AMD advertises. However, the situation is better for lower-end SKUs, with about half of the Ryzen 5 3600 results showing that their CPU is boosting correctly and within advertised numbers.

Der8auer carefully selected the results that went into the survey, where he discarded any numbers that used either specialized cooling like water chillers, Precision Boost Overdrive - PBO or the results which were submitted by "fanboys" who wanted to game the result. Testing was purely scientific using Cinebench R15 and clock speeds were recorded using HWinfo (which got recommendation from AMD), so he could get as precise data as possible.



 


Der8auer comments that he still recommends Ryzen 3000 series CPUs, as they present a good value and have good performance to back. He just finds it very odd that AMD didn't specify what you need to reach the advertised boost speeds.

If you would like to see the more in depth testing, here is the English version of the video:










*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## Wavetrex (Sep 2, 2019)

Temperature, temperature, temperature.

*HOT SUMMER*.









						RyZen 3000 Boost Issue: What's your take?
					

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.




					www.techpowerup.com


----------



## Chomiq (Sep 2, 2019)

Do we really need another thread for this?


----------



## TheLostSwede (Sep 2, 2019)

I would say this is as accurate as a poll asking what party people will vote for in the next election.
It's obvious a lot of people who've submitted data either don't know how to find out the peak boost speed of their CPU, or they have some other issue preventing their CPU's from boosting.
Obviously a large amount of users are having the same kind of issues that most of us have had/are having as well, but there's also a lot of suspicious data. On the other hand, it also proves that a lot of people are stuck at ~100MHz below advertised max boost, for some strange reason.
In all fairness, der8auer filtered out a lot of the crap results.
Not sure I fully agree with his conclusion, but yeah, AMD really needs to go out there and clarify things, as there's too much speculation and too little factual information with regards to what's going on.


----------



## Darmok N Jalad (Sep 2, 2019)

What does AMD say about it? Board makers? Polls and threads are only half the story.


----------



## TheLostSwede (Sep 2, 2019)

Chomiq said:


> Do we really need another thread for this?


Yes, because now it's a news post 



Darmok N Jalad said:


> What does AMD say about it? Board makers? Polls and threads are only half the story.


So far, not much.


----------



## xkm1948 (Sep 2, 2019)

Man the amount of butt hurt AMD fans.


----------



## Mephis (Sep 2, 2019)

TheLostSwede said:


> I would say this is as accurate as a poll asking what party people will vote on in the next election.
> It's obvious a lot of people who've submitted data either don't know how to find out the peak boost speed of their CPU, or they have some other issue preventing their CPU's from boosting.
> Obviously a large amount of users are having the same kind of issues that most of us have had/are having as well, but there's also a lot of suspicious data. On the other hand, it also proves that a lot of people are stuck at 100MHz below advertised max boost, for some strange reason.
> In all fairness, der8auer filtered out a lot of the crap results.
> Not sure I fully agree with his conclusion, but yeah, AMD really needs to go out there and clarify things, as there's too much speculation and too little factual information with regards to what's going on.



The problem I see with this is that the type of users who know who Der8aurer is are not you average users, they are going to be enthusiasts. Yes, there maybe be some issues with cooling or room temperature, but it is very unlikely to be enough to make the numbers look acceptable, let alone good for AMD. This is an issue, not a crippling issue, but you know there are lawyers lining up clients as we speak for another class action suit. I still want the 3900x, and I wouldn't sue AMD, but if you advertise something, you need to make sure consumers can achieve it under most circumstances.


----------



## Darmok N Jalad (Sep 2, 2019)

Mephis said:


> The problem I see with this is that the type of users who know who Der8aurer is are not you average users, they are going to be enthusiasts. Yes, there maybe be some issues with cooling or room temperature, but it is very unlikely to be enough to make the numbers look acceptable, let alone good for AMD. This is an issue, not a crippling issue, but you know there are lawyers lining up clients as we speak for another class action suit. I still want the 3900x, and I wouldn't sue AMD, but if you advertise something, you need to make sure consumers can achieve it under most circumstances.


AMD needs to clarify. I wonder if this is like the 5700, where each card supposedly boosts to its max potential, but not all cards will boost the same. AMD calls the top listed frequency as the “max boost clock,” so does that mean only some CPUs will get there? They really need to clarify if that is the case, though if that is true, they should have said that pre-launch. Saying that now will not go over well.


----------



## TheLostSwede (Sep 2, 2019)

Mephis said:


> The problem I see with this is that the type of users who know who Der8aurer is are not you average users, they are going to be enthusiasts. Yes, there maybe be some issues with cooling or room temperature, but it is very unlikely to be enough to make the numbers look acceptable, let alone good for AMD. This is an issue, not a crippling issue, but you know there are lawyers lining up clients as we speak for another class action suit. I still want the 3900x, and I wouldn't sue AMD, but if you advertise something, you need to make sure consumers can achieve it under most circumstances.


Not arguing that point at all, just saying some of the submitted results look very suspect. This is from having been part of the discussions here for the last couple of months and having one myself. Yes, there are issues, but taking the 3900X graph in the news post above as an example, anyone under ~4,300MHz are having issues that are outside of just the UEFI. We also don't know what percentage are using which chipset. Maybe some of the users having problems have B350 or X370 boards with an early UEFI for Ryzen 3000.
This is why I'm saying this is about as accurate data as that from an election poll, as there are too many variables and not enough information provided.
Another things that's missing from this data is, for how long periods of time did people try to reach the boost speeds? 1 minute, 5 minutes, an hour? As it's a "random" occurrence in a way, a longer period of time is needed to actually see if the CPU boosts or not.

On the other hand, a lot of users seem to have the same issue I had for the longest of times, the max CPU core boost is stuck at around 100MHz below AMD's claimed boost. My issue got resolved with a UEFI update, so hopefully more people will be in the same situation and it can be easily rectified.

Then again, I'm surprised a small percentage of users are boosting beyond the max core boost, which implies that AMD's video where they claimed an extra boost with certain hardware configurations, might indeed be possible. I just would like to know what those configurations are...


----------



## newtekie1 (Sep 2, 2019)

Would it have been really that much worse to just advertise the processors with max boost clocks 100MHz slower and avoid all of this mess? When will AMD's marketing team learn from their mistakes?


----------



## nemesis.ie (Sep 2, 2019)

My 3900x (X470 TCU) was regularly hitting 4650 MHZon a couple of cores and 4400 on most of the rest of CCD0 and 4350 on CCD1 with one of the earlier UEFI/AGESA versions, but RAM stability was terrible.

On the latest ones, RAM is much better but the cores are only seeing about 4500 occasionally and lower clocks most of the time.

Either this is more "observer effect" and/or they need to do some more UEFI tweaking.

It's certainly very strange.

Is there maybe a "fancy new" UEFI/AGESA being readied for 3950X?


----------



## bug (Sep 2, 2019)

TheLostSwede said:


> Not arguing that point at all, just saying some of the submitted results look very suspect. This is from having been part of the discussions here for the last couple of months and having one myself. Yes, there are issues, but taking the 3900X graph in the news post above as an example, anyone under ~4,300MHz are having issues that are outside of just the UEFI. We also don't know what percentage are using which chipset. *Maybe some of the users having problems have B350 or X370 boards with an early UEFI for Ryzen 3000.*
> This is why I'm saying this is about as accurate data as that from an election poll, as there are too many variables and not enough information provided.
> Another things that's missing from this data is, for how long periods of time did people try to reach the boost speeds? 1 minute, 5 minutes, an hour? As it's a "random" occurrence in a way, a longer period of time is needed to actually see if the CPU boosts or not.
> 
> ...


Well, boost speeds are not advertised per chipset or UEFI version, so that data is ok.
My impression is now that AMD has people's hearts, they're feeling safe enough to play fast and loose with specs. Remember the RX 480 TDP debacle?


----------



## srsly_bro (Sep 2, 2019)

If you download the data and with the 722 data points referenced, the average boost is actually 100Mhz higher than claimed. This guy, with his own data, is either incompetent or a liar. There is no excuse to post your information then claim a lower boost clock.

Intel's Summer of Paying Shills campaign is paying off since nobody on the comments bothered to look at the data and trusted a shill.


----------



## TheLostSwede (Sep 2, 2019)

bug said:


> Well, boost speeds are not advertised per chipset or UEFI version, so that data is ok.
> My impression is now that AMD has people's hearts, they're feeling safe enough to play fast and loose with specs. Remember the RX 480 TDP debacle?


Reported to him, yes, but he didn't share that data, so how do we, as the audience, know that the bottom of the barrel results aren't on those boards?
What we do know, is that the board makers have different priorities in how they release new UEFI updates as well and plenty of boards still don't have stable AGESA 1.0.0.3ABB UEFI releases. Obviously some of this is on AMD as well, as they've clearly had AGESA related issues too.

It would also be nice if AMD could provide more details on their scheduler and why the fasts or even second fastest cores aren't the ones utilised as the main cores in the CPU. I generally end up loading the slower cores on my CPU, rather than the fast ones. That said, it also seems that my "fastest" core, doesn't boost as high as 2nd, 3rd and 4th fastest cores...
There are too many oddities like this, that AMD needs to come out and explain better.



srsly_bro said:


> If you download the data and with the 722 data points referenced, the average boost is actually 100Mhz higher than claimed. This guy, with his own data, is either incompetent or a liar. There is no excuse to post your information then claim a lower boost clock.
> 
> Intel's Summer of Paying Shills campaign is paying off since nobody on the comments bothered to look at the data and trusted a shill.


Where did you find the data?
I wouldn't call der8auer a shill though, he has no reason to take money from Intel. However, the way he's applying what he learnt in school on how to extrapolate the data, might not be correct in this case, as anything that's +/-2 Sigma, he simply filters out, which isn't really how you do statistics...


----------



## yeeeeman (Sep 2, 2019)

I think 4550Mhz is close enough to 4600Mhz boost for 3900x.


----------



## bug (Sep 2, 2019)

TheLostSwede said:


> It would also be nice if AMD *could *provide more details on their scheduler and why the fasts or even second fastest cores aren't the ones utilised as the main cores in the CPU. I generally end up loading the slower cores on my CPU, rather than the fast ones. That said, it also seems that my "fastest" core, doesn't boost as high as 2nd, 3rd and 4th fastest cores...
> There are too many oddities like this, that AMD needs to come out and explain better.


Obviously they can, they just won't


----------



## TheLostSwede (Sep 2, 2019)

yeeeeman said:


> I think 4550Mhz is close enough to 4600Mhz boost for 3900x.


Well, that's fine that you think so, but it's not what AMD "sold" everyone, right? The argument isn't about close enough, but rather what was promised, but often not delivered.
In all fairness, I can't complain any more, as my hardware delivers what AMD claimed on the box.



bug said:


> Obviously they can, they just won't


Which is part of the problem as well. It leads to more confusion and more discussions like this.


----------



## bug (Sep 2, 2019)

srsly_bro said:


> If you download the data and with the 722 data points referenced, the average boost is actually 100Mhz higher than claimed. This guy, with his own data, is either incompetent or a liar. There is no excuse to post your information then claim a lower boost clock.
> 
> Intel's Summer of Paying Shills campaign is paying off since nobody on the comments bothered to look at the data and trusted a shill.


The data isn't linked in the article. Where can I download it from?


----------



## GeorgeMan (Sep 2, 2019)

My 3600 doesn't hit anything above 4100mhz. Not even single thread low load. With custom water cooling. The box says 4200...


----------



## TheLostSwede (Sep 2, 2019)

GeorgeMan said:


> My 3600 doesn't hit anything above 4100mhz. Not even single thread low load. With custom water cooling. The box says 4200...


Care to share the rest of your hardware, as well as UEFI version? Without that, it's hard to give any suggestions.


----------



## Jism (Sep 2, 2019)

This is a useless debate.

The box of any AMD cpu states clearly, boost up to Y speeds. Up to. That doesnt mean that any CPU will be capable of doing that.

You have a few parameters that should be taken into consideration:

- Temperatures
- CPU stability (FIT)
- Motherboard current supply
- Type of single-core workload, it all comes down to current drawn by that same single core

I think if we exclude a faulty motherboard, and proper cooling, you would be left with 2 things and those are the FIT CPU stability at that given clockspeed, and the type of workload. FIT kicks in when one core is drawing too much current and puts the boost clocks down. If you would bypass FIT it would fry the internals of the chip (degradation). If the given workload is a lightweight one, i.e not too much current, youd actually see that the boost clock could be held at whatever AMD is advertising with.

Some cores simply are not stable for the max advertised boost speeds, so FIT makes sure it stays within that range to provide a perfectly stable core.

Their system is really clever, the boost guarantees a stable working at a given speed without risk of harming the CPU on long term base. Its the same argument as people would be setting 1.4V manual while the single core speed is reaching up to 1.55V or so because people think it would be hurting their CPU on long term. No dummys putting 1.4V on long term is going to harm you CPU!

I think the masses are not aware of how the boost algorithm works, and how AMD implemented it. Some of you should really go in depth and start monitoring the CPU and read posts like the Stilth who already documented the boost algorithm and behaviour. I spend quite a few hours with my 2700x to know that, a slight undervolt is enough to have it all core on 4.1GHz and in some occasions on 4.2Ghz while on single core having 4.35Ghz is the best i can get with it in combination with a 360mm rad paired with 6 fans. The boost starts to drop once the CPU archieves 60 degrees and beyond. So, for full boost constant try to keep the cpu within 60 degrees. But thats difficult since the core is so small that the heat density is just coming greater and greater as you can see on Intel CPUs too.

Theres not much headroom beyond that what the XFR is already giving you.


----------



## Xzibit (Sep 2, 2019)

@AleksandarK


> *Der8auer carefully selected the results that went into the survey*, where *he discarded any numbers that used either specialized cooling* like water chillers, *Precision Boost Overdrive - PBO* or the results which were submitted by "fanboys" who wanted to game the result. *Testing was purely scientific* using Cinebench R15 and clock speeds were recorded using HWinfo (which got recommendation from AMD), so he could get as precise data as possible.



?

Did you see his survey? *It's right here - der8auer I need YOUR Help! RYZEN 3000 Boost Analysis Survey*

1.) Which CPU do you use ?

2.) Which Motherboard do you use ?

3.) Which AGESA you use ?
1.0.0.2
1.0.0.3 AB
1.0.0.3 ABB
**Notice he didn't include 1.0.0.3 A*

4.) Please enter the max boost of your CPU during Cinebench R15

Comment



How can he discard any specialized cooling if he didn't ask for such information in the first place. How can he know if people are or aren't using PBO either. He certainly wasn't asking for any type of proof/validation.

Scientific? More like a questionnaire.


----------



## LiveOrDie (Sep 2, 2019)

Wavetrex said:


> Temperature, temperature, temperature.
> 
> *HOT SUMMER*.
> 
> ...


----------



## bug (Sep 2, 2019)

Jism said:


> This is a useless debate.
> 
> The box of any AMD cpu states clearly, boost up to Y speeds. Up to. That doesnt mean that any CPU will be capable of doing that.


No, that is not what boost has meant until Zen2. If that were the case, you'd see manufacturers using "1THz boost" on their boxes, because, well, it's "up to" and one of their engineers has seen one CPU reaching those speeds when no one else was looking.

And the debate is not useless, like the debate about GTX 970's VRAM wasn't useless at the time: it doesn't mean users get screwed, but it sends a clear message this is a practice we could do without.


----------



## B-Real (Sep 2, 2019)

xkm1948 said:


> Man the amount of butt hurt AMD fans.


Cry, cry baby. 



newtekie1 said:


> Would it have been really that much worse to just advertise the processors with max boost clocks 100MHz slower and avoid all of this mess? When will AMD's marketing team learn from their mistakes?


"Intel Shows Their 9th Gen Core CPUs Better and Faster Than AMD Ryzen 3000 CPUs In ‘Real World’ Benchmarks"  By providing only 1-1 example except for game results.


----------



## Mephis (Sep 2, 2019)

TheLostSwede said:


> Care to share the rest of your hardware, as well as UEFI version? Without that, it's hard to give any suggestions.



But this is a perfect example of the problem. AMD didn't say that these speeds were dependant on specific circumstances. They advertise it as the max boost clock, with no disclaimers. This leads customers to believe that their processor should boost to that speed.

We can debate what "max" means all day long, but we shouldn't have to. They should have been really clear about this. Either in the launch presentation or at the very least on the product page on their own website.

Source:
AMD 3900x


----------



## Jism (Sep 2, 2019)

bug said:


> No, that is not what boost has meant until Zen2. If that were the case, you'd see manufacturers using "1THz boost" on their boxes, because, well, it's "up to" and one of their engineers has seen one CPU reaching those speeds when no one else was looking.
> 
> And the debate is not useless, like the debate about GTX 970's VRAM wasn't useless at the time: it doesn't mean users get screwed, but it sends a clear message this is a practice we could do without.



I am on the side of AMD this time. Not because i have a AMD product but because i understand the way the boost algorithm works and how AMD implemented this into their products. Not all CPUs will reach that advertised boost clock "up to". It has a few reasons. I think the best way to describe it is being the lucky one having a piece of silicon that is capable of doing so. If the 5% reaches the advertised (Up to, lol) boost clocks then they are the happy few.

AMD doesnt do binning. They implemented a technique into their CPUs that already bins for them and you as a consumer. What more do you want? This eliminates technically the need for manual overclocking and why Sillicon lottery simply gives up for attempting to bin on AMD cpu´s in the first place.


----------



## Mephis (Sep 2, 2019)

Jism said:


> I am on the side of AMD this time. Not because i have a AMD product but because i understand the way the boost algorithm works and how AMD implemented this into their products. Not all CPUs will reach that advertised boost clock "up to". It has a few reasons. I think the best way to describe it is being the lucky one having a piece of silicon that is capable of doing so. If the 5% reaches the advertised (Up to, lol) boost clocks then they are the happy few.
> 
> AMD doesnt do binning. They implemented a technique into their CPUs that already bins for them and you as a consumer. What more do you want?



You may understand the boost algorithm, but do you really think the average consumer does? It's not on the consumer to figure it out. Especially when AMD could put a footnote on the website with the product listing.

And if we are going to go with the whole "up to" thing, then why not put 5ghz? I'm sure some people can reach that.


----------



## bug (Sep 2, 2019)

Jism said:


> I am on the side of AMD this time. Not because i have a AMD product but because i understand the way the boost algorithm works and how AMD implemented this into their products. Not all CPUs will reach that advertised boost clock "up to". It has a few reasons. I think the best way to describe it is being the lucky one having a piece of silicon that is capable of doing so. If the 5% reaches the advertised (Up to, lol) boost clocks then they are the happy few.
> 
> AMD doesnt do binning. They implemented a technique into their CPUs that already bins for them and you as a consumer. What more do you want? This eliminates technically the need for manual overclocking and why Sillicon lottery simply gives up for attempting to bin on AMD cpu´s in the first place.


If all the above is true, AMD should have used numbers that virtually every CPU can reach. It's that simple.


----------



## Jism (Sep 2, 2019)

2 important things are listed on ANY amd ryzen SKU:

"Base Clock"
"Boost Clock"

Where base clock is the absolute guaranteed base clock. You get what you pay for in any given workload in combination with a AMD certified cooler or third party cooler which meets the required TDP. Where Boost clock is advertised as, "Up to". Where up to simply depends on the given cooler you are using, the motherboard (VRM), the given workload and the FIT of the silicon where it is able to reach that clock and be perfectly stable. Oh wait do you want the max boost clock now and have a unstable single core? What does the majority of consumers dont understand about that?

There is a 5% of CPUs getting what its advertised for. Silicon lotterly, lol.

These kind of fud is just generating clicks, useless newsworthy articles. If you just dive a little bit more down into the technical standpoint then you and others understand.

Even a 12 core AMD monster does work perfectly fine on a cheap 50$ 350 board, even in overclocked condition with a 4 phase VRM. This is due to the requirements AMD demands on any motherboard vendor putting out boards. Your not getting a repeat of the FX era where a 8350 would throttle because board vendors would skimp out on VRM design.

I think the overall quality of the first ryzen untill now is just very very good.


----------



## EarthDog (Sep 2, 2019)

Jism said:


> 2 important things are listed on ANY amd ryzen SKU:
> 
> "Base Clock"
> "Boost Clock"
> ...


Yada. We know.

What you may ave missed from the other thread is people with MORE THAN CAPABLE motherboards, coolers, etc, are not able to reach the boost clock under any circumstances.

AMD didnt put any requirements in on previous chipsets for Ryzen 3. That is what x570 is for. If you'll note, their vrms are, overall, more robust than x470, b450, and especially the b320. Didnt the 3900x throttle on the b350 board testing here? You're playing with fire throwing a 3900x+ on b350...in some cases, this certainly is like fx and the vrm situation on low end boards. The biggest difference is these cant get past their own two feet overclocking as they are maxed out already.

Also, amd does do binning. How the heck do you think you have so many skus??? The bottom line is more than just a small percentage of cpus with their proper conditions should hit boost clock. 

Maybe they would be better served doing it like nvidia and listing a MINIMUM boost clock in stead of something reserved for magic unicorns.


----------



## springs113 (Sep 2, 2019)

My 3700x, all cores at some point or another hits 4.4ghz.  I haven't tried all core manual oc but I am very satisfied with my results so far.  This is an issue but I think that there's a lot at play here.  Too many variables to just blame the main person(AMD).


----------



## Metroid (Sep 2, 2019)

This is the reason why I bought the midrange r5 3600, I was very certain would be the only one to hit adv boost speed. Let's face here, even with binned chips high ends chips are not getting the boost speed amd said it would. So until amd fixes the mess, I will keep only buying midrange cpus from them.

Basically on the video, 50% of 3600 hit the adv boost, 10% of 3600x hit the adv boost, 15% of 3700x hit the adv boost,  27% of 3800x hit adv speed boost, 6% of 3900x hit the adv speed boost.


----------



## Vya Domus (Sep 2, 2019)

Polls are worthless, unfortunately.



newtekie1 said:


> When will AMD's marketing team learn from their mistakes?



When everyone else will do the same. As far as they're concerned they just do what everyone else does, Nividia sold FE Pascal cards that were advertised to have a certain boost clock but they all ran pretty much at the base clock after 5 minutes under load.

But I posed this question on his video and I will do the same here, how should AMD advertise these ? If they say they have 100mhz lower boost clocks but some people get more than that you'll get the same problem, people will feel it's unfair that some get more.



Metroid said:


> even with binned chips high ends chips are not getting the boost speed amd said it would.



AMD didn't said that they are binned, that's just a speculation on our side.


----------



## EarthDog (Sep 2, 2019)

Metroid said:


> This is the reason why I bought the midrange r5 3600, I was very certain would be the only one to hit adv boost speed. Let's face here, even with binned chips high ends chips are not getting the boost speed amd said it would. So until amd fixes the mess, I will keep buying midrange cpus from them.


Cause you bought on a BS premise? I've got a 3700x that doesnt hit boost clocks...isnt that midrange being 3 products down from the top and two from the bottom?


----------



## bug (Sep 2, 2019)

Vya Domus said:


> But I posed this question on his video and I will do the same here, how should AMD advertise these ? If they say they have 100mhz lower boost clocks but some people get more than that you'll get the same problem, people will feel it's unfair that some get more.


Nope, that's the way boost always worked. You get what's on the box, everything else is a bonus/luck of the draw.


----------



## Jism (Sep 2, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> What you may ave missed from the other thread is people with MORE THAN CAPABLE motherboards, coolers, etc, are not able to reach the boost clock under any circumstances.



Uh yeah but you miss a crucial point completely. The boost is based on not just thermals or VRMs but also workload and power requirements needed for that specific workload. Every AMD Ryzen CPU has a FIT thing build inside that monitors the CPU´s condition and silicons reliability. You cannot, and a boost state will not, harm the CPU while going into boost. A single core can only use an X amount of current which is programmed in the FIT. If a cpu core is getting unstable at a certain boost clock in combination with a voltage it will lower it down, OR if a CPU is using too much current at a given workload in combination with a boost clock it will lower it down. Its as simple as that. If you would disable the FIT completely (as you can do with CCX hacking these days) then you might archieve the advertised clock, but risking to degrade the CPU.

Simular as going with a manual overclock. You risk losing warranty in a nutshell. AMD would be in complete shit if their boost clocks would be harming their CPU´s on long term based. Everybody is creating FUD these days while not much really take the effort to understand the boost algorithm from a technical standpoint.

No the majority is not a tech expert when buying a CPU, but AMD is right. A base clock plus a up to boost clock. Marketing wise its perfectly fine. Do you want to add a disclaimer then that the maximum boost state is based upon silicon lottery if you take good cooling / VRM and all that into account?

Derbauer is stupid. He tested on exotic cooling what XFR would do in a nutshell. From that standpoint he already knew that publishing this article (apart from generating fud) is kind of useless and that a Up to boostclock matches the technical standpoint.


----------



## EarthDog (Sep 2, 2019)

Jism said:


> Uh yeah but you miss a crucial point completely. The boost is based on not just thermals or VRMs but also workload and power requirements needed for that specific workload. Every AMD Ryzen CPU has a FIT thing build inside that monitors the CPU´s condition and silicons reliability. You cannot, and a boost state will not, harm the CPU while going into boost. A single core can only use an X amount of current which is programmed in the FIT. If a cpu core is getting unstable at a certain boost clock in combination with a voltage it will lower it down, OR if a CPU is using too much current at a given workload in combination with a boost clock it will lower it down. Its as simple as that. If you would disable the FIT completely (as you can do with CCX hacking these days) then you might archieve the advertised clock, but risking to degrade the CPU.
> 
> Simular as going with a manual overclock. You risk losing warranty in a nutshell. AMD would be in complete shit if their boost clocks would be harming their CPU´s on long term based. Everybody is creating FUD these days while not much really take the effort to understand the boost algorithm from a technical standpoint.
> 
> ...


I didnt miss a thing.

From that other thread, we tried everything. Hell, I even left hwinfo up for over a day and still it never hit that clock. Max speeds were always less. I have the cooling, the boards (6), the bios' (couple on each), the loads (from idle to spi 1m and just desktop - word, excel, chrome) neeeeeever. 

What were disagreeing on is that you think it's ok to be marketed as X which is something few, a small minority no doubt, can achieve. I have all the ingredients to make it, yet I cant get there. That's BOLOGNA.


----------



## Mephis (Sep 2, 2019)

Vya Domus said:


> Pools are worthless, unfortunately.
> 
> 
> 
> But I posed this question on his video and I will do the same here, how should AMD advertise these ? If they say they have 100mhz lower boost clocks but some people get more than that you'll get the same problem, people will feel it's unfair that some get more.



Are you really saying that there would be a problem if the rates them lower and some chips achieved higher than advertised clocks? That is the way it has always been. That would be the exact same has it has always been. Chips run at advertised speeds and some better samples are able to be clocked higher.


----------



## Nkd (Sep 2, 2019)

Look I am not debating about people not hitting their boost clocks. I am 25mhz below so you could count me in. But if you are after stats he should know better given how respectable he is. That is a very skewed result.

there are so many missing factors in there it’s hardly factual.
Like throwing away things he didn’t even ask for in the survey. Also what were the users using to monitor the boost clocks?

I do think thus has a lot to do with bios tweaks. Which AMD needs to sort out with mobo manufacturers.


----------



## Jism (Sep 2, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> I didnt miss a thing. From that other thread, we tried everything. Hell, I even left hwinfo up for over a day and still, never.



From my experience, the boost thing starts to back down the moment the CPU or core hits 60 degrees. If it doesnt pass 60 degrees and its not hitting the max, your not having the lucky peace of silicon that could boost up to the advertised clocks. There is a 5% of users who actually do boost up to advertised clocks. We have seen a user hitting even 4.55GHz single core on a 2700x while the majority doesnt pass 4.35GHz. Do you want to start hold AMD accountable for that one user that boosts up to 4.55Ghz on single core now ?

And apart of that, who gives a flying shit really if your CPU does 4.4Ghz and not 4.45GHz lol. Like your going to miss out on that one single thread 50Mhz difference.


----------



## Metroid (Sep 2, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> Cause you bought on a BS premise? I've got a 3700x that doesnt hit boost clocks...isnt that midrange being 3 products down from the top and two from the bottom?


 I updated my post, internet connection here was lost for few minutes, down below is what the video stated, so is not bs as we can see, the 3600 is the one with the highest chance to hit adv speed boost.

"Basically on the video, 50% of 3600 hit the adv boost, 10% of 3600x hit the adv boost, 15% of 3700x hit the adv boost,  27% of 3800x hit adv speed boost, 6% of 3900x hit the adv speed boost. "


----------



## Mephis (Sep 2, 2019)

Jism said:


> No the majority is not a tech expert when buying a CPU, but AMD is right. A base clock plus a up to boost clock. Marketing wise its perfectly fine. Do you want to add a disclaimer then that the maximum boost state is based upon silicon lottery if you take good cooling / VRM and all that into account?



Yes! That is exactly what they should have done. Especially, since they had to of known this would be an issue. If they didn't know, then they completely failed in the testing phase.


----------



## Vya Domus (Sep 2, 2019)

Mephis said:


> Are you really saying that there would be a problem if the rates them lower and some chips achieved higher than advertised clocks?



So this works one way only huh ? You do realize this is literally just placebo, right ? No matter what you do some people will get less, some more, no matter which way you set the balance. This is bound to cause complaints no matter what. Arguing about this is simply a waste of time, the only thing that would make this somewhat fair is that everyone stops stating "boost clocks" on their products and only claim a certain base clock.


----------



## EarthDog (Sep 2, 2019)

Jism said:


> From my experience, the boost thing starts to back down the moment the CPU or core hits 60 degrees. If it doesnt pass 60 degrees and its not hitting the max, your not having the lucky peace of silicon that could boost up to the advertised clocks. There is a 5% of users who actually do boost up to advertised clocks. We have seen a user hitting even 4.55GHz single core on a 2700x while the majority doesnt pass 4.35GHz. Do you want to start hold AMD accountable for that one user that boosts up to 4.55Ghz on single core now ?
> 
> And apart of that, who gives a flying shit really if your CPU does 4.4Ghz and not 4.45GHz lol. Like your going to miss out on that one single thread 50Mhz difference.


see edits. 

You're missing the point. 

The stock cooler cant keep these cpus under 60c. The type of cooling that needs to happen with isnt common. 

I have no idea the relevance of one dude hitting a clock on sen+ cpu. This is about zen 2. That said, even you did say zen 2, it's still a poor talking point. If its advertised... a small minority hitting it isnt right...regardless if its 50mhz or 100mhz. If it says xx on the box and I have the conditions they set forth met, a MAJORITY should be hitting those clocks, not a handful with luck.


----------



## Jism (Sep 2, 2019)

Mephis said:


> Yes! That is exactly what they should have done. Especially, since they had to of known this would be an issue. If they didn't know, then they completely failed in the testing phase.



You and others are wasting time on this subject. This whole subject is created to generate more FUD in favor of clicks, views and hits. Intel does offers CPU´s simular. A base clock and a boost clock. Always within thermals and current, a up to value. Do you want to start hitting on Intel too now?



EarthDog said:


> see edits.
> 
> You're missing the point.
> 
> ...



The Zen+ works with simular tech, and pretty much the logic to that can be found in the Zen2 family as well. The XFR is a extended feature now on Zen2 family. But that doesnt mean the behaviour of Zen+ could not be applied to Zen2. My CPU on stock stops holding boost clocks once it reaches 60 degrees and starts to back down from 4.2Ghz on a IBT workload to 4.1GHz, once it starts to pass another thermal threshold it backs down to 4.05Ghz and so on. Its all temp related really. Remember my SKU is a 3.7Ghz base model. Getting 4.2GHz out of it on the long run is 500Mhz above what AMD sold me. 

Once i adjusted my fan setup from going from 3 to 6 fans on a 360mm rad and lowering the voltages supplied, it start to hold the boost in this case on 4.2GHz all core IBT. Over a small period of time the water starts to heat up and brings the CPU to 4.1Ghz eventually now. But my CPU worked all this time for a longer period on 4.2GHz compared to stock settings. I am getting a overal better result then compared to a stock setting.  My single core boost stick constant on 4.35GHz now with a sling once in a while to 4.2Ghz. Its doing exactly as AMD intendede the technology build inside the CPU.

So yeah this is a very stupid way of measuring how the avg 3x series hold their boost clocks. It takes some settings in bios first, it takes some measures in cooling as well, and know that a feature like FIS might be the culprit to archieving higher boost clocks. You have to dive into your CPU first to understand why its not reaching those advertised speeds. If your 50mhz under it, you belong to the few lucky. But you could, stick some time just like i did, and see if you can get a higher clock or a longer boost state.

That there is variation on different motherboard vendors, you have to find out as well.

As for the Ryzen CPU stock cooler, really its sufficient to keep the thing under a typical workload under a certain temperature. Not when you start bashing with CB or IBT for that matter on the long run. Afterall watercooling is always the better sollution for faster heat transfer compared to a heatsink.


----------



## Mephis (Sep 2, 2019)

Vya Domus said:


> So this works one way only huh ? You do realize this is literally placebo, right ? No matter what you do some people will get less, some more, no matter which way you set the balance. Arguing about this is simply a waste of time, the only thing that would make this somewhat fair is that everyone stops stating "boost clocks" on their products and only claim a certain base clock.



Except every other manufacturer that has done boosts before this has had products that at least can achieve those boost clock. they may not have been at those clocks forever, but we are talking about a large percentage of a product that can't reach the boost clocks to begin with. I'd Intel or Nvidia did this, it would be just as crappy.


----------



## RH92 (Sep 2, 2019)

That's proper journalism there from Der8auer kudos for his work ! 

I totally agree with his conclusion ... YES Ryzen 3000 are still great CPUs ... NO AMD had absolutely no need to advertise false  boost clocks knowing that a BIG majority of their CPUs can't hit those advertised clocks  !  Had some other companies made the same all hypocrites here  going through crazy lengths to defend AMD would had roasted those other companies so yeah ...........

Their marketing team is playing  dangerous games nowadays and they need to stop this !


----------



## EarthDog (Sep 2, 2019)

Mephis said:


> If Nvidia did this, it would be just as crappy.


Funny because big bad NVIDIA does it RIGHT listing a GUARANTEED boost clock (minimum) and not listing a maximum!!!!!

Look at gpuz... the boost clock. And 100% of these will achieve that clock and typically 100-200MHz more when using boost (assuming no power virus running against it).



Jism said:


> You and others are wasting time on this subject. This whole subject is created to generate more FUD in favor of clicks, views and hits. Intel does offers CPU´s simular. A base clock and a boost clock. Always within thermals and current, a up to value. Do you want to start hitting on Intel too now?


Dont act dense... you know Intel actually hits these boost clocks on all cpus and that is a piss poor argument, right?


----------



## Vya Domus (Sep 2, 2019)

Mephis said:


> Except every other manufacturer that has done boosts before this has had products that at least can achieve those boost clock.



Then everything is alright, because AMD's CPUs can reach their boost clock too, under *asterisk conditions just like every other manufacturer stipulates. You bought one that doesn't or you feel like it should hit these clocks more often? You are free to return it, claim RMA, whatever.



Mephis said:


> but we are talking about a large percentage of a product that can't reach the boost clocks to begin with.



No we aren't, we are speculating that may be the case, based on some polls.


----------



## ZoneDymo (Sep 2, 2019)

bug said:


> No, that is not what boost has meant until Zen2. If that were the case, you'd see manufacturers using "1THz boost" on their boxes, because, well, it's "up to" and one of their engineers has seen one CPU reaching those speeds when no one else was looking.
> 
> And the debate is not useless, like the debate about GTX 970's VRAM wasn't useless at the time: it doesn't mean users get screwed, but it sends a clear message this is a practice we could do without.



Now you are being just silly, obviously in this case the "up to" speed can and has been reached by multiple CPU's of the type.
Nothing to do with that honestly kinda childish scenario you are conjuring up.

The fact is that is just down to cooling, if you have enough cooling you can reach the needed speeds (even if some manual tweaking might be involved).
Its what Steve from GN has been saying for a while now, OCing is seemingly dying, the modern processor will push itself as far as your cooling (and stable voltages) will allow.

If Nvidia put on the box of the GTX970 "up to 4gb of Vram" they might have been in the clear on that one, because im pretty sure everyone would look at that and think hmmm bit of a gamble and then make the choice to buy or not.


----------



## bug (Sep 2, 2019)

Vya Domus said:


> So this works one way only huh ? You do realize this is literally just placebo, right ? No matter what you do some people will get less, some more, no matter which way you set the balance. This is bound to cause complaints no matter what. Arguing about this is simply a waste of time, the only thing that would make this somewhat fair is that everyone stops stating "boost clocks" on their products and only claim a certain base clock.


Yes, this only works one way.
It's like when you buy food. When it says it's safe to eat it within 3 months, it can happen you can eat it after 4. But in no way will it go bad in less than 3 months if stored properly.


----------



## Hossein Almet (Sep 2, 2019)

Does the 9900K hit 5GHz with a $30 cooler?


----------



## bug (Sep 2, 2019)

ZoneDymo said:


> The fact is that is just down to cooling, if you have enough cooling you can reach the needed speeds (even if some manual tweaking might be involved).


No, you can't. Several users here have attested to that.


----------



## ZoneDymo (Sep 2, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> Funny because big bad NVIDIA does it RIGHT listing a GUARANTEED boost clock (minimum) and not listing a maximum!!!!!
> 
> Look at gpuz... the boost clock. And 100% of these will achieve that clock and typically 100-200MHz more when using boost (assuming no power virus running against it).
> 
> Dont act dense... you know Intel actually hits these boost clocks on all cpus and that is a piss poor argument, right?



ermmm no? the stock intel cooler will thermal throttle modern day cpu's hard sooo yeah.


----------



## Darmok N Jalad (Sep 2, 2019)

Just as an aside, I notice that with HWiNFO, there is a lag in readings when I apply a load. I’m not sure what the polling interval is, but it’s clear that it doesn’t capture the CPU state for every clock cycle. This is still why I would like to see what AMD says. I think there is silicon lottery, but there may also be very brief (millisecond) boost instances. I know mobile SOCs employ this strategy considerably, in order to stay within power and cooling budgets. 




Hossein Almet said:


> Does the 9900K hit 5GHz with a $30 cooler?



According to Anandtech, yes, in single core. You still have to use at least a 95W cooler, and doing so will result in 15-20% less multithreaded performance over a more powerful cooler.


----------



## bug (Sep 2, 2019)

Hossein Almet said:


> Does the 9900K hit 5GHz with a $30 cooler?


Here's the 8700k reaching advertised boost with a SilverStone Argon AR11: https://www.techpowerup.com/review/be-quiet-dark-rock-slim/6.html
that's a $38 cooler.


----------



## EarthDog (Sep 2, 2019)

Hossein Almet said:


> Does the 9900K hit 5GHz with a $30 cooler?


lol, yes. Hyper 212 evo?


ZoneDymo said:


> ermmm no? the stock intel cooler will thermal throttle modern day cpu's hard sooo yeah.


not 2 cores and 5ghz.. the advertised boost clock amd number of cores. Perhaps it throttles all core/threads on the stock cooler... but boost clock is 2 cores.

But you've also missed the point...even with the right mobo and bios, as well as a proper cooler, MOST STILL DONT TICK MAX BOOST. These arguments are ridiculous and sourced from misinformation.


----------



## Jism (Sep 2, 2019)

bug said:


> No, you can't. Several uses here have attested to that.



They need to do some tweaking first. People are running into FIT issues. Really. Everybody seems to blate over the net, nobody that took the effort to first of all, set HWInfo on a 200ms interval. Yes the default interval of HWInfo is like 500ms or even 1000ms. When you see your CPU core or cores run into the 60 degrees mark, shit starts to throttle down. If a single core has not reached the max boost speed, really what would happen if you slightly start undervolt your CPU? Has anyone tested that of you?

FIT is preventing the CPU from boosting to max advertised. Im sorry but is the majority of testers stupid?

And second, a stock cooler MIGHT hit boost for a small short of time, but it will dump when theres a serious MT workload applied.


----------



## ZoneDymo (Sep 2, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> lol, yes. Hyper 212 evo?
> not 2 cores and 5ghz.. the advertised boost clock amd number of cores. Perhaps it throttles all core/threads on the stock cooler... but boost clock is 2 cores.
> 
> But you've also missed the point...even with the right mobo and bios, as well as a proper cooler, MOST STILL DONT TICK MAX BOOST. These arguments are ridiculous and sourced from misinformation.



and where do you get your information then?


----------



## cadaveca (Sep 2, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> lol, yes. Hyper 212 evo?
> not 2 cores and 5ghz.. the advertised boost clock amd number of cores. Perhaps it throttles all core/threads on the stock cooler... but boost clock is 2 cores.
> 
> But you've also missed the point...even with the right mobo and bios, as well as a proper cooler, MOST STILL DONT TICK MAX BOOST. These arguments are ridiculous and sourced from misinformation.



I'm sorry but I KNOW yo are kind of missing the point here too. Like you are right, and you and I usually agree on most things, so when I see what's going on here, I see that what the cause of the problem is... and it's the BIOS. One update, and everything is working as it should.


So here we are with new AMD CPUUs that need an AGESA update before they are working as they should?  NO WAY!






ZoneDymo said:


> and where do you get your information then?



He does reviews and has access to information the general user does not. One of the few guys doing reviews that truly isn't biased, IMHO, so if he's taking the time to type something to here, there's something that should be looked at, IMHO.


----------



## Metroid (Sep 2, 2019)

Well as we can see 26% of 3800x hit the adv speed boost, 6% of 3900x hit the adv speed, that means in theory that all the best silicon will be going to 3950x. So my point is that, if you want the best then wait for 3950x, avoid 3900x. I think 3950x will be the only one to have more than 50% to hit adv speed boost 4.7ghz. So what to hit the adv speed boost? then stick to 3600 or 3950x, yes, is that simple.


----------



## Vya Domus (Sep 2, 2019)

Darmok N Jalad said:


> Just as an aside, I notice that with HWiNFO, there is a lag in readings when I apply a load. I’m not sure what the polling interval is, but it’s clear that it doesn’t capture the CPU state for every clock cycle. This is still why I would like to see what AMD says. I think there is silicon lottery, but there may also be very brief (millisecond) boost instances. I know mobile SOCs employ this strategy considerably, in order to stay within power and cooling budgets.



I can see the minimum polling rate is 100ms, that's pretty high and CPUs can boost for very short intervals.


----------



## EarthDog (Sep 2, 2019)

cadaveca said:


> I'm sorry but I KNOW yo are kind of missing the point here too. Like you are right, and you and I usually agree on most things, so when I see what's going on here, I see that what the cause of the problem is... and it's the BIOS. One update, and everything is working as it should.
> 
> 
> So here we are with new AMD CPUUs that need an AGESA update before they are working as they should?  NO WAY!


Hi Dave! I hope you are well! 

So, as I've said earlier... I've used at least 6 boards (more now I think, lol) with multiple bios and agesa's. Nada. They've been out for almost 3 months.. maybe this will all end with another update...sure. But it hasnt yet.


----------



## Jism (Sep 2, 2019)

Vya Domus said:


> I can see the minimum pooling rate is 100ms, that's pretty high and CPUs can boost for very short intervals.




Its 100 or 200 ms indeed. But a Ryzen CPU can update or refresh every 25ms. Thats 4 to 8 times the maximum polling rate Hwinfo can.


----------



## TheLostSwede (Sep 2, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> Cause you bought on a BS premise? I've got a 3700x that doesnt hit boost clocks...isnt that midrange being 3 products down from the top and two from the bottom?



Which is how I felt as well, until it was resolved with a new UEFI. In other words, there's hope, but the silence from AMD on the issue is aggravating and they could do a lot better in terms of communicating with their customers on this issue.


----------



## EarthDog (Sep 2, 2019)

ZoneDymo said:


> and where do you get your information then?


Seemingly in a better place than you... 


TheLostSwede said:


> Which is how I felt as well, until it was resolved with a new UEFI. In other words, there's hope, but the silence from AMD on the issue is aggravating and they could do a lot better in terms of communicating with their customers on this issue.


Sure there is hope! That just wasnt part of the conversation until now.

People are trying to justify it and come from a misinformed place thinking that if AMD's parameters are met it works. It does not. Not for many... and dare we say a majority.

Maybe 1.0.0.4 is my magic sauce... we'll find out shortly.


----------



## cadaveca (Sep 2, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> Hi Dave! I hope you are well!
> 
> So, as I've said earlier... I've used at least 6 boards (more now I think, lol) with multiple bios and agesa's. Nada. They've been out for almost 3 months.. maybe this will all end with another update...sure. But it hasnt yet.


I'm doing excellent. I wish I could say more, but... I hope you are doing well too! I'm still here, of course.

I think AMD needs 4-6 months before they can suss out all the little niggles I see. I mean... do we even have odd CAS numbers working yet? 

So like, this is a real problem, there can be no doubt. I don't see it as that big of a problem (as is usual for me and this stuff), but it is something that consumers should be made aware of in a better way. I'm not sure that this is the correct approach, as we have to filter out the mail carrier's bias as always.



TheLostSwede said:


> Which is how I felt as well, until it was resolved with a new UEFI. In other words, there's hope, but the silence from AMD on the issue is aggravating and they could do a lot better in terms of communicating with their customers on this issue.



Lisa Su said that'd get better, and that's the one area that I think AMD could really improve upon. but there's too many large egos in the media that get in the way of that ever being an easy task. AMD jsut doesn't use what most consider as traditional avenues to reach their end users because of this, for example. How do you fix that? You just can't.


----------



## Jism (Sep 2, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> Seemingly in a better place than you...
> Sure there is hope! That just wasnt part of the conversation until now.
> 
> People are trying to justify it and come from a misinformed place thinking that if AMD's parameters are met it works. It does not. Not for many... and dare we say a majority.
> ...




AMD should just put that extended advertised boost clock under a warranty notice, so that if you CPU starts degrading over time because you and a dozen other users demand a up to frequency, their complete liability is just not theirs anymore. I just commented on Derbauers vid, i know its not passing their QOS moderation lol, i dont care.



> Derbauer, you are plain stupid. If youve followed any information from the Stilth, you know that these CPUs are equipped with a FIS that is hardware technically preventing the CPU cores from consuming too much current. The FIS also is a silicon health feature that prevent the boost state from going into oblivion when the CPU starts to hit a unsafe or unstable condition. The SKU advertises clearly with Base clock and Boost clocks up to. Up to, which doesnt mean you will be getting the guaranteed boost clocks. There is variance in motherboards and variance into used biosses as well. If i take my 2700x which goes into boost state on IBT for barely a minute on 4.1GHz, it seems to start holding when i increase my cooling and apply a undervolt for up to 5 minutes on 4.2Ghz all core. I woudt have made this without better cooling and applying a undervolt. You apply your survey based on stock settings and a majority of users going stock. There was no tweaking involved either. I know this comment isnt going to pass your moderation, but really your creating FUD and just putting garbage on the net the way the boost state works.



Im kind of done by now commeting and trying to give the masses some understanding on how the XFR works on AMD cpu´s.


----------



## Vya Domus (Sep 2, 2019)

Jism said:


> Its 100 or 200 ms indeed. But a Ryzen CPU can update or refresh every 25ms. Thats 4 to 8 times the maximum polling rate Hwinfo can.



And the default value on mine was a staggering 2000ms, good luck keeping a CPU under the right conditions for single core boost clock to work for two seconds.

I've done benchmarks many times playing with these things and sometimes it would *never* pick up the 3.9 Ghz max clock my 1700X is supposed to have. I knew it actually runs at those speeds because the results are higher versus when turbo clocks are turned off but sometimes I would never witness the clocks going up.


----------



## EarthDog (Sep 2, 2019)

cadaveca said:


> I'm doing excellent. I wish I could say more, but... I hope you are doing well too! I'm still here, of course.
> 
> I think AMD needs 4-6 months before they can suss out all the little niggles I see. I mean... do we even have odd CAS numbers working yet?
> 
> ...


Most of us will be waiting with bated breath. 


Jism said:


> AMD should just put that extended advertised boost clock under a warranty notice, so that if you CPU starts degrading over time because you and a dozen other users demand a up to frequency, their complete liability is just not theirs anymore. I just commented on Derbauers vid, i know its not passing their QOS moderation lol, i dont care.


But, we haven't demanded anything more than they offered...If the CPU degrades up there, then why the hell would they advertise it?


----------



## Jism (Sep 2, 2019)

Vya Domus said:


> And the default value on mine was a staggering 2000ms, good luck keeping a CPU under the right conditions for single core boost clock to work for two seconds.



Really, its just FUD. in real life workloads the things that i do with my PC, its just boosting as it should, while being silent, and having a balanced power plan going on.

Just use your computer the way you intended, instead of going by the masses of derbauer and his follower. FUD creating in exchange for visits and clicks. There are people that deserve way more credit for their work then Derbauer.


----------



## TheLostSwede (Sep 2, 2019)

Vya Domus said:


> No we aren't, we are speculating that may be the case, based on some pools.


You seem to like water a lot...
The word you're looking for is polls


----------



## Vya Domus (Sep 2, 2019)

TheLostSwede said:


> You seem to like water a lot...



Not much into water cooling though.


----------



## TheLostSwede (Sep 2, 2019)

ZoneDymo said:


> Now you are being just silly, obviously in this case the "up to" speed can and has been reached by multiple CPU's of the type.
> Nothing to do with that honestly kinda childish scenario you are conjuring up.
> 
> The fact is that is just down to cooling, if you have enough cooling you can reach the needed speeds (even if some manual tweaking might be involved).
> ...


But that's EXACTLY the point, it's NOT just down to cooling. My CPU couldn't go 1MHz past 4,400.25MHz at one point, along comes a new UEFI and now it boosts to 4,525.25MHz on multiple cores. So in other words, people not hitting advertised boost, is NOT related to cooling alone. Don't try to simplify this issue, as it's really a lot more complex than that.


----------



## cadaveca (Sep 2, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> Most of us will be waiting with bated breath.




It's not like that is unexpected...  Today, my 1950X is fantastic. It took a while before it got there. A long while. I'm sure you saw that many boards early had the usual USB problems, even. Like it's all been way too familiar. So familiar that I kind of feel all warm and fuzzy inside, YKWIM? LOL.



TheLostSwede said:


> But that's EXACTLY the point, it's NOT just down to cooling. My CPU couldn't go 1MHz past 4,400.25MHz at one point, along comes a new UEFI and now it boosts to 4,525.25MHz on multiple cores. So in other words, people not hitting advertised boost, is NOT related to cooling alone. Don't try to simplify this issue, as it's really a lot more complex than that.



Extremely more complex. This has been largely understated by the media for this launch, how complex this CPUs power handling really is.

That's AMD's fault for not emphasizing that aspect of these chips enough to the media.


----------



## Totally (Sep 2, 2019)

xkm1948 said:


> Man the amount of butt hurt AMD fans.



You're like the biggest one.

Irony much?


----------



## Jism (Sep 2, 2019)

TheLostSwede said:


> But that's EXACTLY the point, it's NOT just down to cooling. My CPU couldn't go 1MHz past 4,400.25MHz at one point, along comes a new UEFI and now it boosts to 4,525.25MHz on multiple cores. So in other words, people not hitting advertised boost, is NOT related to cooling alone. Don't try to simplify this issue, as it's really a lot more complex than that.



CPU´s FIT dude.  It s a small and hidden feature in Ryzen CPU´s that only The Stilth has shined some documentation on. With a new UEFI it proberly losened up some smalls things on where the FIT´s absolute values are a bit more widened. I wish AMD published a bit more on the workings of the FIT so the masses would finally come to an understanding on how the boost algorithm works. 

Things that derbauer does not documentate about. And creates a hope FUD by spreading bullshit really.


----------



## TheLostSwede (Sep 2, 2019)

Darmok N Jalad said:


> Just as an aside, I notice that with HWiNFO, there is a lag in readings when I apply a load. I’m not sure what the polling interval is, but it’s clear that it doesn’t capture the CPU state for every clock cycle. This is still why I would like to see what AMD says. I think there is silicon lottery, but there may also be very brief (millisecond) boost instances. I know mobile SOCs employ this strategy considerably, in order to stay within power and cooling budgets.



This is correct, BUT it's unlikely that you're going to miss the boost every single time if you run it for hours on end, especially as the boost can happen on any core. If you run it for a minute and call it a day, well, then you didn't really care.

This has been running for a few hours and at least three of my cores are 25MHz over advertised boosts, with an additional two hitting advertised boost clocks.
Every single core now boosts over 4,400MHz with some margin.


----------



## Turmania (Sep 2, 2019)

This is as bad as bulldozer core count fiasco.for some reason AMD is getting away with murder and people turn a blind eye when it comes to them.


----------



## TheLostSwede (Sep 2, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> So, as I've said earlier... I've used at least 6 boards (more now I think, lol) with multiple bios and agesa's. Nada. They've been out for almost 3 months.. maybe this will all end with another update...sure. But it hasnt yet.



I think you've been too busy testing stuff, it's five days to go until it's been two months since launch


----------



## cadaveca (Sep 2, 2019)

Turmania said:


> This is as bad as bulldozer core count fiasco.for some reason AMD is getting away with murder and people turn a blind eye when it comes to them.


is that AMD's fault, or the media's?

I seen Microsoft, with that specific issue, treat AMD's Bulldozer CPU far differently than the rest of the world...

After being part of that media for pretty much a decade and now having left it, I can't really say that looking back that there was any real problems and more so misunderstandings. Its pretty common in this industry and some companies do take advantage of that fact more than others for sure, but they all do it.


----------



## Jism (Sep 2, 2019)

TheLostSwede said:


> This is correct, BUT it's unlikely that you're going to miss the boost every single time if you run it for hours on end, especially as the boost can happen on any core. If you run it for a minute and call it a day, well, then you didn't really care.
> 
> This has been running for a few hours and at least three of my cores are 25MHz over advertised boosts, with an additional two hitting advertised boost clocks.
> Every single core now boosts over 4,400MHz with some margin.



And beyond 60 degrees thermals, you should be feeling lucky then having a piece of silicon that is able to sustain those clocks (and beyond).

FIT ensures that the cpu simply does´nt boost beyond oblivion, i.e a unstable condition or pulling too much current through the silicon. If it would you would be degrading your CPU really fast. With a new AGESA update they proberly extended the XFR values which made your CPU boost a bit further compared to the previous AGESA. Congrats, AMD deliveres more then you wanted now.


----------



## ZoneDymo (Sep 2, 2019)

Turmania said:


> This is as bad as bulldozer core count fiasco.for some reason AMD is getting away with murder and people turn a blind eye when it comes to them.



yeah, you can see from the amount of comments and the video Der8auer made they are just getting away with it and people turning a blind eye!
Dont you just get tired of yourself sometimes?


----------



## TheLostSwede (Sep 2, 2019)

cadaveca said:


> I think AMD needs 4-6 months before they can suss out all the little niggles I see. I mean... do we even have odd CAS numbers working yet?
> 
> So like, this is a real problem, there can be no doubt. I don't see it as that big of a problem (as is usual for me and this stuff), but it is something that consumers should be made aware of in a better way. I'm not sure that this is the correct approach, as we have to filter out the mail carrier's bias as always.
> 
> Lisa Su said that'd get better, and that's the one area that I think AMD could really improve upon. but there's too many large egos in the media that get in the way of that ever being an easy task. AMD jsut doesn't use what most consider as traditional avenues to reach their end users because of this, for example. How do you fix that? You just can't.



Apparently some people do. Posted this elsewhere earlier today.








						Review – HyperX FURY RGB DDR4 3200 CL16 2x8GB – Hynix CJR pe platforma AMD
					

HyperX FURY RGB   Ehehei, dragii mei, iata ca din punct de vedere calendaristic tocmai a trecut vara, soarele incepe sa fie mai bland si vegetatia se pregateste sa acopere pamantul cu haina ca…




					lab501.ro
				



Not sure what kind of black magic Monstru is pulling, as those Kingston sticks can run CAS 17 and CAS 19 on his setup.

To be honest, I think most people would be ok with it, as long as it wasn't for the deafening silence from AMD on this issue. They simply say that they're aware of the issue and they're working on it. Not even a peep in terms of why it might be happening.

Well, in my case, it has gotten better, as all my parts are now running at better than spec, so although I was having a lot of issues to start with, it took about a month and a half or so to get everything working properly. Sadly, not everyone else has been as lucky. And yeah, I think AMD needs to post on their site about this, rather than hanging out on reddit...


----------



## Xuper (Sep 2, 2019)

I think It's better AMD adds Minimum boost clock, Problem solves.


----------



## TheLostSwede (Sep 2, 2019)

Vya Domus said:


> And the default value on mine was a staggering 2000ms, good luck keeping a CPU under the right conditions for single core boost clock to work for two seconds.



So please explain my readings in the post above, HWinfo is sett to 2000ms in my case as well...


----------



## Nkd (Sep 2, 2019)

Turmania said:


> This is as bad as bulldozer core count fiasco.for some reason AMD is getting away with murder and people turn a blind eye when it comes to them.


I am not going to lose my shit over 25mhz that can easily be optimized by bios update. In the meantime my cpu smokes everything out there in the 500 range. So no I am not losing my shit over it. I got more things to worry about in life.


----------



## TheLostSwede (Sep 2, 2019)

Jism said:


> CPU´s FIT dude.  It s a small and hidden feature in Ryzen CPU´s that only The Stilth has shined some documentation on. With a new UEFI it proberly losened up some smalls things on where the FIT´s absolute values are a bit more widened. I wish AMD published a bit more on the workings of the FIT so the masses would finally come to an understanding on how the boost algorithm works.
> 
> Things that derbauer does not documentate about. And creates a hope FUD by spreading bullshit really.


Link? As it's impossible to search any of the things you reference.



Turmania said:


> This is as bad as bulldozer core count fiasco.for some reason AMD is getting away with murder and people turn a blind eye when it comes to them.


Far from it, as this is most likely going to be something that can be fixed with a simple UEFI update, as has already happened in my case.
Don't try to make this out to be something it isn't.


----------



## Nkd (Sep 2, 2019)

Xuper said:


> I think It's better AMD adds Minimum boost clock, Problem solves.



That is not how AMD boost works. Their boost algorithm has always worked with cooling and temp in mind. Next thing you someone will be bitching using a low profile cooler in a sff case.


----------



## Ferrum Master (Sep 2, 2019)

Splitting hair over 100MHz.... WTH people?


----------



## Jism (Sep 2, 2019)

TheLostSwede said:


> Link? As it's impossible to search any of the things you reference.



The stilth has done some threads here and there about going in depth on the Ryzen 1 and 2 series. In the 2 series he is mentioning the FIT which is responsible for the silicon health in general. Now this FIT simply controls the maximum current a core or cores can use, without frying the chip from inside out while being in boost state. It also controls the voltage thats being supplied to a single core workload or a all core workload (hence why the variance in the two when going full load). It also prevent the CPU from consuming too much current which leads to degeneration of the CPU. At last it dictates the current boost state in combination with thermals and VRM threshold.

So if people are not having their advertised maximum boost states, even when tweaking such as undervolt or cooling, then its pretty much the FIT preventing the CPU core or cores to run into oblivion by going unstable or so. When i initially bought my Ryzen 2700x, i had to take a few months to learn about the tech behind it. Its not so simply as putting up a multiplier and call it a day. Or its not so simple to rev up the base clock while running into lowered latency dividers once you go beyond 104Mhz or so.

This is a new platform and this platform comes with alot of nice features, but also difficult features to understand. If you ask me what would be better to play with, XFR or manual OC? Then i would answer that investing in good cooling (i.e 240mm / 360mm rad) and some tweaking such as undervolting, and call it a day. Overclocking these days is´nt so sophisticated as it was before. Slap on a big cooler and let technology such as XFR do its thing.

If you wonder who the stilth is, he´s mentioned in every populair Asus board under tweaking settings. Its someone who knows more then Derbauer does related to AMD tech.


----------



## TheLostSwede (Sep 2, 2019)

Nkd said:


> That is not how AMD boost works. Their boost algorithm has always worked with cooling and temp in mind. Next thing you someone will be bitching using a low profile cooler in a sff case.


I think you misunderstood what he meant. The idea is what AMD should've put something like the boost speed that they knew all their CPUs in a certain SKU could reach, not just some of them.



Jism said:


> The stilth has done some threads here and there about going in depth on the Ryzen 1 and 2 series. In the 2 series he is mentioning the FIT which is responsible for the silicon health in general. Now this FIT simply controls the maximum current a core or cores can use, without frying the chip from inside out while being in boost state. It also controls the voltage thats being supplied to a single core workload or a all core workload (hence why the variance in the two when going full load). It also prevent the CPU from consuming too much current which leads to degeneration of the CPU. At last it dictates the current boost state in combination with thermals and VRM threshold.
> 
> So if people are not having their advertised maximum boost states, even when tweaking such as undervolt or cooling, then its pretty much the FIT preventing the CPU core or cores to run into oblivion by going unstable or so.
> 
> If you wonder who the stilth is, he´s mentioned in every populair Asus board under tweaking settings. Its someone who knows more then Derbauer does related to AMD tech.


So please provide a link or two then...
I have a 280mm liquid cooler. I have not touched any of the overclocking features and never asked about this.



Ferrum Master said:


> Splitting hair over 100MHz.... WTH people?


It's more about how AMD marketed things than anything else. It's actually a bit like the storage companies counting in even 1,000's per byte, but operating systems doing 1,024 to a byte. It starts small and soon everyone is trying to get away with it. At least storage devices have disclaimers these days, AMD didn't have one and still doesn't. On top of that, they went and posted a video, claiming that under the right circumstances, with the right cooling and motherboard VRM, you can expect your shiny new (yet to be launched) Ryzen 3000 CPU to boost even higher, which so far it seems almost no-one has managed.


----------



## Vya Domus (Sep 2, 2019)

TheLostSwede said:


> So please explain my readings in the post above, HWinfo is sett to 2000ms in my case as well...



I already said how HWinfo wouldn't report that my 1700X is running at it's boost clocks even though the benchmarks confirmed it was in fact running at those speeds. So I have experienced readings that didn't reflect reality. It would be perhaps more relevant for everyone to just run some single thread CPU tests, see the results and watch if they always match with what the readings say.

What's more important, performance or a pretty number ?


----------



## TheLostSwede (Sep 2, 2019)

Vya Domus said:


> I already said how HWinfo wouldn't report that my 1700X is running at it's boost clocks even though the benchmarks confirmed it was in fact running at those speeds. So I have experienced readings that didn't reflect reality. It would be perhaps more relevant for everyone to just run some single thread CPU tests, see the results and watch if they always match what the readings say.



Wow, you've clearly followed all the other threads in the forums on this topic very closely...   

Just please don't comment any more on this topic, as you clearly have no hands on experience or understanding of the issues people are facing with the Ryzen 3000.


----------



## Jism (Sep 2, 2019)

TheLostSwede said:


> So please provide a link or two then...
> I have a 280mm liquid cooler. I have not touched any of the overclocking features and never asked about this.



I posted in this thread before, the behaviour of my boosting 2700x, that once it passes the 60 degrees mark, i increased my cooling capacity, slightly undervolted a bit, was enough to have it running at 4.2GHz all core.


----------



## Vya Domus (Sep 2, 2019)

TheLostSwede said:


> Wow, you've clearly followed all the other threads in the forums on this topic very closely...
> 
> Just please don't comment any more on this topic, as you clearly have no hands on experience or understanding of the issues people are facing with the Ryzen 3000.



I follow what's on this thread and I'll comment whenever I like, thanks.

Software readings are unreliable, in addition to that making random polls is as useful as asking people what's the size of their johnson.


----------



## TheLostSwede (Sep 2, 2019)

Vya Domus said:


> I follow what's on this thread and I'll comment whenever I like, thanks.
> 
> Software readings are unreliable, in addition to that making random polls are as useful as asking people what's the size of their johnson.



Is making ill informed comments that adds nothing to a topic something you enjoy doing? Then please be my guest. Let me just add you to my ignore list so I don't have to waste my time reading them.



Jism said:


> I posted in this thread before, the behaviour of my boosting 2700x, that once it passes the 60 degrees mark, i increased my cooling capacity, slightly undervolted a bit, was enough to have it running at 4.2GHz all core.


That's not a Ryzen 3000-series CPU though, right?

And I would still like a link to this AMD CPU magician of yours.


----------



## vega22 (Sep 2, 2019)

cadaveca said:


> is that AMD's fault, or the media's?
> 
> I seen Microsoft, with that specific issue, treat AMD's Bulldozer CPU far differently than the rest of the world...
> 
> After being part of that media for pretty much a decade and now having left it, I can't really say that looking back that there was any real problems and more so misunderstandings. Its pretty common in this industry and some companies do take advantage of that fact more than others for sure, but they all do it.



welcome back to the real world dave, can't wait to read your insight onto things in the future now you're out from under that weight 

on topic

title is misleading when the % is really down to the chip/mobo combo. really seems like some mobo have polished bois while others are still quite immature.


it will be xmas before amd and the mobo makers finally get their shit together. this is like another totally new platform for them with these new features.


----------



## EarthDog (Sep 2, 2019)

Lol, faking shyte.

No links, referencing zen+ not zen2, a dude saying to run single threaded tests (we did already in the other monster thread), and more users adding 2 cents that isnt worth a penny.

Man do I hate forums, lol!


----------



## Turmania (Sep 2, 2019)

So you buy a turbo engined car brand new with about 400 horse power! But it only does 300! And it seems everyone here are OK with it!


----------



## Darmok N Jalad (Sep 2, 2019)

Turmania said:


> This is as bad as bulldozer core count fiasco.for some reason AMD is getting away with murder and people turn a blind eye when it comes to them.


If we are still here in 6 months having the same issue, you are right. It’s a new architecture, new node, able to run on the same socket across three generations of chipsets. I would actually have been more surprised if people weren’t running into some sort of issue this early on. AMD has certainly been more of a “ship it then fix it” company (which is why I don’t buy their stuff at launch). They have been playing from behind for so long, I doubt they have as many ES go out to vendors for testing before launch.


----------



## Vya Domus (Sep 2, 2019)

TheLostSwede said:


> Is making ill informed comments that adds nothing to a topic something you enjoy doing?



*You* asked me something and I replied with my take on it based on what I have experienced, and that is: *software readings are unreliable*. For some bizarre reason you then told me that I shouldn't comment on this topic.

You alright there buddy ? Or that's just your standard response when people say something that isn't in line with your opinion ? Just tell everyone that they shouldn't comment when you don't know what to say. Nice.


----------



## kartoffelotto (Sep 2, 2019)

it really seems to depend a lot on what software you use for reading the clock speeds. I've not seen an option to increase ryzen masters polling rate to lower than a second, and it rarely shows clocks above 4.5 GHz. I just now downloaded Hwinfo for the lulz, and after a minute i saw at least three cores having a max over 4.5 GHz, and I think my cooling might be worse than thelostswedes.


----------



## Turmania (Sep 2, 2019)

Darmok N Jalad said:


> If we are still here in 6 months having the same issue, you are right. It’s a new architecture, new node, able to run on the same socket across three generations of chipsets. I would actually have been more surprised if people weren’t running into some sort of issue this early on. AMD has certainly been more of a “ship it then fix it” company (which is why I don’t buy their stuff at launch). They have been playing from behind for so long, I doubt they have as many ES go out to vendors for testing before launch.


I completely agree with you. I would have said same thing if Intel done it as well.this is not about fanboyism it's about ethics.


----------



## dyonoctis (Sep 2, 2019)

Would be nice to know how AMD is getting those max boost frequency. Is it pure speculation, or do they have an actual system reaching consitently those speed on several cpu from the same sku ?


----------



## moob (Sep 2, 2019)

Surprisingly, I don't think I've seen this posted yet: 








My 3700X seems to boost to within 25MHz of the max speed...if I turn off AMD Cool N' Quiet. If I leave it on Auto, it boosts within about 50MHz and if I turn it on, it's a tad slower at 50MHz-75-MHz. But Cool N' Quiet also affects the core voltage, so I leave it on auto which seems like a happy medium. I don't care if it hits the max speed exactly. I didn't care on my 3770K that it replaced. I didn't care with the CPUs that came before that. It's close enough that it's a non-issue. I have enough things in life to care about instead of this nonsense. lol


----------



## RH92 (Sep 2, 2019)

dyonoctis said:


> Would be nice to know how AMD is getting those max boost frequency. Is it pure speculation, or do they have an actual system reaching consitently those speed on several cpu from the same sku ?



Considering everything so far indicates this issue is not system dependent , i don't think that the theory about AMD having a system able to consistently hit advertised clocks  holds water !  As Der8auer mentionned this is silicon related so yeah AMD pretty much advertised a boost clock that some rare CPUs can reach when up untill now we where used to 100% CPU's can reach advertised boost clocks .  There is no way AMD wasn't aware of this ,this is simply marketing level BS and AMD doesn't need this !


----------



## Turmania (Sep 2, 2019)

moob said:


> Surprisingly, I don't think I've seen this posted yet:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So you can buy a brand new car thinking you are the proud first owner but in reality it was a test car and they brought down the mileage to sell as new car. And you be probably OK with it! Respect your attitude!


----------



## E-curbi (Sep 2, 2019)

Ryzen 3000 are still an amazing family of CPUs.

If I was building a workstation rig for multithreaded apps, I'd go Ryzen all the way!

And an AMD Radeon Pro 8200 workstation graphics card, oh yea, my dream card.


----------



## moob (Sep 2, 2019)

Turmania said:


> So you can buy a brand new car thinking you are the proud first owner but in reality it was a test car and they brought down the mileage to sell as new car. And you be probably OK with it! Respect your attitude!


That's an incredibly stupid analogy. A more apt analogy would be if I bought a car that stated a top speed of 165mph and it only hit about 160mph. And no, I wouldn't care.


----------



## Turmania (Sep 2, 2019)

TDP ratings need clarification.you buy 65w cpu put a cooler and system accordingly to that but voila cpu hits 130w!  Turbo clocks and in relation how many of the cores boost up needs clarification.this is both for AMD and Intel. Industry needs to do better and us consumers needs to not so forgiving.


----------



## RH92 (Sep 2, 2019)

E-curbi said:


> Ryzen 3000 are still an amazing family of CPUs.



I believe everyone here would agree on this but this is not the topic here ! 

The topic is AMD advertised speeds very few CPUs can hit just  to be able to put a 0,1 or 0,2  bigger number on the box . That's called false advertisement and AMD doesn't need this BS .


----------



## Turmania (Sep 2, 2019)

moob said:


> That's an incredibly stupid analogy. A more apt analogy would be if I bought a car that stated a top speed of 165mph and it only hit about 160mph. And no, I wouldn't care.


Oh you would care, you even care about this.


----------



## GreiverBlade (Sep 2, 2019)

not really worried or caring ... after all it's boost clock we are talking about ... and boost clock never were a 100% assured but rather a "can go up to" ... nothing much really.

i would be worried if they didn't reach their base clock rather (or is a microcode update f!cked up OC like my 6600K)


----------



## Darmok N Jalad (Sep 2, 2019)

moob said:


> That's an incredibly stupid analogy. A more apt analogy would be if I bought a car that stated a top speed of 165mph and it only hit about 160mph. And no, I wouldn't care.


Yeah, car analogies seem to come up a lot with tech. At best, once could claim that their car didn’t perform as the manufacturer states, but I think we know that matching a rated 0-60 or 1/4 mile produces a lot of variables!


----------



## moob (Sep 2, 2019)

Turmania said:


> Oh you would care, you even care about this.


Except that I don't? I said as much. 

I only tested because I was curious and that's what us geeks do anyway.


----------



## notb (Sep 2, 2019)

nemesis.ie said:


> Either this is more "observer effect" and/or they need to do some more UEFI tweaking.


Do we really want CPUs that need "UEFI tweaking" to deliver what's on the box? Seriously?
Why do you tolerate this?


----------



## GreiverBlade (Sep 2, 2019)

notb said:


> Do we really want CPUs that need "UEFI tweaking" to deliver what's on the box? Seriously?
> Why do you tolerate this?


probably because it's a "can reach" boost frequencies ... that some of us don't care about the "OH GOD THAT'S UNACCEPTABLE! THEY LIED!" 

it's less an issue that what i mentioned above ... (aka a 6600K that can't OC anymore ... heck he doesn't even boost and stay at 3.9ghz lately ... ) or performance loss due to mitigation patch applied for security issues ...


----------



## TheLostSwede (Sep 2, 2019)

notb said:


> Do we really want CPUs that need "UEFI tweaking" to deliver what's on the box? Seriously?
> Why do you tolerate this?


I would assume he means the motherboard makers need to tweak the UEFI more, which is seemingly case.

As I posted elsewhere, AMD and Intel works very differently when it comes to the motherboard manufacturers. Intel gives them reference boards, lots of ES CPUs, 80% finished UEFI implementations and more. AMD on the other hand, turns up late with a box of chipsets, a buggy UEFI and some early CPU samples. Ok, that's exaggerating things, but it's not too far off from what I've been told by the board makers. Obviously the two companies have very different budgets, but AMD relies a lot more on the board makers to solve problems on AMD's behalf, or at least have so far. It's not that AMD doesn't try to help, but they don't invest as much as Intel does into things like FAE's, documentation and internal testing. That said, the X570 platform was apparently much better in these aspects than say X370, so it looks like AMD is improving. 

Even so, it's clear that they have a lot of complex issues to work out, although most of it is related to the AGESA, as the board makers have little to no control over it. In fact, AMD even have fixed names and layouts for their UEFI options. This is most likely due to Ryzen Master having to be able to work with all boards, regardless of the manufacturer. Even so, AMD has some very specific requirements that Intel doesn't have when it comes to the UEFI.


----------



## Midland Dog (Sep 2, 2019)

id be fuming if i bought a chip expecting it to do 4.7ghz in st tasks (probs faster than 5ghz skylake at those clocks) only to be cucked out of up to 300mhz, at least when intel rates a chip to boost it just does it until it hits 100c


----------



## hat (Sep 2, 2019)

Midland Dog said:


> id be fuming if i bought a chip expecting it to do 4.7ghz in st tasks (probs faster than 5ghz skylake at those clocks) only to be cucked out of up to 300mhz, at least when intel rates a chip to boost it just does it until it hits 100c


Not sure how I feel about this, honestly. Turbo speeds aren't guaranteed, but everyone expects them... as they should. If someone prints 4.7GHz on the box, you want to see 4.7GHz... but to get there, you need to be in the optimal conditions that allow you to reach that. You need cool temps, good power delivery and so on. You would be wrong to expect the best out of a system held back by a dinky cooler and a bottom of the barrel budget motherboard... much like you would be wrong to expect your car to perform well if you haven't changed your oil or your air filter in forever. It's also not uncommon for things to work better with time as various things come along, such as BIOS updates or better drivers.


----------



## GreiverBlade (Sep 2, 2019)

hat said:


> Not sure how I feel about this, honestly. Turbo speeds aren't guaranteed, but everyone expects them... as they should. If someone prints 4.7GHz on the box, you want to see 4.7GHz... but to get there, you need to be in the optimal conditions that allow you to reach that. You need cool temps, good power delivery and so on. You would be wrong to expect the best out of a system held back by a dinky cooler and a bottom of the barrel budget motherboard... much like you would be wrong to expect your car to perform well if you haven't changed your oil or your air filter in forever. It's also not uncommon for things to work better with time as various things come along, such as BIOS updates or better drivers.


all i see is difference between "realistic" people and "pure optimistic" (to be polite i will call it that way)the former is a "oh, it can go up to" while the later is a "oh, it will, 100% definitely absolutely they better be, go to that max speed".


also i am wondering how much of that survey results are user side issue tied ... as you mentioned ... boost clock depend on a lot of parameter ... and are all but guaranteed...



Midland Dog said:


> id be fuming if i bought a chip expecting it to do 4.7ghz in st tasks (probs faster than 5ghz skylake at those clocks) only to be cucked out of up to 300mhz, at least when intel rates a chip to boost it just does it until it hits 100c


ohhhh well i am fuming ... after Intel rather than AMD ... what's better? being able to OC as i want and reaching boost clock only sometime, or even better, not giving a flying F about boost and keep my OC stable across all cores rather than a single core situational boost? or getting a K processor only to find later that a f!cked up microcode update messed up with OC and boost ... which make my 6600K a 6600 with some mhz in addiction to his base clock ... (well a 6600 would boost ... probably... )


----------



## Agent_D (Sep 2, 2019)

From what I've seen personally with benchmark results, the people who are seeing advertised, or higher, boost speeds have motherboards that are allowing single core to hit voltages over 1.5v. The ASRock X570 Steel Legend I have will not allow the chip to go beyond 1.45v and keeps my single/low core count speeds to 4290MHz max no matter what settings I change in BIOS.

I think it's likely a combination of both motherboards and chips that are leading to these results.


----------



## Midland Dog (Sep 2, 2019)

GreiverBlade said:


> all i see is difference between "realistic" people and "pure optimistic" (to be polite i will call it that way)the former is a "oh, it can go up to" while the later is a "oh, it will, 100% definitely absolutely they better be, go to that max speed".
> 
> 
> also i am wondering how much of that survey results are user side issue tied ... as you mentioned ... boost clock depend on a lot of parameter ... and are all but guaranteed...
> ...


get an asrock z170 board and bclock oc it bam 6600k again, your case is a 1 off, my 4690k can do 4.7ghz all core, amd cant even do it on 1 and they rate there chips for it, when you rely on higher ipc and lower clocks then small differences in clock are more sensitive to overall perf. i dont think there is a single 9900k that hasnt done 5ghz, im willing to bet that there are stuff all 3900x that can do 4.7ghz, the 3950x will be a huge meme


----------



## GreiverBlade (Sep 2, 2019)

Midland Dog said:


> get an asrock z170 board and bclock oc it bam 6600k again


ohhhh my, changing mobo would solve my issue ... crap why didn't i... oh wait ... i had a ASRock mobo for testing before the actual one i have ... and the OC loss even occurred during her time ...
just in case my 6600K is a 6600k my mobo is a Z170 the OC did work neatly, on both mobo, until the famous microcode update Intel pushed via WUpdate (by mistake probably .... but for me it's still not corrected )

as for the rest ... still laughing nonetheless ... the issue quoted here for AMD is meager compared to what i am seeing with Intel and the 6600K issue i have ...is the last drop
actually i'd be fuming for all the perf loss due to Spectre/Meltdown/name other mitigation .... in addition to the aforementioned issue 

at last i will look at my future R5 3600X or R7 3700/3800X boost clock as a "oh, it can go up to"  (specially with a 3600X since i would get it for 40chf/$ less than what the 6600K did cost at the time )


----------



## Tomgang (Sep 2, 2019)

It is a worrying results. I begin to wunder how many ryzen 9 3950X Will hit the 4.7 ghz boost clock. When so many CPU have a Hard time just hitting lower boost clock.

That really makes me wunder how 3950x Will boost and ever hit 4.7 ghz.


----------



## Patriot (Sep 2, 2019)

quick reminder that 4550mhz is 4.6ghz and 4550 is an average clock not peak.

Yes its shady and not all mobo boards are hitting the same clocks as gamer nexus discovered.


----------



## Vayra86 (Sep 2, 2019)

Midland Dog said:


> id be fuming if i bought a chip expecting it to do 4.7ghz in st tasks (probs faster than 5ghz skylake at those clocks) only to be cucked out of up to 300mhz, at least when intel rates a chip to boost it just does it until it hits 100c



Too bad it does hit 100C at times, though, unless you throw a lot of cooling at it. And if you don't, you're stuck with allcore turbo's that are as 'low' as with AMD.

Its not that much greener on the blue side.


----------



## TheGuruStud (Sep 2, 2019)

GeorgeMan said:


> My 3600 doesn't hit anything above 4100mhz. Not even single thread low load. With custom water cooling. The box says 4200...



MB support is broken. Completely stock settings on original bios does it on mine.


----------



## tony359 (Sep 2, 2019)

Jism said:


> This is a useless debate.
> 
> The box of any AMD cpu states clearly, boost up to Y speeds. Up to. That doesnt mean that any CPU will be capable of doing that.



How can you believe that? 
In the UK broadband providers were advertising ‘up to’ speeds but the lawmaker changed the rules as some ISPs were only providing those speeds at night or for a fraction of the day. 

‘Up to’ means ‘it will hit that speed under ideal circumstances but it won’t hold it for ever’. It cannot mean ‘it may not reach that speed’ - that’s called false advertisement.


----------



## toxic80 (Sep 2, 2019)

Wtf, I have 200 poins in cinebench R15 ST and 3200 in MT, 500 points  in ST and 7362 points in cinebench r20 MT. 
All the frustrated people need 4.6GHz.....Go buy 9900k for 5GHz....it's simple!!!!!!!


----------



## lexluthermiester (Sep 2, 2019)

Der*auer seems to have missed something.

I have yet to see any of the Ryzen 3xxx CPU's fail to hit their specs. This is of course after lowering voltage to the correct settings. Motherboard makers are shipping boards with the default voltage set very high. This dumps WAY too much electricity into the CPU and as a result, too much heat to produced. When the voltage is set properly, the CPU's perform as expected.

Jay(JayzTwocents) already addressed in one of his recent video's and I'm going to echo those conclusions. This is a problem created by the board makers, not AMD.


----------



## lewis007 (Sep 2, 2019)

And what? Their selling like hotcakes so, whats the big deal! Its not the first time someone has exaggerated the performance metrics of a product and it won't be the last.


----------



## GoldenX (Sep 2, 2019)

Nah, AMD should fix this, by either getting those clocks on all boards, or changing what the box says. Otherwise it's just stupid.


----------



## yotano211 (Sep 2, 2019)

And here I am fine with running 3.8ghz with 8 cores on a laptop. Do people really need that extra 50mhz.


----------



## EarthDog (Sep 2, 2019)

lexluthermiester said:


> Der*auer seems to have missed something.
> 
> I have yet to see any of the Ryzen 3xxx CPU's fail to hit their specs. This is of course after lowering voltage to the correct settings. Motherboard makers are shipping boards with the default voltage set very high. This dumps WAY too much electricity into the CPU and as a result, too much heat to produced. When the voltage is set properly, the CPU's perform as expected.
> 
> Jay(JayzTwocents) already addressed in one of his recent video's and I'm going to echo those conclusions. This is a problem created by the board makers, not AMD.


The motherboard, when on auto/optimized defaults, draws from the VID (aka, we call it Voltage I Demand in reference to the CPU) on the CPU, no? Across all X570 boards I've tested (6+ at this point), I've seen the voltage peak to similar amounts each time from within the BIOS (within windows, it has some control so that shouldn't be used). The BIOS 'is what it is' without power savings, etc...


----------



## lexluthermiester (Sep 3, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> The motherboard, when on auto/optimized defaults, draws from the VID (aka, we call it Voltage I Demand in reference to the CPU) on the CPU, no? Across all X570 boards I've tested (6+ at this point), I've seen the voltage peak to similar amounts each time from within the BIOS (within windows, it has some control so that shouldn't be used). The BIOS 'is what it is' without power savings, etc...


My experiences have been a bit different. Each of the boards in question have been all over the place with voltage when set at the defaults. Setting things manually seems to be the only way to get the voltage to the range it's supposed to be in(1.2-1.3). After this the CPU's behave as they should..


----------



## EarthDog (Sep 3, 2019)

Are you checking in Windows or the UEFI? 

I know with certainty the Intel chips have a VID for each multiplier. When left on auto, the mobo pulls the VID info from the CPU and runs it.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Sep 3, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> Are you checking in Windows or the UEFI?


Both, compared to each other.


EarthDog said:


> I know with certainty the Intel chips have a VID for each multiplier. When left on auto, the mobo pulls the VID info from the CPU and runs it.


That's Intel. Ryzen is a bit more complicated and I think the mobo makers are struggling to get it right. I'll say this, running any Ryzen 3xxx above 1.35v(which it shouldn't require) needs better cooling than the stock solution. High-end heatpipe or liquid cooling is required to keep temps down and clocks at or above stock. OCing requires liquid cooling. My theory is that the limiting variable is the CCX die. It's still at 14nm. If AMD were to drop the CCX die to the 7nm node, Ryzen 3xxx would be much more capable. That combination may have been the only thing they had at the time, but it's still less than optimal.


----------



## EarthDog (Sep 3, 2019)

I can't keep a 3700x under 90C (AIDA64 default stress test) with a H150i at 1.35V. The stock potatos should be done sooner.

Maybe the AIBs are putting in some special sauce.. I don't know. In my yesting so far, after setting optimized defaults and then enabling PBO, there are few gains... some losses even. Not much, maybe 2% here or there, but still, odd. 

Anyway, pretty sure the CPU is calling the shots when on auto... @TheLostSwede - any ideas there for these?


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Sep 3, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> I can't keep a 3700x under 90C (AIDA64 default stress test) with a H150i at 1.35V. The stock potatos should be done sooner.
> 
> Maybe the AIBs are putting in some special sauce.. I don't know. In my yesting so far, after setting optimized defaults and then enabling PBO, there are few gains... some losses even. Not much, maybe 2% here or there, but still, odd.
> 
> Anyway, pretty sure the CPU is calling the shots when on auto... @TheLostSwede - any ideas there for these?


From what I've noted  I would agree with Lex, the heat density on my 2nd gen ryzen makes it actually difficult(like high spec intel chips) to actually get the heat out quick enough, I have exaggerated cooling if applied just to the CPU but I can overegg past it , I have found similar to hardwareCanucks tim application and clamping pressure as well obviously as ambient temps and overall cooling performance matters.

Exactly how many would have actually adequate cooling i wonder?, it isnt cheap?.

I have seen 4.5 clocks on mine,, but it wouldn't be there the second day, in fact, it does quite often settle at a different speed each day and to me seems to vary greatly, that said the vast number of slight configurations I have now ran it with will have also affected that, but now and then i settle on a config for a bit thinking it stable etc, the typical variance is still noted between 4.125 and 4.325, , 4 under sustained load.

 Hopefully grabbing my new chip tomorrow, I could be screaming a different tune tomorrow


----------



## R-T-B (Sep 3, 2019)

Mephis said:


> Chips run at advertised speeds



The problem here is no, they don't always.



lexluthermiester said:


> Der*auer seems to have missed something.
> 
> I have yet to see any of the Ryzen 3xxx CPU's fail to hit their specs. This is of course after lowering voltage to the correct settings. Motherboard makers are shipping boards with the default voltage set very high. This dumps WAY too much electricity into the CPU and as a result, too much heat to produced. When the voltage is set properly, the CPU's perform as expected.
> 
> Jay(JayzTwocents) already addressed in one of his recent video's and I'm going to echo those conclusions. This is a problem created by the board makers, not AMD.



Actually, I'd bet the AGESA package may be doing it, but I could be wrong.  Either way, it does sound like a software solution is possible.  My issue is it should work from day 1...  this is a basic, advertised spec.


----------



## Darmok N Jalad (Sep 3, 2019)

theoneandonlymrk said:


> From what I've noted  I would agree with Lex, the heat density on my 2nd gen ryzen makes it actually difficult(like high spec intel chips) to actually get the heat out quick enough, I have exaggerated cooling if applied just to the CPU but I can overegg past it , I have found similar to hardwareCanucks tim application and clamping pressure as well obviously as ambient temps and overall cooling performance matters.
> 
> Exactly how many would have actually adequate cooling i wonder?, it isnt cheap?.
> 
> ...


Makes me wonder how we will be able to keep up with the cooling on these CPUs as dies continue to shrink and thermal density increases. I can certainly see overclocking fading away, as chips will simply not take kindly to any extra thermal load. I know process advances help, but they are packing billions of transistors into a very small area.


----------



## EarthDog (Sep 3, 2019)

theoneandonlymrk said:


> From what I've noted  I would agree with Lex, the heat density on my 2nd gen ryzen makes it actually difficult(like high spec intel chips) to actually get the heat out quick enough, I have exaggerated cooling if applied just to the CPU but I can overegg past it , I have found similar to hardwareCanucks tim application and clamping pressure as well obviously as ambient temps and overall cooling performance matters.
> 
> Exactly how many would have actually adequate cooling i wonder?, it isnt cheap?.
> 
> ...


My point is that even with the right motherboard, right cooling, right parameters that AMD set forth, reaching max boost still hasn't happened (for me, and many many others, so far). The 1.35V overclocking is my dud of a sample at 4.25 GHz all c/t.

I'm not sure what ambient solution could keep the CPUs under 60C... whoever mentioned that.

This is also Zen 2 we are talking about, not Zen+. These work different;y.


----------



## Flyordie (Sep 3, 2019)

lexluthermiester said:


> Der*auer seems to have missed something.
> 
> I have yet to see any of the Ryzen 3xxx CPU's fail to hit their specs. This is of course after lowering voltage to the correct settings. Motherboard makers are shipping boards with the default voltage set very high. This dumps WAY too much electricity into the CPU and as a result, too much heat to produced. When the voltage is set properly, the CPU's perform as expected.
> 
> Jay(JayzTwocents) already addressed in one of his recent video's and I'm going to echo those conclusions. This is a problem created by the board makers, not AMD.



I second this. 

Even my FX8320 (which is still in service with my neighbors PC).. Gigabyte has default voltage at 1.4125V. Yet, it'll run 1.28V just fine at stock clocks up to about 4.025Ghz. So its entirely possible that this is the issue.


----------



## Minus Infinity (Sep 3, 2019)

You would think they would sample a 1000 or so production ready CPUs, and from the bell curve distribution of attainable max clock speeds, base their rating on the peak of the curve, but it looks like they've done it on wing of the curve where only a small % can make those speeds. It's false advertising plain and simple. I don't really care becuase 25-100MhZ makes bugger all difference in the real world and the real world benchmarks are showing it to be a fantastic update, but we have laws about what you can claim. You don't see Ford saying Mustang can do up to 200mph but can only only hit 170mph and then say well we said "up to". AMD are just opening themselves up to a lawsuit for no good reason other than maybe bragging rights.


----------



## Darmok N Jalad (Sep 3, 2019)

Minus Infinity said:


> You would think they would sample a 1000 or so production ready CPUs, and from the bell curve distribution of attainable max clock speeds, base their rating on the peak of the curve, but it looks like they've done it on wing of the curve where only a small % can make those speeds. It's false advertising plain and simple. I don't really care becuase 25-100MhZ makes bugger all difference in the real world and the real world benchmarks are showing it to be a fantastic update, but we have laws about what you can claim. You don't see Ford saying Mustang can do up to 200mph but can only only hit 170mph and then say well we said "up to". AMD are just opening themselves up to a lawsuit for no good reason other than maybe bragging rights.


No, but you need pretty idea conditions to get your mustang to its top rated speed.


----------



## ShrimpBrime (Sep 3, 2019)

When I set all defaults, my single core boost hit the rated speeds. just doesn't say on the box only one core goes that speed.
Tested and verified using PiMod 32m. (Just had to reset all defaults and check my boot settings)


----------



## EarthDog (Sep 3, 2019)

ShrimpBrime said:


> When I set all defaults, my single core boost hit the rated speeds. just doesn't say on the box only one core goes that speed.
> Tested and verified using PiMod 32m. (Just had to reset all defaults and check my boot settings)


I swear it's been mentioned a half dozen times... lol...

..this has nothing to do with zen+.  Nobody complained about zen+ and how it boosts. Thread title says 3rd gen.

But congrats on your cpu working as it should. I cant wait to say the same.


----------



## ShrimpBrime (Sep 3, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> I swear it's been mentioned a half dozen times... lol...
> 
> ..this has nothing to do with zen+.  Nobody complained about zen+ and how it boosts. Thread title says 3rd gen.
> 
> But congrats on your cpu working as it should. I cant wait to say the same.


Is this coming from the same guy that runs his Ryzen chips 90c+?? 
When manually tweak PBO, no single core boost. Needs to be bone stock.

I do confess, haven't a 3600X or higher here to test this issue with. Perhaps I'll land one sometime.


----------



## voltage (Sep 3, 2019)

Darmok N Jalad said:


> What does AMD say about it? Board makers? Polls and threads are only half the story.



AMD does not care, they are flying high. And it seems buyers don't know or care either. Ill remain the only one here not buying AMD this time, and will wait for INTEL's desk top chips next year.


----------



## laszlo (Sep 3, 2019)

a lot to read here... 

mobo default power settings has a lot to do here; no producer will set the default voltage properly especially for cpu's which auto-oc; in order to prevent instability they allow more power ,within the specs&limit without discrimination; if user has no skill to adjust correctly i don't see where is amd's fault 

majority of users had no clue what to do , how to tweak etc... and for mobo producers is more important to be on the safe side which is also normal..


----------



## TheLostSwede (Sep 3, 2019)

laszlo said:


> a lot to read here...
> 
> mobo default power settings has a lot to do here; no producer will set the default voltage properly especially for cpu's which auto-oc; in order to prevent instability they allow more power ,within the specs&limit without discrimination; if user has no skill to adjust correctly i don't see where is amd's fault
> 
> majority of users had no clue what to do , how to tweak etc... and for mobo producers is more important to be on the safe side which is also normal..



Are you seriously calling this user error?
Whatever dude...
You clearly haven't bothered reading up on the issue at all then.


----------



## Vlada011 (Sep 3, 2019)

And how much is boost of R9-3900X on fabric frequency?
On all cores? 
I decide to wait. For now I never made mistake for platform except when I bought Phenom AM3 instead i7-920 1136.
I believe decision to wait is good because I feel something will become obsolete soon, not just waiting newer hardware because performance.


----------



## notb (Sep 3, 2019)

lexluthermiester said:


> That's Intel. Ryzen is a bit more complicated and I think the mobo makers are struggling to get it right.


So why doesn't AMD just help them? They've launched these CPUs with some specification, so they must have been able to build a reference system that worked as on the box.
Why is it so difficult for the second largest x86 maker to provide support for 10 motherboard manufacturers? It's a common cause.
Mobo makers don't have a choice - they have to launch a product even if it means reverse engineering a CPU.

I don't think I've ever heard of another high-profile company doing business like that. In most industries (surely automotive, financial) competitors go along with each other better than AMD does with its essential partners. Bonkers.


----------



## GreiverBlade (Sep 3, 2019)

lexluthermiester said:


> Jay(JayzTwocents) already addressed in one of his recent video's and I'm going to echo those conclusions. This is a problem created by the board makers, not AMD.


ah thanks i was about to mention that



GoldenX said:


> Nah, AMD should fix this, by either getting those clocks on all boards, or changing what the box says. Otherwise it's just stupid.


it's not AMD to fix it ... it's the motherboard makers that should be. (although AMD could/should help them ... )

also .... remember when peoples used to disable Intel Turboboost? and now that's AMD that has a useless "max speed boost can reach under optimal situation" but "doesn't reach it because of no one give a damn about optimal situation" it's a freaking scandale? oh well ...



Spoiler: again



i remember that my 3.5ghz i5 6600K is advertised to boost to 3.9ghz
well nope Intel write :
"*Intel® Core™ i5-6600K Processor*
6M Cache, *up to* 3.90 GHz"
wouldn't be an issue if it did boost at all ...



AMD could correct the issue indeed ... by putting a little "*" behind the turbo and write
"*Max Turbo Frequency*
Max turbo frequency is the maximum single core frequency at which the processor is capable of operating using Intel® Turbo Boost Technology and, if present, Intel® Thermal Velocity Boost. Frequency is measured in gigahertz (GHz), or billion cycles per second."
like Intel does ...  using their own term and techs in place of Intel's nomenclature, because their advertised speed is indeed the max they can reach ... but they can reach is in some case, thus is it wrongly advertised? if they can reach it only under specific situations? ... well, no ...


well at last i know i do not care about Boost ... (otherwise i would be sueing Intel for my 6600K but boost is useless versus manual OC ... and well AMD will bring that i have lost on my current CPU to me soon (tm))


----------



## TheLostSwede (Sep 3, 2019)

A little snipped of information I just got. It would seem AMD doesn't have a solution to the problem yet, at least not one they've communicated to the board makers, so it might be some time before this is resolved, if it can be 100% resolved that is.


----------



## Midland Dog (Sep 3, 2019)

Vayra86 said:


> Too bad it does hit 100C at times, though, unless you throw a lot of cooling at it. And if you don't, you're stuck with allcore turbo's that are as 'low' as with AMD.
> 
> Its not that much greener on the blue side.


its green enough that im only %7 ipc behind with a 2014 chip that clocks higher than a brand new 7nm one while having almost equivelant ipc



GreiverBlade said:


> ohhhh my, changing mobo would solve my issue ... crap why didn't i... oh wait ... i had a ASRock mobo for testing before the actual one i have ... and the OC loss even occurred during her time ...
> just in case my 6600K is a 6600k my mobo is a Z170 the OC did work neatly, on both mobo, until the famous microcode update Intel pushed via WUpdate (by mistake probably .... but for me it's still not corrected )
> 
> as for the rest ... still laughing nonetheless ... the issue quoted here for AMD is meager compared to what i am seeing with Intel and the 6600K issue i have ...is the last drop
> ...


how much vcore did u use, i have a feeling u probably severely degraded your chip, 2nd gen 14nm parts shouldnt really be over 1.35v, if u used LLC at a high level that might have done it, then again i booted a g3258 at 1.6v 4.9ghz on air


----------



## EarthDog (Sep 3, 2019)

ShrimpBrime said:


> Is this coming from the same guy that runs his Ryzen chips 90c+??
> When manually tweak PBO, no single core boost. Needs to be bone stock.
> 
> I do confess, haven't a 3600X or higher here to test this issue with. Perhaps I'll land one sometime.


What...the...hell... does how hot I run Ryzen stress testing in overclocking have to do with anything? Manual PBO... huh?

Were you drinking? That post doesnt even make sense... .


----------



## laszlo (Sep 3, 2019)

TheLostSwede said:


> Are you seriously calling this user error?
> Whatever dude...
> You clearly haven't bothered reading up on the issue at all then.




i call it "error" ?; nope, you maybe , seems you haven't bothered to read my post , one btw...

average user don't really start to change settings in bios as either don't care, don't know..  or afraid to f.u. something... is this an "error" ?


----------



## R0H1T (Sep 3, 2019)

notb said:


> So why doesn't AMD just help them? They've launched these CPUs with some specification, so they must have been able to build a reference system that worked as on the box.
> Why is it so difficult for the second largest x86 maker to provide support for 10 motherboard manufacturers? It's a common cause.
> Mobo makers don't have a choice - they have to launch a product even if it means reverse engineering a CPU.
> 
> I don't think I've ever heard of another high-profile company doing business like that. In most industries (surely automotive, financial) competitors go along with each other better than AMD does with its essential partners. Bonkers.


The problem is AMD also said "backwards compatibility" ~ remember that & how it caused a furor just before launch? Enter some el cheapo motherboard with questionable VRM & some guy trying to run his 3900x on it, boom - what do we know, sparks fly & AMD has Note 7 (8?) type lawsuit on their hands! I'm not sure how many cores on 3rd gen chips could sustain or reach their rated clocks, however looking at other (reputable) sources on the web it seems the problem is a bit more  complicated than just *ZOMG AMD lied again*


----------



## Chrispy_ (Sep 3, 2019)

Who cares about single-core boost any more anyway? 4375MHz for 8 nanoseconds in a synthetic test or 4400MHz? It doesn't matter.

People buying expensive multi-core CPUs capable of running 16+ threads aren't interested in sub-1% single-threaded performance differences when 15/16ths of their CPU is idle.

Currently, my PC is running Windows 10 1903 and around 6 desktop apps with low CPU usage, four of which are idle in the background and my Task Manager states that 222 processes are running across 3000+ threads and my CPU load is at 3% spread across eight logical cores.

The concept of having just a single core active on a modern PC is hopelessly false. The only way it's possible is with a synthetic test that runs at highest priority and hogs all logical cores for itself, and then intentionally stalls all cores except one.

In the real world, those 3000+ threads are for the OS and applications I'm running. I want them to run smoothly and silently in the background and if that means my CPU only peaks at 4350MHz instead of the synthetic 4400MHz in a completely arbitrary and unrealistic test, then so be it. I've been witnessing similar behaviour from my Intel CPUs going back to the 2500K I bought. Yes, those hit the exact speeds but only because the steps between frequencies were so huge. They also rarely stayed at their max boost for significant periods, because even in the simpler days of Windows 7 the sheer number of threads the OS was running prevented any cores from going idle long enough to allow single-core boosting to happen.

AMD probably should have deducted 50MHz from their advertised speeds. It's too late now and haters gonna hate but it's hardly a secret that peak boost is an unrealistic scenario, that's how the CPU scene has played things for a decade now.

In time, TSMC's 7nm yields may improve, and a greater percentage of processors will briefly and meaninglessly exceed the arbitrarily-chosen, peak, synthetic, single-core clockspeed. In the meantime, just use your CPU and be happy with it, regardless of what colour box it came in. Windows will never leave your 'idle' cores alone so you're never going to come within 100MHz of the advertised single-threaded peak clock regardless.


----------



## newtekie1 (Sep 3, 2019)

Vya Domus said:


> When everyone else will do the same. As far as they're concerned they just do what everyone else does, Nividia sold FE Pascal cards that were advertised to have a certain boost clock but they all ran pretty much at the base clock after 5 minutes under load.



When did that happen? AFAIK, all the FE cards were able to maintain their advertised boost clocks under load.  They lowered from the maximum boost clocks, but maintained the advertised boost clocks.

Remember, nVidia cards boost significantly past their advertised boost clocks.  I can't remember a time when AMD products ever boosted past the advertised boost clocks.


----------



## FinneousPJ (Sep 3, 2019)

"he has found out that a majority of the 3000 series Ryzen CPUs are not hitting their advertised boost speeds."

This is exactly the conclusion you CANNOT draw from this. This sample is biased and the testing is uncontrolled - extending the conclusion to the whole population of Zen 2 CPUs is stupid (if you don't understand what's wrong) or dishonest (if you don't care).


----------



## Vya Domus (Sep 3, 2019)

newtekie1 said:


> When did that happen? AFAIK, all the FE cards were able to maintain their advertised boost clocks under load.  They lowered from the maximum boost clocks, but maintained the advertised boost clocks.
> 
> Remember, nVidia cards boost significantly past their advertised boost clocks.  I can't remember a time when AMD products ever boosted past the advertised boost clocks.



No, they didn't.

An FE 1080 for example was advertised to have a boost clock of 1733mhz but you can look at various reviews that under load it would drop well below that. There was no "maximum" just this one "boost clock". What it means, well be my guest, it's certainly not a maximum nor a minimum though. That's for sure.






In addition to that one can say AMD doesn't have full control over cooling, power delivery and whatnot but Nvidia did, they knowingly shipped cards with the sort of cooling that wouldn't support those boost clocks all the time. And don't get me wrong, AMD does the same for their GPUs. The point is *no one is truthful* with their boost clocks, there is always caveat, so either everyone is right or no one is.

No one cared though, because it's all about expectations not how truthful you are.


----------



## mahoney (Sep 3, 2019)

Nkd said:


> Look I am not debating about people not hitting their boost clocks. I am 25mhz below so you could count me in. But if you are after stats he should know better given how respectable he is. That is a very skewed result.
> 
> there are so many missing factors in there it’s hardly factual.
> Like throwing away things he didn’t even ask for in the survey. Also what were the users using to monitor the boost clocks?
> ...


He gave all the info needed on how to do the test. Did you even watch his previous vid?


----------



## EarthDog (Sep 3, 2019)

newtekie1 said:


> When did that happen? AFAIK, all the FE cards were able to maintain their advertised boost clocks under load.  They lowered from the maximum boost clocks, but maintained the advertised boost clocks.
> 
> Remember, nVidia cards boost significantly past their advertised boost clocks.  I can't remember a time when AMD products ever boosted past the advertised boost clocks.


Spot on. Though NVIDIA doesn't list max boost clocks AFAIK.

The boosts listed for the cards are a minimum boost. Typically boosting 100-200 MHz higher in normal gaming operations (so  long as limits aren't hit and temperatures are kept under their throttling point of 84C (or w/e it is).









						The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 & GTX 1070 Founders Editions Review: Kicking Off the FinFET Generation
					






					www.anandtech.com
				











						NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 8 GB Review
					

NVIDIA's GeForce GTX 1080 was announced recently. Today, we have the first review! Performance is incredible, doubling GTX 970 performance levels. Efficiency is also sky high, nearly doubling everything we've seen from NVIDIA's Maxwell architecture. Our GTX 1080 review compares 10 cards in 16...




					www.techpowerup.com
				




....and the list goes on.

If anyone has a link to a review where these drop below the minimum boost and isn't running furmark and not pegged at 84C/temp limit.......please post it up.


----------



## mahoney (Sep 3, 2019)

GreiverBlade said:


> probably because it's a "can reach" boost frequencies ... that some of us don't care about the "OH GOD THAT'S UNACCEPTABLE! THEY LIED!"
> 
> it's less an issue that what i mentioned above ... (aka a 6600K that can't OC anymore ... heck he doesn't even boost and stay at 3.9ghz lately ... ) or performance loss due to mitigation patch applied for security issues ...















They dug themselves into this mess. 1 week before launch they released this vid. Now imagine how many people pre-ordered their cpu's based on these what if's?


----------



## Chomiq (Sep 3, 2019)

Yup, that was misleading.


----------



## Chrispy_ (Sep 3, 2019)

Vya Domus said:


> No, they didn't.
> 
> An FE 1080 for example was advertised to have a boost clock of 1733mhz but you can look at various reviews that under load it would drop well below that. There was no "maximum" just this one "boost clock". What it means, well be my guest, it's certainly not a maximum nor a minimum though. That's for sure.
> 
> ...



Exactly. The only *GUARANTEED* speed is the base clock. If you can't reach that, something is wrong.
Boost is opportunistic, regardless of whether we're talking about CPUs or GPUs, and regardless of whether it's a red, green, or blue logo on the product.


mahoney said:


> They dug themselves into this mess. 1 week before launch they released this vid. Now imagine how many people pre-ordered their cpu's based on these what if's?


No, that's specifically about PBO overclocking using top-tier motherboards and comes clearly emphasised with the words "might" and "maybe". The dude even slows down and stresses those words, making it clear to anyone with functioning braincells that is it *NOT A GUARANTEE *you will get those speeds.

How can people not understand the Silicon Lottery and concept of Overclocking by now? 
De8auer's takes the time and effort at the start of the video to very clearly explain that he threw out all of the PBO and PBO+ results and only looked at bone-stock submissions. Don't go bringing PBO+ overclocking into this discussion, it's a strawman argument that isn't remotely helping.


----------



## EarthDog (Sep 3, 2019)

mahoney said:


> They dug themselves into this mess. 1 week before launch they released this vid. Now imagine how many people pre-ordered their cpu's based on these what if's?


Wait for it.................wait..........for.............it...



Jebaited.



So, how many users have been able to overclock (it isn't overclocking unless you are going past the box specs, be it by clockspeed or core count for clockspeed) past the PBO value (which many/most can't reach)? I've literally only seen a few.


EDIT: "Suddenly, its 4.75 GHz......" that  cracked me up.


----------



## Vya Domus (Sep 3, 2019)

Apparently overclocking should also be guaranteed now and you should be hanged if you dare say your CPUs may be able to overclock past their nominal clocks out of the box.

The lengths to which people would go to in order to come up with shit just to argue against a brand are staggering.


----------



## anachron (Sep 3, 2019)

Vya Domus said:


> No, they didn't.
> 
> An FE 1080 for example was advertised to have a boost clock of 1733mhz but you can look at various reviews that under load it would drop well below that. There was no "maximum" just this one "boost clock". What it means, well be my guest, it's certainly not a maximum nor a minimum though. That's for sure.
> 
> ...



The title of the picture you used is "Average Clockspeeds", and the "Max Boost Clock" line indicate 1898mhz, far above 1733. So unless there are more informations in the article it come from, it doesn't prove that the 1080 didn't at least reached 1733mhz in every game tested at some point. In the case of AMD, it seems to me (i don't have one so it's just based on previous posts) that some peoples can never reach the advertised boost clock.


----------



## Vya Domus (Sep 3, 2019)

anachron said:


> The title of the picture you used is "Average Clockspeeds", and the "Max Boost Clock" line indicate 1898mhz, far above 1733.



???

If it's the max and sometimes the average is under that 1733 figure then that means it wouldn't reach it's advertised clock speed all the time. Isn't that as straight forward as it can possibly get ?

No one has "proved" that some AMD CPU's can never reach their max clock speed under any circumstance as far as I know.


----------



## EarthDog (Sep 3, 2019)

anachron said:


> The title of the picture you used is "Average Clockspeeds", and the "Max Boost Clock" line indicate 1898mhz, far above 1733. So unless there are more informations in the article it come from, it doesn't prove that the 1080 didn't at least reached 1733mhz in every game tested at some point. In the case of AMD, it seems to me (i don't have one so it's just based on previous posts) that some peoples can never reach the advertised boost clock.


Here is some context to the cherry picking (and deflection off the real subject).



> As a percentage of the maximum boost clock, the average clockspeeds of the the GTX 1080 and GTX 1070 both drop more significantly than with GTX 980, where the latter only drops a few percent from its maximum. This is due to a combination of the temperature compensation effect we discussed earlier and both cards hitting 83C (though so does GTX 980). Either way both cards are still happily running in the 1700MHz range, *and the averages for both cards remain north of NVIDIA’s official boost clock.* Though this does give us a good idea as to why the official boost clock is so much lower than the cards’ maximum boost clocks.



Banging off the temp limit (as I said is not a good example of)...

The AMD CPUs not reaching the listed boost clock (which is not overclocking - the FACTORY lists that clock) is a SYSTEMIC issue, not a one off like one site showed the GTX 1080 to run in two games.


----------



## anachron (Sep 3, 2019)

Vya Domus said:


> ???
> 
> If it's the max and sometimes the max is under that 1733 figure then that means it wouldn't reach it's advertised clock speed. Isn't that as straight forward as it can possibly get ?
> 
> No one has "proved" that some AMD CPU's can never reach their max clock speed under any circumstance as far as I know.


As i said, your own chart title his "*Average* clockspeed", not "Max clockspeed".


----------



## Midland Dog (Sep 3, 2019)

anachron said:


> The title of the picture you used is "Average Clockspeeds", and the "Max Boost Clock" line indicate 1898mhz, far above 1733. So unless there are more informations in the article it come from, it doesn't prove that the 1080 didn't at least reached 1733mhz in every game tested at some point. In the case of AMD, it seems to me (i don't have one so it's just based on previous posts) that some peoples can never reach the advertised boost clock.


gpus arent cpus, and anyone that knows anything would gladly sacrafice %20 core clock for %20 more vram clock, for a cpu it matters heaps, 4.6ghz got me an average of 103 on bl2 with a min of 66 (battle at overlook is a great bench very consistant test, 4.7ghz gave me 114 and a min of 73, on zen that 100mhz would make far more difference


----------



## Vya Domus (Sep 3, 2019)

anachron said:


> As i said, your own chart title his "*Average* clockspeed", not "Max clockspeed".



Maybe I wasn't clear enough. Let's lay it out in the simplest way possible.

Nivida says 1733 is the boost clock. I play a game and the average recorded clock speed is *under* that value, this means that the advertised boost clock wasn't reached most of the time and in fact the clock speed sat under it most of the time.

The comment to which I replied claimed Nvidia's figures were maximums and that the cards always sat at their advertised clocks. This is false, that's not the maximum and 1733mhz is *the only* advertised figure.


----------



## Midland Dog (Sep 3, 2019)

Vya Domus said:


> ???
> 
> If it's the max and sometimes the average is under that 1733 figure then that means it wouldn't reach it's advertised clock speed all the time. Isn't that as straight forward as it can possibly get ?
> 
> No one has "proved" that some AMD CPU's can never reach their max clock speed under any circumstance as far as I know.


pascal is highly temp sensitive with clocks, 5c steps it up/down by 13mhz, a 2152 oc on a quiet curve might become 2177 or 2164 on an aggressive curve, heck my aib card boosted to 2025 factory, and does 2190 happily on air. der8auer proved that some (most) zen 2 cpus cant RUN at the ADVERTISED boost only 5.7% were from memory. I personally would be fuming if i bought a chip rated for 4.7ghz and it was a lemon and can only do 4.2ghz id be pissed



Midland Dog said:


> pascal is highly temp sensitive with clocks, 5c steps it up/down by 13mhz, a 2152 oc on a quiet curve might become 2177 or 2164 on an aggressive curve, heck my aib card boosted to 2025 factory, and does 2190 happily on air. der8auer proved that some (most) zen 2 cpus cant RUN at the ADVERTISED boost only 5.7% were from memory. I personally would be fuming if i bought a chip rated for 4.7ghz and it was a lemon and can only do 4.2ghz id be pissed


the best solution is that for zen 3 amd lists the max all core boost, because that would be close enough to the max all core oc, in the same way that intels single core boost is close to its max all core oc if not lower


----------



## Vya Domus (Sep 3, 2019)

Midland Dog said:


> pascal is highly temp sensitive with clocks, 5c steps it up/down by 13mhz, a 2152 oc on a quiet curve might become 2177 or 2164 on an aggressive curve, heck my aib card boosted to 2025 factory, and does 2190 happily on air. der8auer proved that some (most) zen 2 cpus cant RUN at the ADVERTISED boost only 5.7% were from memory. I personally would be fuming if i bought a chip rated for 4.7ghz and it was a lemon and can only do 4.2ghz id be pissed



Irrelevant, Nvidia shipped cards designed by them *which they knew would be thermally limited*. They set the temperature limit to 83C and with the cooler provided it reached that temperature all the time by default. The matter of the fact is, FE Pascal cards would not stay at their advertised boost clocks all the time. It's as simple as that.


----------



## EarthDog (Sep 3, 2019)

Midland Dog said:


> pascal is highly temp sensitive with clocks, 5c steps it up/down by 13mhz, a 2152 oc on a quiet curve might become 2177 or 2164 on an aggressive curve, heck my aib card boosted to 2025 factory, and does 2190 happily on air. der8auer proved that some (most) zen 2 cpus cant RUN at the ADVERTISED boost only 5.7% were from memory. I personally would be fuming if i bought a chip rated for 4.7ghz and it was a lemon and can only do 4.2ghz id be pissed


We've also proven that under any circumstances the CPU can't hit the clocks. I'm still waiting as are many others, to see max boost. Again, I've tried over 6 motherboards, multiple BIOS' on each, single threaded loads, have a 3x120mm cooler, lowered polling rates and left the thing up for 24 hours, etc. I CANT HIT IT AND I AM EASILY WITHIN THEIR PARAMETERS. The same with many (most) users are finding. AMD didn't change the verbiage there because there wasn't a problem.......lol

So funny that example...average when we are talking peaks which the AMD CPU can't even hit. Also calling the boost clock overclocking when its a factory spec, lawllawllawl. Re-FUCKING-diculous.


----------



## Midland Dog (Sep 3, 2019)

Vya Domus said:


> Irrelevant, Nvidia shipped cards designed by them *which they knew would be thermally limited*. The matter of the fact is, FE Pascal cards would not stay at their advertised boost clocks all the time. It's as simple as that.


you missed my thesis, pascal is temperature sensitive, if u ramped that blower up it would probably gladly sit in the 1900 range as long as the blower fan doesnt take to much power budget, fun fact the strix 1060 cooler's fans use about 9% of total power budget at max rpm



Midland Dog said:


> you missed my thesis, pascal is temperature sensitive, if u ramped that blower up it would probably gladly sit in the 1900 range as long as the blower fan doesnt take to much power budget, fun fact the strix 1060 cooler's fans use about 9% of total power budget at max rpm


more comment sprawl but if the 3900x did 4.7ghz all core id have it in my rig right now and it would be at least %15 faster than my 4690k in the games i play, which is a great gain


----------



## EarthDog (Sep 3, 2019)

I'll just post this again...



> What we find is that from the start of the run until the end, the GPU clockspeed drops from the maximum boost bin of 1898MHz to a sustained 1822MHz, a drop of 4%, or 6 clockspeed bins. These shifts happen relatively consistently up to 68C, after which they stop.








So when it hits the THERMAL THROTTLING TEMPERATURE, of course its going to drop bins! All one needs to do is a quick fan speed adjustment or raise the temp limit.. done. AMD isn't hitting any throttling point and can't do for most it is the point... no matter what!! Let's not lose the fact that this is a AMD CPU thread and it is silly to go down this hole of a GPU analog.

The point is AMD is struggling mightly for most to hit their advertised (stock) clocks. Period. AMD fans can call it overclocking all they want to, but it isn't 'the same bloody issue' FFS that couldn't be any more obvious we are comparing apples and oranges...

It is something that was 'guaranteed' to hit it IF the parameters they set forth are in play...according to AMD and the jebaited baldy.

I digress on this point.


----------



## Vya Domus (Sep 3, 2019)

Midland Dog said:


> you missed my thesis, pascal is temperature sensitive, if u ramped that blower up it would probably gladly sit in the 1900 range as long as the blower fan doesnt take to much power budget, fun fact the strix 1060 cooler's fans use about 9% of total power budget at max rpm



We are here to prove AMD is evil and is falsely advertising tubo clocks not that Pascal is temperature sensitive. 

If you need a different cooler because the product was temperature sensitive then you either should have shipped a different cooler or advertised different clocks. See ? It's the same bloody issue, everyone is getting liberal with way they come up with these figure.


----------



## TheLostSwede (Sep 3, 2019)

Chrispy_ said:


> Exactly. The only *GUARANTEED* speed is the base clock. If you can't reach that, something is wrong.
> Boost is opportunistic, regardless of whether we're talking about CPUs or GPUs, and regardless of whether it's a red, green, or blue logo on the product.
> 
> No, that's specifically about PBO overclocking using top-tier motherboards and comes clearly emphasised with the words "might" and "maybe". The dude even slows down and stresses those words, making it clear to anyone with functioning braincells that is it *NOT A GUARANTEE *you will get those speeds.
> ...


And when people don't even get close to boost speeds, this is AMD spitting in people's face, no?
Judging by der8auer's video, all of two dozen people seems to be hitting speeds above the boost on the 3900X, less on every other chip except the 3800X. And hitting 25-50MHz above boost isn't exactly impressive when AMD talks 100-200MHz above boost.
I have said top-tier board, the right cooling and everything else, yet at one point, I was stuck at 4,400MHz and couldn't go 1MHz above, but a recent UEFI update got me to 4,525MHz during boost on three of my cores. 
As such, there are issues, but AMD isn't being forthcoming with what's going on, which I think is what frustrates people the most.


----------



## Midland Dog (Sep 3, 2019)

Vya Domus said:


> We are here to prove AMD is evil and is falsely advertising tubo clocks not that Pascal is temperature sensitive.
> 
> If you need a different cooler because the product was temperature sensitive then you either should have shipped a different cooler or advertised different clocks. See ? It's the same bloody issue, everyone is getting liberal with way they come up with these figure.


1: 1080 fe doesnt drop below boost, 2: no one wants to prove amd is evil, im actually dissapointed that zen 2 didnt compell me to upgrade some of my old d3d9 games really need more st perf, 3: amd SAID it should boost to 4.7ghz and yet only a small portion get close, the majority dont even in a controlled environment. The core wars are more retarded than i am, it wont get us anywhere, the best way to increase multi threaded perf is to make faster individual cores, not ad more cores and complexity, extra cores need to be fed, fewer faster cores will still need to be fed but it will be far easier to design them and older programs and newer ones alike would scale


----------



## anachron (Sep 3, 2019)

Vya Domus said:


> Maybe I wasn't clear enough. Let's lay it out in the simplest way possible.
> 
> Nivida says 1733 is the boost clock. I play a game and the average recorded clock speed is *under* that value, this means that the advertised boost clock wasn't reached most of the time and in fact the clock speed sat under it most of the time.
> 
> The comment to which I replied claimed Nvidia's figures were maximums and that the cards always sat at their advertised clocks. This is false, that's not the maximum and 1733mhz is *the only* advertised figure.


While i agree with you that nvidia is not the perfect example on advertising done right, the card reach the advertised boost clock in at least seven of the nine games of your charts, it's still better than never reach it. So i understand why people are reacting more angrily to the zen 2 issue.


----------



## Vya Domus (Sep 3, 2019)

Midland Dog said:


> 1: 1080 fe doesnt drop below boost



Sure it does, maybe you missed it have a look at this picture again.






You know how averages work, right ? If some measurement is supposed to stay above value X but the average is below X then that means it *dropped below that number*.


----------



## Midland Dog (Sep 3, 2019)

i actually enjoy analysing the cpu market at the moment all though i feel that amd has lost site of what a cpu should be. a cpu is designed to do serial tasks in a timely manner, gpus do parallel, ryzen feels more like a hybrid uArch, trying to parallelise a cpu if you will, its a great idea but they already have a gpu department that does that. intel on the other hand builds a cpu to do what a cpu should do



Vya Domus said:


> Sure it does, maybe you missed it have a look at this picture again.
> 
> 
> View attachment 130899
> ...


average clocks that are 1 step off of the boost, or average clocks that are 400 mhz off of the boost which one sounds better, keeping in mind that 13mhz gpu core equates to a hole 71 gflops id say it makes less of a difference there


----------



## Vya Domus (Sep 3, 2019)

anachron said:


> While i agree with you that nvidia is not the perfect example on advertising done right



So that's my point. Getting mad on a per basis case is useless, these guy don't advertise these things based on what some guys on a form say. They advertise them based on what everyone else does, so everyone needs to stop.



Midland Dog said:


> less of a difference there



Same goes for a 3900X then, 4550 is close enough. This is exactly what I am talking about, people are fine with one manufacturer doing it but not with the other.


----------



## TheLostSwede (Sep 3, 2019)

Midland Dog said:


> intel on the other hand builds a cpu to do what a cpu should do


Which is what exactly?
Are you saying that Intel CPU's have been the same since the early days of the 4004 in how they work?
I guess you've never heard of AVX? Afaik, AVX is massively parallel...


----------



## Midland Dog (Sep 3, 2019)

TheLostSwede said:


> Which is what exactly?
> Are you saying that Intel CPU's have been the same since the early days of the 4004 in how they work?
> I guess you've never heard of AVX? Afaik, AVX is massively parallel...


yes avx is a parallel task however intels focus is still to get the most throughput out of what cores it has, amds current design goal is to add cores to hit the required throughput. i dont forsee a physical ipc wall but i do forsee a core scaling wall



Midland Dog said:


> yes avx is a parallel task however intels focus is still to get the most throughput out of what cores it has, amds current design goal is to add cores to hit the required throughput. i dont forsee a physical ipc wall but i do forsee a core scaling wall


heres a good read, amdahl's law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amdahl's_law


----------



## Vya Domus (Sep 3, 2019)

Another funny thing is that we are talking about something that was *never meant to be guaranteed, never has been and never will.* Every manufacturer has been clear on this from day one ever since "turbo clocks" became a thing.

Turbo clocks being a requirement or a guarantee is something people came up with on their own.


----------



## Midland Dog (Sep 3, 2019)

Vya Domus said:


> Another funny thing is that we are talking about something that was *never meant to be guaranteed.* Every manufacturer has been clear on this from day one ever since "turbo clocks" became a thing.
> 
> Turbo clocks being a requirement or guartee is something people came up with on their own.


except that for the last however many years boost clock was basically guaranteed, tell me an intel or amd gen prior to ryzen that couldnt hit its boost on a large scale. we arent just talking about half of the ryzens not hitting boost we are talking about ONLY 5.7% of a sku hits its boost, please tell me that you dont believe that only 5.7% of 9900k chips have hit 5ghz boost, because that is soooooo wrong



Midland Dog said:


> except that for the last however many years boost clock was basically guaranteed, tell me an intel or amd gen prior to ryzen that couldnt hit its boost on a large scale. we arent just talking about half of the ryzens not hitting boost we are talking about ONLY 5.7% of a sku hits its boost, please tell me that you dont believe that only 5.7% of 9900k chips have hit 5ghz boost, because that is soooooo wrong


9590 certainly wouldnt have sold if the advertised 5ghz only meant 4.6ghz in the real world


----------



## Vya Domus (Sep 3, 2019)

Midland Dog said:


> except that for the last however many years boost clock was basically guaranteed



Except that's not the case and it wouldn't even make sense. If the turbo clock is a guarantee then they would just write one number, however they don't, they say "this is the base clock" (guaranteed) and this is the "turbo clock" (mileage may vary).

The distinction is there, they are not the same thing and they are not both guaranteed. Then it would just be one number.


----------



## Midland Dog (Sep 3, 2019)

Vya Domus said:


> Except that's not the case and it wouldn't even make sense. If the turbo clock is a guarantee then they would just write one number, however they don't, they say "this is the base clock" (guaranteed) and this is the "turbo clock" (mileage may vary).
> 
> The distinction is there, they are not the same thing and they are not both guaranteed. Then it would just be one number.


i feel that i havent expressed my point clearly enough, AMD CANT LABEL A CHIP AS 4.7GHZ IF THE SILLICON IS SO BORKED THAT IT WONT DO 4.3GHZ, INTEL CAN LABEL A BOOST CLOCK AT 5GHZ BECAUSE ALL 9900K CAN DO IT ON AT LEAST 1 THREAD. dont sell borked sillicon at impossible clocks


----------



## Vya Domus (Sep 3, 2019)

Midland Dog said:


> i feel that i havent expressed my point clearly enough



You did but unfortunately, you're wrong. Turbo clocks have never been guaranteed by anyone, you might get them you may not and to varying degrees.


----------



## Midland Dog (Sep 3, 2019)

Vya Domus said:


> You did but unfortunately, you're wrong. Turbo clocks have never been guaranteed by anyone, you might get them you may not and to varying degrees.


well EVERY INTEL chip ive owned hit its turbo, if the sillicon cant hit those clocks then tell us so we dont expect intel crushing perf in older titles


----------



## EarthDog (Sep 3, 2019)

AMD Updates Ryzen Product Pages to Elaborate on "Max Boost Clocks"
					

AMD over the weekend updated the product-pages of its Ryzen processors on the company website to be very specific about what they mean by "Max Boost Clocks," that are advertised almost as extensively as the processor's main nominal clock-speeds. AMD describes it has "the maximum single-core...




					www.techpowerup.com
				









"NOMINAL conditions". People have 'nominal' covered and it still isn't hitting the max boost clock. They even had to change their verbiage.... update a video that said 5 GHz.... they are taking far too many liberties on clocks....................


----------



## Tatty_One (Sep 3, 2019)

I have to say, I am not convinced citing non CPU hardware and other manufacturers "also" fail to meet (occasionally or a sustained?)  boost speed is relevant and it certainly does not negate the topic of this thread, IMO any hardware that does not perform and generally sustain an advertised spec is simply wrong, I don't see any point in saying because something else also does not it kind of makes it OK ……… so can we change direction and stick to at least just CPU's please.


----------



## Midland Dog (Sep 3, 2019)

Midland Dog said:


> well EVERY INTEL chip ive owned hit its turbo, if the sillicon cant hit those clocks then tell us so we dont expect intel crushing perf in older titles


heck even my old macbook pro (8,1) hit 3ghz for a minute before it hit 100c


----------



## jaggerwild (Sep 3, 2019)

I could have sworn I brought this up before (earlier threads but was ignored), I'm a sit back n watch now.


----------



## Midland Dog (Sep 3, 2019)

jaggerwild said:


> I could have sworn I brought this up before(earlier threads but was ignored), I'm a sit back n watch now.


well then mate apply for an editorial role at tpu, you picked a topic of debate that keeps people at the site to either shitpost or take things to heart, all the marks of a good writer



jaggerwild said:


> I could have sworn I brought this up before(earlier threads but was ignored), I'm a sit back n watch now.


since i spot an x99 owner, have you toyed with OCing ddr4? im more curious as to if the imc dictates the max mem clocks or if the type of dram matters, mainly because i have benched a ddr3 1333 kit at 2933, just curious thats all



Midland Dog said:


> well then mate apply for an editorial role at tpu, you picked a topic of debate that keeps people at the site to either shitpost or take things to heart, all the marks of a good writer
> 
> 
> since i spot an x99 owner, have you toyed with OCing ddr4? im more curious as to if the imc dictates the max mem clocks or if the type of dram matters, mainly because i have benched a ddr3 1333 kit at 2933, just curious thats all


on haswell


----------



## jaggerwild (Sep 3, 2019)

Nope, haven't really overclocked or even looked at my memory timings. I set at default, been working my ass off mostly. Hell that reminds me to check if the default V core is correct........UGH!! Back on topic, Intel cores ALL BOOST to said speed even when overclocked, AMD no only a few cherry cores will boost the others sit back n watch.


----------



## Nordic (Sep 3, 2019)

I just found this thread today, and it was amusing to see various people saying either user error, temperature constraints, or power constraints are the issue. I hope one day soon I get a bios update that allows my cpu to actually reach 4600mhz. I plan to install full custom watercooling hopefully later this year to raise my average boost clocks higher. These ryzen cpu's are really great.


----------



## bogami (Sep 3, 2019)

What you can expect from a waste die series!   Not even close to GPU OC capability.   8 and less core  -  25 gb/s of writing is easily surpassed by DDR3 on my system.    7nm technology is Marketing expression ! . That the truth is shrouded in so much lies that it hurts. they have not reached the six-year-old Intel technology. they touched  in some places. Intel understands the word QUALITY. Think of how disappointed people are with so much inflating the waste series and still is being overpriced! Reviews also don't say much about the way it sells here. THIS AMD R 3000 Series is a proven sale of WASTE COREs ! I Wonder who from all the reviews pll has enough eggs to say it publicly !


----------



## EarthDog (Sep 3, 2019)

And what do you know... AMD sends out an email covering the boost clock issue...promising a FIRMWARE fix.

Now, if this really was an issue of cooling/power/board/silicon lottery/nominal conditions/user error/polling rates/AIB UEFI's, etc, they probably would have said so, right?  Instead, they identified they have an issue and are correcting it via FW and not telling the client some line about "maximum" clocks and whatever other BS was brought up in this thread.

Here it is.......
_



“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.”

Click to expand...

_
EDIT: Did anyone else notice they said "EXPECTED boost clock" and didn't try to split hairs on defining "maximum" or clarifying further what that meant?


----------



## Darmok N Jalad (Sep 3, 2019)

Midland Dog said:


> except that for the last however many years boost clock was basically guaranteed, tell me an intel or amd gen prior to ryzen that couldnt hit its boost on a large scale. we arent just talking about half of the ryzens not hitting boost we are talking about ONLY 5.7% of a sku hits its boost, please tell me that you dont believe that only 5.7% of 9900k chips have hit 5ghz boost, because that is soooooo wrong


My W3690 has never officially hit the claimed boost of 3.73GHz. I don’t mind, because it runs at 3.6GHz all-core, and the base clock is 3.43GHz. It almost hit 3.7GHz on one core once. I’ve always viewed boost clocks as something you _may_ get, but I am more concerned about the all-core sustained clocks, which are usually still higher than the rated base clock for all CPUs.


----------



## ssdpro (Sep 3, 2019)

At least the back and forth can stop. AMD finally admitted a firmware defect and is working on a patch.



> _“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.”_


----------



## EarthDog (Sep 3, 2019)

ssdpro said:


> At least the back and forth can stop. AMD finally admitted a firmware defect and is working on a patch.


Yep! See above. I added in the excerpt to my post. 

I wonder what those who thought otherwise will say now? Do you think we will hear from anyone after this?


----------



## Nordic (Sep 3, 2019)

These amazing cpus are only going to be more amazing once this is fixed.

With an average clockspeed of 4.2ghz my 3900x is performing in the 80th percentile on userbenchmark. Userbenchmark isn't the greatest benchmark, but sometimes aggregate benchmark data can be useful.

I intend to install a full custom water cooling loop later this year, and I am excited to see how high I can get my average clockspeed. Maybe even with this fix amd has planned, I may even exceed the maximum advertised boost clock like that one amd video said may be possible.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Sep 3, 2019)

R-T-B said:


> Actually, I'd bet the AGESA package may be doing it, but I could be wrong.


That is entirely possible.


R-T-B said:


> Either way, it does sound like a software solution is possible. My issue is it should work from day 1... this is a basic, advertised spec.


While I agree, I still have to side with the idea that mobo makers aren't getting it right and need to work it out.


----------



## EarthDog (Sep 3, 2019)

lexluthermiester said:


> While I agree, I still have to side with the idea that mobo makers aren't getting it right and need to work it out.











						Der8auer: Only Small Percentage of 3rd Gen Ryzen CPUs Hit Their Advertised Speeds
					

https://www.techpowerup.com/258201/amd-updates-ryzen-product-pages-to-elaborate-on-max-boost-clocks?cp=5    "NOMINAL conditions". People have 'nominal' covered and it still isn't hitting the max boost clock. They even had to change their verbiage.... update a video that said 5 GHz.... they are...




					www.techpowerup.com
				











						Der8auer: Only Small Percentage of 3rd Gen Ryzen CPUs Hit Their Advertised Speeds
					

https://www.techpowerup.com/258201/amd-updates-ryzen-product-pages-to-elaborate-on-max-boost-clocks?cp=5    "NOMINAL conditions". People have 'nominal' covered and it still isn't hitting the max boost clock. They even had to change their verbiage.... update a video that said 5 GHz.... they are...




					www.techpowerup.com
				




The AIBs have nothing to do with it. Please see the links to the previous posts just above yours.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Sep 3, 2019)

notb said:


> So why doesn't AMD just help them? They've launched these CPUs with some specification, so they must have been able to build a reference system that worked as on the box.


AMD has given them the specs, who knows why they're not following them. Or maybe they just don't understand everything. It has happened.


----------



## GeorgeMan (Sep 3, 2019)

TheLostSwede said:


> Care to share the rest of your hardware, as well as UEFI version? Without that, it's hard to give any suggestions.


Of course. It's the Ryzen 3600, MSI B450 Tomahawk with the AGESA 1.0.0.3AB bios. Rest of system is 2x16GB TridentZ 3200CL15 with Samsung B-die ICs and an EVGA 1080Ti, custom watercooled too. You can see some pictures of the real system here. It doesn't matter if I choose Cool & Quiet, PBO enabled or disabled, not even if I set custom limits on the EDC etc. Everything (including full auto settings) results into 4050-4100MHz on single core workloads, max. VRM temperatures are non-issue too, they max out at ~50°C.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Sep 3, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> The AIBs have nothing to do with it. Please see the links to the previous posts just above yours.


TLDR, and to be fair there is alot of conflicting info available. I'm falling back on what I have observed and been able to make work. I have observed boards applying too much voltage and the CPU's running hot as a result. Lowered the voltage, problem solved. As voltage is applied by settings in the UEFI of the boards in question, the boards made by AIB's are directly responsible. Therefore it is logical to conclude that the AIB's are not getting things right.


----------



## EarthDog (Sep 3, 2019)

lexluthermiester said:


> TLDR, and to be fair there is alot of conflicting info available. I'm falling back on what I have observed and been able to make work. I have observed boards applying too much voltage and the CPU's running hot as a result. Lowered the voltage, problem solved. As voltage is applied by settings in the UEFI of the boards in question, the boards made by AIB's are directly responsible. Therefore it is logical to conclude that the AIB's are not getting things right.


You really should read those before making more posts. 

It isnt a TLDR. Those are links to a single post with a paragraph from AMD stating they are fixing the problem through firmware. They dont mention rogue AIB UEFIs or too much voltage or whatever else you've mentioned.

This is not an AIB problem.


----------



## Chrispy_ (Sep 3, 2019)

I'm not convinced there is a real firmware fix coming. Some minor tweaks perhaps but I suspect the announcement is just damage control to shut up the vocal minority who are making a big deal about this.

There's enough of a spread in the Der8auer survey results to show a clear bell-curve of results implying that this isn't a firmware limitation but simply the spread of results from the silicon lottery. The peak of the bell curve is typically 25-50MHz lower than AMD's figures and if the survey data is realistic then AMD either miscalculated slightly or rounded up the figures to the nearest 0.1GHz.

It's still comical that this topic has even come up, firstly because Intel's CPUs have arbitrary time-limits to their boost, after which they slow down again far more than Zen2 chips do, and secondly because the number of situations where only one core is active in a modern machine is zero. The only people who care about this "peak single-core boost frequency" aren't people who are actually using the chips to do stuff. The minute you give any multi-core CPU a real-world workload, the OS scheduler is going to use all available cores to run background tasks, meaning that 'single core' is never achieved.

Hell, the monitoring software uses a core to monitor the single-threaded synthetic load, thus using a second core. It's so dumb that the only people left arguing it seriously are just in it for the arguing, not actually giving a damn about the topic at all


----------



## lexluthermiester (Sep 3, 2019)

TheLostSwede said:


> A little snipped of information I just got. It would seem AMD doesn't have a solution to the problem yet, at least not one they've communicated to the board makers, so it might be some time before this is resolved, if it *can be 100% resolved that is.*


Your conclusions are incorrect. This is easily solved by lowering voltages.



EarthDog said:


> You really should read those before making more posts.


Why? I have and am solving the problems. If AIB's would lower the default voltages, the problem would be solved. AMD does not need to do anything other than direct this action..


----------



## TheLostSwede (Sep 3, 2019)

GeorgeMan said:


> Of course. It's the Ryzen 3600, MSI B450 Tomahawk with the AGESA 1.0.0.3AB bios. Rest of system is 2x16GB TridentZ 3200CL15 with Samsung B-die ICs and an EVGA 1080Ti, custom watercooled too. You can see some pictures of the real system here. It doesn't matter if I choose Cool & Quiet, PBO enabled or disabled, not even if I set custom limits on the EDC etc. Everything (including full auto settings) results into 4050-4100MHz on single core workloads, max. VRM temperatures are non-issue too, they max out at ~50°C.


Old AGESA could be part of the problem, nothing much you can do about it until MSI releases an update though. I didn't hit the right speeds until the second beta UEFI on AGESA 1.0.0.3ABB from Gigabyte.


----------



## EarthDog (Sep 3, 2019)

lexluthermiester said:


> Your conclusions are incorrect. This is easily solved by lowering voltages.
> 
> 
> Why? I have and am solving the problems. If AIB's would lower the default voltages, the problem would be solved. AMD does not need to do anything other than direct this action..


Denial is not just a river in Africa (or a city in Ohio according to those opioid commercials, lol!).

It was straight from AMD. If the AIBs were to blame, you're damn right AMD would have said so. They didn't.


----------



## TheLostSwede (Sep 3, 2019)

lexluthermiester said:


> AMD has given them the specs, who knows why they're not following them. Or maybe they just don't understand everything. It has happened.


Reading comprehension once again. Holy...
If you actually read AMD's email, quoted above, it says they have a firmware bug, no spec in the world would help the board makers work around that, as they can't edit AMD's firmware.



lexluthermiester said:


> Your conclusions are incorrect. This is easily solved by lowering voltages.
> 
> 
> Why? I have and am solving the problems. If AIB's would lower the default voltages, the problem would be solved. AMD does not need to do anything other than direct this action..


Right, because you and only you, have a solution to all the problems so many of us have had...
How simple, amazing...
I wish I would've tried that three months ago...
Oh right, if I drop my CPU Voltage, my system won't boot...


----------



## Vlada011 (Sep 3, 2019)

I would like to see how Intel i7-6950X compete with new R9-3900X.
Because we talk about 4 years old CPU with lower frequency it's logic to OC both to the maximum and then to compare them.
That mean i7-6950X 4.4GHz boost on all cores, 3.8-4.0GHz Cache frequency vs R9-3900X on how much is boost... 
no one know that for sure, enthusiasts community still examine is it boost as AMD advertised.


----------



## TheLostSwede (Sep 3, 2019)

Chrispy_ said:


> I'm not convinced there is a real firmware fix coming. Some minor tweaks perhaps but I suspect the announcement is just damage control to shut up the vocal minority who are making a big deal about this.
> 
> There's enough of a spread in the Der8auer survey results to show a clear bell-curve of results implying that this isn't a firmware limitation but simply the spread of results from the silicon lottery. The peak of the bell curve is typically 25-50MHz lower than AMD's figures and if the survey data is realistic then AMD either miscalculated slightly or rounded up the figures to the nearest 0.1GHz.
> 
> ...


So how do you explain that some of us have already had the problem resolved courtesy of an updated UEFI/AGESA? I was as I've explained time and time again in this thread, a hard upper clock limit of 4,400MHz until recently. Now my CPU boosts to 4,525MHz no problem. But hey, I'm just making that up, right? As it's easier to make crap up, like you...

Oh and it's also on AMD's official Twitter account now.

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


----------



## EarthDog (Sep 3, 2019)

Vlada011 said:


> I would like to see how Intel i7-6950X compete with new R9-3900X.
> Because we talk about 4 years old CPU with lower frequency it's logic to OC both to the maximum and then to compare them.
> That mean i7-6950X 4.4GHz boost on all cores, 3.8-4.0GHz Cache frequency vs R9-3900X on how much is boost...
> no one know that for sure, enthusiasts community still examine is it boost as AMD advertised.


That has absolutely nothing to do with this thread.


----------



## Chrispy_ (Sep 3, 2019)

TheLostSwede said:


> So how do you explain that some of us have already had the problem resolved courtesy of an updated UEFI/AGESA? I was as I've explained time and time again in this thread, a hard upper clock limit of 4,400MHz until recently. Now my CPU boosts to 4,525MHz no problem. But hey, I'm just making that up, right? As it's easier to make crap up, like you...
> 
> Oh and it's also on AMD's official Twitter account now.
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1168901636162539536



You had a nearest 100MHz round-numbered hard upper clock limit. That's clearly not your precision boost fluctuating in 25MHz steps as it's supposed to, that was your board vendor screwing up their UEFI implementation of boost altogether.

Hundreds of results in the video are in the 25/50/75MHz increments which means that precision boost IS working properly, but they're topping out at that level. Your CPU now tops out at 4525 which makes it one of these results, as expected.







Congratulations you got a chip that is slightly better than average.


----------



## R-T-B (Sep 3, 2019)

Midland Dog said:


> well then mate apply for an editorial role at tpu, you picked a topic of debate that keeps people at the site to either shitpost or take things



I was born in a different age...



EarthDog said:


> silly to go down this hole of a GPU analog.



I don't agree here.  They (gpu makers) started it, and share a lot of similar issues with the idea, and how they advertise their specs (appropriately, or inappropriately) is relevant.


----------



## EarthDog (Sep 3, 2019)

R-T-B said:


> I don't agree here. They (gpu makers) started it, and share a lot of similar issues with the idea, and how they advertise their specs (appropriately, or inappropriately) is relevant.


I see what you are saying, but, they list minimum boosts, essentially. And they all hit that when not banging off power/thermal limits. Here with CPUs, both Intel and AMD list the maximum boost... what they are EXPECTED to run at in 'nominal' conditions. While similar, they work in a completely opposite manner compared to GPUs. So, to me, no point in going down that road in a CPU thread about boost.

...and staff said so anyway, lol.


----------



## R-T-B (Sep 3, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> I see what you are saying, but, they list minimum boosts, essentially. And they all hit that when not banging off power/thermal limits. Here with CPUs, both Intel and AMD list the maximum boost... what they are EXPECTED to run at in 'nominal' conditions. While similar, they work in a completely opposite manner compared to GPUs. So, to me, no point in going down that road in a CPU thread about boost.



Fair point.  I mean that statement alone is perhaps relevant, but not much more to discuss there now is there?


----------



## EarthDog (Sep 3, 2019)

R-T-B said:


> but not much more to discuss there now is there?


Depends on who you ask... some neophytes are still making up excuses and droning on about it, however... 

See.


----------



## R-T-B (Sep 3, 2019)

You act surprised.


----------



## E-curbi (Sep 3, 2019)

RH92 said:


> I believe everyone here would agree on this but this is not the topic here !
> 
> The topic is AMD advertised speeds very few CPUs can hit just  to be able to put a 0,1 or 0,2  bigger number on the box . That's called false advertisement and AMD doesn't need this BS .



I apologize, guess I'm not so skilled in AMD Intel argument threads.  

More of an overview guy - always trying to see the brighter side of mankind's progress with amazing tech. Limits my debating skills severely.


----------



## Darmok N Jalad (Sep 3, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> Yep! See above. I added in the excerpt to my post.
> 
> I wonder what those who thought otherwise will say now? Do you think we will hear from anyone after this?


I’m sure AMD liked the timing of this boiling over—right before a three day weekend. Gave people plenty of time to sharpen the pitchforks before corporate could issue a presser!


----------



## lexluthermiester (Sep 3, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> It was straight from AMD. If the AIBs were to blame, you're damn right AMD would have said so. They didn't.


Ok, that only shifts accountability from the AIB's to AMD, sort of. Doesn't change the solution. Manually drop the voltage, problem solved. Don't believe me? Try it.

But here's a thought, one would think that the AIB's are the ones looking over the software supplied by AMD. They're presumably smart enough to know a problem when they see one, so why didn't the AIB's blow the whistle and fix it themselves? Even with AMD making that statement, the AIB's still have some level of accountability here. The fix is trivial. Laughably easy even. So why did they not do so themselves?


----------



## EarthDog (Sep 3, 2019)

lexluthermiester said:


> Ok, that only shifts accountability from the AIB's to AMD. Doesn't change the solution. Manually drop the voltage, problem solved. Don't believe me? Try it.
> 
> But here's a thought, one would think that the AIB's are the ones looking over the software supplied by AMD. They're prsumably smart enough to know a problem when they see one, so why didn't the AIB's blow the whistle and fix it themselves? Even with AMD making that statement, the AIB's still have some level of accountability here. The fix is trivial. Laughably easy even. So why did they not do so themselves?


"Ohhhhhhhh we're halfway there.........OhhhhhHHHHH living on a prayer! Take my hand, we'll make it I swear" - Bon Jovi

Anyway, joking aside - I've tried dropping voltage and like TLSwede, I ran into instability. That wasn't the answer for us at least. That also isn't remotely the point. OUT OF THE BOX WITH NO CHANGES, users should reach the listed clocks on the box. AMD agrees admitted as much and is doing something about it. 

Let's not move the goal posts though, eh? I don't care if it was easy or difficult. The point is that AMD admitted there is a problem with coding THEY inject (AGESA) in how the CPU behaves. I recall TLSwede mentioning to you that the AGESA isn't editable by AIBs. They can make changes on top of it, but clearly, that is not the issue here or, as I said earlier, they would have said something to that effect instead of just taking one for the team. This is NOT an AIB issue, 'let it go' Elsa.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Sep 3, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> I recall TLSwede mentioning to you that the AGESA isn't editable by AIBs.


I didn't see it. After reading his imature nonsense I didn't care either. If you folks can't solve this issue, you have the problem. Sucks to be you. Have fun with that.


----------



## newtekie1 (Sep 3, 2019)

Vya Domus said:


> No, they didn't.
> 
> An FE 1080 for example was advertised to have a boost clock of 1733mhz but you can look at various reviews that under load it would drop well below that. There was no "maximum" just this one "boost clock". What it means, well be my guest, it's certainly not a maximum nor a minimum though. That's for sure.
> 
> ...



Interesting, you're correct.


----------



## EarthDog (Sep 3, 2019)

lexluthermiester said:


> I didn't see it. After reading his imature nonsense I didn't care either. If you folks can't solve this issue, you have the problem. Sucks to be you. Have fun with that.


Sometimes it's just easier to take your ball and go home I guess. 



newtekie1 said:


> Interesting, you're correct.


It's hitting the temperature limit... of course it will throttle below the minimum boost. You can raise that limit or turn the fans higher if some titles manage to do so. Otherwise, it's as we said it was. That is a MINIMUM value that will always be hit UNLESS power/current/temp limits come into play. Either way, it has little to do with this thread as they work in opposite ways and the CPUs we are talking about are not hitting those limits.


----------



## jaggerwild (Sep 3, 2019)

I hate to say I told you so, I told you so(but I did I did told you so!) They advertised 4.725GHz, no CPU hits that limit not 1...


----------



## lexluthermiester (Sep 3, 2019)

jaggerwild said:


> I hate to say I told you so, I told you so(but I did I did told you so!) They advertised 4.725GHz, no CPU hits that limit not 1...


While that's a fair point, it isn't the topic here..


----------



## cadaveca (Sep 3, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> Let's not move the goal posts though, eh? I don't care if it was easy or difficult. The point is that AMD admitted there is a problem with coding THEY inject (AGESA) in how the CPU behaves. I recall TLSwede mentioning to you that the AGESA isn't editable by AIBs. They can make changes on top of it, but clearly, that is not the issue here or, as I said earlier, they would have said something to that effect instead of just taking one for the team. This is NOT an AIB issue, 'let it go' Elsa.



The AGESA update might take until the end of October. I'm going to crawl back in my hole now; take it easy till we talk again. 

(I never expected this thread to blow up with 5 more pages in such a short time.)


----------



## EarthDog (Sep 3, 2019)

cadaveca said:


> The AGESA update might take until the end of October. I'm going to crawl back in my hole now; take it easy till we talk again.
> 
> (I never expected this thread to blow up with 5 more pages in such a short time.)


Rabid misinformed fanatics (on both sides) gets ya every time!

Get in your home!!!!!!


----------



## cadaveca (Sep 3, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> Rabid misinformed fanatics (on both sides) gets ya every time!



I wanna place blame at the usual places I do, actually. Those fanatics get their info from somewhere...


Now, I'm going to point out something that I said countless times when I was a reviewer... I don't see many people doing reviews using a clamp-on meter over the 8-pin, which allows you to directly see CPU power use, and also allows you to check things like power draw increases as core speeds increase, or when temps increase (yes, this still happens)… or other cores are used...

Many times when issues like this crop up, a simple look with some simple tools tells you the real picture as to what is going on, but we rarely see this in the enthusiast communities, and it pains me so... because to me, as an enthusiast overclocker, these measurements are so valuable that I don't know how anyone does it without them! With so many claims of not relying on software, so many do for this, and I don't know why.

Its been so long since we've seen true detailed analysis of hardware, and while I understand why...


----------



## newtekie1 (Sep 4, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> It's hitting the temperature limit... of course it will throttle below the minimum boost. You can raise that limit or turn the fans higher if some titles manage to do so. Otherwise, it's as we said it was. That is a MINIMUM value that will always be hit UNLESS power/current/temp limits come into play. Either way, it has little to do with this thread as they work in opposite ways and the CPUs we are talking about are not hitting those limits.



That's very true, at least the nvidia cards actually hit the advertised boost clocks.  They just got hot and lowered the clock speed.  The AMD CPUs aren't even doing that, they just never hit the advertised boost clock.

So this very much is a different situation.


----------



## Nordic (Sep 4, 2019)

cadaveca said:


> I wanna place blame at the usual places I do, actually. Those fanatics get their info from somewhere...
> 
> 
> Now, I'm going to point out something that I said countless times when I was a reviewer... I don't see many people doing reviews using a clamp-on meter over the 8-pin, which allows you to directly see CPU power use, and also allows you to check things like power draw increases as core speeds increase, or when temps increase (yes, this still happens)… or other cores are used...
> ...


Come back then! Be the change you want to see.




EarthDog said:


> Rabid misinformed fanatics (on both sides) gets ya every time!


My ignore list grows long...


----------



## GreiverBlade (Sep 4, 2019)

Ok, now that's "mountain out of molehills"


Time to opt out (thread) and opt in (AMD next build, because Intel did far worse)


Also -7%, or something like that, ipc with a 2014 Intel CPU that can OC better than AMD's boost ( ooooh what about caring on OC and no boost enabled for AMD, sorry if I can't remember the name... Posting on mobile) before or after mitigation patch      (well even with -7% pre mitigation... Price wise it's not green compared to a R5 3600/3600X, but self conviction can be hard to overcome)
And to say, when AMD had that kind of -% IPC gen for gen people's said Intel was stomping on them... I guess when the situation is reversed... Intel is still stomping on them for some people (if you didn't test and base out of personal experience.... "Zip it!" Pretty please)

Oh and nope Intel induced issues of my 6600k are not due to my VCore which never exceeded 1.35 it only happened after the microcode update they pushed via WUpdate.

Funny I re attempted my standards OC (meager 4.4) well... Indeed I saw a lot of blue ( and not the Intel's one)


----------



## Dave65 (Sep 4, 2019)

Chomiq said:


> Do we really need another thread for this?



Yeah, we do!


----------



## xdregox (Oct 16, 2019)

AMD made an error should have shipped stock coolers on high switch position instead of low . . .Boost gets dam close my 3800x hits 4.575 ghz. On low not a chance.we would then complain about noise hope they don't ship 3950x with that cooler or switch it to high just set silent in bios.


----------



## bug (Oct 16, 2019)

xdregox said:


> AMD made an error should have shipped stock coolers on high switch position instead of low . . .Boost gets dam close my 3800x hits 4.575 ghz. On low not a chance.we would then complain about noise hope they don't ship 3950x with that cooler or switch it to high just set silent in bios.


Welcome to TPU.
Reading a bit before posting works wonders. The problem was not because of cooling, users here with high-end coolers weren't able to hit the advertised boost clocks either.
But now that the problem is fixed, we should let these threads rest.


----------



## xdregox (Oct 16, 2019)

Tried many bios on x470 now I get .25ghz more boost from high and no pcie4 big win.x570 different matter


----------



## Nordic (Oct 17, 2019)

The problem is resolved. Why is this thread still going?


----------



## notb (Oct 17, 2019)

Nordic said:


> The problem is resolved. Why is this thread still going?


How exactly is it "resolved"?
Generally speaking: can it be resolved at all?


----------

