Monday, September 2nd 2019
![AMD](https://tpucdn.com/images/news/amd-v1719085767169.png)
Der8auer: Only Small Percentage of 3rd Gen Ryzen CPUs Hit Their Advertised Speeds
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:
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:
253 Comments on Der8auer: Only Small Percentage of 3rd Gen Ryzen CPUs Hit Their Advertised Speeds
Irony much?
Things that derbauer does not documentate about. And creates a hope FUD by spreading bullshit really.
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.
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.
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.
Dont you just get tired of yourself sometimes?
lab501.ro/memorii-stocare/review-hyperx-fury-rgb-ddr4-3200-cl16-2x8gb-hynix-cjr-pe-platforma-amd/5
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...
Don't try to make this out to be something it isn't.
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.
I have a 280mm liquid cooler. I have not touched any of the overclocking features and never asked about this. 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.
What's more important, performance or a pretty number ?
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.
Software readings are unreliable, in addition to that making random polls is as useful as asking people what's the size of their johnson.
And I would still like a link to this AMD CPU magician of yours.
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.
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!