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

[EarthDog]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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...

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]

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.