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

[looniam]

Sure, the security issues have been fixed; I'll give you that. But you can't sit there and tell me that they've been very honest about their TDP values. 95W... at what? 3.6 GHz? Who the hell runs a 9900K at 3.6 GHz? Nobody I know! They usually run it at closer to 5 GHz speeds and that's where their TDP values go to shit.

so you're bitching that running a chip out of spec causes the TDP to run out of spec?

amazing.

 

[Midland Dog]

That's why I'm referring to the 9900K. Even the 8700K runs hot. How many of us complained about the 8700K running hot and how we were blaming the "toothpaste" and then Intel came back and told us "Well then if you don't like the temps then don't overclock!"

But again... this is an AMD thread, not an Intel thread. Now back to our regularly scheduled programming for this thread.

at least the response wasnt "our chips cant oc" and tbh id take toothpaste and a delid over solder that performs worse than a delid. notice how i mentioned pre kaby, because before then you would rarely get a chip to use more than its tdp in watts, just goes to show how well engineered 14nm + and ++ are if it can push more drive current at the same vcore, well done intel engineers

 

[Deleted member 50521]

Good news, provided the fix is released soon... every day is still a say the product is on the market not performing as advertised, even if only by a miniscule amount.

Honestly, this should never have happened, but on the same token, I'd still buy a 3rd gen in a heartbeat for a new build.

X1000 with froggie, this should never have happened. Also on the same token I am very likely going to get Threadripper Gen 3

 

[EarthDog]

Sure, the security issues have been fixed; I'll give you that. But you can't sit there and tell me that they've been very honest about their TDP values. 95W... at what? 3.6 GHz? Who the hell runs a 9900K at 3.6 GHz? Nobody I know! They usually run it at closer to 5 GHz speeds and that's where their TDP values go to shit.

With overclocking, every CPU's TDP goes to shit...(though a 9900K will do that stock with all core boost - I get it).

Anyway, this is off topic, but here is a good read:

If you believe that TDP is the peak power draw of the processor under default scenarios, then yes, TDP is pointless, and technically it has been for generations. However under the miasma of a decade of quad core processors, most parts didn’t even reach the TDP rating even under full load – it wasn’t until we started getting higher core count parts, at the same or higher frequency, where it started becoming an issue.

The Intel 9th Gen Review: Core i9-9900K, Core i7-9700K and Core i5-9600K Tested

www.anandtech.com

So, kind of OFN...

I digress on this subject in this thread.

 

[trparky]

it wasn’t until we started getting higher core count parts, at the same or higher frequency, where it started becoming an issue.

Yes, I just wished that Intel at least had the balls to admit that there wasn't going to be a hope in hell of running with a TDP 95W. If Intel had been more upfront about it all I wouldn't be complaining but no... they basically lied by omission.

 

[EarthDog]

Yes, I just wished that Intel at least had the balls to admit that there wasn't going to be a hope in hell of running with a TDP 95W. If Intel had been more upfront about it all I wouldn't be complaining but no... they basically lied by omission.

Was it by omission or being oblivious to what has been happening for generations? It's ok, rocks are lifted off me on a near daily basis.

If you believe that TDP is the peak power draw of the processor under default scenarios, then yes, TDP is pointless, and technically it has been for generations.

For example... a public paper: https://www.intel.com/content/dam/doc/white-paper/resources-xeon-measuring-processor-power-paper.pdf

Just saying the information is out there if you look. I can see how the average joe may feel mislead, however. But not sure how enthusiasts can say the same.

Cheers.

 

[Sybaris_Caesar]

As I was saying in the other thread I'll hide my pitchforks until AMD makes a statement. If AMD came out and said "ha ha sucks to be you losers for trusting us" I'll effing stake them myself. Gj that it's not serious like AMD nerfing boost or hardware issue like many people feared.

 

[trparky]

Was it by omission or being oblivious to what has been happening for generations?

I don't know.

 

[EarthDog]

As I was saying in the other thread I'll hide my pitchforks until AMD makes a statement. If AMD came out and said "ha ha sucks to be you losers for trusting us" I'll effing stake them myself. Gj that it's not serious like AMD nerfing boost or hardware issue like many people feared.

You just posted in a thread where AMD "made a statement" admitted to there being an issue they will correct with firmware...

It was NEVER what you inferred (intentionally nerfing boost), and people that said hardware issues, were mostly just wrong as plenty of people had the right hardware (board, cooling / nominal conditions) and still can't hit it (raises hand).

 

[529th]

YESSS!

 

[HugsNotDrugs]

Honestly, this should never have happened...

I think you're assuming there will be big gains due to AMDs big error in configuring boost clocks. Zen 2 hits maximum boost quite readily under very specific / limited workloads.

I suspect AMD is tuning this to somewhat broaden the workloads under which full boost clocks are achieved, but I doubt it will provide any benefit to general workloads.

 

[bug]

Three things:
1. There is an issue, despite countless posts here claiming there isn't.
2. AMD only acknowledged "reduces boost frequency in some situations". This is rather worrisome, people are seeing the problem pretty much across the board.
3. Even with a partial fix, the CPUs should get a tad faster

 

[EarthDog]

I think you're assuming there will be big gains due to AMDs big error in configuring boost clocks. Zen 2 hits maximum boost quite readily under very specific / limited workloads.

I suspect AMD is tuning this to somewhat broaden the workloads under which full boost clocks are achieved, but I doubt it will provide any benefit to general workloads.

I dont expect to see much if any gains... I just expect to see what is advertised on the box happening much more frequently and to a lot more people.

 

[Space Lynx]

I dont expect to see much if any gains... I just expect to see what is advertised on the box happening much more frequently and to a lot more people.

I wonder if it will cause ram to be more unstable as a side effect, lot of people who overclocked their ram might have to go back to XMP after this BIOS... just my two cents. Hopefully not... :/

 

[EarthDog]

Zen 2 hits maximum boost quite readily under very specific / limited workloads.

It doesnt though... that is the point..and why amd has reacted now 3x times over clocks in these CPUs.

I wonder if it will cause ram to be more unstable as a side effect, lot of people who overclocked their ram might have to go back to XMP after this BIOS... just my two cents. Hopefully not... :/

I doubt it. I dont see why or how.. its not like it changes the IF or anything the memory is associated with. We're talking behavior we're supposed to see at stock here.

 

[IceShroom]

Wait, I thought there was nothing wrong and we idiots didn't understand FIT tables...

I'm just happy to see them fixing this.



Really? So Intel hasn't released fixes for security issues? Then why do I keep reading comments about Intel CPUs being slower now with the patches installed?

Well I haven't recieved any UEFI containing Specter/Meltdown fix. And my HD 4600 still has WDDM 2.0 not newer WDDM 2.6 or not even WDDM 2.4/5. Mind you my processor launched in Q2 of 2014.

 

[bug]

Well I haven't recieved any UEFI containing Specter/Meltdown fix.

Because you don't need to. Both Windows and Linux have been capable of updating CPU firmware without the need for a BIOS/UEFI update.
Plus, you don't "get" BIOS/UEFI updates unless you run some stupid motherboard software all the time. You get those updates when you actively check for them instead.

 

[IceShroom]

Because you don't need to. Both Windows and Linux have been capable of updating CPU firmware without the need for a BIOS/UEFI update.
Plus, you don't "get" BIOS/UEFI updates unless you run some stupid motherboard software all the time. You get those updates when you actively check for them instead.

I thought UEFI update+Windows gives less porformence impact than only Windows update!!

 

[bug]

I thought UEFI update+Windows gives less porformence impact than only Windows update!!

Nope, the CPU firmware works the same, no matter who provides it.
The only thing that's different is the OS doesn't make changes to the UEFI. On startup it checks whether the firmware that came with the OS is newer than the one the UEFI presents and loads whatever is newer. But that's a once per boot operation that takes a few milliseconds.

 

[R-T-B]

I think you're assuming there will be big gains due to AMDs big error in configuring boost clocks.

Not at all, no.

I just assume a product will do what it says.

 

[phanbuey]

what they really need to do is add voltage curve tweaking to ryzen master.

 

[B-Real]

Good news, provided the fix is released soon... every day is still a say the product is on the market not performing as advertised, even if only by a miniscule amount.

Honestly, this should never have happened, but on the same token, I'd still buy a 3rd gen in a heartbeat for a new build.

Let's be honest. Check Gamers Nexus' Steven's review of the 3600X. It has 200 MHz higher boost clock than the 3600 and has nearly zero difference. So this was an overexaggerated issue. I know it sounds like extenuation, but people who have seen maybe 100 MHz lower clocks will be disappointed when after the fix, there will be no performance bump. At least AMD responded quickly for the news.

 

[EarthDog]

Let's be honest. Check Gamers Nexus' Steven's review of the 3600X. It has 200 MHz higher boost clock than the 3600 and has nearly zero difference. So this was an overexaggerated issue. I know it sounds like extenuation, but people who have seen maybe 100 MHz lower clocks will be disappointed when after the fix, there will be no performance bump. At least AMD responded quickly for the news.

I dont recall a soul mentioning performance loss due to 100 mhz single core.. if so, they are misinformed as to the difference it actually means.

 

[Darmok N Jalad]

Yes, I just wished that Intel at least had the balls to admit that there wasn't going to be a hope in hell of running with a TDP 95W. If Intel had been more upfront about it all I wouldn't be complaining but no... they basically lied by omission.

Anandtech has an article running the 9900K with a 95W cooler. You still get 5.0GHz on a single core. Where you see a big performance loss is under multi core load, and then the chip runs at the rated base clock. Give it more thermal headroom, and it runs at much higher clocks.

 

[Nordic]

It is frustrating to have people tell us what we are saying, and then when we (again) tell them what we are saying, they tell us we are wrong.