RyZen 3000 Boost Issue: What's your take?

[HenrySomeone]

Well, a couple more months and these 3rd gen Ryzens might actually start working as advertised - still no OC though

 

[NoJuan999]

Well, a couple more months and these 3rd gen Ryzens might actually start working as advertised - still no OC though

Mine already does and I don't even have the newest AGESA (1.0.0.3ABBA) yet.

RyZen 3000 Boost Issue: What's your take?

Could use fsb to lower and tweak max mem clocks.??

www.techpowerup.com

 

[Nordic]

Well, a couple more months and these 3rd gen Ryzens might actually start working as advertised - still no OC though

They overclock themselves. You can get the cpu to overclock itself by lowering the temperature.

 

[TheoneandonlyMrK]

Well, a couple more months and these 3rd gen Ryzens might actually start working as advertised - still no OC though

Epyc fail at understanding AMD's chips , they're made to boost to their max clock , same as ryzen + 2xxx series did.

 

[Xzibit]

Epyc fail at understanding AMD's chips , they're made to boost to their max clock , same as ryzen + 2xxx series did.

He is not alone.

Anandtech: Reaching for Turbo: Aligning Perception with AMD’s Frequency Metrics

 

[the54thvoid]

I'm terribly disappointed my chip does not stay at the advertised base clock. I'm not overclocking it and it has the cheek to run at 4.2Ghz on all 8 cores while playing PUBG (and giving me very constant fps). I'm outraged by this foolish boosting process. I mean - it has an advertised base of 3.6Ghz - so shouldn't it stay at that unless I overclock it? False advertising AMD: base clock should be what it says, not 16% higher.

Please apply sarcasm tags and let people figure out that the boost issue is a non-issue. My single core boost is 4.367 (that's 4.4Ghz in round-up language).

 

[Hellfire]

Guys. Topic about Ryzen Boost speeds, am I missing something here?

 

[oxrufiioxo]

Boost and Score after bios update. I am seeing 4.6ghz or higher on 4-5 cores vs 2 prior though so that's nice. Temps Seem to be about the same.

 

[Hellfire]

Got an R15 score?

 

[oxrufiioxo]

Got an R15 score?

 

[phanbuey]

matching intel 5ghz sc runs at 4.6gz...

 

[oxrufiioxo]

matching intel 5ghz sc runs at 4.6gz...

View attachment 132327

Impressive stuff honestly. I am semi envious considering this is mainly my wife's pc lol.

The way things are going my next main pc will be Ryzen maybe 5/6000 considering Intel seems to be stuck at the moment. The nice thing is both my systems are fast enough to wait and see how intel 10nm maybe 2nd generation fares.

 

[Nordic]

matching intel 5ghz sc runs at 4.6gz...

View attachment 132327

What cooling and settings do you have to maintain 4.6ghz?

 

[oxrufiioxo]

What cooling and settings do you have to maintain 4.6ghz?

Corsair h115i Platinum but it doesn't stay at 4.6ghz it periodically hits it throughout a single core benchmark run bouncing from around 4.4-4.6 I would say.
Typical Ryzen 3000 behavior or at least how it has behaved for me since launch.

All core seems very temp and workload dependent for me I am seeing anywhere from 4.0-4.3 depending on workload.

The biggest change I am seeing from the new bios is instead of 4.6ghz on 1-2 cores I am seeing it briefly hit that on 3-5 cores depending on what mood it's in lol.


All setting in Bios are left to default btw other than manually tuning my ram.

 

[TheoneandonlyMrK]

Corsair h115i Platinum but it doesn't stay at 4.6ghz it periodically hits it throughout a single core benchmark run bouncing from around 4.4-4.6 I would say.
Typical Ryzen 3000 behavior or at least how it has behaved for me since launch.

All core seems very temp and workload dependent for me I am seeing anywhere from 4.0-4.3 depending on workload.

The biggest change I am seeing from the new bios is instead of 4.6ghz on 1-2 cores I am seeing it briefly hit that on 3-5 cores depending on what mood it's in lol.


All setting in Bios are left to default btw other than manually tuning my ram.

Winters coming.

I can't wait for some windows wide open max bench runs

 

[cucker tarlson]

Epyc fail at understanding AMD's chips , they're made to boost to their max clock , same as ryzen + 2xxx series did.

they have no manual oc headroom.I don't know what was wrong with his statement.turbo freq was invented a decade ago.still,chips had manual oc headrom.that's what overclocking is,pushing freq over boost clocks,not base clocks.

 

[TheoneandonlyMrK]

they have no manual oc headroom.I don't know what was wrong with his statement.turbo freq was invented a decade ago.still,chips had manual oc headrom.that's what overclocking is,pushing freq over boost clocks,not base clocks.

And as such overclocking was never assured.

You can still manually overclock, you just wont beat AMD's PBO at it, without massive cooling or volts.

It's an evolutionary thing so yes shit was done differently before ,but like I said this isn't the first Amd chip to work like this and indeed Intel beat Amd to this punch a while back and only the fact their now on the 7th optimization of their node has reduced the effects of this.
But you still need to overdo cooling to push clocks , Even on intel.
I was moaning about OC headroom years ago when intel and Nvidia started this turbo bs now im over it , it's been years.

 

[cucker tarlson]

And as such overclocking was never assured.

You can still manually overclock, you just wont beat AMD's PBO at it, without massive cooling or volts.

It's an evolutionary thing so yes shit was done differently before ,but like I said this isn't the first Amd chip to work like this and indeed intel beat Amd to this punch a while back and inly the fact their now on the 7th optimization of their node has reduced the effects of this.
But you still need to overdo cooling to push clocks , Even on intel.
I was moaning about OC headroom years ago when intel and Nvidia started this turbo bs now im over it , it's been years.

I kinda like how their best bins are put towards 3900x that pushes highest clocks from the entire lineup.4300mhz on 24 threads is good.But lower tier cpus,especially the 3600x,are a big disappointment as far as frequency goes.

same way you can disable turbo on intel and set the multi to max turbo.the frequency stays the same.3000 doesn't go over max boost so it does not overclock,no matter how you spin it.it turbo boosts,but does not overclock.

 

[TheoneandonlyMrK]

I kinda like how their best bins are put towards 3900x that pushes highest clocks from the entire lineup.But lower tier cpus,especially the 3600x,are a big disappointment as far as frequency goes.

Well it's not that important given the Ipc or at least that's the argument i got way back when my 5.5ghz fx benched against i7's.
Look at it this way with AMD each price point has actual meaning, if you need more cores or speed it's simple ,pay more.
At least they don't segregate features and i dissagree a 3600 non x at less than 200£ is within 10% of the performance of a 9900k in some games , that's the reality ,and it will sell well.

 

[cucker tarlson]

Well it's not that important given the Ipc or at least that's the argument i got way back when my 5.5ghz fx benched against i7's.
Look at it this way with AMD each price point has actual meaning, if you need more cores or speed it's simple ,pay more.
At least they don't segregate features and i dissagree a 3600 non x at less than 200£ is within 10% of the performance of a 9900k in some games , that's the reality ,and it will sell well.

ipc and cache too.but that doesn't make frequency "not important".think about this-higher clocks would make your ryzen go faster!
while 4.3ghz for a 12 core is nice,4.2ghz for an 8 core is pretty low.intel has a locked 9700f that boosts higher and costs the same or slightly less than 3700x.

and I said 3600x not 3600,you pay higher price but the chip still clocks pretty low.

 

[TheoneandonlyMrK]

ipc and cache too.but that doesn't make frequency "not important".

and I said 3600x not 3600,you pay higher price but the chip still clocks pretty low.

Thats why i said 3600 ,it's cheaper and like it's Xy bro , it's a very good cpu getting within 10% of a 9900k , Even at 7-800 mhz slower and four less cores.
I too would have loved to see 5ghz obviously, what an effin chip eh, but in a way im kinda glad it's not that case ,Intel Really would be fudged not that they are not now but man they couldn't fight that chip at all , they got lucky and still have that one pr point ,ish since that one pr point comes from years of optimization on one node and is conversely the cause of the issues they face.
They were Chipzilla , now they look as vulnerable and ordinary as ever and other foundries and companies are lauding achievement after achievement while intel stir a different batch of 10nm up , in the same crap way they failed st it last time.

 

[cucker tarlson]

first of all,would it be a bad thing for intel to fail completely ? cause they're still holding up well considering their K skus push 5ghz and even non-k trade blows with ryzen in everything except for video and rendering tasks.
second of all,yes,a 3700x at 4.5ghz would be better for a consumer than 3700x at 4.2ghz.

 

[phanbuey]

first of all,would it be a bad thing for intel to fail completely ? cause they're still holding up well considering their K skus push 5ghz and even non-k trade blows with ryzen in everything except for video and rendering tasks.
second of all,yes,a 3700x at 4.5ghz would be better for a consumer than 3700x at 4.2ghz.

It would because then you would have the AMD FX series pricing (back when k10 was prancing around like a happy happy pony) again. Right now it's the sweet spot for us because as consumers there isn't really a bad mid-high end CPU on the market. If one of them gets too far ahead, then we just get another stretch of overpriced stagnation (ahem, Nvidia)...

 

[TheoneandonlyMrK]

first of all,would it be a bad thing for intel to fail completely ? cause they're still holding up well considering their K skus push 5ghz and even non-k trade blows with ryzen in everything except for video and rendering tasks.
second of all,yes,a 3700x at 4.5ghz would be better for a consumer than 3700x at 4.2ghz.

Yes, one x86 cpu maker is not enough , we need 2-4 , competitively but your success marker is balls imho perhaps i should make a 6ghz cpu that cant actually do anything (possibly beyond me ) it would sell well to some though eh.
And,
Of course it would, but as I said IPC matter's more than frequency in this case and can't , despite your efforts be discounted.

Don't get so caught up on one unimportant part of a whole , and I think we should steer closer to the thread , especially since your throwing obvious stuff at me without any point now

 

[cucker tarlson]

Yes, one x86 cpu maker is not enough , we need 2-4 , competitively but your success marker is balls imho perhaps i should make a 6ghz cpu that cant actually do anything (possibly beyond me ) it would sell well to some though eh.
And,
Of course it would, but as I said IPC matter's more than frequency in this case and can't , despite your efforts be discounted.

Don't get so caught up on one unimportant part of a whole , and I think we should steer closer to the thread , especially since your throwing obvious stuff at me without any point now

my point was lower their tier cpus should be getting better bins,it's not my fault you're taking it somewhere else to muddy the waters to the point of saying frequency becomes irrelevant when you've made some ipc progress.