AMD AGESA 1.0.0.3ABBA Detailed, Fixes Zen2 Boost Issues

[moproblems99]

Just waiting for asrock taichi version to come out

Thank you in advance!

 

[sutyi]

To be fair, 200mhz out of 4400+mhz isn't enough to make a big deal about. That's less than 5%.

Doesn't matter... it should do what it says on the box, simple as that. If it says 4.6GHz boost, it should boost to 4.6GHz on at least 2 cores even if it only holds it for a single second.

My 0.25$: This whole boost thing got a bit out of hand... Not to say something was not 100% OK with the boost algorithm, but most people experiencing wierd boost behavior is like 30% AMD, 20% user settings and 50% of MB vendors doing wierd stuff with their own tweaks to EDC, PPT and TDC behavior in their BIOS code ending up with clocks all over the place... Just like ASUS turning on MCE along with XMP, but that might have been already fixed.

Just waiting for asrock taichi version to come out

Great Tech Merlin may I have a question regarding that mobo? How are PCH temps with a graphics card in place in considering the fan placement on the board just under the first PCIe x16?

 

[Chrispy_]

And you base this on running a Xeon rig? Seriously?

So AMD fixes the issue, yet all the Intel Fanboi's are here slinging mud...

I'm not slinging mud. I'm moaning that the fix is pointless because there was no issue in the first place. The net result of this AGESA patch is that the cores are pushed harder than before, and as a result they are generating heat faster than before. All other things being equal - that means they'll hit their power/temp/cooling equilibrium sooner so the steady-state, minimum boost will occur earlier.

And yes I have Xeons. I have a whole goddamn server room, 60+ node CPU compute farm, 200+ node GPGPU compute farm and access to around 2000 different machines spanning multiple disciplines, generations, vendors, purposes and price brackets. It's my job to select the best hardware and software for specific purposes, test it, and then buy that hardware in bulk for multiple companies. I have contacts in AMD, Intel, and Nvidia and haven't missed a SIGGRAPH or Computex in almost a decade.

I don't know how I can state this any more clearly; I am vendor agnostic. I want the best solution regardless of who makes it. I do not like marketing spin, because I don't get paid for marketing spin. I get paid for actual real-world results and that means I need performance/$ and no-nonsense approaches to everything. Yes, I am biased. I am biased AGAINST BS and AGAINST shilling, because that makes my job harder. I enjoy tech as a hobby and gaming enthusiast, but first and foremost I need to understand all of the tech because my livelihood is financed by it.

 

[Nordic]

He did try to pass it as such. Roman in his video said he filtered out the "noise". How is that even possible when their wasn't a validation process for the survey. Anyone could fill in the survey with no proof at all.

He did not try to pass it as such. Filtering out the noise in this case would be removing bad data so that the information becomes clearer. Filtering out the noise is a way to try and improve data quality.

He was very clear that he had data quality issues. He was very clear that his methodology was flawed. He did as scientific an analysis as he could given the data he collected.

Even though I think it was clear, it seems it wasn't enough for everyone to understand that.

... the fix is pointless because there was no issue in the first place.

AMD said there was a bug. Are you saying AMD was wrong?

 

[lexluthermiester]

Am I the only one that installs the cpu, slaps in 3200 CL14, and just uses the PC as is?

Nope, most people do that.

 

[Chrispy_]

AMD said there was a bug. Are you saying AMD was wrong?

AMD said there was a bug in order to shut people up and the fix appears to be to just jam more voltage through the chips so that more of them hit the "up to" boost clocks than currently.

I suspect the AGESA version has two fixes rolled into one:

1. Workarounds for poor vendor implementations in popular motherboard BIOSes because those vendors haven't got it right yet. This applies to those chips that were hundreds of MHz short of the boost clock and locked at specific frequencies. The onus is on the motherboard BIOS vendor to fix their broken BIOS but AMD can patch around a bad BIOS just as AMD/Nvidia GPU drivers can patch around bad game engine coding. Yes, this is a bugfix. It shouldn't be necessary but AMD are fixing bugs that Asus/Gigabyte/MSI/Asrock/EVGA haven't because this issue has enough press coverage that it has become more their problem than the motherboard vendors' problem.
   
   
2. Increased voltage. Der8auer's survey showed that the number of people achieving the max boost clocks wasn't great - with the vast majority of chips falling 50MHz or 25MHz short. This extra voltage allows all of those 'almost there' chips to hit that exact, round-number 4.4/4.5/4.6GHz. Even if they were already doing that to the nearest significant figure. My only regret with this approach is that in fixing the peak clockspeed they seem to have hurt the overall performance. This image shows that despite the peak being momentarily higher at the very start of the test, the steady-state single-thread clockspeed is 25MHz lower for the vast bulk of the graph because the extra voltage hurts performance when the chips are temperature limited. This image shows that the voltage boost causes the chips to hit that temperature limit faster. So yes, the people whining that they were 50MHz short are now happy but the end result is that everyone's chips are now over-volted that little bit more, and hotter and slower overall because of it.

 

[Vya Domus]

He did not try to pass it as such. Filtering out the noise in this case would be removing bad data so that the information becomes clearer. Filtering out the noise is a way to try and improve data quality.

He was very clear that he had data quality issues. He was very clear that his methodology was flawed. He did as scientific an analysis as he could given the data he collected.

You can filter out as much as you want the data and make sure you use the right methodology, it all amounts to nothing. The problem is not with the analysis, it's with the data. Everyone must eventually understand that asking people over the internet what a sensor reads it's the worst way you can go about to do this sort of thing.

 

[Dave65]

For the billionth time, NO. It's within AMD spec. Can people PLEASE stop commenting about the 1.5V already?

And it seems the cores are hitting even higher boosts given a bit of time.

View attachment 131571


And you base this on running a Xeon rig? Seriously?

So AMD fixes the issue, yet all the Intel Fanboi's are here slinging mud...

That is what Intel fan babies do.

 

[lexluthermiester]

I don't know how I can state this any more clearly; I am vendor agnostic. I want the best solution regardless of who makes it. I do not like marketing spin, because I don't get paid for marketing spin. I get paid for actual real-world results and that means I need performance/$ and no-nonsense approaches to everything. Yes, I am biased. I am biased AGAINST BS and AGAINST shilling, because that makes my job harder. I enjoy tech as a hobby and gaming enthusiast, but first and foremost I need to understand all of the tech because my livelihood is financed by it.

Well said. Right there with you, though in a different part of the industry.

That is what Intel fan babies do.

No it's a real problem. 1.5v will do bad things to 7nm circuit pathways at room temperature. Electron migration and migation become very real problems at that voltage.

 

[Xzibit]

He did not try to pass it as such. Filtering out the noise in this case would be removing bad data so that the information becomes clearer. Filtering out the noise is a way to try and improve data quality.

He was very clear that he had data quality issues. He was very clear that his methodology was flawed. He did as scientific an analysis as he could given the data he collected.

Even though I think it was clear, it seems it wasn't enough for everyone to understand that.

Of course his data was flawed. Anyone could fill out the survey with what ever he/she intended and fill it out multiple times. Roman never addressed that issue. All one had to do is click a few options (4), name a MB and that was it. Nothing was checked ever!!! no proof that the submitees had the hardware or complied with his instructions at all.

He used it as a soap-box. Good or Bad.

He has CaseKing as a resource. He could of done actual controlled testing in the 10 days he had the survey open.

 

[Redwoodz]

Well said. Right there with you, though in a different part of the industry.


No it's a real problem. 1.5v will do bad things to 7nm circuit pathways at room temperature. Electron migration and migation become very real problems at that voltage.

PROOF. That's the most ubsurd thing I have ever heard. Room temp is like 26c. Secondly- the amount of voltage is not nearly as important as the power draw. Single thread w\ a millisecond of a .2 increase in volts is going to do ZERO to electron migration. You people are NOT even seeing the real time figures yet. Until AMD releases the new monitoring SDK.

Stop the madness.

Wonder what all those “This is fine” AMD fanboiz gonna say now.

Told you so.
Just because we knew it was no big deal we also knew it would be addressed by AMD. Fine wine baby....fine wine.

 

[Nordic]

This extra voltage allows all of those 'almost there' chips to hit that exact, round-number 4.4/4.5/4.6GHz.

I already had you on my ignore list, so it is totally my fault that I am in this stupid argument with someone who doesn't understand what is going on. I know you don't understand because of this one little statement. It is a hard wall that these chips hit that is preventing them from getting to those advertising boost clocks. More voltage doesn't fix that the chip hits a wall at some arbitrary point.

 

[TheLostSwede]

I though the Agesa was released just for the board vendors, and the implementation into BIOS updates could take up to the 30th September. Is the Agesa available through AMD? Can you clarify where you got it from?

See my first post in this thread.

Am I the only one that installs the cpu, slaps in 3200 CL14, and just uses the PC as is?

You don't even set the correct memory speed in the UEFI?

 

[voltage]

I doubt anyone would care if someone mentions their cpu died after 6+ years of use tbh.

one sided. If this was an Intel issue, you wouldn't be saying that. you would care if your cpu died in 6 years. I personally am not falling for amd's hype right now, but i would like a new system, as I am using a workstation that just turned 8 years old, but works like new. An old Intel i7, with a second gen plextor SSD, back when they were one of the best. Next year when amd had newer, and intel finally comes out with Tiger Lake, ill evaluate both, and buy a new laptop with either, and a new work station, but personally, I do care if my cpu lasts, and I know plenty of people who care also.

 

[TheinsanegamerN]

My AMD K6-2 @450Mhz still runs fine. What’s your point exactly?

Are you implying that AMD cpus are not as well made?

No, the exact opposite, that AMD knows what they are doing and they are not going to push an update that reduces their CPU lifespan, and that ZoneDymo's insinuation that nobody cares if a 6 year old CPU cooks itself due to vendor BIOS is hilariously wrong.

Glad to see the entire community took my comment the wrong direction. Made perfect sense to me.....

 

[Crackong]

Next one :

ABBAB

or

ABBAA

?

 

[lexluthermiester]

PROOF

Physics. Look into it.

Secondly- the amount of voltage is not nearly as important as the power draw.

Glad you mentioned that because even at the relatively low power draw of 65w, at 1.5v that's alot of amps to run through such small pathways. More wattage, more power drawn.

Single thread w\ a millisecond of a .2 increase in volts is going to do ZERO to electron migration.

Your understanding of electronics clearly needs improvement.

 

[Nkd]

Doesn't matter... it should do what it says on the box, simple as that. If it says 4.6GHz boost, it should boost to 4.6GHz on at least 2 cores even if it only holds it for a single second.

My 0.25$: This whole boost thing got a bit out of hand... Not to say something was not 100% OK with the boost algorithm, but most people experiencing wierd boost behavior is like 30% AMD, 20% user settings and 50% of MB vendors doing wierd stuff with their own tweaks to EDC, PPT and TDC behavior in their BIOS code ending up with clocks all over the place... Just like ASUS turning on MCE along with XMP, but that might have been already fixed.



Great Tech Merlin may I have a question regarding that mobo? How are PCH temps with a graphics card in place in considering the fan placement on the board just under the first PCIe x16?

lol. So even though amd boost says max boost and max boost has always been single core. You want it to boost to two cores because that what you think it should do even though box doesn't say it? hmm lol.

 

[mahoney]

Gigabyte beta UEFI's here.

GIGABYTE Latest Beta BIOS

Warning Some of beta BIOSes are still undergoing compatibility testing. GIGABYTE is sharing these BIOSes for testing purposes only and are not meant f

forums.tweaktown.com

And yes, it fixes the issue and then some. Prior to this release, my highest boost speed was admittedly already 4,525MHz, but those same cores, now boosts an additional 50MHz.

Whats up with your chipset fan temps?

 

[TheLostSwede]

Whats up with your chipset fan temps?

That's the internal temp sensor, the chipset is fine at 56C.

 

[Poul-erik]

I simply don't understand that it can excite people like that. When you buy a new car you are told that it can run 25km on a liter, but in reality it can only drive 23km. Should we all have new engine in or, every man accepts the 23 km on a liter.

 

[king of swag187]

Clockspeeds are up slightly but boost degrades faster because temperature limits are hit faster.

The net result is probably that overall performance is about the same, but people who wanted their round numbers in synthetic benchmarks will stop whining.

For some (probably Intel shill-invoked reason) 4475 MHz peak and 4350MHz averaged over 300 seconds caused uproar because 4475MHz isn't exactly 4.5GHz.
Now we're going to get 4500MHz or even 4525MHz peak and 4250MHz averaged over 300 seconds and everyone is happy.

Same chip, just running a little hotter and a little less efficiently.

Maybe I'm weird but I'd gladly sacrifice some transient peak value for a higher long-term average clockspeed and lower temperatures.

3.5 Isn't exactly 4GB, No?

 

[TheLostSwede]

I simply don't understand that it can excite people like that. When you buy a new car you are told that it can run 25km on a liter, but in reality it can only drive 23km. Should we all have new engine in or, every man accepts the 23 km on a liter.

Again, this analogy is flawed, as there are too many variables involved when it comes to cars.
Also, no-one asked for a new engine, as this was a simple fix from AMD's side, as clearly proven.
I've not seen too much feedback from others, but in my case, it more than resolved the issue.

 

[thesmokingman]

3.5 Isn't exactly 4GB, No?

You trolling? Or is that like some Nvidia reference?

 

[Chomiq]

You trolling? Or is that like some Nvidia reference?

I believe that's the reference to 970. Except I doubt that anyone sane would defend NV in that case.