Monday, September 2nd 2019

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:

Add your own comment

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

#2
Chomiq
Do we really need another thread for this?
Posted on Reply
#3
TheLostSwede
I would say this is as accurate as a poll asking what party people will vote for in the next election.
It's obvious a lot of people who've submitted data either don't know how to find out the peak boost speed of their CPU, or they have some other issue preventing their CPU's from boosting.
Obviously a large amount of users are having the same kind of issues that most of us have had/are having as well, but there's also a lot of suspicious data. On the other hand, it also proves that a lot of people are stuck at ~100MHz below advertised max boost, for some strange reason.
In all fairness, der8auer filtered out a lot of the crap results.
Not sure I fully agree with his conclusion, but yeah, AMD really needs to go out there and clarify things, as there's too much speculation and too little factual information with regards to what's going on.
Posted on Reply
#4
Darmok N Jalad
What does AMD say about it? Board makers? Polls and threads are only half the story.
Posted on Reply
#5
TheLostSwede
Chomiq, post: 4108639, member: 185703"
Do we really need another thread for this?
Yes, because now it's a news post :p

Darmok N Jalad, post: 4108644, member: 170588"
What does AMD say about it? Board makers? Polls and threads are only half the story.
So far, not much.
Posted on Reply
#6
xkm1948
Man the amount of butt hurt AMD fans.
Posted on Reply
#7
Mephis
TheLostSwede, post: 4108640, member: 3382"
I would say this is as accurate as a poll asking what party people will vote on in the next election.
It's obvious a lot of people who've submitted data either don't know how to find out the peak boost speed of their CPU, or they have some other issue preventing their CPU's from boosting.
Obviously a large amount of users are having the same kind of issues that most of us have had/are having as well, but there's also a lot of suspicious data. On the other hand, it also proves that a lot of people are stuck at 100MHz below advertised max boost, for some strange reason.
In all fairness, der8auer filtered out a lot of the crap results.
Not sure I fully agree with his conclusion, but yeah, AMD really needs to go out there and clarify things, as there's too much speculation and too little factual information with regards to what's going on.
The problem I see with this is that the type of users who know who Der8aurer is are not you average users, they are going to be enthusiasts. Yes, there maybe be some issues with cooling or room temperature, but it is very unlikely to be enough to make the numbers look acceptable, let alone good for AMD. This is an issue, not a crippling issue, but you know there are lawyers lining up clients as we speak for another class action suit. I still want the 3900x, and I wouldn't sue AMD, but if you advertise something, you need to make sure consumers can achieve it under most circumstances.
Posted on Reply
#8
Darmok N Jalad
Mephis, post: 4108653, member: 186806"
The problem I see with this is that the type of users who know who Der8aurer is are not you average users, they are going to be enthusiasts. Yes, there maybe be some issues with cooling or room temperature, but it is very unlikely to be enough to make the numbers look acceptable, let alone good for AMD. This is an issue, not a crippling issue, but you know there are lawyers lining up clients as we speak for another class action suit. I still want the 3900x, and I wouldn't sue AMD, but if you advertise something, you need to make sure consumers can achieve it under most circumstances.
AMD needs to clarify. I wonder if this is like the 5700, where each card supposedly boosts to its max potential, but not all cards will boost the same. AMD calls the top listed frequency as the “max boost clock,” so does that mean only some CPUs will get there? They really need to clarify if that is the case, though if that is true, they should have said that pre-launch. Saying that now will not go over well.
Posted on Reply
#9
TheLostSwede
Mephis, post: 4108653, member: 186806"
The problem I see with this is that the type of users who know who Der8aurer is are not you average users, they are going to be enthusiasts. Yes, there maybe be some issues with cooling or room temperature, but it is very unlikely to be enough to make the numbers look acceptable, let alone good for AMD. This is an issue, not a crippling issue, but you know there are lawyers lining up clients as we speak for another class action suit. I still want the 3900x, and I wouldn't sue AMD, but if you advertise something, you need to make sure consumers can achieve it under most circumstances.
Not arguing that point at all, just saying some of the submitted results look very suspect. This is from having been part of the discussions here for the last couple of months and having one myself. Yes, there are issues, but taking the 3900X graph in the news post above as an example, anyone under ~4,300MHz are having issues that are outside of just the UEFI. We also don't know what percentage are using which chipset. Maybe some of the users having problems have B350 or X370 boards with an early UEFI for Ryzen 3000.
This is why I'm saying this is about as accurate data as that from an election poll, as there are too many variables and not enough information provided.
Another things that's missing from this data is, for how long periods of time did people try to reach the boost speeds? 1 minute, 5 minutes, an hour? As it's a "random" occurrence in a way, a longer period of time is needed to actually see if the CPU boosts or not.

On the other hand, a lot of users seem to have the same issue I had for the longest of times, the max CPU core boost is stuck at around 100MHz below AMD's claimed boost. My issue got resolved with a UEFI update, so hopefully more people will be in the same situation and it can be easily rectified.

Then again, I'm surprised a small percentage of users are boosting beyond the max core boost, which implies that AMD's video where they claimed an extra boost with certain hardware configurations, might indeed be possible. I just would like to know what those configurations are...
Posted on Reply
#10
newtekie1
Semi-Retired Folder
Would it have been really that much worse to just advertise the processors with max boost clocks 100MHz slower and avoid all of this mess? When will AMD's marketing team learn from their mistakes?
Posted on Reply
#11
nemesis.ie
My 3900x (X470 TCU) was regularly hitting 4650 MHZon a couple of cores and 4400 on most of the rest of CCD0 and 4350 on CCD1 with one of the earlier UEFI/AGESA versions, but RAM stability was terrible.

On the latest ones, RAM is much better but the cores are only seeing about 4500 occasionally and lower clocks most of the time.

Either this is more "observer effect" and/or they need to do some more UEFI tweaking.

It's certainly very strange.

Is there maybe a "fancy new" UEFI/AGESA being readied for 3950X?
Posted on Reply
#12
bug
TheLostSwede, post: 4108657, member: 3382"
Not arguing that point at all, just saying some of the submitted results look very suspect. This is from having been part of the discussions here for the last couple of months and having one myself. Yes, there are issues, but taking the 3900X graph in the news post above as an example, anyone under ~4,300MHz are having issues that are outside of just the UEFI. We also don't know what percentage are using which chipset. Maybe some of the users having problems have B350 or X370 boards with an early UEFI for Ryzen 3000.
This is why I'm saying this is about as accurate data as that from an election poll, as there are too many variables and not enough information provided.
Another things that's missing from this data is, for how long periods of time did people try to reach the boost speeds? 1 minute, 5 minutes, an hour? As it's a "random" occurrence in a way, a longer period of time is needed to actually see if the CPU boosts or not.

On the other hand, a lot of users seem to have the same issue I had for the longest of times, the max CPU core boost is stuck at around 100MHz below AMD's claimed boost. My issue got resolved with a UEFI update, so hopefully more people will be in the same situation and it can be easily rectified.

Then again, I'm surprised a small percentage of users are boosting beyond the max core boost, which implies that AMD's video where they claimed an extra boost with certain hardware configurations, might indeed be possible. I just would like to know what those configurations are...
Well, boost speeds are not advertised per chipset or UEFI version, so that data is ok.
My impression is now that AMD has people's hearts, they're feeling safe enough to play fast and loose with specs. Remember the RX 480 TDP debacle?
Posted on Reply
#13
srsly_bro
If you download the data and with the 722 data points referenced, the average boost is actually 100Mhz higher than claimed. This guy, with his own data, is either incompetent or a liar. There is no excuse to post your information then claim a lower boost clock.

Intel's Summer of Paying Shills campaign is paying off since nobody on the comments bothered to look at the data and trusted a shill.
Posted on Reply
#14
TheLostSwede
bug, post: 4108662, member: 157434"
Well, boost speeds are not advertised per chipset or UEFI version, so that data is ok.
My impression is now that AMD has people's hearts, they're feeling safe enough to play fast and loose with specs. Remember the RX 480 TDP debacle?
Reported to him, yes, but he didn't share that data, so how do we, as the audience, know that the bottom of the barrel results aren't on those boards?
What we do know, is that the board makers have different priorities in how they release new UEFI updates as well and plenty of boards still don't have stable AGESA 1.0.0.3ABB UEFI releases. Obviously some of this is on AMD as well, as they've clearly had AGESA related issues too.

It would also be nice if AMD could provide more details on their scheduler and why the fasts or even second fastest cores aren't the ones utilised as the main cores in the CPU. I generally end up loading the slower cores on my CPU, rather than the fast ones. That said, it also seems that my "fastest" core, doesn't boost as high as 2nd, 3rd and 4th fastest cores...
There are too many oddities like this, that AMD needs to come out and explain better.

srsly_bro, post: 4108666, member: 190215"
If you download the data and with the 722 data points referenced, the average boost is actually 100Mhz higher than claimed. This guy, with his own data, is either incompetent or a liar. There is no excuse to post your information then claim a lower boost clock.

Intel's Summer of Paying Shills campaign is paying off since nobody on the comments bothered to look at the data and trusted a shill.
Where did you find the data?
I wouldn't call der8auer a shill though, he has no reason to take money from Intel. However, the way he's applying what he learnt in school on how to extrapolate the data, might not be correct in this case, as anything that's +/-2 Sigma, he simply filters out, which isn't really how you do statistics...
Posted on Reply
#15
yeeeeman
I think 4550Mhz is close enough to 4600Mhz boost for 3900x.
Posted on Reply
#16
bug
TheLostSwede, post: 4108668, member: 3382"
It would also be nice if AMD could provide more details on their scheduler and why the fasts or even second fastest cores aren't the ones utilised as the main cores in the CPU. I generally end up loading the slower cores on my CPU, rather than the fast ones. That said, it also seems that my "fastest" core, doesn't boost as high as 2nd, 3rd and 4th fastest cores...
There are too many oddities like this, that AMD needs to come out and explain better.
Obviously they can, they just won't ;)
Posted on Reply
#17
TheLostSwede
yeeeeman, post: 4108670, member: 127591"
I think 4550Mhz is close enough to 4600Mhz boost for 3900x.
Well, that's fine that you think so, but it's not what AMD "sold" everyone, right? The argument isn't about close enough, but rather what was promised, but often not delivered.
In all fairness, I can't complain any more, as my hardware delivers what AMD claimed on the box.

bug, post: 4108672, member: 157434"
Obviously they can, they just won't ;)
Which is part of the problem as well. It leads to more confusion and more discussions like this.
Posted on Reply
#18
bug
srsly_bro, post: 4108666, member: 190215"
If you download the data and with the 722 data points referenced, the average boost is actually 100Mhz higher than claimed. This guy, with his own data, is either incompetent or a liar. There is no excuse to post your information then claim a lower boost clock.

Intel's Summer of Paying Shills campaign is paying off since nobody on the comments bothered to look at the data and trusted a shill.
The data isn't linked in the article. Where can I download it from?
Posted on Reply
#19
GeorgeMan
My 3600 doesn't hit anything above 4100mhz. Not even single thread low load. With custom water cooling. The box says 4200...
Posted on Reply
#20
TheLostSwede
GeorgeMan, post: 4108677, member: 164481"
My 3600 doesn't hit anything above 4100mhz. Not even single thread low load. With custom water cooling. The box says 4200...
Care to share the rest of your hardware, as well as UEFI version? Without that, it's hard to give any suggestions.
Posted on Reply
#21
Jism
This is a useless debate.

The box of any AMD cpu states clearly, boost up to Y speeds. Up to. That doesnt mean that any CPU will be capable of doing that.

You have a few parameters that should be taken into consideration:

- Temperatures
- CPU stability (FIT)
- Motherboard current supply
- Type of single-core workload, it all comes down to current drawn by that same single core

I think if we exclude a faulty motherboard, and proper cooling, you would be left with 2 things and those are the FIT CPU stability at that given clockspeed, and the type of workload. FIT kicks in when one core is drawing too much current and puts the boost clocks down. If you would bypass FIT it would fry the internals of the chip (degradation). If the given workload is a lightweight one, i.e not too much current, youd actually see that the boost clock could be held at whatever AMD is advertising with.

Some cores simply are not stable for the max advertised boost speeds, so FIT makes sure it stays within that range to provide a perfectly stable core.

Their system is really clever, the boost guarantees a stable working at a given speed without risk of harming the CPU on long term base. Its the same argument as people would be setting 1.4V manual while the single core speed is reaching up to 1.55V or so because people think it would be hurting their CPU on long term. No dummys putting 1.4V on long term is going to harm you CPU!

I think the masses are not aware of how the boost algorithm works, and how AMD implemented it. Some of you should really go in depth and start monitoring the CPU and read posts like the Stilth who already documented the boost algorithm and behaviour. I spend quite a few hours with my 2700x to know that, a slight undervolt is enough to have it all core on 4.1GHz and in some occasions on 4.2Ghz while on single core having 4.35Ghz is the best i can get with it in combination with a 360mm rad paired with 6 fans. The boost starts to drop once the CPU archieves 60 degrees and beyond. So, for full boost constant try to keep the cpu within 60 degrees. But thats difficult since the core is so small that the heat density is just coming greater and greater as you can see on Intel CPUs too.

Theres not much headroom beyond that what the XFR is already giving you.
Posted on Reply
#22
Xzibit
@AleksandarK
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.
?

Did you see his survey? It's right here - der8auer I need YOUR Help! RYZEN 3000 Boost Analysis Survey

1.) Which CPU do you use ?

2.) Which Motherboard do you use ?

3.) Which AGESA you use ?
1.0.0.2
1.0.0.3 AB
1.0.0.3 ABB
*Notice he didn't include 1.0.0.3 A

4.) Please enter the max boost of your CPU during Cinebench R15

Comment



How can he discard any specialized cooling if he didn't ask for such information in the first place. How can he know if people are or aren't using PBO either. He certainly wasn't asking for any type of proof/validation.

Scientific? More like a questionnaire.
Posted on Reply
#24
bug
Jism, post: 4108680, member: 91255"
This is a useless debate.

The box of any AMD cpu states clearly, boost up to Y speeds. Up to. That doesnt mean that any CPU will be capable of doing that.
No, that is not what boost has meant until Zen2. If that were the case, you'd see manufacturers using "1THz boost" on their boxes, because, well, it's "up to" and one of their engineers has seen one CPU reaching those speeds when no one else was looking.

And the debate is not useless, like the debate about GTX 970's VRAM wasn't useless at the time: it doesn't mean users get screwed, but it sends a clear message this is a practice we could do without.
Posted on Reply
#25
B-Real
xkm1948, post: 4108649, member: 50521"
Man the amount of butt hurt AMD fans.
Cry, cry baby. :D

newtekie1, post: 4108658, member: 20670"
Would it have been really that much worse to just advertise the processors with max boost clocks 100MHz slower and avoid all of this mess? When will AMD's marketing team learn from their mistakes?
"Intel Shows Their 9th Gen Core CPUs Better and Faster Than AMD Ryzen 3000 CPUs In ‘Real World’ Benchmarks" :) By providing only 1-1 example except for game results. :D
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment