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:
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.
If you would like to see the more in depth testing, here is the English version of the video:
253 Comments on Der8auer: Only Small Percentage of 3rd Gen Ryzen CPUs Hit Their Advertised Speeds
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.
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
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. :)
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 .
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) :laugh:
I only tested because I was curious and that's what us geeks do anyway.
Why do you tolerate this? :eek:
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 ...
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.
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...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... )
I think it's likely a combination of both motherboards and chips that are leading to these results.
just in case my 6600K is a 6600k my mobo is a Z170 the OC did work neatly, on both mobo, until the famous microcode update Intel pushed via WUpdate (by mistake probably .... but for me it's still not corrected )
as for the rest ... still laughing nonetheless ... the issue quoted here for AMD is meager compared to what i am seeing with Intel and the 6600K issue i have ...is the last drop
actually i'd be fuming for all the perf loss due to Spectre/Meltdown/name other mitigation .... in addition to the aforementioned issue :laugh:
at last i will look at my future R5 3600X or R7 3700/3800X boost clock as a "oh, it can go up to" ;) (specially with a 3600X since i would get it for 40chf/$ less than what the 6600K did cost at the time )