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

#101
Turmania
So you buy a turbo engined car brand new with about 400 horse power! But it only does 300! And it seems everyone here are OK with it!
Posted on Reply
#102
Darmok N Jalad
Turmania, post: 4108796, member: 182201"
This is as bad as bulldozer core count fiasco.for some reason AMD is getting away with murder and people turn a blind eye when it comes to them.
If we are still here in 6 months having the same issue, you are right. It’s a new architecture, new node, able to run on the same socket across three generations of chipsets. I would actually have been more surprised if people weren’t running into some sort of issue this early on. AMD has certainly been more of a “ship it then fix it” company (which is why I don’t buy their stuff at launch). They have been playing from behind for so long, I doubt they have as many ES go out to vendors for testing before launch.
Posted on Reply
#103
Vya Domus
TheLostSwede, post: 4108839, member: 3382"
Is making ill informed comments that adds nothing to a topic something you enjoy doing?
You asked me something and I replied with my take on it based on what I have experienced, and that is: software readings are unreliable. For some bizarre reason you then told me that I shouldn't comment on this topic.

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.
Posted on Reply
#104
kartoffelotto
it really seems to depend a lot on what software you use for reading the clock speeds. I've not seen an option to increase ryzen masters polling rate to lower than a second, and it rarely shows clocks above 4.5 GHz. I just now downloaded Hwinfo for the lulz, and after a minute i saw at least three cores having a max over 4.5 GHz, and I think my cooling might be worse than thelostswedes.
Posted on Reply
#105
Turmania
Darmok N Jalad, post: 4108846, member: 170588"
If we are still here in 6 months having the same issue, you are right. It’s a new architecture, new node, able to run on the same socket across three generations of chipsets. I would actually have been more surprised if people weren’t running into some sort of issue this early on. AMD has certainly been more of a “ship it then fix it” company (which is why I don’t buy their stuff at launch). They have been playing from behind for so long, I doubt they have as many ES go out to vendors for testing before launch.
I completely agree with you. I would have said same thing if Intel done it as well.this is not about fanboyism it's about ethics.
Posted on Reply
#106
dyonoctis
Would be nice to know how AMD is getting those max boost frequency. Is it pure speculation, or do they have an actual system reaching consitently those speed on several cpu from the same sku ?
Posted on Reply
#107
moob
Surprisingly, I don't think I've seen this posted yet:


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
Posted on Reply
#108
RH92
dyonoctis, post: 4108853, member: 111394"
Would be nice to know how AMD is getting those max boost frequency. Is it pure speculation, or do they have an actual system reaching consitently those speed on several cpu from the same sku ?
Considering everything so far indicates this issue is not system dependent , i don't think that the theory about AMD having a system able to consistently hit advertised clocks holds water ! As Der8auer mentionned this is silicon related so yeah AMD pretty much advertised a boost clock that some rare CPUs can reach when up untill now we where used to 100% CPU's can reach advertised boost clocks . There is no way AMD wasn't aware of this ,this is simply marketing level BS and AMD doesn't need this !
Posted on Reply
#109
Turmania
moob, post: 4108860, member: 176553"
Surprisingly, I don't think I've seen this posted yet:


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
So you can buy a brand new car thinking you are the proud first owner but in reality it was a test car and they brought down the mileage to sell as new car. And you be probably OK with it! Respect your attitude!
Posted on Reply
#110
E-curbi
Ryzen 3000 are still an amazing family of CPUs.

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. :)

Posted on Reply
#111
moob
Turmania, post: 4108865, member: 182201"
So you can buy a brand new car thinking you are the proud first owner but in reality it was a test car and they brought down the mileage to sell as new car. And you be probably OK with it! Respect your attitude!
That's an incredibly stupid analogy. A more apt analogy would be if I bought a car that stated a top speed of 165mph and it only hit about 160mph. And no, I wouldn't care.
Posted on Reply
#112
Turmania
TDP ratings need clarification.you buy 65w cpu put a cooler and system accordingly to that but voila cpu hits 130w! Turbo clocks and in relation how many of the cores boost up needs clarification.this is both for AMD and Intel. Industry needs to do better and us consumers needs to not so forgiving.
Posted on Reply
#113
RH92
E-curbi, post: 4108866, member: 179827"
Ryzen 3000 are still an amazing family of CPUs.
I believe everyone here would agree on this but this is not the topic here !

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 .
Posted on Reply
#114
Turmania
moob, post: 4108867, member: 176553"
That's an incredibly stupid analogy. A more apt analogy would be if I bought a car that stated a top speed of 165mph and it only hit about 160mph. And no, I wouldn't care.
Oh you would care, you even care about this.
Posted on Reply
#115
GreiverBlade
not really worried or caring ... after all it's boost clock we are talking about ... and boost clock never were a 100% assured but rather a "can go up to" ... nothing much really.

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:
Posted on Reply
#116
Darmok N Jalad
moob, post: 4108867, member: 176553"
That's an incredibly stupid analogy. A more apt analogy would be if I bought a car that stated a top speed of 165mph and it only hit about 160mph. And no, I wouldn't care.
Yeah, car analogies seem to come up a lot with tech. At best, once could claim that their car didn’t perform as the manufacturer states, but I think we know that matching a rated 0-60 or 1/4 mile produces a lot of variables!
Posted on Reply
#117
moob
Turmania, post: 4108871, member: 182201"
Oh you would care, you even care about this.
Except that I don't? I said as much.

I only tested because I was curious and that's what us geeks do anyway.
Posted on Reply
#118
notb
nemesis.ie, post: 4108659, member: 22637"
Either this is more "observer effect" and/or they need to do some more UEFI tweaking.
Do we really want CPUs that need "UEFI tweaking" to deliver what's on the box? Seriously?
Why do you tolerate this? :eek:
Posted on Reply
#119
GreiverBlade
notb, post: 4108886, member: 165619"
Do we really want CPUs that need "UEFI tweaking" to deliver what's on the box? Seriously?
Why do you tolerate this? :eek:
probably because it's a "can reach" boost frequencies ... that some of us don't care about the "OH GOD THAT'S UNACCEPTABLE! THEY LIED!"

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 ...
Posted on Reply
#120
TheLostSwede
notb, post: 4108886, member: 165619"
Do we really want CPUs that need "UEFI tweaking" to deliver what's on the box? Seriously?
Why do you tolerate this? :eek:
I would assume he means the motherboard makers need to tweak the UEFI more, which is seemingly case.

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.
Posted on Reply
#121
Midland Dog
id be fuming if i bought a chip expecting it to do 4.7ghz in st tasks (probs faster than 5ghz skylake at those clocks) only to be cucked out of up to 300mhz, at least when intel rates a chip to boost it just does it until it hits 100c
Posted on Reply
#122
hat
Enthusiast
Midland Dog, post: 4108898, member: 168254"
id be fuming if i bought a chip expecting it to do 4.7ghz in st tasks (probs faster than 5ghz skylake at those clocks) only to be cucked out of up to 300mhz, at least when intel rates a chip to boost it just does it until it hits 100c
Not sure how I feel about this, honestly. Turbo speeds aren't guaranteed, but everyone expects them... as they should. If someone prints 4.7GHz on the box, you want to see 4.7GHz... but to get there, you need to be in the optimal conditions that allow you to reach that. You need cool temps, good power delivery and so on. You would be wrong to expect the best out of a system held back by a dinky cooler and a bottom of the barrel budget motherboard... much like you would be wrong to expect your car to perform well if you haven't changed your oil or your air filter in forever. It's also not uncommon for things to work better with time as various things come along, such as BIOS updates or better drivers.
Posted on Reply
#123
GreiverBlade
hat, post: 4108904, member: 32804"
Not sure how I feel about this, honestly. Turbo speeds aren't guaranteed, but everyone expects them... as they should. If someone prints 4.7GHz on the box, you want to see 4.7GHz... but to get there, you need to be in the optimal conditions that allow you to reach that. You need cool temps, good power delivery and so on. You would be wrong to expect the best out of a system held back by a dinky cooler and a bottom of the barrel budget motherboard... much like you would be wrong to expect your car to perform well if you haven't changed your oil or your air filter in forever. It's also not uncommon for things to work better with time as various things come along, such as BIOS updates or better drivers.
all i see is difference between "realistic" people and "pure optimistic" (to be polite i will call it that way)the former is a "oh, it can go up to" while the later is a "oh, it will, 100% definitely absolutely they better be, go to that max speed".


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...

Midland Dog, post: 4108898, member: 168254"
id be fuming if i bought a chip expecting it to do 4.7ghz in st tasks (probs faster than 5ghz skylake at those clocks) only to be cucked out of up to 300mhz, at least when intel rates a chip to boost it just does it until it hits 100c
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... )
Posted on Reply
#124
Agent_D
From what I've seen personally with benchmark results, the people who are seeing advertised, or higher, boost speeds have motherboards that are allowing single core to hit voltages over 1.5v. The ASRock X570 Steel Legend I have will not allow the chip to go beyond 1.45v and keeps my single/low core count speeds to 4290MHz max no matter what settings I change in BIOS.

I think it's likely a combination of both motherboards and chips that are leading to these results.
Posted on Reply
#125
Midland Dog
GreiverBlade, post: 4108907, member: 105443"
all i see is difference between "realistic" people and "pure optimistic" (to be polite i will call it that way)the former is a "oh, it can go up to" while the later is a "oh, it will, 100% definitely absolutely they better be, go to that max speed".


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 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 ...
get an asrock z170 board and bclock oc it bam 6600k again, your case is a 1 off, my 4690k can do 4.7ghz all core, amd cant even do it on 1 and they rate there chips for it, when you rely on higher ipc and lower clocks then small differences in clock are more sensitive to overall perf. i dont think there is a single 9900k that hasnt done 5ghz, im willing to bet that there are stuff all 3900x that can do 4.7ghz, the 3950x will be a huge meme
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment