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

#126
GreiverBlade
Midland Dog, post: 4108911, member: 168254"
get an asrock z170 board and bclock oc it bam 6600k again
ohhhh my, changing mobo would solve my issue ... crap why didn't i... oh wait ... i had a ASRock mobo for testing before the actual one i have ... and the OC loss even occurred during her time ...
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 )
Posted on Reply
#127
Tomgang
It is a worrying results. I begin to wunder how many ryzen 9 3950X Will hit the 4.7 ghz boost clock. When so many CPU have a Hard time just hitting lower boost clock.

That really makes me wunder how 3950x Will boost and ever hit 4.7 ghz.
Posted on Reply
#128
Patriot
quick reminder that 4550mhz is 4.6ghz and 4550 is an average clock not peak.

Yes its shady and not all mobo boards are hitting the same clocks as gamer nexus discovered.
Posted on Reply
#129
Vayra86
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
Too bad it does hit 100C at times, though, unless you throw a lot of cooling at it. And if you don't, you're stuck with allcore turbo's that are as 'low' as with AMD.

Its not that much greener on the blue side.
Posted on Reply
#130
TheGuruStud
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...
MB support is broken. Completely stock settings on original bios does it on mine.
Posted on Reply
#131
tony359
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.
How can you believe that?
In the UK broadband providers were advertising ‘up to’ speeds but the lawmaker changed the rules as some ISPs were only providing those speeds at night or for a fraction of the day.

‘Up to’ means ‘it will hit that speed under ideal circumstances but it won’t hold it for ever’. It cannot mean ‘it may not reach that speed’ - that’s called false advertisement.
Posted on Reply
#132
toxic80
Wtf, I have 200 poins in cinebench R15 ST and 3200 in MT, 500 points in ST and 7362 points in cinebench r20 MT.
All the frustrated people need 4.6GHz.....Go buy 9900k for 5GHz....it's simple!!!!!!!
Posted on Reply
#133
lexluthermiester
Der*auer seems to have missed something.

I have yet to see any of the Ryzen 3xxx CPU's fail to hit their specs. This is of course after lowering voltage to the correct settings. Motherboard makers are shipping boards with the default voltage set very high. This dumps WAY too much electricity into the CPU and as a result, too much heat to produced. When the voltage is set properly, the CPU's perform as expected.

Jay(JayzTwocents) already addressed in one of his recent video's and I'm going to echo those conclusions. This is a problem created by the board makers, not AMD.
Posted on Reply
#134
lewis007
And what? Their selling like hotcakes so, whats the big deal! Its not the first time someone has exaggerated the performance metrics of a product and it won't be the last.
Posted on Reply
#135
GoldenX
Nah, AMD should fix this, by either getting those clocks on all boards, or changing what the box says. Otherwise it's just stupid.
Posted on Reply
#136
yotano211
And here I am fine with running 3.8ghz with 8 cores on a laptop. Do people really need that extra 50mhz.
Posted on Reply
#137
EarthDog
lexluthermiester, post: 4109003, member: 134537"
Der*auer seems to have missed something.

I have yet to see any of the Ryzen 3xxx CPU's fail to hit their specs. This is of course after lowering voltage to the correct settings. Motherboard makers are shipping boards with the default voltage set very high. This dumps WAY too much electricity into the CPU and as a result, too much heat to produced. When the voltage is set properly, the CPU's perform as expected.

Jay(JayzTwocents) already addressed in one of his recent video's and I'm going to echo those conclusions. This is a problem created by the board makers, not AMD.
The motherboard, when on auto/optimized defaults, draws from the VID (aka, we call it Voltage I Demand in reference to the CPU) on the CPU, no? Across all X570 boards I've tested (6+ at this point), I've seen the voltage peak to similar amounts each time from within the BIOS (within windows, it has some control so that shouldn't be used). The BIOS 'is what it is' without power savings, etc...
Posted on Reply
#138
lexluthermiester
EarthDog, post: 4109025, member: 79836"
The motherboard, when on auto/optimized defaults, draws from the VID (aka, we call it Voltage I Demand in reference to the CPU) on the CPU, no? Across all X570 boards I've tested (6+ at this point), I've seen the voltage peak to similar amounts each time from within the BIOS (within windows, it has some control so that shouldn't be used). The BIOS 'is what it is' without power savings, etc...
My experiences have been a bit different. Each of the boards in question have been all over the place with voltage when set at the defaults. Setting things manually seems to be the only way to get the voltage to the range it's supposed to be in(1.2-1.3). After this the CPU's behave as they should..
Posted on Reply
#139
EarthDog
Are you checking in Windows or the UEFI?

I know with certainty the Intel chips have a VID for each multiplier. When left on auto, the mobo pulls the VID info from the CPU and runs it.
Posted on Reply
#140
lexluthermiester
EarthDog, post: 4109059, member: 79836"
Are you checking in Windows or the UEFI?
Both, compared to each other.
EarthDog, post: 4109059, member: 79836"
I know with certainty the Intel chips have a VID for each multiplier. When left on auto, the mobo pulls the VID info from the CPU and runs it.
That's Intel. Ryzen is a bit more complicated and I think the mobo makers are struggling to get it right. I'll say this, running any Ryzen 3xxx above 1.35v(which it shouldn't require) needs better cooling than the stock solution. High-end heatpipe or liquid cooling is required to keep temps down and clocks at or above stock. OCing requires liquid cooling. My theory is that the limiting variable is the CCX die. It's still at 14nm. If AMD were to drop the CCX die to the 7nm node, Ryzen 3xxx would be much more capable. That combination may have been the only thing they had at the time, but it's still less than optimal.
Posted on Reply
#141
EarthDog
I can't keep a 3700x under 90C (AIDA64 default stress test) with a H150i at 1.35V. The stock potatos should be done sooner.

Maybe the AIBs are putting in some special sauce.. I don't know. In my yesting so far, after setting optimized defaults and then enabling PBO, there are few gains... some losses even. Not much, maybe 2% here or there, but still, odd.

Anyway, pretty sure the CPU is calling the shots when on auto... @TheLostSwede - any ideas there for these?
Posted on Reply
#142
theoneandonlymrk
EarthDog, post: 4109074, member: 79836"
I can't keep a 3700x under 90C (AIDA64 default stress test) with a H150i at 1.35V. The stock potatos should be done sooner.

Maybe the AIBs are putting in some special sauce.. I don't know. In my yesting so far, after setting optimized defaults and then enabling PBO, there are few gains... some losses even. Not much, maybe 2% here or there, but still, odd.

Anyway, pretty sure the CPU is calling the shots when on auto... @TheLostSwede - any ideas there for these?
From what I've noted I would agree with Lex, the heat density on my 2nd gen ryzen makes it actually difficult(like high spec intel chips) to actually get the heat out quick enough, I have exaggerated cooling if applied just to the CPU but I can overegg past it , I have found similar to hardwareCanucks tim application and clamping pressure as well obviously as ambient temps and overall cooling performance matters.

Exactly how many would have actually adequate cooling i wonder?, it isnt cheap?.

I have seen 4.5 clocks on mine,, but it wouldn't be there the second day, in fact, it does quite often settle at a different speed each day and to me seems to vary greatly, that said the vast number of slight configurations I have now ran it with will have also affected that, but now and then i settle on a config for a bit thinking it stable etc, the typical variance is still noted between 4.125 and 4.325, , 4 under sustained load.

:) Hopefully grabbing my new chip tomorrow, I could be screaming a different tune tomorrow
Posted on Reply
#143
R-T-B
Mephis, post: 4108728, member: 186806"
Chips run at advertised speeds
The problem here is no, they don't always.

lexluthermiester, post: 4109003, member: 134537"
Der*auer seems to have missed something.

I have yet to see any of the Ryzen 3xxx CPU's fail to hit their specs. This is of course after lowering voltage to the correct settings. Motherboard makers are shipping boards with the default voltage set very high. This dumps WAY too much electricity into the CPU and as a result, too much heat to produced. When the voltage is set properly, the CPU's perform as expected.

Jay(JayzTwocents) already addressed in one of his recent video's and I'm going to echo those conclusions. This is a problem created by the board makers, not AMD.
Actually, I'd bet the AGESA package may be doing it, but I could be wrong. Either way, it does sound like a software solution is possible. My issue is it should work from day 1... this is a basic, advertised spec.
Posted on Reply
#144
Darmok N Jalad
theoneandonlymrk, post: 4109082, member: 82332"
From what I've noted I would agree with Lex, the heat density on my 2nd gen ryzen makes it actually difficult(like high spec intel chips) to actually get the heat out quick enough, I have exaggerated cooling if applied just to the CPU but I can overegg past it , I have found similar to hardwareCanucks tim application and clamping pressure as well obviously as ambient temps and overall cooling performance matters.

Exactly how many would have actually adequate cooling i wonder?, it isnt cheap?.

I have seen 4.5 clocks on mine,, but it wouldn't be there the second day, in fact, it does quite often settle at a different speed each day and to me seems to vary greatly, that said the vast number of slight configurations I have now ran it with will have also affected that, but now and then i settle on a config for a bit thinking it stable etc, the typical variance is still noted between 4.125 and 4.325, , 4 under sustained load.

:) Hopefully grabbing my new chip tomorrow, I could be screaming a different tune tomorrow
Makes me wonder how we will be able to keep up with the cooling on these CPUs as dies continue to shrink and thermal density increases. I can certainly see overclocking fading away, as chips will simply not take kindly to any extra thermal load. I know process advances help, but they are packing billions of transistors into a very small area.
Posted on Reply
#145
EarthDog
theoneandonlymrk, post: 4109082, member: 82332"
From what I've noted I would agree with Lex, the heat density on my 2nd gen ryzen makes it actually difficult(like high spec intel chips) to actually get the heat out quick enough, I have exaggerated cooling if applied just to the CPU but I can overegg past it , I have found similar to hardwareCanucks tim application and clamping pressure as well obviously as ambient temps and overall cooling performance matters.

Exactly how many would have actually adequate cooling i wonder?, it isnt cheap?.

I have seen 4.5 clocks on mine,, but it wouldn't be there the second day, in fact, it does quite often settle at a different speed each day and to me seems to vary greatly, that said the vast number of slight configurations I have now ran it with will have also affected that, but now and then i settle on a config for a bit thinking it stable etc, the typical variance is still noted between 4.125 and 4.325, , 4 under sustained load.

:) Hopefully grabbing my new chip tomorrow, I could be screaming a different tune tomorrow
My point is that even with the right motherboard, right cooling, right parameters that AMD set forth, reaching max boost still hasn't happened (for me, and many many others, so far). The 1.35V overclocking is my dud of a sample at 4.25 GHz all c/t.

I'm not sure what ambient solution could keep the CPUs under 60C... whoever mentioned that.

This is also Zen 2 we are talking about, not Zen+. These work different;y.
Posted on Reply
#146
Flyordie
lexluthermiester, post: 4109003, member: 134537"
Der*auer seems to have missed something.

I have yet to see any of the Ryzen 3xxx CPU's fail to hit their specs. This is of course after lowering voltage to the correct settings. Motherboard makers are shipping boards with the default voltage set very high. This dumps WAY too much electricity into the CPU and as a result, too much heat to produced. When the voltage is set properly, the CPU's perform as expected.

Jay(JayzTwocents) already addressed in one of his recent video's and I'm going to echo those conclusions. This is a problem created by the board makers, not AMD.
I second this.

Even my FX8320 (which is still in service with my neighbors PC).. Gigabyte has default voltage at 1.4125V. Yet, it'll run 1.28V just fine at stock clocks up to about 4.025Ghz. So its entirely possible that this is the issue.
Posted on Reply
#147
Minus Infinity
You would think they would sample a 1000 or so production ready CPUs, and from the bell curve distribution of attainable max clock speeds, base their rating on the peak of the curve, but it looks like they've done it on wing of the curve where only a small % can make those speeds. It's false advertising plain and simple. I don't really care becuase 25-100MhZ makes bugger all difference in the real world and the real world benchmarks are showing it to be a fantastic update, but we have laws about what you can claim. You don't see Ford saying Mustang can do up to 200mph but can only only hit 170mph and then say well we said "up to". AMD are just opening themselves up to a lawsuit for no good reason other than maybe bragging rights.
Posted on Reply
#148
Darmok N Jalad
Minus Infinity, post: 4109127, member: 178790"
You would think they would sample a 1000 or so production ready CPUs, and from the bell curve distribution of attainable max clock speeds, base their rating on the peak of the curve, but it looks like they've done it on wing of the curve where only a small % can make those speeds. It's false advertising plain and simple. I don't really care becuase 25-100MhZ makes bugger all difference in the real world and the real world benchmarks are showing it to be a fantastic update, but we have laws about what you can claim. You don't see Ford saying Mustang can do up to 200mph but can only only hit 170mph and then say well we said "up to". AMD are just opening themselves up to a lawsuit for no good reason other than maybe bragging rights.
No, but you need pretty idea conditions to get your mustang to its top rated speed.
Posted on Reply
#149
ShrimpBrime
When I set all defaults, my single core boost hit the rated speeds. just doesn't say on the box only one core goes that speed.
Tested and verified using PiMod 32m. (Just had to reset all defaults and check my boot settings)
Posted on Reply
#150
EarthDog
ShrimpBrime, post: 4109153, member: 185158"
When I set all defaults, my single core boost hit the rated speeds. just doesn't say on the box only one core goes that speed.
Tested and verified using PiMod 32m. (Just had to reset all defaults and check my boot settings)
I swear it's been mentioned a half dozen times... lol...

..this has nothing to do with zen+. Nobody complained about zen+ and how it boosts. Thread title says 3rd gen.

But congrats on your cpu working as it should. I cant wait to say the same. :)
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment