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

#151
ShrimpBrime
EarthDog, post: 4109168, member: 79836"
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. :)
Is this coming from the same guy that runs his Ryzen chips 90c+??
When manually tweak PBO, no single core boost. Needs to be bone stock.

I do confess, haven't a 3600X or higher here to test this issue with. Perhaps I'll land one sometime.
Posted on Reply
#152
voltage
Darmok N Jalad, post: 4108644, member: 170588"
What does AMD say about it? Board makers? Polls and threads are only half the story.
AMD does not care, they are flying high. And it seems buyers don't know or care either. Ill remain the only one here not buying AMD this time, and will wait for INTEL's desk top chips next year.
Posted on Reply
#153
laszlo
a lot to read here...

mobo default power settings has a lot to do here; no producer will set the default voltage properly especially for cpu's which auto-oc; in order to prevent instability they allow more power ,within the specs&limit without discrimination; if user has no skill to adjust correctly i don't see where is amd's fault

majority of users had no clue what to do , how to tweak etc... and for mobo producers is more important to be on the safe side which is also normal..
Posted on Reply
#154
TheLostSwede
laszlo, post: 4109212, member: 6256"
a lot to read here...

mobo default power settings has a lot to do here; no producer will set the default voltage properly especially for cpu's which auto-oc; in order to prevent instability they allow more power ,within the specs&limit without discrimination; if user has no skill to adjust correctly i don't see where is amd's fault

majority of users had no clue what to do , how to tweak etc... and for mobo producers is more important to be on the safe side which is also normal..
:roll:
Are you seriously calling this user error?
Whatever dude...
You clearly haven't bothered reading up on the issue at all then.
Posted on Reply
#155
Vlada011
And how much is boost of R9-3900X on fabric frequency?
On all cores?
I decide to wait. For now I never made mistake for platform except when I bought Phenom AM3 instead i7-920 1136.
I believe decision to wait is good because I feel something will become obsolete soon, not just waiting newer hardware because performance.
Posted on Reply
#156
notb
lexluthermiester, post: 4109068, member: 134537"
That's Intel. Ryzen is a bit more complicated and I think the mobo makers are struggling to get it right.
So why doesn't AMD just help them? They've launched these CPUs with some specification, so they must have been able to build a reference system that worked as on the box.
Why is it so difficult for the second largest x86 maker to provide support for 10 motherboard manufacturers? It's a common cause.
Mobo makers don't have a choice - they have to launch a product even if it means reverse engineering a CPU.

I don't think I've ever heard of another high-profile company doing business like that. In most industries (surely automotive, financial) competitors go along with each other better than AMD does with its essential partners. Bonkers.
Posted on Reply
#157
GreiverBlade
lexluthermiester, post: 4109003, member: 134537"
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.
ah thanks i was about to mention that

GoldenX, post: 4109017, member: 160319"
Nah, AMD should fix this, by either getting those clocks on all boards, or changing what the box says. Otherwise it's just stupid.
it's not AMD to fix it ... it's the motherboard makers that should be. (although AMD could/should help them ... )

also .... remember when peoples used to disable Intel Turboboost? and now that's AMD that has a useless "max speed boost can reach under optimal situation" but "doesn't reach it because of no one give a damn about optimal situation" it's a freaking scandale? oh well ...

Spoiler: "again"
i remember that my 3.5ghz i5 6600K is advertised to boost to 3.9ghz
well nope Intel write :
"Intel® Core™ i5-6600K Processor
6M Cache, up to 3.90 GHz"
wouldn't be an issue if it did boost at all ...

AMD could correct the issue indeed ... by putting a little "*" behind the turbo and write
"Max Turbo Frequency
Max turbo frequency is the maximum single core frequency at which the processor is capable of operating using Intel® Turbo Boost Technology and, if present, Intel® Thermal Velocity Boost. Frequency is measured in gigahertz (GHz), or billion cycles per second."
like Intel does ... using their own term and techs in place of Intel's nomenclature, because their advertised speed is indeed the max they can reach ... but they can reach is in some case, thus is it wrongly advertised? if they can reach it only under specific situations? ... well, no ...


well at last i know i do not care about Boost ... (otherwise i would be sueing Intel for my 6600K but boost is useless versus manual OC ... and well AMD will bring that i have lost on my current CPU to me soon (tm))
Posted on Reply
#158
TheLostSwede
A little snipped of information I just got. It would seem AMD doesn't have a solution to the problem yet, at least not one they've communicated to the board makers, so it might be some time before this is resolved, if it can be 100% resolved that is.
Posted on Reply
#159
Midland Dog
Vayra86, post: 4108931, member: 152404"
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.
its green enough that im only %7 ipc behind with a 2014 chip that clocks higher than a brand new 7nm one while having almost equivelant ipc

GreiverBlade, post: 4108917, member: 105443"
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 )
how much vcore did u use, i have a feeling u probably severely degraded your chip, 2nd gen 14nm parts shouldnt really be over 1.35v, if u used LLC at a high level that might have done it, then again i booted a g3258 at 1.6v 4.9ghz on air
Posted on Reply
#160
EarthDog
ShrimpBrime, post: 4109194, member: 185158"
Is this coming from the same guy that runs his Ryzen chips 90c+??
When manually tweak PBO, no single core boost. Needs to be bone stock.

I do confess, haven't a 3600X or higher here to test this issue with. Perhaps I'll land one sometime.
What...the...hell... does how hot I run Ryzen stress testing in overclocking have to do with anything? Manual PBO... huh?

Were you drinking? That post doesnt even make sense... o_O.
Posted on Reply
#161
laszlo
TheLostSwede, post: 4109236, member: 3382"
:roll:
Are you seriously calling this user error?
Whatever dude...
You clearly haven't bothered reading up on the issue at all then.
i call it "error" ?; nope, you maybe , seems you haven't bothered to read my post , one btw...

average user don't really start to change settings in bios as either don't care, don't know.. or afraid to f.u. something... is this an "error" ?
Posted on Reply
#162
R0H1T
notb, post: 4109246, member: 165619"
So why doesn't AMD just help them? They've launched these CPUs with some specification, so they must have been able to build a reference system that worked as on the box.
Why is it so difficult for the second largest x86 maker to provide support for 10 motherboard manufacturers? It's a common cause.
Mobo makers don't have a choice - they have to launch a product even if it means reverse engineering a CPU.

I don't think I've ever heard of another high-profile company doing business like that. In most industries (surely automotive, financial) competitors go along with each other better than AMD does with its essential partners. Bonkers.
The problem is AMD also said "backwards compatibility" ~ remember that & how it caused a furor just before launch? Enter some el cheapo motherboard with questionable VRM & some guy trying to run his 3900x on it, boom - what do we know, sparks fly & AMD has Note 7 (8?) type lawsuit on their hands! I'm not sure how many cores on 3rd gen chips could sustain or reach their rated clocks, however looking at other (reputable) sources on the web it seems the problem is a bit more complicated than just ZOMG AMD lied again :ohwell:
Posted on Reply
#163
Chrispy_
Who cares about single-core boost any more anyway? 4375MHz for 8 nanoseconds in a synthetic test or 4400MHz? It doesn't matter.

People buying expensive multi-core CPUs capable of running 16+ threads aren't interested in sub-1% single-threaded performance differences when 15/16ths of their CPU is idle.

Currently, my PC is running Windows 10 1903 and around 6 desktop apps with low CPU usage, four of which are idle in the background and my Task Manager states that 222 processes are running across 3000+ threads and my CPU load is at 3% spread across eight logical cores.

The concept of having just a single core active on a modern PC is hopelessly false. The only way it's possible is with a synthetic test that runs at highest priority and hogs all logical cores for itself, and then intentionally stalls all cores except one.

In the real world, those 3000+ threads are for the OS and applications I'm running. I want them to run smoothly and silently in the background and if that means my CPU only peaks at 4350MHz instead of the synthetic 4400MHz in a completely arbitrary and unrealistic test, then so be it. I've been witnessing similar behaviour from my Intel CPUs going back to the 2500K I bought. Yes, those hit the exact speeds but only because the steps between frequencies were so huge. They also rarely stayed at their max boost for significant periods, because even in the simpler days of Windows 7 the sheer number of threads the OS was running prevented any cores from going idle long enough to allow single-core boosting to happen.

AMD probably should have deducted 50MHz from their advertised speeds. It's too late now and haters gonna hate but it's hardly a secret that peak boost is an unrealistic scenario, that's how the CPU scene has played things for a decade now.

In time, TSMC's 7nm yields may improve, and a greater percentage of processors will briefly and meaninglessly exceed the arbitrarily-chosen, peak, synthetic, single-core clockspeed. In the meantime, just use your CPU and be happy with it, regardless of what colour box it came in. Windows will never leave your 'idle' cores alone so you're never going to come within 100MHz of the advertised single-threaded peak clock regardless.
Posted on Reply
#164
newtekie1
Semi-Retired Folder
Vya Domus, post: 4108714, member: 169281"
When everyone else will do the same. As far as they're concerned they just do what everyone else does, Nividia sold FE Pascal cards that were advertised to have a certain boost clock but they all ran pretty much at the base clock after 5 minutes under load.
When did that happen? AFAIK, all the FE cards were able to maintain their advertised boost clocks under load. They lowered from the maximum boost clocks, but maintained the advertised boost clocks.

Remember, nVidia cards boost significantly past their advertised boost clocks. I can't remember a time when AMD products ever boosted past the advertised boost clocks.
Posted on Reply
#165
FinneousPJ
"he has found out that a majority of the 3000 series Ryzen CPUs are not hitting their advertised boost speeds."

This is exactly the conclusion you CANNOT draw from this. This sample is biased and the testing is uncontrolled - extending the conclusion to the whole population of Zen 2 CPUs is stupid (if you don't understand what's wrong) or dishonest (if you don't care).
Posted on Reply
#166
Vya Domus
newtekie1, post: 4109327, member: 20670"
When did that happen? AFAIK, all the FE cards were able to maintain their advertised boost clocks under load. They lowered from the maximum boost clocks, but maintained the advertised boost clocks.

Remember, nVidia cards boost significantly past their advertised boost clocks. I can't remember a time when AMD products ever boosted past the advertised boost clocks.
No, they didn't.

An FE 1080 for example was advertised to have a boost clock of 1733mhz but you can look at various reviews that under load it would drop well below that. There was no "maximum" just this one "boost clock". What it means, well be my guest, it's certainly not a maximum nor a minimum though. That's for sure.



In addition to that one can say AMD doesn't have full control over cooling, power delivery and whatnot but Nvidia did, they knowingly shipped cards with the sort of cooling that wouldn't support those boost clocks all the time. And don't get me wrong, AMD does the same for their GPUs. The point is no one is truthful with their boost clocks, there is always caveat, so either everyone is right or no one is.

No one cared though, because it's all about expectations not how truthful you are.
Posted on Reply
#167
mahoney
Nkd, post: 4108729, member: 42675"
Look I am not debating about people not hitting their boost clocks. I am 25mhz below so you could count me in. But if you are after stats he should know better given how respectable he is. That is a very skewed result.

there are so many missing factors in there it’s hardly factual.
Like throwing away things he didn’t even ask for in the survey. Also what were the users using to monitor the boost clocks?

I do think thus has a lot to do with bios tweaks. Which AMD needs to sort out with mobo manufacturers.
He gave all the info needed on how to do the test. Did you even watch his previous vid?
Posted on Reply
#168
EarthDog
newtekie1, post: 4109327, member: 20670"
When did that happen? AFAIK, all the FE cards were able to maintain their advertised boost clocks under load. They lowered from the maximum boost clocks, but maintained the advertised boost clocks.

Remember, nVidia cards boost significantly past their advertised boost clocks. I can't remember a time when AMD products ever boosted past the advertised boost clocks.
Spot on. Though NVIDIA doesn't list max boost clocks AFAIK.

The boosts listed for the cards are a minimum boost. Typically boosting 100-200 MHz higher in normal gaming operations (so long as limits aren't hit and temperatures are kept under their throttling point of 84C (or w/e it is).

https://www.anandtech.com/show/10325/the-nvidia-geforce-gtx-1080-and-1070-founders-edition-review/15
https://www.techpowerup.com/review/nvidia-geforce-gtx-1080/29.html

....and the list goes on.

If anyone has a link to a review where these drop below the minimum boost and isn't running furmark and not pegged at 84C/temp limit.......please post it up.
Posted on Reply
#169
mahoney
GreiverBlade, post: 4108890, member: 105443"
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 ...


They dug themselves into this mess. 1 week before launch they released this vid. Now imagine how many people pre-ordered their cpu's based on these what if's?
Posted on Reply
#171
Chrispy_
Vya Domus, post: 4109331, member: 169281"
No, they didn't.

An FE 1080 for example was advertised to have a boost clock of 1733mhz but you can look at various reviews that under load it would drop well below that. There was no "maximum" just this one "boost clock". What it means, well be my guest, it's certainly not a maximum nor a minimum though. That's for sure.

In addition to that one can say AMD doesn't have full control over cooling, power delivery and whatnot but Nvidia did, they knowingly shipped cards with the sort of cooling that wouldn't support those boost clocks all the time. And don't get me wrong, AMD does the same for their GPUs. The point is no one is truthful with their boost clocks, there is always caveat, so either everyone is right or no one is.

No one cared though, because it's all about expectations not how truthful you are.
Exactly. The only GUARANTEED speed is the base clock. If you can't reach that, something is wrong.
Boost is opportunistic, regardless of whether we're talking about CPUs or GPUs, and regardless of whether it's a red, green, or blue logo on the product.
mahoney, post: 4109347, member: 187374"
They dug themselves into this mess. 1 week before launch they released this vid. Now imagine how many people pre-ordered their cpu's based on these what if's?
No, that's specifically about PBO overclocking using top-tier motherboards and comes clearly emphasised with the words "might" and "maybe". The dude even slows down and stresses those words, making it clear to anyone with functioning braincells that is it NOT A GUARANTEE you will get those speeds.

How can people not understand the Silicon Lottery and concept of Overclocking by now?
De8auer's takes the time and effort at the start of the video to very clearly explain that he threw out all of the PBO and PBO+ results and only looked at bone-stock submissions. Don't go bringing PBO+ overclocking into this discussion, it's a strawman argument that isn't remotely helping.
Posted on Reply
#172
EarthDog
mahoney, post: 4109347, member: 187374"


They dug themselves into this mess. 1 week before launch they released this vid. Now imagine how many people pre-ordered their cpu's based on these what if's?
Wait for it.................wait..........for.............it...



Jebaited.



So, how many users have been able to overclock (it isn't overclocking unless you are going past the box specs, be it by clockspeed or core count for clockspeed) past the PBO value (which many/most can't reach)? I've literally only seen a few.


EDIT: "Suddenly, its 4.75 GHz......" that cracked me up.
Posted on Reply
#173
Vya Domus
Apparently overclocking should also be guaranteed now and you should be hanged if you dare say your CPUs may be able to overclock past their nominal clocks out of the box.

The lengths to which people would go to in order to come up with shit just to argue against a brand are staggering.
Posted on Reply
#174
anachron
Vya Domus, post: 4109331, member: 169281"
No, they didn't.

An FE 1080 for example was advertised to have a boost clock of 1733mhz but you can look at various reviews that under load it would drop well below that. There was no "maximum" just this one "boost clock". What it means, well be my guest, it's certainly not a maximum nor a minimum though. That's for sure.



In addition to that one can say AMD doesn't have full control over cooling, power delivery and whatnot but Nvidia did, they knowingly shipped cards with the sort of cooling that wouldn't support those boost clocks all the time. And don't get me wrong, AMD does the same for their GPUs. The point is no one is truthful with their boost clocks, there is always caveat, so either everyone is right or no one is.

No one cared though, because it's all about expectations not how truthful you are.
The title of the picture you used is "Average Clockspeeds", and the "Max Boost Clock" line indicate 1898mhz, far above 1733. So unless there are more informations in the article it come from, it doesn't prove that the 1080 didn't at least reached 1733mhz in every game tested at some point. In the case of AMD, it seems to me (i don't have one so it's just based on previous posts) that some peoples can never reach the advertised boost clock.
Posted on Reply
#175
Vya Domus
anachron, post: 4109409, member: 189215"
The title of the picture you used is "Average Clockspeeds", and the "Max Boost Clock" line indicate 1898mhz, far above 1733.
???

If it's the max and sometimes the average is under that 1733 figure then that means it wouldn't reach it's advertised clock speed all the time. Isn't that as straight forward as it can possibly get ?

No one has "proved" that some AMD CPU's can never reach their max clock speed under any circumstance as far as I know.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment