Tuesday, September 3rd 2019

AMD Issues Statement on Low Ryzen 3000 Boost Clocks, BIOS Update Soon

After AMD's Ryzen 3rd generation launch many users have reported that they are not seeing the advertised boost clocks that AMD promises in their specifications. This has been an ongoing issue, with various tweaks tried, with limited success. This lead to serious allegations about "false advertising", and all AMD had to say up to this point was that these clocks are "up to".

AMD has now issued a statement regarding these lower than expected clock frequencies on Zen 2 processors, and it looks like there is indeed an underlying BIOS issue that's responsible. Let's hope that this new firmware gets released quickly and is able to restore faith in AMD's otherwise excellent track-record.
AMD is pleased with the strong momentum of 3rd Gen AMD Ryzen processors in the PC enthusiast and gaming communities. We closely monitor community feedback on our products and understand that some 3rd Gen AMD Ryzen users are reporting boost clock speeds below the expected processor boost frequency. While processor boost frequency is dependent on many variables including workload, system design, and cooling solution, we have closely reviewed the feedback from our customers and have identified an issue in our firmware that reduces boost frequency in some situations. We are in the process of preparing a BIOS update for our motherboard partners that addresses that issue and includes additional boost performance optimizations. We will provide an update on September 10 to the community regarding the availability of the BIOS.
Our resident Ryzen memory overclocking guru 1usmus is reporting the same on his Twitter account:
SMU FW 46.44.00 will improve the boost of processors of the Zen 2 generation, very soon in all BIOSes. ETA: 10 September
Add your own comment

86 Comments on AMD Issues Statement on Low Ryzen 3000 Boost Clocks, BIOS Update Soon

#76
I No
Xaled
It
It is definitely misleading because 80% of people think all cores are going 5.0 GHz

The Bulldozer is no different that Intel's Hyperthreading hypocracy. 90% of people think Threads are actual cores and that's why Intel made them at first and lied misleaded 100 of millions of people
And AMD isn't stating the same things in their spec sheets? Base and boost? It's the same thing, the only difference is you can get 5ghz on all those cores on the i7 and the i9's if you're lucky enough, Intel tends to put quite a nasty gap between the base and the boost clock to be fair but that's another story. About Hyperthreading, I really don't know where you get your info from but it's not that ok, basically you're saying that it's Intel's fault for AMD getting smacked by a class action lawsuit? Please....
Posted on Reply
#77
B-Real
EarthDog
I dont recall a soul mentioning performance loss due to 100 mhz single core.. if so, they are misinformed as to the difference it actually means.
1 guy cancelled his 3900X order because of this and wrote he waits for the next Intel HEDT. :D After that AMD responded by fixing this next week. Hope he reconsiders his purchase. :) I'm also curious if he cancelled his GTX 970 purchase because of the 3,5 GB issue (which in most cases didn't cause fps loss). Remember how NV handled that situation? As far as I remember, they denied the problem and after it was obvious it existed, they issued a statement.
Posted on Reply
#78
Xaled
I No
And AMD isn't stating the same things in their spec sheets? Base and boost? It's the same thing, the only difference is you can get 5ghz on all those cores on the i7 and the i9's if you're lucky enough, Intel tends to put quite a nasty gap between the base and the boost clock to be fair but that's another story. About Hyperthreading, I really don't know where you get your info from but it's not that ok, basically you're saying that it's Intel's fault for AMD getting smacked by a class action lawsuit? Please....
Most people think that all cores can Simultaneously/together reach max boost. This is where actual and intentional misleading happening.
And yes it's so sad to see AMD getting sued for making a horrible CPU like Bulldozer while Intel gets away with fooling the people with fake cores that even four or eight of them can't give a performance of a real core
Posted on Reply
#79
I No
Xaled
Most people think that all cores can Simultaneously/together reach max boost. This is where actual and intentional misleading happening.
And yes it's so sad to see AMD getting sued for making a horrible CPU like Bulldozer while Intel gets away with fooling the people with fake cores that even four or eight of them can't give a performance of a real core
Dude it's the same moniker AMD uses, for each core there's 2 threads....
Furthermore the boost clock works the same way for both companies, neither of them advertise all core boost at least not anymore and I can see the logic behind it, it's mainly to avoid the average Joes that find out eventually that single threaded applications tend to load x number of cores and if said Joe sees that only 1 or 2 cores boosts to let's say 4.7 while the rest being baseclock, well, that's a lawsuit waiting to happen. Intel ain't getting away with murder, they've done scummy things yes, but all those scummy things are approved by regulators and guess what that doesn't break any laws. What makes sense for you as an end user doesn't have to make sense for the entities running a business, that's why we have rules that won't apply to us plebs but they apply to the company and vice-versa. You as an end user get exactly what you pay for, it's not AMD nor Intel's job to educate you on how to google a CPU that you're interested in. IF company X offers you a product at a cheaper price than company Y that would imply that they can still rake in a profit and grab market share, they're not doing it out of the goodness of their hearts and they shouldn't as it's a business not a charity.
Posted on Reply
#80
EarthDog
B-Real
1 guy cancelled his 3900X order because of this and wrote he waits for the next Intel HEDT. :D After that AMD responded by fixing this next week. Hope he reconsiders his purchase. :) I'm also curious if he cancelled his GTX 970 purchase because of the 3,5 GB issue (which in most cases didn't cause fps loss). Remember how NV handled that situation? As far as I remember, they denied the problem and after it was obvious it existed, they issued a statement.
I don't recall them denying the issue either. They said what it is...4GB... 3.5GB normal speed, 512MB slow... and who cares about Nvidia here anyway???
Posted on Reply
#81
Vya Domus
R-T-B
really doesn't count.
Actually it does, that proves it's not the workload as much as it is the temperatures/power or something else. Even if you let it do nothing you can still have other environmental factors affecting the clock speed.

All of those dozens of pages of people complaining just want to see the clock speed, it seems to me, well there it is. This is a visual thing more than everything else, measuring performance between 4.550 Ghz and 4.6 Ghz is within margin of error.

This fix will likely not affect anything with regards to the end user experience, it'll be a cosmetic change.
Posted on Reply
#83
Nordic
R0H1T
And that's about as relevant as the grounds on which AMD settled their latest lawsuit. Which is to say that if you confine the argument to a set of variables which probably don't even represent a quarter of the (whole) set (or less than 1% of all users) then sure, we can all claim whatever we want to.
There are many people on tpu who have this problem, and I am one of them. AMD has admitted there is a problem.
Posted on Reply
#85
R-T-B
Xaled
So no reaction when Intel lies about boost clock
If they did that, hell yes a reaction. Same as this one.

Issue being, AFAIK, Intel hasn't lied about boost clocks yet. Unsure what you are trying to show me here, but that isn't Intel making those claims.
Xaled
It is definitely misleading because 80% of people think all cores are going 5.0 GHz
If Intel advertises base clocks clearly and indicates that 5Gh is single core boost (they do) then those people need to read the box. You can't blame Intel there.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment