Tuesday, September 10th 2019

AMD AGESA 1.0.0.3ABBA Detailed, Fixes Zen2 Boost Issues

AMD is giving final touches to an AGESA microcode update that fixes the issue of underwhelming Precision Boost behavior on its 3rd generation Ryzen processors. Version ComboAM4 1.0.0.3ABBA is being pushed to motherboard manufacturers to integrate with their UEFI firmware, and one such dispatch to MSI got leaked to the web on ChipHell. Tom's Hardware grabbed the BIOS as it was compatible with the MEG X570 Creator motherboard they have, and tested the Ryzen 9 3900X and Ryzen 7 3700X with it.

In its testing, posted in a mini-review article, Tom's Hardware observed that with AGESA 1.0.0.3ABBA, their 3700X sample was correctly hitting 4.40 GHz across the board at stock settings. With the older 1.0.0.3AB, it would touch 4.375 GHz. The Ryzen 9 3900X behaves slightly differently with this microcode. Tom's Hardware was able to raise its peak boost frequency from 4.575 GHz to 4.625 GHz (above the 4.60 GHz specification), but in certain tests such as POV-Ray and Cinebench, its boost frequency decays down to 4.250 GHz. Overall, the reviewer tabulated improved performance on the chips with the new microcode. The new microcode also apparently changes the processor's thermal thresholds.

Update (10/9) AMD posted an elaborate release detailing the AGESA 1.0.0.3ABBA update.

Hello, everyone! We're delighted by your support and the strong momentum of 3rd Gen AMD Ryzen processors in the marketplace, and we continue to watch your feedback closely. Today we have some important updates for you concerning processor boost behavior, desktop idle behavior, and a new monitoring SDK. The first two changes will be arriving in BIOSes based on AGESA 1003ABBA, and we are planning to make the SDK public on developer.amd.com with a target release date of September 30.

Boost Changes
Starting with our commitment to provide you an update on processor boost, our analysis indicates that the processor boost algorithm was affected by an issue that could cause target frequencies to be lower than expected. This has been resolved. We've also been exploring other opportunities to optimize performance, which can further enhance the frequency. These changes are now being implemented in flashable BIOSes from our motherboard partners. Across the stack of 3rd Gen Ryzen Processors, our internal testing shows that these changes can add approximately 25-50 MHz to the current boost frequencies under various workloads.

Our estimation of the benefit is broadly based on workloads like PCMark 10 and Kraken JavaScript Benchmark. The actual improvement may be lower or higher depending on the workload, system configuration, and thermal/cooling solution implemented in the PC. We used the following test system in our analysis:
  • AMD Reference Motherboard (AGESA 1003ABBA beta BIOS)
  • 2x8GB DDR4-3600C16
  • AMD Wraith Prism and Noctua NH-D15S coolers
  • Windows 10 May 2019 Update
  • 22°C ambient test lab
  • Streacom BC1 Open Benchtable
  • AMD Chipset Driver 1.8.19.xxx
  • AMD Ryzen Balanced power plan
  • BIOS defaults (except memory OC)
These improvements will be available in final BIOSes starting in about three weeks' time, depending on the testing and implementation schedule of your motherboard manufacturer. Additional information on boost frequency in the 3rd Gen AMD Ryzen Processors can also be obtained from this separate blog update.

Going forward, it's important to understand how our boost technology operates. Our processors perform intelligent real-time analysis of the CPU temperature, motherboard voltage regulator current (amps), socket power (watts), loaded cores, and workload intensity to maximize performance from millisecond to millisecond. Ensuring your system has adequate thermal paste; reliable system cooling; the latest motherboard BIOS; reliable BIOS settings/configuration; the latest AMD chipset driver; and the latest operating system can enhance your experience.

Following the installation of the latest BIOS update, a consumer running a bursty, single threaded application on a PC with the latest software updates and adequate voltage and thermal headroom should see the maximum boost frequency of their processor. PCMark 10 is a good proxy for a user to test the maximum boost frequency of the processor in their system. It is fully expected that if users run a workload like Cinebench, which runs for an extended period of time, the operating frequencies may be lower than maximum throughout the run.

In addition, we do want to address recent questions about reliability. We perform extensive engineering analysis to develop reliability models and to model the lifetime of our processors before entering mass production. While AGESA 1003AB contained changes to improve system stability and performance for users, changes were not made for product longevity reasons. We do not expect that the improvements that have been made in boost frequency for AGESA 1003ABBA will have any impact on the lifetime of your Ryzen processor.

Revisiting Calmer Idle
In late July, we implemented a series of software changes that would help the processor ignore requests for voltage/frequency boost from lightweight applications. The goal was to make the processor more relaxed at the desktop, but poised to react for serious workloads. While many of you were happy with the effect of the software changes, some of you were still grappling with cases where the CPU was a bit overzealous with boost. We wanted to smooth those out, too.

Today we're announcing that AGESA 1003ABBA carries firmware-level changes designed to do just that. The changes primarily arrive in the form of an "activity filter" that empowers the CPU boost algorithm itself to disregard intermittent OS and application background noise. Example test cases might include: video playback, game launchers, monitoring utilities, and peripheral utilities. These cases tend to make regular requests for a higher boost state, but their intermittent nature would fall below the threshold of the activity filter.

Net-net, we expect you'll see lower desktop voltages, around 1.2 V, for the core(s) actively handling such tasks. We believe this solution will be even more effective than the July changes for an even wider range of applications.

Please keep in mind, however, that this firmware change is not a cap. The processor must still be free to boost if active workload(s) seriously require it, so you should still expect occasions where the processor will explore its designed and tested voltage range of 0.2 V to 1.5 V.

New Monitoring SDK
Obtaining reliable data about the operating behavior of a processor is important to enthusiasts such as myself. There are many monitoring utilities on the market, and we work with many of them to ensure they're accessing telemetry data in a sensible manner. Regardless of the utility, however, it's common sense that all the tools should roughly correlate when you ask a simple question like "what's my CPU temperature?"

Enabling a consistent experience across monitoring utilities is important to us. That's why we're announcing the September 30 release of the AMD Monitoring SDK that will allow anyone to build a public monitoring utility that can reliably report a range of key processor metrics in a consistent manner. Altogether, there are 30+ API calls within the first SDK release, but we've highlighted a few of the more important or interesting ones below:
  • Current Operating Temperature: Reports the average temperature of the CPU cores over a short sample period. By design, this metric filters transient spikes that can skew temperature reporting.
  • Peak Core(s) Voltage (PCV): Reports the Voltage Identification (VID) requested by the CPU package of the motherboard voltage regulators. This voltage is set to service the needs of the cores under active load, but isn't necessarily the final voltage experienced by all of the CPU cores.
  • Average Core Voltage (ACV): Reports the average voltages experienced by all processor cores over a short sample period, factoring in active power management, sleep states, Vdroop, and idle time.
  • EDC (A), TDC (A), PPT (W): The current and power limits for your motherboard VRMs and processor socket.
  • Peak Speed: The maximum frequency of the fastest core during the sample period.
  • Effective Frequency: The frequency of the processor cores after factoring in time spent in sleep states (e.g. cc6 core sleep or pc6 package sleep). Example: One processor core is running at 4 GHz while awake, but in cc6 core sleep for 50% of the sample period. The effective frequency of this core would be 2 GHz. This value can give you a feel for how often the cores are using aggressive power management capabilities that aren't immediately obvious (e.g. clock or voltage changes).
  • Various voltages and clocks, including: SoC voltage, DRAM voltage, fabric clock, memory clock, etc.
A Preview in Action
This SDK will be available for public download on developer.amd.com on September 30. As a preview of what the new SDK can enable, AMD Ryzen Master (version 2.0.2.1271) has already been updated with the new Average Core Voltage API for 3rd Gen Ryzen Processors. It's ready for download today!

As noted above, Average Core Voltage shows you average voltages that all CPU cores are experiencing over a short sample period after you factor in sleep states, idle states, active power management, and Vdroop. Depending on the load on the processor, this value might be quite different from Peak Core(s) Voltage.

For example: if the processor is lightly loaded on a few cores, the overall activity level of all the CPU cores will be relatively low and, therefore, the Average Core Voltage will be low as well. But the active cores still need intermittently higher voltages to power boost frequencies, which will be reflected in the Peak Core Voltage. As the CPU comes under full load, these two values will eventually converge representing that all cores are active at approximately the same intensity. The overall goal of these two values is to show you what's happening moment-to-moment the most loaded cores (Peak), and what's happening more generally to the CPU cores over time (Average).

We hope new APIs like Average Core Voltage give you a better understanding of how our processors behave, and we can't wait to see more tools make use of the new monitoring SDK. Visit amd.com on September 30 for the first public release!

What to Expect Next
AGESA 1003ABBA has now been released to our motherboard partners. Now they will perform additional testing, QA, and implementation work on their specific hardware (versus our reference motherboard). Final BIOSes based on AGESA 1003ABBA will begin to arrive in approximately three weeks, depending on the testing time of your vendor and motherboard.

Going forward, we'll continue providing updates in this format as the updates are being prepped for release. Sources: Tom's Hardware, ChipHell
Add your own comment

106 Comments on AMD AGESA 1.0.0.3ABBA Detailed, Fixes Zen2 Boost Issues

#76
RichF
May I propose an auto-ban that will give people a 24 hour break or something for accusing other posters of being fans of any company? Intel. Nvidia. AMD. I don't care. I am so tired of seeing these accusations hurled in basically every discussion here and in comments in most other tech forums. I'm really tired of all the ad homs in general. Can't we have discussions without personal attacks? Is that so much to ask? I was just at another tech forum and a mod jumped in and locked a topic, after insulting the person who posted it, piling on after the previous poster had insulted that person with a lazy objection to the length of the post. There is too much toxicity online and too much knee-jerk laziness when responding to others' efforts. I don't want to see personal attacks from anyone when I read/participate in tech discussions. I don't care how many posts they have and how many years they've been there. Ad homs should be off-limits. They're fallacies, not contributions.

Furthermore, please stop cheerleading for any company. I've seen arguments here that amount to worshipful demands, like how unreasonable it is to require companies' specs to be accurate — especially because failing to do that could enable a competitor to get some easy PR.

We're supposed to like competition. Well, when there is competition there is PR battling. Get used to it. If the PR is erroneous then call it out. If it's picking nits that's okay if those nits are true. If a product doesn't meet its claimed specs then that's noteworthy, even if the real-world impact is low. If the real-world impact is low then, logically, one can argue that the company could have made a lower claim to match the actual results.

We can handle the truth.
Posted on Reply
#77
GeorgeMan
Redwoodz, post: 4114362, member: 148684"
PROOF. That's the most ubsurd thing I have ever heard. Room temp is like 26c. Secondly- the amount of voltage is not nearly as important as the power draw. Single thread w\ a millisecond of a .2 increase in volts is going to do ZERO to electron migration. You people are NOT even seeing the real time figures yet. Until AMD releases the new monitoring SDK.

Stop the madness.
They just don't like to see a number that they were seeing 15 years ago with their Intel CPUs. They are not going stop. Let them destroy their chips by forcing 24/7 1.35+ all core voltage there, because it's "safe".
Posted on Reply
#78
RichF
I recall The Stilt saying the chips can be killed with too-high a voltage, regardless of thermals and current. He said, for instance, that he reckoned that the FX's safe voltage limit is around 1.475. That's 32nm SOI.

His comments, which I don't have in front of me (and therefore must rely on memory from something I read years back) suggested to me that a chip could be degraded or fried very quickly, even without being subjected to a heavy load like Prime — without temperature nor load being needed. However, I have also read things that suggest that higher voltages won't kill chips if they're kept cold enough (i.e. nitrogen), so I'm a little confused.

He also said other things that seem to fly in the face of the conventional wisdom, like the widespread belief that a chip that needs less voltage is a better-quality one. I see that idea everywhere, from forum posts to professional reviews. He said it's basically the opposite. Higher leakage means less voltage required but he said, except under nitrogen, that's worse than higher voltage required and lower leakage. He said, for example, that the 9000 series FX chips were so poor-quality that they would have ended up in the crusher if AMD hadn't decided to create the 220 watt spec for AM3+. So, although the 9590 could hit, let's say 5 GHz, with less voltage than an 8370E, it would use more power and would die sooner at a given high voltage. Not only do the higher-leakage parts waste more power they are more sensitive to electromigration.

So, when we're looking at what safe voltages are it seems that it depends a lot on the leakage of the part. Maybe 1.5V is actually safe if the leakage is low enough? It seems really high to me but I don't know the technical details of the TSMC 7nm process AMD is using. I thought that safe voltage maximums are supposed to shrink as nodes shrink, although things like FinFET probably affect that quite a bit.

I remember Fermi (GF100) being described (in an Anandtech review I think) as an example of Nvidia's strategic intelligence. The notion was that Fermi intentionally had extra high-leakage transistors to increase performance. Given The Stilt's comments, or my understanding of them which may be flawed, I'm not sure how high-leakage transistors are a boon. Was it something about them being able to switch on and off more quickly? Does that apply to CPUs?

Also, some have been concerned that AMD may end up with a higher RMA rate because of this change. If it's the case that the RMA rate will increase one solution the company can do for future production is to realign the binning. This aligns with the improvement to the node that typically happens as it matures as well.
Posted on Reply
#79
Chomiq
lexluthermiester, post: 4114335, member: 134537"
Well said. Right there with you, though in a different part of the industry.


No it's a real problem. 1.5v will do bad things to 7nm circuit pathways at room temperature. Electron migration and migation become very real problems at that voltage.

Skip to 7:45

Just because the CPU boosts to 1.5 V for a brief second it doesn't mean that it's doing so at high current.
Posted on Reply
#80
RichF
Chomiq, post: 4114446, member: 185703"
Just because the CPU boosts to 1.5 V for a brief second it doesn't mean that it's doing so at high current.
Is high current required for degradation at any particular voltage? If not, what is the voltage where significant degradation will occur without high current?

How does heat play into it? If significant degradation can occur without high heat (let's say 50C) but with high voltage what voltage would that be?

How does individual chip variability play into it, since different parts of a wafer have different levels of leakage? How perfect is the binning, when it comes to matching that with maximum voltage (including in terms of heat if that's quite important)?
Posted on Reply
#81
TheLostSwede
So many experts here...
Apparently the conclusion of these keyboard experts is that AMD is selling a product that will blow up instantly.
Strange, my CPU is working better than ever after three months...

In all fairness, I haven't had to wait three months for my past Intel CPUs to deliver the box spec, but based on my Ryzen 1700 experience, I already knew what I was getting myself into.
Posted on Reply
#82
RichF
1) Three months isn't very much time when it comes to electromigration unless you're being really aggressive with voltage, correct?

2) Variability in wafers results in different levels of quality. If the binning is imperfect then one chip that's rated for a specific product slot might not match another chip with the same name/slot. So, what's a certain level of safe for one might not be as safe for another.

3) Did I miss answers to my questions that occurred in prior posts in this topic? Because, instead of being an expert, I have a lot of questions.

There is also the issue of motherboard voltage accuracy. The ASUS Crosshair Formula Z AM3+ board had a reputation for underreporting voltage. And, there is LLC spiking.
Posted on Reply
#83
TheLostSwede
RichF, post: 4114459, member: 154826"
1) Three months isn't very much time when it comes to electromigration unless you're being really aggressive with voltage, correct?

2) Variability in wafers results in different levels of quality. If the binning is imperfect then one chip that's rated for a specific product slot might not match another chip with the same name/slot. So, what's a certain level of safe for one might not be as safe for another.

3) Did I miss answers to my questions that occurred in prior posts in this topic? Because, instead of being an expert, I have a lot of questions.

There is also the issue of motherboard voltage accuracy. The ASUS Crosshair Formula Z AM3+ board had a reputation for underreporting voltage. And, there is LLC spiking.
It's not? Sound like it should've exploded as soon as I powered on my system based on the comments here.

And you truly believe AMD's binning is that bad? Right...

That was a general reply to this thread, as everyone has an opinion, but no-one here works for AMD as far as I know.

As to what motherboard makers do or don't do, is hardly AMD's fault now, is it?

Also, looking at Ryzen Master, the Voltages are quite different from those in HWInfo, with the latter seemingly reporting up to 250mV higher numbers, doing a side by side comparison. This is especially true during mostly idle scenarios.
Posted on Reply
#84
RichF
TheLostSwede, post: 4114471, member: 3382"
It's not? Sound like it should've exploded as soon as I powered on my system based on the comments here.
Hyperbole isn't productive.
TheLostSwede, post: 4114471, member: 3382"
And you truly believe AMD's binning is that bad? Right...
Citation needed. I made no claims about AMD's binning.
TheLostSwede, post: 4114471, member: 3382"
That was a general reply to this thread, as everyone has an opinion, but no-one here works for AMD as far as I know.
It was inaccurate and combative.
TheLostSwede, post: 4114471, member: 3382"
As to what motherboard makers do or don't do, is hardly AMD's fault now, is it?
Irrelevant.

I was trying to point out that there are a lot of variables that may need to be taken into account. How, for example, can anyone make claims about safe/unsafe voltage when they don't know if their motherboard is giving them accurate information? What about LLC spiking? My understanding is that increasing the aggressiveness of LLC increases the risk of high transient spikes.

My posts have nothing to do with being pro-AMD or against AMD. I consider that topic superfluous.
Posted on Reply
#85
TheLostSwede
All your input is seemingly just opinions though.
Do you actually own a Ryzen 3000 setup?
If not, then please start your own thread where you can discuss pointless things.

I've provided details, but that's clearly being ignored, not just by you, but everyone else as well.

Yes, AMD is shit. Can we be done with it now?
Posted on Reply
#86
RichF
TheLostSwede, post: 4114476, member: 3382"
All your input is seemingly just opinions though.
Nope.
TheLostSwede, post: 4114476, member: 3382"
Do you actually own a Ryzen 3000 setup?
Nope.
TheLostSwede, post: 4114476, member: 3382"
If not, then please start your own thread where you can discuss pointless things.
Nope. I am more interested in answers to my questions. Since you aren't providing any I'll wait for someone else to, here.
TheLostSwede, post: 4114476, member: 3382"
I've provided details, but that's clearly being ignored, not just by you, but everyone else as well.
Oh?
TheLostSwede, post: 4114476, member: 3382"
Yes, AMD is shit. Can we be done with it now?
:rolleyes:
Posted on Reply
#87
Chomiq
RichF, post: 4114486, member: 154826"
Nope.

Nope.

Nope. I am more interested in answers to my questions. Since you aren't providing any I'll wait for someone else to, here.

Oh?

:rolleyes:
Unless they're AMD's employees you won't get any here.
Posted on Reply
#88
RichF
Chomiq, post: 4114489, member: 185703"
Unless they're AMD's employees you won't get any here.
The Stilt, I've recently read, works for one of the motherboard companies. He has posted in quite a few forums over the years. Since he, and others, frequent forums I assumed that some people are able to answer these questions.

And, even if no one answers them they can be food for thought.
Posted on Reply
#89
ArchStupid
AnarchoPrimitiv, post: 4114048, member: 168101"
In spite of everything, at least AMD acknowledged the issue (yes, after being forced to) and is working to fix it. Compared to Intel, I see this as a plus (though I'll be the first to state that some other entity's guilty actions are never an excuse for your own). Perhaps in a few more weeks they'll have it ironed out even more.

When considering the totality of all this though, it doesn't profoundly affect the value of AMD's processors and I seriously doubt that any human being would be able to notice a 100mhz dip in performance. Nonetheless, I can still understand why owners would like to get every ounce of performance for which they paid.
lol what a slimy post.
Posted on Reply
#90
Mephis
RichF, post: 4114491, member: 154826"
The Stilt, I've recently read, works for one of the motherboard companies. He has posted in quite a few forums over the years. Since he, and others, frequent forums I assumed that some people are able to answer these questions.

And, even if no one answers them they can be food for thought.
Unfortunately you are not going to get the answers or discussion you are looking for here. I would love to hear the answers to your questions, but it's not going to happen here. As you can see, you will be branded a AMD hater or Intel fanboy.
Posted on Reply
#91
Chrispy_
sutyi, post: 4114432, member: 112688"
1T and 2T boost behavior is almost the same and then it drops off from 3T and above.




Yep, as long as people are looking at the "max" values at the bottom of the chart rather than the "average" values on the chart itself. Some people in here don't seem to understand the distinction.

It's worth noting that the 3700X here only reaches 4.38GHz max clock. OH, THE HORROR! Deprived of that 0.45% performance for a few miliseconds I might as well boycott AMD forever.
:laugh:
Posted on Reply
#93
NoJuan999
Chrispy_, post: 4114625, member: 185623"
Yep, as long as people are looking at the "max" values at the bottom of the chart rather than the "average" values on the chart itself. Some people in here don't seem to understand the distinction.

It's worth noting that the 3700X here only reaches 4.38GHz max clock. OH, THE HORROR! Deprived of that 0.45% performance for a few miliseconds I might as well boycott AMD forever.
:laugh:
LMAO !
I agree the .25 Mhz lower Max Boost only makes a difference for me when Benchmarking as far as I can tell.
I have a 3700x on an Asus ROG Strix B450-F (BIOS 2704 - AGESA 1.0.0.3ABB) that I installed last week and it hits 4.375 GHz with PBO off and 4.425 Ghz with PBO on.
And it idles around 32-34c and maxes out around 60-62c while gaming and under heavy loads (like video encoding).
And as I have stated in a few different threads, I am VERY happy with it as it is.
I certainly won't complain if the new AGESA nets me higher Boost clocks AND better performance though.
Posted on Reply
#94
lexluthermiester
thesmokingman, post: 4114423, member: 91203"
You trolling? Or is that like some Nvidia reference?
Both likely. And very poorly done.

Chomiq, post: 4114446, member: 185703"
Just because the CPU boosts to 1.5 V for a brief second it doesn't mean that it's doing so at high current.
While that is true, at 1.5v electronmigation(the process wherein electrons cause degradation to the circuit pathway) WILL damage the CPU over time. At 7nm the pathways are simply do not have enough mass to withstand the flow of electrons. When you increase the amps applied as well, the damage being done becomes exponential at a certain point.

However there is a variable to this equation that AMD has not made public. The voltage applied to the CPU package as a whole is not what is being delivered to the actual CPU core dies themselves. This is because of the difference in process nodes between the CCX and the CPU cores. So when the UEFI state tells a monitoring utility(such as Ryzen Master) what the voltage is, it's reading voltage delivery for the entire package instead of on a per die basis. So when a reading is saying that 1.475v is being applied to the package the actual voltage reaching the CPU cores is lower as it's been filtered through the power regulation circuitry within the package itself. The voltage supplied to the package is broken down and passed along to the CCX at one voltage and the CPU dies at a separate, lower level(what that ratio is was not disclosed). Don't ask for links, there aren't any as this info came from a phone call. However it makes sense given how the new Ryzen packages are made.
Posted on Reply
#95
TheLostSwede
lexluthermiester, post: 4114826, member: 134537"
electronmigation
Why is it you keep making up words all the time?

You seem to at least have been given good info, by whoever you talked to.
Since my first response got quoted below, I was a bit too quick to reply after reading the first part.
Posted on Reply
#96
mahoney
TheLostSwede, post: 4114868, member: 3382"
Why is it you keep making up words all the time?

And what you're trying to explain, is not how the AMD chips work. That said, I have no inclination of trying to explain it here, since everyone just wants to trash these garbage chips, so go ahead...
He forgot the letter R
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromigration
Posted on Reply
#97
TheLostSwede
mahoney, post: 4114872, member: 187374"
He forgot the letter R
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromigration
You sure? He seems to think it's two different things. See bold text below.

lexluthermiester, post: 4114335, member: 134537"
No it's a real problem. 1.5v will do bad things to 7nm circuit pathways at room temperature. Electron migration and migation become very real problems at that voltage.
Posted on Reply
#98
lexluthermiester
TheLostSwede, post: 4114868, member: 3382"
Why is it you keep making up words all the time?
It's not "made up". Clearly you've not encountered the word. I'm certain there are many more you've not encountered. That term was created in 2004 when engineers using an electron microscope discovered damage done to IC pathways caused by over-voltage conditions.
mahoney, post: 4114872, member: 187374"
He forgot the letter R
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromigration
No, that is a different term describing a different condition.
Posted on Reply
#99
TheLostSwede
lexluthermiester, post: 4114880, member: 134537"
It's not "made up". Clearly you've not encountered the word. I'm certain there are many more you've not encountered. That term was created in 2004 when engineers using an electron microscope discovered damage done to IC pathways caused by over-voltage conditions.

No, that different term describing a different condition.
There is no such word, please. Show me one link where someone uses that "word". It can't be a spelling mistake.
This doesn't count either.
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=migation
Posted on Reply
#100
eidairaman1
The Exiled Airman
xkm1948, post: 4113987, member: 50521"
Wonder what all those “This is fine” AMD fanboiz gonna say now.
Those who didn't have a problem before will have a potential gain just like for those who were having troubles, give credit where it's due.

lexluthermiester, post: 4114880, member: 134537"
It's not "made up". Clearly you've not encountered the word. I'm certain there are many more you've not encountered. That term was created in 2004 when engineers using an electron microscope discovered damage done to IC pathways caused by over-voltage conditions.

No, that is a different term describing a different condition.
Current produces heat, too much heat damages insulators and breaks down conductors over time

RichF, post: 4114438, member: 154826"
May I propose an auto-ban that will give people a 24 hour break or something for accusing other posters of being fans of any company? Intel. Nvidia. AMD. I don't care. I am so tired of seeing these accusations hurled in basically every discussion here and in comments in most other tech forums. I'm really tired of all the ad homs in general. Can't we have discussions without personal attacks? Is that so much to ask? I was just at another tech forum and a mod jumped in and locked a topic, after insulting the person who posted it, piling on after the previous poster had insulted that person with a lazy objection to the length of the post. There is too much toxicity online and too much knee-jerk laziness when responding to others' efforts. I don't want to see personal attacks from anyone when I read/participate in tech discussions. I don't care how many posts they have and how many years they've been there. Ad homs should be off-limits. They're fallacies, not contributions.

Furthermore, please stop cheerleading for any company. I've seen arguments here that amount to worshipful demands, like how unreasonable it is to require companies' specs to be accurate — especially because failing to do that could enable a competitor to get some easy PR.

We're supposed to like competition. Well, when there is competition there is PR battling. Get used to it. If the PR is erroneous then call it out. If it's picking nits that's okay if those nits are true. If a product doesn't meet its claimed specs then that's noteworthy, even if the real-world impact is low. If the real-world impact is low then, logically, one can argue that the company could have made a lower claim to match the actual results.

We can handle the truth.
Where are your syst specs at?

Give credit where it is due.

RichF, post: 4114444, member: 154826"
I recall The Stilt saying the chips can be killed with too-high a voltage, regardless of thermals and current. He said, for instance, that he reckoned that the FX's safe voltage limit is around 1.475. That's 32nm SOI.

His comments, which I don't have in front of me (and therefore must rely on memory from something I read years back) suggested to me that a chip could be degraded or fried very quickly, even without being subjected to a heavy load like Prime — without temperature nor load being needed. However, I have also read things that suggest that higher voltages won't kill chips if they're kept cold enough (i.e. nitrogen), so I'm a little confused.

He also said other things that seem to fly in the face of the conventional wisdom, like the widespread belief that a chip that needs less voltage is a better-quality one. I see that idea everywhere, from forum posts to professional reviews. He said it's basically the opposite. Higher leakage means less voltage required but he said, except under nitrogen, that's worse than higher voltage required and lower leakage. He said, for example, that the 9000 series FX chips were so poor-quality that they would have ended up in the crusher if AMD hadn't decided to create the 220 watt spec for AM3+. So, although the 9590 could hit, let's say 5 GHz, with less voltage than an 8370E, it would use more power and would die sooner at a given high voltage. Not only do the higher-leakage parts waste more power they are more sensitive to electromigration.

So, when we're looking at what safe voltages are it seems that it depends a lot on the leakage of the part. Maybe 1.5V is actually safe if the leakage is low enough? It seems really high to me but I don't know the technical details of the TSMC 7nm process AMD is using. I thought that safe voltage maximums are supposed to shrink as nodes shrink, although things like FinFET probably affect that quite a bit.

I remember Fermi (GF100) being described (in an Anandtech review I think) as an example of Nvidia's strategic intelligence. The notion was that Fermi intentionally had extra high-leakage transistors to increase performance. Given The Stilt's comments, or my understanding of them which may be flawed, I'm not sure how high-leakage transistors are a boon. Was it something about them being able to switch on and off more quickly? Does that apply to CPUs?

Also, some have been concerned that AMD may end up with a higher RMA rate because of this change. If it's the case that the RMA rate will increase one solution the company can do for future production is to realign the binning. This aligns with the improvement to the node that typically happens as it matures as well.
I run 1.476 by bios and it creeps to 1.524 on mine under blender, no problems
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment