• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

Der8auer: Only Small Percentage of 3rd Gen Ryzen CPUs Hit Their Advertised Speeds

Joined
Dec 31, 2009
Messages
19,366 (3.72/day)
Benchmark Scores Faster than yours... I'd bet on it. :)

130900


"NOMINAL conditions". People have 'nominal' covered and it still isn't hitting the max boost clock. They even had to change their verbiage.... update a video that said 5 GHz.... they are taking far too many liberties on clocks....................
 

Tatty_Two

Gone Fishing
Joined
Jan 18, 2006
Messages
25,793 (3.88/day)
Location
Worcestershire, UK
Processor Rocket Lake Core i5 11600K @ 5 Ghz with PL tweaks
Motherboard MSI MAG Z490 TOMAHAWK
Cooling Thermalright Peerless Assassin 120SE + 4 Phanteks 140mm case fans
Memory 32GB (4 x 8GB SR) Patriot Viper Steel 4133Mhz DDR4 @ 3600Mhz CL14@1.45v Gear 1
Video Card(s) Asus Dual RTX 4070 OC
Storage WD Blue SN550 1TB M.2 NVME//Crucial MX500 500GB SSD (OS)
Display(s) AOC Q2781PQ 27 inch Ultra Slim 2560 x 1440 IPS
Case Phanteks Enthoo Pro M Windowed - Gunmetal
Audio Device(s) Onboard Realtek ALC1200/SPDIF to Sony AVR @ 5.1
Power Supply Seasonic CORE GM650w Gold Semi modular
Mouse Coolermaster Storm Octane wired
Keyboard Element Gaming Carbon Mk2 Tournament Mech
Software Win 10 Home x64
I have to say, I am not convinced citing non CPU hardware and other manufacturers "also" fail to meet (occasionally or a sustained?) boost speed is relevant and it certainly does not negate the topic of this thread, IMO any hardware that does not perform and generally sustain an advertised spec is simply wrong, I don't see any point in saying because something else also does not it kind of makes it OK ……… so can we change direction and stick to at least just CPU's please.
 
Joined
Nov 15, 2016
Messages
454 (0.17/day)
System Name Sillicon Nightmares
Processor Intel i7 9700KF 5ghz (5.1ghz 4 core load, no avx offset), 4.7ghz ring, 1.412vcore 1.3vcio 1.264vcsa
Motherboard Asus Z390 Strix F
Cooling DEEPCOOL Gamer Storm CAPTAIN 360
Memory 2x8GB G.Skill Trident Z RGB (B-Die) 3600 14-14-14-28 1t, tRFC 220 tREFI 65535, tFAW 16, 1.545vddq
Video Card(s) ASUS GTX 1060 Strix 6GB XOC, Core: 2202-2240, Vcore: 1.075v, Mem: 9818mhz (Sillicon Lottery Jackpot)
Storage Samsung 840 EVO 1TB SSD, WD Blue 1TB, Seagate 3TB, Samsung 970 Evo Plus 512GB
Display(s) BenQ XL2430 1080p 144HZ + (2) Samsung SyncMaster 913v 1280x1024 75HZ + A Shitty TV For Movies
Case Deepcool Genome ROG Edition
Audio Device(s) Bunta Sniff Speakers From The Tip Edition With Extra Kenwoods
Power Supply Corsair AX860i/Cable Mod Cables
Mouse Logitech G602 Spilled Beer Edition
Keyboard Dell KB4021
Software Windows 10 x64
Benchmark Scores 13543 Firestrike (3dmark.com/fs/22336777) 601 points CPU-Z ST 37.4ns AIDA Memory
well EVERY INTEL chip ive owned hit its turbo, if the sillicon cant hit those clocks then tell us so we dont expect intel crushing perf in older titles
heck even my old macbook pro (8,1) hit 3ghz for a minute before it hit 100c
 
Joined
Oct 30, 2008
Messages
1,901 (0.34/day)
Processor 5930K
Motherboard MSI X99 SLI
Cooling WATER
Memory 16GB DDR4 2132
Video Card(s) EVGAY 2070 SUPER
Storage SEVERAL SSD"S
Display(s) Catleap/Yamakasi 2560X1440
Case D Frame MINI drilled out
Audio Device(s) onboard
Power Supply Corsair TX750
Mouse DEATH ADDER
Keyboard Razer Black Widow Tournament
Software W10HB
Benchmark Scores PhIlLyChEeSeStEaK
I could have sworn I brought this up before (earlier threads but was ignored), I'm a sit back n watch now.
 
Joined
Nov 15, 2016
Messages
454 (0.17/day)
System Name Sillicon Nightmares
Processor Intel i7 9700KF 5ghz (5.1ghz 4 core load, no avx offset), 4.7ghz ring, 1.412vcore 1.3vcio 1.264vcsa
Motherboard Asus Z390 Strix F
Cooling DEEPCOOL Gamer Storm CAPTAIN 360
Memory 2x8GB G.Skill Trident Z RGB (B-Die) 3600 14-14-14-28 1t, tRFC 220 tREFI 65535, tFAW 16, 1.545vddq
Video Card(s) ASUS GTX 1060 Strix 6GB XOC, Core: 2202-2240, Vcore: 1.075v, Mem: 9818mhz (Sillicon Lottery Jackpot)
Storage Samsung 840 EVO 1TB SSD, WD Blue 1TB, Seagate 3TB, Samsung 970 Evo Plus 512GB
Display(s) BenQ XL2430 1080p 144HZ + (2) Samsung SyncMaster 913v 1280x1024 75HZ + A Shitty TV For Movies
Case Deepcool Genome ROG Edition
Audio Device(s) Bunta Sniff Speakers From The Tip Edition With Extra Kenwoods
Power Supply Corsair AX860i/Cable Mod Cables
Mouse Logitech G602 Spilled Beer Edition
Keyboard Dell KB4021
Software Windows 10 x64
Benchmark Scores 13543 Firestrike (3dmark.com/fs/22336777) 601 points CPU-Z ST 37.4ns AIDA Memory
I could have sworn I brought this up before(earlier threads but was ignored), I'm a sit back n watch now.
well then mate apply for an editorial role at tpu, you picked a topic of debate that keeps people at the site to either shitpost or take things to heart, all the marks of a good writer

I could have sworn I brought this up before(earlier threads but was ignored), I'm a sit back n watch now.
since i spot an x99 owner, have you toyed with OCing ddr4? im more curious as to if the imc dictates the max mem clocks or if the type of dram matters, mainly because i have benched a ddr3 1333 kit at 2933, just curious thats all

well then mate apply for an editorial role at tpu, you picked a topic of debate that keeps people at the site to either shitpost or take things to heart, all the marks of a good writer


since i spot an x99 owner, have you toyed with OCing ddr4? im more curious as to if the imc dictates the max mem clocks or if the type of dram matters, mainly because i have benched a ddr3 1333 kit at 2933, just curious thats all
on haswell
 
Joined
Oct 30, 2008
Messages
1,901 (0.34/day)
Processor 5930K
Motherboard MSI X99 SLI
Cooling WATER
Memory 16GB DDR4 2132
Video Card(s) EVGAY 2070 SUPER
Storage SEVERAL SSD"S
Display(s) Catleap/Yamakasi 2560X1440
Case D Frame MINI drilled out
Audio Device(s) onboard
Power Supply Corsair TX750
Mouse DEATH ADDER
Keyboard Razer Black Widow Tournament
Software W10HB
Benchmark Scores PhIlLyChEeSeStEaK
Nope, haven't really overclocked or even looked at my memory timings. I set at default, been working my ass off mostly. Hell that reminds me to check if the default V core is correct........UGH!! Back on topic, Intel cores ALL BOOST to said speed even when overclocked, AMD no only a few cherry cores will boost the others sit back n watch.
 
Joined
Jun 27, 2011
Messages
6,680 (1.43/day)
Processor 7800x3d
Motherboard Gigabyte B650 Auros Elite AX
Cooling Custom Water
Memory GSKILL 2x16gb 6000mhz Cas 30 with custom timings
Video Card(s) MSI RX 6750 XT MECH 2X 12G OC
Storage Adata SX8200 1tb with Windows, Samsung 990 Pro 2tb with games
Display(s) HP Omen 27q QHD 165hz
Case ThermalTake P3
Power Supply SuperFlower Leadex Titanium
Software Windows 11 64 Bit
Benchmark Scores CB23: 1811 / 19424 CB24: 1136 / 7687
I just found this thread today, and it was amusing to see various people saying either user error, temperature constraints, or power constraints are the issue. I hope one day soon I get a bios update that allows my cpu to actually reach 4600mhz. I plan to install full custom watercooling hopefully later this year to raise my average boost clocks higher. These ryzen cpu's are really great.
 
Joined
Jan 15, 2012
Messages
942 (0.21/day)
Location
Slovenia
System Name PC.
Processor i7 2600K 5.0Gh,i7 3770K 5.00Gh. EK, Liqed Coooleng
Motherboard P67A-UD7-B3 Gigabyte T.,ASUS,P8Z77-V PREMIUM,MAXIMUS V EXTRIME..
Cooling Liqed Cooleng ,EK Suprime LTX Nickel,EK for Motherboard,Aqua computer (WGA), Thermaltake .... 0i,
Memory G.SKILL F3-17600CL7-2GBPISG. 16GBSkill Sniper F3-17000CL94GBSR on 2400Hz 10-12-11-29 1
Video Card(s) GTX590 ,SLI ,POV TGT best 691Hz ,LiqedCoold,GTX480.....GTX1080MSI SeaHawkEK SLI
Storage OCZ-REVODRIVE 3-240GB,2xCrucialMX100.512.R-0,1x LMT-32L3m,3x 1TB-WD,1x;1x2TbSEAGATE1x2Tb Seagate
Display(s) DELL-U2412Mb,Samsung Synkmaster245B,HP ENVY 34c
Case Thermaltake, NZXT SWITCH 810SE
Audio Device(s) CREATIVE BLASTER X-Fi Titanium HD , AUNE T1MK2 TUBE USB
Power Supply ENERMAX Platimax 1500W,Thermaltake 1500W
Mouse VIPER V560,FUNC MS-3, Prestigio, R.A.T.E.7 and 5,LogitechG502,RAZER,Inperator.,dead...a.s.o.
Keyboard Trust ....LogotechG410
Software Windows7 64....
Benchmark Scores 3DMark Fire Strike 21.385 (37.234,11.828,7.176)
What you can expect from a waste die series! Not even close to GPU OC capability. 8 and less core - 25 gb/s of writing is easily surpassed by DDR3 on my system. 7nm technology is Marketing expression ! . That the truth is shrouded in so much lies that it hurts. they have not reached the six-year-old Intel technology. they touched in some places. Intel understands the word QUALITY. Think of how disappointed people are with so much inflating the waste series and still is being overpriced! Reviews also don't say much about the way it sells here. THIS AMD R 3000 Series is a proven sale of WASTE COREs ! I Wonder who from all the reviews pll has enough eggs to say it publicly !
 
Joined
Dec 31, 2009
Messages
19,366 (3.72/day)
Benchmark Scores Faster than yours... I'd bet on it. :)
And what do you know... AMD sends out an email covering the boost clock issue...promising a FIRMWARE fix.

Now, if this really was an issue of cooling/power/board/silicon lottery/nominal conditions/user error/polling rates/AIB UEFI's, etc, they probably would have said so, right? Instead, they identified they have an issue and are correcting it via FW and not telling the client some line about "maximum" clocks and whatever other BS was brought up in this thread.

Here it is.......
“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.”

EDIT: Did anyone else notice they said "EXPECTED boost clock" and didn't try to split hairs on defining "maximum" or clarifying further what that meant?
 
Last edited:
Joined
Mar 16, 2017
Messages
1,637 (0.64/day)
Location
Tanagra
System Name Budget Box
Processor Xeon E5-2667v2
Motherboard ASUS P9X79 Pro
Cooling Some cheap tower cooler, I dunno
Memory 32GB 1866-DDR3 ECC
Video Card(s) XFX RX 5600XT
Storage WD NVME 1GB
Display(s) ASUS Pro Art 27"
Case Antec P7 Neo
except that for the last however many years boost clock was basically guaranteed, tell me an intel or amd gen prior to ryzen that couldnt hit its boost on a large scale. we arent just talking about half of the ryzens not hitting boost we are talking about ONLY 5.7% of a sku hits its boost, please tell me that you dont believe that only 5.7% of 9900k chips have hit 5ghz boost, because that is soooooo wrong
My W3690 has never officially hit the claimed boost of 3.73GHz. I don’t mind, because it runs at 3.6GHz all-core, and the base clock is 3.43GHz. It almost hit 3.7GHz on one core once. I’ve always viewed boost clocks as something you may get, but I am more concerned about the all-core sustained clocks, which are usually still higher than the rated base clock for all CPUs.
 
Joined
Apr 10, 2013
Messages
302 (0.08/day)
Location
Michigan, USA
Processor AMD 1700X
Motherboard Crosshair VI Hero
Memory F4-3200C14D-16GFX
Video Card(s) GTX 1070
Storage 960 Pro
Display(s) PG279Q
Case HAF X
Power Supply Silencer MK III 850
Mouse Logitech G700s
Keyboard Logitech G105
Software Windows 10
At least the back and forth can stop. AMD finally admitted a firmware defect and is working on a patch.

“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.”
 
Joined
Dec 31, 2009
Messages
19,366 (3.72/day)
Benchmark Scores Faster than yours... I'd bet on it. :)
At least the back and forth can stop. AMD finally admitted a firmware defect and is working on a patch.
Yep! See above. I added in the excerpt to my post. :)

I wonder what those who thought otherwise will say now? Do you think we will hear from anyone after this?
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jun 27, 2011
Messages
6,680 (1.43/day)
Processor 7800x3d
Motherboard Gigabyte B650 Auros Elite AX
Cooling Custom Water
Memory GSKILL 2x16gb 6000mhz Cas 30 with custom timings
Video Card(s) MSI RX 6750 XT MECH 2X 12G OC
Storage Adata SX8200 1tb with Windows, Samsung 990 Pro 2tb with games
Display(s) HP Omen 27q QHD 165hz
Case ThermalTake P3
Power Supply SuperFlower Leadex Titanium
Software Windows 11 64 Bit
Benchmark Scores CB23: 1811 / 19424 CB24: 1136 / 7687
These amazing cpus are only going to be more amazing once this is fixed.

With an average clockspeed of 4.2ghz my 3900x is performing in the 80th percentile on userbenchmark. Userbenchmark isn't the greatest benchmark, but sometimes aggregate benchmark data can be useful.

I intend to install a full custom water cooling loop later this year, and I am excited to see how high I can get my average clockspeed. Maybe even with this fix amd has planned, I may even exceed the maximum advertised boost clock like that one amd video said may be possible.
 
Joined
Jul 5, 2013
Messages
25,559 (6.52/day)
Actually, I'd bet the AGESA package may be doing it, but I could be wrong.
That is entirely possible.
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.
While I agree, I still have to side with the idea that mobo makers aren't getting it right and need to work it out.
 
Joined
Dec 31, 2009
Messages
19,366 (3.72/day)
Benchmark Scores Faster than yours... I'd bet on it. :)
While I agree, I still have to side with the idea that mobo makers aren't getting it right and need to work it out.

The AIBs have nothing to do with it. Please see the links to the previous posts just above yours.
 
Joined
May 2, 2016
Messages
171 (0.06/day)
Care to share the rest of your hardware, as well as UEFI version? Without that, it's hard to give any suggestions.
Of course. It's the Ryzen 3600, MSI B450 Tomahawk with the AGESA 1.0.0.3AB bios. Rest of system is 2x16GB TridentZ 3200CL15 with Samsung B-die ICs and an EVGA 1080Ti, custom watercooled too. You can see some pictures of the real system here. It doesn't matter if I choose Cool & Quiet, PBO enabled or disabled, not even if I set custom limits on the EDC etc. Everything (including full auto settings) results into 4050-4100MHz on single core workloads, max. VRM temperatures are non-issue too, they max out at ~50°C.
 
Joined
Jul 5, 2013
Messages
25,559 (6.52/day)
The AIBs have nothing to do with it. Please see the links to the previous posts just above yours.
TLDR, and to be fair there is alot of conflicting info available. I'm falling back on what I have observed and been able to make work. I have observed boards applying too much voltage and the CPU's running hot as a result. Lowered the voltage, problem solved. As voltage is applied by settings in the UEFI of the boards in question, the boards made by AIB's are directly responsible. Therefore it is logical to conclude that the AIB's are not getting things right.
 
Joined
Dec 31, 2009
Messages
19,366 (3.72/day)
Benchmark Scores Faster than yours... I'd bet on it. :)
TLDR, and to be fair there is alot of conflicting info available. I'm falling back on what I have observed and been able to make work. I have observed boards applying too much voltage and the CPU's running hot as a result. Lowered the voltage, problem solved. As voltage is applied by settings in the UEFI of the boards in question, the boards made by AIB's are directly responsible. Therefore it is logical to conclude that the AIB's are not getting things right.
You really should read those before making more posts. :)

It isnt a TLDR. Those are links to a single post with a paragraph from AMD stating they are fixing the problem through firmware. They dont mention rogue AIB UEFIs or too much voltage or whatever else you've mentioned.

This is not an AIB problem.
 
Joined
Feb 20, 2019
Messages
7,194 (3.86/day)
System Name Bragging Rights
Processor Atom Z3735F 1.33GHz
Motherboard It has no markings but it's green
Cooling No, it's a 2.2W processor
Memory 2GB DDR3L-1333
Video Card(s) Gen7 Intel HD (4EU @ 311MHz)
Storage 32GB eMMC and 128GB Sandisk Extreme U3
Display(s) 10" IPS 1280x800 60Hz
Case Veddha T2
Audio Device(s) Apparently, yes
Power Supply Samsung 18W 5V fast-charger
Mouse MX Anywhere 2
Keyboard Logitech MX Keys (not Cherry MX at all)
VR HMD Samsung Oddyssey, not that I'd plug it into this though....
Software W10 21H1, barely
Benchmark Scores I once clocked a Celeron-300A to 564MHz on an Abit BE6 and it scored over 9000.
I'm not convinced there is a real firmware fix coming. Some minor tweaks perhaps but I suspect the announcement is just damage control to shut up the vocal minority who are making a big deal about this.

There's enough of a spread in the Der8auer survey results to show a clear bell-curve of results implying that this isn't a firmware limitation but simply the spread of results from the silicon lottery. The peak of the bell curve is typically 25-50MHz lower than AMD's figures and if the survey data is realistic then AMD either miscalculated slightly or rounded up the figures to the nearest 0.1GHz.

It's still comical that this topic has even come up, firstly because Intel's CPUs have arbitrary time-limits to their boost, after which they slow down again far more than Zen2 chips do, and secondly because the number of situations where only one core is active in a modern machine is zero. The only people who care about this "peak single-core boost frequency" aren't people who are actually using the chips to do stuff. The minute you give any multi-core CPU a real-world workload, the OS scheduler is going to use all available cores to run background tasks, meaning that 'single core' is never achieved.

Hell, the monitoring software uses a core to monitor the single-threaded synthetic load, thus using a second core. It's so dumb that the only people left arguing it seriously are just in it for the arguing, not actually giving a damn about the topic at all ;)
 
Joined
Jul 5, 2013
Messages
25,559 (6.52/day)
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.
Your conclusions are incorrect. This is easily solved by lowering voltages.

You really should read those before making more posts. :)
Why? I have and am solving the problems. If AIB's would lower the default voltages, the problem would be solved. AMD does not need to do anything other than direct this action..
 

TheLostSwede

News Editor
Joined
Nov 11, 2004
Messages
16,001 (2.26/day)
Location
Sweden
System Name Overlord Mk MLI
Processor AMD Ryzen 7 7800X3D
Motherboard Gigabyte X670E Aorus Master
Cooling Noctua NH-D15 SE with offsets
Memory 32GB Team T-Create Expert DDR5 6000 MHz @ CL30-34-34-68
Video Card(s) Gainward GeForce RTX 4080 Phantom GS
Storage 1TB Solidigm P44 Pro, 2 TB Corsair MP600 Pro, 2TB Kingston KC3000
Display(s) Acer XV272K LVbmiipruzx 4K@160Hz
Case Fractal Design Torrent Compact
Audio Device(s) Corsair Virtuoso SE
Power Supply be quiet! Pure Power 12 M 850 W
Mouse Logitech G502 Lightspeed
Keyboard Corsair K70 Max
Software Windows 10 Pro
Benchmark Scores https://valid.x86.fr/5za05v
Of course. It's the Ryzen 3600, MSI B450 Tomahawk with the AGESA 1.0.0.3AB bios. Rest of system is 2x16GB TridentZ 3200CL15 with Samsung B-die ICs and an EVGA 1080Ti, custom watercooled too. You can see some pictures of the real system here. It doesn't matter if I choose Cool & Quiet, PBO enabled or disabled, not even if I set custom limits on the EDC etc. Everything (including full auto settings) results into 4050-4100MHz on single core workloads, max. VRM temperatures are non-issue too, they max out at ~50°C.
Old AGESA could be part of the problem, nothing much you can do about it until MSI releases an update though. I didn't hit the right speeds until the second beta UEFI on AGESA 1.0.0.3ABB from Gigabyte.
 
Joined
Dec 31, 2009
Messages
19,366 (3.72/day)
Benchmark Scores Faster than yours... I'd bet on it. :)
Your conclusions are incorrect. This is easily solved by lowering voltages.


Why? I have and am solving the problems. If AIB's would lower the default voltages, the problem would be solved. AMD does not need to do anything other than direct this action..
Denial is not just a river in Africa (or a city in Ohio according to those opioid commercials, lol!).

It was straight from AMD. If the AIBs were to blame, you're damn right AMD would have said so. They didn't.
 
Last edited:

TheLostSwede

News Editor
Joined
Nov 11, 2004
Messages
16,001 (2.26/day)
Location
Sweden
System Name Overlord Mk MLI
Processor AMD Ryzen 7 7800X3D
Motherboard Gigabyte X670E Aorus Master
Cooling Noctua NH-D15 SE with offsets
Memory 32GB Team T-Create Expert DDR5 6000 MHz @ CL30-34-34-68
Video Card(s) Gainward GeForce RTX 4080 Phantom GS
Storage 1TB Solidigm P44 Pro, 2 TB Corsair MP600 Pro, 2TB Kingston KC3000
Display(s) Acer XV272K LVbmiipruzx 4K@160Hz
Case Fractal Design Torrent Compact
Audio Device(s) Corsair Virtuoso SE
Power Supply be quiet! Pure Power 12 M 850 W
Mouse Logitech G502 Lightspeed
Keyboard Corsair K70 Max
Software Windows 10 Pro
Benchmark Scores https://valid.x86.fr/5za05v
AMD has given them the specs, who knows why they're not following them. Or maybe they just don't understand everything. It has happened.
Reading comprehension once again. Holy...
If you actually read AMD's email, quoted above, it says they have a firmware bug, no spec in the world would help the board makers work around that, as they can't edit AMD's firmware.

Your conclusions are incorrect. This is easily solved by lowering voltages.


Why? I have and am solving the problems. If AIB's would lower the default voltages, the problem would be solved. AMD does not need to do anything other than direct this action..
Right, because you and only you, have a solution to all the problems so many of us have had...
How simple, amazing...
I wish I would've tried that three months ago...
Oh right, if I drop my CPU Voltage, my system won't boot...
 
Joined
Sep 22, 2012
Messages
1,010 (0.24/day)
Location
Belgrade, Serbia
System Name Intel® X99 Wellsburg
Processor Intel® Core™ i7-5820K - 4.5GHz
Motherboard ASUS Rampage V E10 (1801)
Cooling EK RGB Monoblock + EK XRES D5 Revo Glass PWM
Memory CMD16GX4M4A2666C15
Video Card(s) ASUS GTX1080Ti Poseidon
Storage Samsung 970 EVO PLUS 1TB /850 EVO 1TB / WD Black 2TB
Display(s) Samsung P2450H
Case Lian Li PC-O11 WXC
Audio Device(s) CREATIVE Sound Blaster ZxR
Power Supply EVGA 1200 P2 Platinum
Mouse Logitech G900 / SS QCK
Keyboard Deck 87 Francium Pro
Software Windows 10 Pro x64
:) I would like to see how Intel i7-6950X compete with new R9-3900X.
Because we talk about 4 years old CPU with lower frequency it's logic to OC both to the maximum and then to compare them.
That mean i7-6950X 4.4GHz boost on all cores, 3.8-4.0GHz Cache frequency vs R9-3900X on how much is boost...
no one know that for sure, enthusiasts community still examine is it boost as AMD advertised.
 
Top