• 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

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
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 ;)
So how do you explain that some of us have already had the problem resolved courtesy of an updated UEFI/AGESA? I was as I've explained time and time again in this thread, a hard upper clock limit of 4,400MHz until recently. Now my CPU boosts to 4,525MHz no problem. But hey, I'm just making that up, right? As it's easier to make crap up, like you...

Oh and it's also on AMD's official Twitter account now.
 
Joined
Dec 31, 2009
Messages
19,366 (3.72/day)
Benchmark Scores Faster than yours... I'd bet on it. :)
:) 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.
That has absolutely nothing to do with this thread.
 
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.
So how do you explain that some of us have already had the problem resolved courtesy of an updated UEFI/AGESA? I was as I've explained time and time again in this thread, a hard upper clock limit of 4,400MHz until recently. Now my CPU boosts to 4,525MHz no problem. But hey, I'm just making that up, right? As it's easier to make crap up, like you...

Oh and it's also on AMD's official Twitter account now.

You had a nearest 100MHz round-numbered hard upper clock limit. That's clearly not your precision boost fluctuating in 25MHz steps as it's supposed to, that was your board vendor screwing up their UEFI implementation of boost altogether.

Hundreds of results in the video are in the 25/50/75MHz increments which means that precision boost IS working properly, but they're topping out at that level. Your CPU now tops out at 4525 which makes it one of these results, as expected.



Congratulations you got a chip that is slightly better than average. :rolleyes:
 
Joined
Aug 20, 2007
Messages
20,709 (3.41/day)
System Name Pioneer
Processor Ryzen R9 7950X
Motherboard GIGABYTE Aorus Elite X670 AX
Cooling Noctua NH-D15 + A whole lotta Sunon and Corsair Maglev blower fans...
Memory 64GB (4x 16GB) G.Skill Flare X5 @ DDR5-6000 CL30
Video Card(s) XFX RX 7900 XTX Speedster Merc 310
Storage 2x Crucial P5 Plus 2TB PCIe 4.0 NVMe SSDs
Display(s) 55" LG 55" B9 OLED 4K Display
Case Thermaltake Core X31
Audio Device(s) TOSLINK->Schiit Modi MB->Asgard 2 DAC Amp->AKG Pro K712 Headphones or HDMI->B9 OLED
Power Supply FSP Hydro Ti Pro 850W
Mouse Logitech G305 Lightspeed Wireless
Keyboard WASD Code v3 with Cherry Green keyswitches
Software Windows 11 Enterprise (legit), Gentoo Linux x64
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

I was born in a different age...

silly to go down this hole of a GPU analog.

I don't agree here. They (gpu makers) started it, and share a lot of similar issues with the idea, and how they advertise their specs (appropriately, or inappropriately) is relevant.
 
Joined
Dec 31, 2009
Messages
19,366 (3.72/day)
Benchmark Scores Faster than yours... I'd bet on it. :)
I don't agree here. They (gpu makers) started it, and share a lot of similar issues with the idea, and how they advertise their specs (appropriately, or inappropriately) is relevant.
I see what you are saying, but, they list minimum boosts, essentially. And they all hit that when not banging off power/thermal limits. Here with CPUs, both Intel and AMD list the maximum boost... what they are EXPECTED to run at in 'nominal' conditions. While similar, they work in a completely opposite manner compared to GPUs. So, to me, no point in going down that road in a CPU thread about boost.

...and staff said so anyway, lol.
 
Joined
Aug 20, 2007
Messages
20,709 (3.41/day)
System Name Pioneer
Processor Ryzen R9 7950X
Motherboard GIGABYTE Aorus Elite X670 AX
Cooling Noctua NH-D15 + A whole lotta Sunon and Corsair Maglev blower fans...
Memory 64GB (4x 16GB) G.Skill Flare X5 @ DDR5-6000 CL30
Video Card(s) XFX RX 7900 XTX Speedster Merc 310
Storage 2x Crucial P5 Plus 2TB PCIe 4.0 NVMe SSDs
Display(s) 55" LG 55" B9 OLED 4K Display
Case Thermaltake Core X31
Audio Device(s) TOSLINK->Schiit Modi MB->Asgard 2 DAC Amp->AKG Pro K712 Headphones or HDMI->B9 OLED
Power Supply FSP Hydro Ti Pro 850W
Mouse Logitech G305 Lightspeed Wireless
Keyboard WASD Code v3 with Cherry Green keyswitches
Software Windows 11 Enterprise (legit), Gentoo Linux x64
I see what you are saying, but, they list minimum boosts, essentially. And they all hit that when not banging off power/thermal limits. Here with CPUs, both Intel and AMD list the maximum boost... what they are EXPECTED to run at in 'nominal' conditions. While similar, they work in a completely opposite manner compared to GPUs. So, to me, no point in going down that road in a CPU thread about boost.

Fair point. I mean that statement alone is perhaps relevant, but not much more to discuss there now is there?
 
Joined
Aug 20, 2007
Messages
20,709 (3.41/day)
System Name Pioneer
Processor Ryzen R9 7950X
Motherboard GIGABYTE Aorus Elite X670 AX
Cooling Noctua NH-D15 + A whole lotta Sunon and Corsair Maglev blower fans...
Memory 64GB (4x 16GB) G.Skill Flare X5 @ DDR5-6000 CL30
Video Card(s) XFX RX 7900 XTX Speedster Merc 310
Storage 2x Crucial P5 Plus 2TB PCIe 4.0 NVMe SSDs
Display(s) 55" LG 55" B9 OLED 4K Display
Case Thermaltake Core X31
Audio Device(s) TOSLINK->Schiit Modi MB->Asgard 2 DAC Amp->AKG Pro K712 Headphones or HDMI->B9 OLED
Power Supply FSP Hydro Ti Pro 850W
Mouse Logitech G305 Lightspeed Wireless
Keyboard WASD Code v3 with Cherry Green keyswitches
Software Windows 11 Enterprise (legit), Gentoo Linux x64
You act surprised.
 
Joined
Jun 19, 2018
Messages
848 (0.40/day)
System Name Batman's CaseLabs Mercury S8 Work Computer
Processor 8086K 5.3Ghz binned delidded by Siliconlottery.com 5.5Ghz 6c12t 5.6Ghz 6c6t on ambient air
Motherboard EVGA Z390 DARK
Cooling Noctua C14S for all overclocking so far Noctua Industrial PWM fan 2000rpm rated (700rpm inaudible)
Memory Gskill Trident Z Royal Silver F4-4600C18D-16GTRS running at 4500Mhz 17-17-17-37 (new mem OC) : )
Video Card(s) AMD WX 4100 Workstation Card (AMD W5400 7nm workstation card coming soon)
Storage Intel Optane 900P 280GB PCIe card as Primary OS drive / (4) Samsung 860Pro 256GB SATA internal
Display(s) Planar 27in 2560x1440 Glossy LG panel with glass bonded to panel for increased clarity
Case CaseLabs Mercury S8 open bench chassis two-tone black front cover with gunmetal frame
Audio Device(s) Creative $25 2.1 speakers lol
Power Supply Seasonic Prime Titanium 700watt fanless
Mouse Logitech MX Master 3 graphite / Glorious Model D matte black / Razer Invicta mousing mat gunmetal
Keyboard HHKB Hybrid Type-S black printed keycaps
Software Work Apps text and statistical
Benchmark Scores Single Thread scores at 5.6Ghz: Cinebench R15 ST - 249 CPU-Z ST - 676 PassMark CPU ST - 3389
I believe everyone here would agree on this but this is not the topic here !

The topic is AMD advertised speeds very few CPUs can hit just to be able to put a 0,1 or 0,2 bigger number on the box . That's called false advertisement and AMD doesn't need this BS .

I apologize, guess I'm not so skilled in AMD Intel argument threads. :oops:

More of an overview guy - always trying to see the brighter side of mankind's progress with amazing tech. Limits my debating skills severely. :)
 
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
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?
I’m sure AMD liked the timing of this boiling over—right before a three day weekend. Gave people plenty of time to sharpen the pitchforks before corporate could issue a presser!
 
Joined
Jul 5, 2013
Messages
25,559 (6.52/day)
It was straight from AMD. If the AIBs were to blame, you're damn right AMD would have said so. They didn't.
Ok, that only shifts accountability from the AIB's to AMD, sort of. Doesn't change the solution. Manually drop the voltage, problem solved. Don't believe me? Try it.

But here's a thought, one would think that the AIB's are the ones looking over the software supplied by AMD. They're presumably smart enough to know a problem when they see one, so why didn't the AIB's blow the whistle and fix it themselves? Even with AMD making that statement, the AIB's still have some level of accountability here. The fix is trivial. Laughably easy even. So why did they not do so themselves?
 
Joined
Dec 31, 2009
Messages
19,366 (3.72/day)
Benchmark Scores Faster than yours... I'd bet on it. :)
Ok, that only shifts accountability from the AIB's to AMD. Doesn't change the solution. Manually drop the voltage, problem solved. Don't believe me? Try it.

But here's a thought, one would think that the AIB's are the ones looking over the software supplied by AMD. They're prsumably smart enough to know a problem when they see one, so why didn't the AIB's blow the whistle and fix it themselves? Even with AMD making that statement, the AIB's still have some level of accountability here. The fix is trivial. Laughably easy even. So why did they not do so themselves?
"Ohhhhhhhh we're halfway there.........OhhhhhHHHHH living on a prayer! Take my hand, we'll make it I swear" - Bon Jovi

Anyway, joking aside - I've tried dropping voltage and like TLSwede, I ran into instability. That wasn't the answer for us at least. That also isn't remotely the point. OUT OF THE BOX WITH NO CHANGES, users should reach the listed clocks on the box. AMD agrees admitted as much and is doing something about it.

Let's not move the goal posts though, eh? I don't care if it was easy or difficult. The point is that AMD admitted there is a problem with coding THEY inject (AGESA) in how the CPU behaves. I recall TLSwede mentioning to you that the AGESA isn't editable by AIBs. They can make changes on top of it, but clearly, that is not the issue here or, as I said earlier, they would have said something to that effect instead of just taking one for the team. This is NOT an AIB issue, 'let it go' Elsa. :p
 
Joined
Jul 5, 2013
Messages
25,559 (6.52/day)
I recall TLSwede mentioning to you that the AGESA isn't editable by AIBs.
I didn't see it. After reading his imature nonsense I didn't care either. If you folks can't solve this issue, you have the problem. Sucks to be you. Have fun with that.
 

newtekie1

Semi-Retired Folder
Joined
Nov 22, 2005
Messages
28,472 (4.25/day)
Location
Indiana, USA
Processor Intel Core i7 10850K@5.2GHz
Motherboard AsRock Z470 Taichi
Cooling Corsair H115i Pro w/ Noctua NF-A14 Fans
Memory 32GB DDR4-3600
Video Card(s) RTX 2070 Super
Storage 500GB SX8200 Pro + 8TB with 1TB SSD Cache
Display(s) Acer Nitro VG280K 4K 28"
Case Fractal Design Define S
Audio Device(s) Onboard is good enough for me
Power Supply eVGA SuperNOVA 1000w G3
Software Windows 10 Pro x64
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.

View attachment 130861

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.

Interesting, you're correct.
 
Joined
Dec 31, 2009
Messages
19,366 (3.72/day)
Benchmark Scores Faster than yours... I'd bet on it. :)
I didn't see it. After reading his imature nonsense I didn't care either. If you folks can't solve this issue, you have the problem. Sucks to be you. Have fun with that.
Sometimes it's just easier to take your ball and go home I guess. :(

Interesting, you're correct.
It's hitting the temperature limit... of course it will throttle below the minimum boost. You can raise that limit or turn the fans higher if some titles manage to do so. Otherwise, it's as we said it was. That is a MINIMUM value that will always be hit UNLESS power/current/temp limits come into play. Either way, it has little to do with this thread as they work in opposite ways and the CPUs we are talking about are not hitting those limits.
 
Last edited:
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 hate to say I told you so, I told you so(but I did I did told you so!):nutkick: They advertised 4.725GHz, no CPU hits that limit not 1...
 

cadaveca

My name is Dave
Joined
Apr 10, 2006
Messages
17,232 (2.63/day)
Let's not move the goal posts though, eh? I don't care if it was easy or difficult. The point is that AMD admitted there is a problem with coding THEY inject (AGESA) in how the CPU behaves. I recall TLSwede mentioning to you that the AGESA isn't editable by AIBs. They can make changes on top of it, but clearly, that is not the issue here or, as I said earlier, they would have said something to that effect instead of just taking one for the team. This is NOT an AIB issue, 'let it go' Elsa. :p

The AGESA update might take until the end of October. I'm going to crawl back in my hole now; take it easy till we talk again. ;)

(I never expected this thread to blow up with 5 more pages in such a short time.)
 
Joined
Dec 31, 2009
Messages
19,366 (3.72/day)
Benchmark Scores Faster than yours... I'd bet on it. :)
The AGESA update might take until the end of October. I'm going to crawl back in my hole now; take it easy till we talk again. ;)

(I never expected this thread to blow up with 5 more pages in such a short time.)
Rabid misinformed fanatics (on both sides) gets ya every time!

Get in your home!!!!!!
130931
 

cadaveca

My name is Dave
Joined
Apr 10, 2006
Messages
17,232 (2.63/day)
Rabid misinformed fanatics (on both sides) gets ya every time!

I wanna place blame at the usual places I do, actually. Those fanatics get their info from somewhere...


Now, I'm going to point out something that I said countless times when I was a reviewer... I don't see many people doing reviews using a clamp-on meter over the 8-pin, which allows you to directly see CPU power use, and also allows you to check things like power draw increases as core speeds increase, or when temps increase (yes, this still happens)… or other cores are used...

Many times when issues like this crop up, a simple look with some simple tools tells you the real picture as to what is going on, but we rarely see this in the enthusiast communities, and it pains me so... because to me, as an enthusiast overclocker, these measurements are so valuable that I don't know how anyone does it without them! With so many claims of not relying on software, so many do for this, and I don't know why.

Its been so long since we've seen true detailed analysis of hardware, and while I understand why...

:shadedshu:
 

newtekie1

Semi-Retired Folder
Joined
Nov 22, 2005
Messages
28,472 (4.25/day)
Location
Indiana, USA
Processor Intel Core i7 10850K@5.2GHz
Motherboard AsRock Z470 Taichi
Cooling Corsair H115i Pro w/ Noctua NF-A14 Fans
Memory 32GB DDR4-3600
Video Card(s) RTX 2070 Super
Storage 500GB SX8200 Pro + 8TB with 1TB SSD Cache
Display(s) Acer Nitro VG280K 4K 28"
Case Fractal Design Define S
Audio Device(s) Onboard is good enough for me
Power Supply eVGA SuperNOVA 1000w G3
Software Windows 10 Pro x64
It's hitting the temperature limit... of course it will throttle below the minimum boost. You can raise that limit or turn the fans higher if some titles manage to do so. Otherwise, it's as we said it was. That is a MINIMUM value that will always be hit UNLESS power/current/temp limits come into play. Either way, it has little to do with this thread as they work in opposite ways and the CPUs we are talking about are not hitting those limits.

That's very true, at least the nvidia cards actually hit the advertised boost clocks. They just got hot and lowered the clock speed. The AMD CPUs aren't even doing that, they just never hit the advertised boost clock.

So this very much is a different situation.
 
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 wanna place blame at the usual places I do, actually. Those fanatics get their info from somewhere...


Now, I'm going to point out something that I said countless times when I was a reviewer... I don't see many people doing reviews using a clamp-on meter over the 8-pin, which allows you to directly see CPU power use, and also allows you to check things like power draw increases as core speeds increase, or when temps increase (yes, this still happens)… or other cores are used...

Many times when issues like this crop up, a simple look with some simple tools tells you the real picture as to what is going on, but we rarely see this in the enthusiast communities, and it pains me so... because to me, as an enthusiast overclocker, these measurements are so valuable that I don't know how anyone does it without them! With so many claims of not relying on software, so many do for this, and I don't know why.

Its been so long since we've seen true detailed analysis of hardware, and while I understand why...

:shadedshu:
Come back then! Be the change you want to see.


Rabid misinformed fanatics (on both sides) gets ya every time!
My ignore list grows long...
 
Joined
May 9, 2012
Messages
8,380 (1.93/day)
Location
Ovronnaz, Wallis, Switzerland
System Name main/SFFHTPCARGH!(tm)/Xiaomi Mi TV Stick/Samsung Galaxy S23/Ally
Processor Ryzen 7 5800X3D/i7-3770/S905X/Snapdragon 8 Gen 2/Ryzen Z1 Extreme
Motherboard MSI MAG B550 Tomahawk/HP SFF Q77 Express/uh?/uh?/Asus
Cooling Enermax ETS-T50 Axe aRGB /basic HP HSF /errr.../oh! liqui..wait, no:sizable vapor chamber/a nice one
Memory 64gb Corsair Vengeance Pro 3600mhz DDR4/8gb DDR3 1600/2gb LPDDR3/8gb LPDDR5x 4200/16gb LPDDR5
Video Card(s) Hellhound Spectral White RX 7900 XTX 24gb/GT 730/Mali 450MP5/Adreno 740/RDNA3 768 core
Storage 250gb870EVO/500gb860EVO/2tbSandisk/NVMe2tb+1tb/4tbextreme V2/1TB Arion/500gb/8gb/256gb/2tb SN770M
Display(s) X58222 32" 2880x1620/32"FHDTV/273E3LHSB 27" 1920x1080/6.67"/AMOLED 2X panel FHD+120hz/FHD 120hz
Case Cougar Panzer Max/Elite 8300 SFF/None/back/back-front Gorilla Glass Victus 2+ UAG Monarch Carbon
Audio Device(s) Logi Z333/SB Audigy RX/HDMI/HDMI/Dolby Atmos/KZ x HBB PR2/Edifier STAX Spirit S3 & SamsungxAKG beans
Power Supply Chieftec Proton BDF-1000C /HP 240w/12v 1.5A/4Smart Voltplug PD 30W/Asus USB-C 65W
Mouse Speedlink Sovos Vertical-Asus ROG Spatha-Logi Ergo M575/Xiaomi XMRM-006/touch/touch
Keyboard Endorfy Thock 75% <3/none/touch/virtual
VR HMD Medion Erazer
Software Win10 64/Win8.1 64/Android TV 8.1/Android 13/Win11 64
Benchmark Scores bench...mark? i do leave mark on bench sometime, to remember which one is the most comfortable. :o
Ok, now that's "mountain out of molehills"


Time to opt out (thread) and opt in (AMD next build, because Intel did far worse)


Also -7%, or something like that, ipc with a 2014 Intel CPU that can OC better than AMD's boost ( ooooh what about caring on OC and no boost enabled for AMD, sorry if I can't remember the name... Posting on mobile) before or after mitigation patch :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: (well even with -7% pre mitigation... Price wise it's not green compared to a R5 3600/3600X, but self conviction can be hard to overcome)
And to say, when AMD had that kind of -% IPC gen for gen people's said Intel was stomping on them... I guess when the situation is reversed... Intel is still stomping on them for some people (if you didn't test and base out of personal experience.... "Zip it!" Pretty please)

Oh and nope Intel induced issues of my 6600k are not due to my VCore which never exceeded 1.35 it only happened after the microcode update they pushed via WUpdate.

Funny I re attempted my standards OC (meager 4.4) well... Indeed I saw a lot of blue ( and not the Intel's one)
 
Last edited:
Joined
Mar 7, 2010
Messages
953 (0.19/day)
Location
Michigan
System Name Daves
Processor AMD Ryzen 3900x
Motherboard AsRock X570 Taichi
Cooling Enermax LIQMAX III 360
Memory 32 GiG Team Group B Die 3600
Video Card(s) Powercolor 5700 xt Red Devil
Storage Crucial MX 500 SSD and Intel P660 NVME 2TB for games
Display(s) Acer 144htz 27in. 2560x1440
Case Phanteks P600S
Audio Device(s) N/A
Power Supply Corsair RM 750
Mouse EVGA
Keyboard Corsair Strafe
Software Windows 10 Pro

xdregox

New Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2019
Messages
3 (0.00/day)
AMD made an error should have shipped stock coolers on high switch position instead of low . . .Boost gets dam close my 3800x hits 4.575 ghz. On low not a chance.we would then complain about noise hope they don't ship 3950x with that cooler or switch it to high just set silent in bios.
 
Top