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

AMD AGESA 1.0.0.3ABBA Detailed, Fixes Zen2 Boost Issues

Joined
Nov 11, 2004
Messages
4,038 (0.74/day)
Location
Formosa
System Name Overlord Mk MX
Processor AMD Ryzen 7 3800X
Motherboard X570 Aorus Master
Cooling Corsair H115i Pro
Memory Viper Steel DDR4 3800MHz 16-19-16-19-36
Video Card(s) Gigabyte RTX 2080 Gaming OC 8G
Storage 1TB WD Black NVMe (2018), 2TB Viper VPN100, 1TB WD Blue 3D NAND
Display(s) Asus PG27AQ
Case Corsair Carbide 275Q
Power Supply Corsair RM750
Mouse Logitech G500s
Keyboard Wooting Two
Software Windows 10
Benchmark Scores https://valid.x86.fr/ztiub6
The numbers don't seem like all this was worth it. So you get +50 Mhz and the clock will hold at the spec for a few seconds to net you less than 1% performance. For what?
Uhm, you've clearly followed this topic then...
I've gained 200MHz boost on the highest boosting core, but I guess that's not worth it to you...
Not long ago, none of my cores would clock over 4,400MHz, now the slowest ones boost to 4,550MHz, but again, I guess that's not worth it either?
 
Joined
May 7, 2009
Messages
5,370 (1.42/day)
Location
Carrollton, GA
System Name ODIN
Processor AMD Ryzen 7 1800X @ 3.9 GHz (all cores)
Motherboard ASRock TaiChi X370
Cooling Cryorig Universal R1
Memory 16 GB G.Skill FlareX @ 3200 MHz 14-14-14-34
Video Card(s) Nvidia Gigabyte Aorus GeForce GTX 1080 Ti
Storage WD Blue M.2 1TB SSD :: 10 TB RAID 1 Array of 2 drives
Display(s) Dell S2716DG 27" 144 Hz G-SYNC
Case NZXT H630
Audio Device(s) Onboard Audio
Power Supply Antec HCP 850 80+ Gold
Mouse Corsair M65
Keyboard Corsair K70 RGB Lux
Software Windows 10 Pro 64-bit
Benchmark Scores I don't benchmark.
Uhm, you've clearly followed this topic then...
I've gained 200MHz boost on the highest boosting core, but I guess that's not worth it to you...
Not long ago, none of my cores would clock over 4,400MHz, now the slowest ones boost to 4,550MHz, but again, I guess that's not worth it either?
I am glad it corrected whatever issue was going on with your BIOS. I have been watching this very closely since I will be buying one of these chips in the next few weeks. Your numbers seem to be part of the fringe since you gained 200 Mhz. Most of the chips from the online survey that D8bauer put out were only 50 to 75 MHz off. And yes I don't think 50 MHz would be worth it. Yours clearly needed a fix.

I am happy they did something, I am just worried that like with the testing of this issue, once it gets push to the board makes we are going to get mixed results on the level of improvement.
 
Joined
Jun 2, 2017
Messages
991 (1.18/day)
System Name Best AMD Computer
Processor AMD TR4 1900X
Motherboard As Rock X399 Phantom Gaming 6
Cooling Alphacool Eisbaer 420 x2 Noctua NHU-14S TR4
Memory Gskill RIpjaws V 3600 MHZ 16 GB (2x8) & Gskill Ripjaws 4 3000 MHZ 16GB (2x8)
Video Card(s) Sapphire Vega 64 Nitro, Gigabyte Vega 64 Gaming OC
Storage 6 x NVME 480 GB, 2 x SSD 2TB, 5TB HDD, 2 TB HDD, 2x 2TB SSHD
Display(s) Acer 49BQ0k 4K monitor
Case Thermaltake Core X9
Audio Device(s) Corsair Void Pro, Logitch Z523 5.1
Power Supply Corsair HX1200!
Mouse Logitech g7 gaming mouse
Keyboard Logitech G510
Software Windows 10 Pro 64 Steam. GOG, Uplay, Origin
Benchmark Scores Firestrike: 24955 Time Spy: 13500
If nothing else it proves that AMD is listening to their customers. If anyone thinks it is because of Debaur's youtube challenge they would be wrong as AMD has probably been working on this since launch.
 
Joined
Jun 27, 2011
Messages
5,849 (1.94/day)
Processor Ryzen 3900x
Motherboard Asrock X570m PRO4
Cooling Scythe Mugen 5 Rev B with push pull fans
Memory Corsair 4x8gb 3533mhz Cas 16
Video Card(s) EVGA 1060 3gb
Storage Adata SX8200 1tb
Display(s) Asus 144hz
Case Fractal Design Something
Power Supply XFX 850w
Software Windows 10 64 Bit
The numbers don't seem like all this was worth it. So you get +50 Mhz and the clock will hold at the spec for a few seconds to net you less than 1% performance. For what?
Think about it this way. You are paying for 50/10 mbps internet but are only getting 45/1 mbps? Sure it won't really affect what you are doing, and 99% of people won't notice the difference, but that is not what you are paying for. AMD admitted there was a bug, and has seemed to have fixed it. We will be getting the specifications we paid for and will be happy.
 
Joined
Nov 11, 2004
Messages
4,038 (0.74/day)
Location
Formosa
System Name Overlord Mk MX
Processor AMD Ryzen 7 3800X
Motherboard X570 Aorus Master
Cooling Corsair H115i Pro
Memory Viper Steel DDR4 3800MHz 16-19-16-19-36
Video Card(s) Gigabyte RTX 2080 Gaming OC 8G
Storage 1TB WD Black NVMe (2018), 2TB Viper VPN100, 1TB WD Blue 3D NAND
Display(s) Asus PG27AQ
Case Corsair Carbide 275Q
Power Supply Corsair RM750
Mouse Logitech G500s
Keyboard Wooting Two
Software Windows 10
Benchmark Scores https://valid.x86.fr/ztiub6
I am glad it corrected whatever issue was going on with your BIOS. I have been watching this very closely since I will be buying one of these chips in the next few weeks. Your numbers seem to be part of the fringe since you gained 200 Mhz. Most of the chips from the online survey that D8bauer put out were only 50 to 75 MHz off. And yes I don't think 50 MHz would be worth it. Yours clearly needed a fix.

I am happy they did something, I am just worried that like with the testing of this issue, once it gets push to the board makes we are going to get mixed results on the level of improvement.
Why are we still discussing his flawed survey? And why am I a fringe case? Holy crap...
No, my CPU couldn't boost 1MHz beyond 4,400MHz until recently and it's an issue several other people have had here, that there has been a hard ceiling which can't be bypassed in any way whatsoever.
This was fixed on Gigabyte boards a few weeks ago and a couple of my cores would boost to 4,525MHz, but the rest would be 4,475MHz at the most. Now, as you can see, all cores boosts to a minimum of 4,550MHz, so this clearly changes things significantly. I.e. I'm now boosting up to 100MHz over AMD's claimed boost speed, on at least one core.

I wish people would stop making crap up on this topic, as people have had a wide range of issues and it's clear AMD is working on solving things. If you don't have one of the CPUs, please don't make assumptions.

So this Bios update make the intel "5GHz means 5GHz" statement baseless now?
Well, depends on how you look at it, but mostly, yes.
Obviously all core boost is still not going to get any higher, but that wasn't promised either.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Mar 24, 2019
Messages
234 (1.29/day)
Location
Denmark - Aarhus
System Name Iglo
Processor Intel® Core™ i7-3770K CPU @ 3.50GHz OC to 4000 mhz (Ivy Brigde)
Motherboard Asrock Z77 Extreme 9 Socket 1155 LGA
Cooling 240 mm water
Memory 16 gb 2600 mhz ddr3
Video Card(s) EVGA GeForce GTX 1080 SC2 GAMING
Storage Ssd ´s in raid.
Display(s) BenQ XL2420Z
Case corsair obsidian 650d
Audio Device(s) Logitech Z-2300 THX-Certified 2.1 Speaker
Power Supply Seasonic Prime Ultra Platinum 550w
Mouse G900
Keyboard Hyper x
Software win 10
Benchmark Scores Super-PI 1M Time : 9,265 sec CPU-Z scores Version 2017.1 (x64) S-T 395 M-T 1945
Im seriously surprised, cant wait til Der8auer calls out for another group test scenario again. :pimp:
 
Joined
Nov 11, 2004
Messages
4,038 (0.74/day)
Location
Formosa
System Name Overlord Mk MX
Processor AMD Ryzen 7 3800X
Motherboard X570 Aorus Master
Cooling Corsair H115i Pro
Memory Viper Steel DDR4 3800MHz 16-19-16-19-36
Video Card(s) Gigabyte RTX 2080 Gaming OC 8G
Storage 1TB WD Black NVMe (2018), 2TB Viper VPN100, 1TB WD Blue 3D NAND
Display(s) Asus PG27AQ
Case Corsair Carbide 275Q
Power Supply Corsair RM750
Mouse Logitech G500s
Keyboard Wooting Two
Software Windows 10
Benchmark Scores https://valid.x86.fr/ztiub6
Hey Swede, can you elaborate on the flawed part? I'm a bit out of the loop on that, thanks.
1. Too small sample size. The only potentially valid results are for the 3700X.
2. Too many variables. It looks like there's a fair amount of user error in the "fringe" results, but he simply filtered those out so...
3. He doesn't quite understand statistics, as he's applying a very weird filter to the results.
4. The way he presents the data is flawed, although I guess that comes down to how it was collected as well. See 2.
5. In many cases "fringe" results were filtered out for no apparent reasons. See 3.
And so on...
 
Joined
Dec 29, 2010
Messages
734 (0.23/day)
1. Too small sample size. The only potentially valid results are for the 3700X.
2. Too many variables. It looks like there's a fair amount of user error in the "fringe" results, but he simply filtered those out so...
3. He doesn't quite understand statistics, as he's applying a very weird filter to the results.
4. The way he presents the data is flawed, although I guess that comes down to how it was collected as well. See 2.
5. In many cases "fringe" results were filtered out for no apparent reasons. See 3.
And so on...
Thanks for breaking it down. But it sure got him a jack ton of hits, lol. That was probably more important than adhering to the scientific method.
 
Joined
Nov 11, 2004
Messages
4,038 (0.74/day)
Location
Formosa
System Name Overlord Mk MX
Processor AMD Ryzen 7 3800X
Motherboard X570 Aorus Master
Cooling Corsair H115i Pro
Memory Viper Steel DDR4 3800MHz 16-19-16-19-36
Video Card(s) Gigabyte RTX 2080 Gaming OC 8G
Storage 1TB WD Black NVMe (2018), 2TB Viper VPN100, 1TB WD Blue 3D NAND
Display(s) Asus PG27AQ
Case Corsair Carbide 275Q
Power Supply Corsair RM750
Mouse Logitech G500s
Keyboard Wooting Two
Software Windows 10
Benchmark Scores https://valid.x86.fr/ztiub6
Thanks for breaking it down. But it sure got him a jack ton of hits, lol. That was probably more important than adhering to the scientific method.
It's not all wrong, but he drew some flawed conclusions imho.
In all fairness, it showed how widespread the issue was, with not getting to the correct boost speeds. However, it also showed that a lot of DIY system builders that follows him, are not that great at building PCs...
 
Joined
Dec 29, 2010
Messages
734 (0.23/day)
It's not all wrong, but he drew some flawed conclusions imho.
In all fairness, it showed how widespread the issue was, with not getting to the correct boost speeds. However, it also showed that a lot of DIY system builders that follows him, are not that great at building PCs...
He should have read more Shamino...

In other news, moar Intel hax...

 
Joined
Jun 27, 2011
Messages
5,849 (1.94/day)
Processor Ryzen 3900x
Motherboard Asrock X570m PRO4
Cooling Scythe Mugen 5 Rev B with push pull fans
Memory Corsair 4x8gb 3533mhz Cas 16
Video Card(s) EVGA 1060 3gb
Storage Adata SX8200 1tb
Display(s) Asus 144hz
Case Fractal Design Something
Power Supply XFX 850w
Software Windows 10 64 Bit
Thanks for breaking it down. But it sure got him a jack ton of hits, lol. That was probably more important than adhering to the scientific method.
Honestly, I really don't think that was his motivation. It would be hard to do an actual scientific survey in as short of time. I think what he did was okay because he was very upfront with the flaws with his methodology. It was not meant to be scientific.

What he did do was bring attention and validity to an existing problem. Regardless of if his efforts affected this, amd has a fix. I am EAGERLY waiting for asrock to get it out to us.
 
Joined
Apr 30, 2012
Messages
3,368 (1.25/day)
Honestly, I really don't think that was his motivation. It would be hard to do an actual scientific survey in as short of time. I think what he did was okay because he was very upfront with the flaws with his methodology. It was not meant to be scientific.

What he did do was bring attention and validity to an existing problem. Regardless of if his efforts affected this, amd has a fix. I am EAGERLY waiting for asrock to get it out to us.
He did try to pass it as such. Roman in his video said he filtered out the "noise". How is that even possible when their wasn't a validation process for the survey. Anyone could fill in the survey with no proof at all.
 
Joined
Apr 12, 2019
Messages
44 (0.27/day)
Processor AMD Ryzen 3700X
Motherboard Asus X570 TUF Gaming Plus
Cooling NZXT Kraken X62
Memory G.Skill 2x8GB 3600CL16
Video Card(s) Asus Strix RTX 2070
Storage Samsung 850 SSD 512GB
Display(s) Acer Predator XB271HU
Case NZXT S340 Elite
Uhm, you've clearly followed this topic then...
I've gained 200MHz boost on the highest boosting core, but I guess that's not worth it to you...
Not long ago, none of my cores would clock over 4,400MHz, now the slowest ones boost to 4,550MHz, but again, I guess that's not worth it either?
I though the Agesa was released just for the board vendors, and the implementation into BIOS updates could take up to the 30th September. Is the Agesa available through AMD? Can you clarify where you got it from?
 
Joined
Dec 29, 2010
Messages
734 (0.23/day)
Honestly, I really don't think that was his motivation. It would be hard to do an actual scientific survey in as short of time. I think what he did was okay because he was very upfront with the flaws with his methodology. It was not meant to be scientific.

What he did do was bring attention and validity to an existing problem. Regardless of if his efforts affected this, amd has a fix. I am EAGERLY waiting for asrock to get it out to us.
If you followed Shamino of Asus, you'd know that AMD had been steadily lowering boost from initial release bios to presumably pad the cpus for longevity. Thus this whole controversy is actually blown way out of proportion by Roman. He gave the other team fuel to troll and make this issue much bigger than it actually is.
 
Joined
Mar 10, 2015
Messages
2,011 (1.21/day)
System Name Wut?
Processor 4770K @ 4.4
Motherboard MSI Z97 Gaming 7
Cooling Water
Memory 16GB DDR3 2400
Video Card(s) Vega 56
Storage 1TB SSD, forgot which one. Evo maybe?
Display(s) 3440 x 1440
Case Thermaltake T81
Power Supply Seasonic 750 Watt Gold
Think about it this way. You are paying for 50/10 mbps internet but are only getting 45/1 mbps? Sure it won't really affect what you are doing, and 99% of people won't notice the difference, but that is not what you are paying for. AMD admitted there was a bug, and has seemed to have fixed it. We will be getting the specifications we paid for and will be happy.
Paying for 50/10 and getting 45/1 is bit different than paying for 4600mhz and getting 4550mhz.

Your scenario should have been like: Paying for 50/10 mbps and getting 49.5/9.9 mbps. Don't get me wrong, AMD should have had this figured out before launch but I think you are over dramatizing it just a tad.
 
Joined
Feb 18, 2005
Messages
2,193 (0.41/day)
Location
United Kingdom
Lemme get this straight...

AMD releases a phenomenal product that gives far more value than the competition at a far lower price...

And people moan and complain and cry oceans of tears because in some cases their CPU only performs at 95% of what it "should" (4.4GHz vs 4.6GHz) or, in the most ridiculous cases, boosts all of 50MHz lower than they believe it should...

FIFTY
WHOLE
MEGAHERTZ.

1/20th of a gigahertz. On a 4GHz CPU, less than 1% of the clock speed. Yet wars have been lost, worlds destroyed, for fifty megahertz... or so it would seem given the hue and cry, because we all know that more megahertz = more performance, right? Right?

Because there's never been a scenario where lower clocks over a period produce better performance than higher clocks causing intermittent throttling, right? Right?

This sort of uninformed, immature, infantile BS is exactly why companies stop listening to their customers. Because it teaches them that when they do, their customers take that opportunity to s**t on them. The net result is that the people who have useful feedback also get ignored, which benefits nobody.

Seriously kids, grow the f**k up. Good on AMD for addressing this for those who are insecure about the size of their manhood, but god damn.

I though the Agesa was released just for the board vendors, and the implementation into BIOS updates could take up to the 30th September. Is the Agesa available through AMD? Can you clarify where you got it from?
Tweaktown Gigabyte Beta BIOS forum.
 
Joined
Jul 5, 2013
Messages
7,304 (3.22/day)
Location
USA
Uhm, you've clearly followed this topic then...
I've gained 200MHz boost on the highest boosting core, but I guess that's not worth it to you...
Not long ago, none of my cores would clock over 4,400MHz, now the slowest ones boost to 4,550MHz, but again, I guess that's not worth it either?
To be fair, 200mhz out of 4400+mhz isn't enough to make a big deal about. That's less than 5%.

Im seriously surprised, cant wait til Der8auer calls out for another group test scenario again. :pimp:
He's just trying to drum up business.
 
Joined
Jan 8, 2017
Messages
4,407 (4.47/day)
System Name Good enough
Processor AMD Ryzen R7 1700X - 4.0 Ghz / 1.350V
Motherboard ASRock B450M Pro4
Cooling Scythe Katana 4 - 3x 120mm case fans
Memory 16GB - Corsair Vengeance LPX
Video Card(s) OEM Dell GTX 1080
Storage 1x Samsung 850 EVO 250GB , 1x Samsung 860 EVO 500GB
Display(s) 4K Samsung TV
Case Zalman R1
Power Supply 500W
Will be interesting to see if this is a geniune fix or AMD just relaxing the restrictions
Not sure there's a difference, that's how this works, all you do is modify the restrictions. There is no fix of sorts, the silicon is already shipped.

1/20th of a gigahertz. On a 4GHz CPU, less than 1% of the clock speed. Yet wars have been lost, worlds destroyed, for fifty megahertz... or so it would seem given the hue and cry, because we all know that more megahertz = more performance, right? Right?
People felt cheated apparently because it didn't coincide with the number AMD wrote on the box to the nth decimal point. I am not sure, I wrote pages of comments trying to figure out what this is about since this wont affect the user experience in any tangible way but got no definitive answer, people got really defensive.

They took our megahertz ! That's all I understood, unfortunately, they got what they wanted I guess.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Feb 14, 2012
Messages
2,011 (0.72/day)
System Name msdos
Processor 8086
Motherboard mainboard
Cooling passive
Memory 640KB + 384KB extended
Video Card(s) EGA
Storage 5.25"
Display(s) 80x25
Case plastic
Audio Device(s) modchip
Power Supply 45 watts
Mouse serial
Keyboard yes
Software disk commander
Benchmark Scores still running
Am I the only one that installs the cpu, slaps in 3200 CL14, and just uses the PC as is?
 
Joined
Mar 10, 2015
Messages
2,011 (1.21/day)
System Name Wut?
Processor 4770K @ 4.4
Motherboard MSI Z97 Gaming 7
Cooling Water
Memory 16GB DDR3 2400
Video Card(s) Vega 56
Storage 1TB SSD, forgot which one. Evo maybe?
Display(s) 3440 x 1440
Case Thermaltake T81
Power Supply Seasonic 750 Watt Gold
1/20th of a gigahertz. On a 4GHz CPU, less than 1% of the clock speed. Yet wars have been lost, worlds destroyed, for fifty megahertz... or so it would seem given the hue and cry, because we all know that more megahertz = more performance, right? Right?

Because there's never been a scenario where lower clocks over a period produce better performance than higher clocks causing intermittent throttling, right? Right?
It will be interesting to see how all the before and after benchmark test thingies play out. Perhaps specific chips will see more of an increase, perhaps not?

That said, I don't understand why they (AMD) created this whole fiasco (I use that word very lightly) in the first place. If it made more sense to have the boost a little lower, then have them boost lower. But print that on the box and materials - don't put the higher numbers because you know damn well stuff like this would happen. I think what happened is they figured out dropping 50mhz or so from boost was able to get other metrics in a better position pretty late in the game. Then they didn't want to lower the numbers on the box by 100 because that would have been too close to the Zen+ numbers or they already had that shit printed.

Either way, this shouldn't have happened and it rubs me the wrong way because I am not sure if they are trying to be sneaky or are just incompetent. Neither are a good look. Ultimately, I bet it won't make much of a difference when it is all average out.

I think it would be awesome if @W1zzard would do one when official bioses come out. Hell, the beta ones will do as I imagine they will never leave beta status.
 

W1zzard

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
May 14, 2004
Messages
19,534 (3.48/day)
Processor Core i7-4790K
Memory 16 GB
Video Card(s) GTX 1080
Display(s) 30" 2560x1600 + 19" 1280x1024
Software Windows 7
think it would be awesome if @W1zzard would do one when official bioses come out. Hell, the beta ones will do as I imagine they will never leave beta status.
Just waiting for asrock taichi version to come out
 
Joined
Apr 3, 2012
Messages
4,056 (1.49/day)
Location
St. Paul, MN
System Name LappyTop/ Bay2- Lowerbay- RushCity1/ HP 3770/ T3500-1+T3500-2+T3500-3+T3500-4/ Opti-Con
Processor i5 3317U/ i3 2120's/ i7 3770/ x5670's/ i5 2400
Motherboard ASUStek/ HP UltraSlim's/ HP mid size/ Dell T3500 workstation's/ Dell 390
Cooling Air/air/ air/ Big Dell Air/ Air
Memory 8GB Kingston HyperX 1600/ 2GB/ 4GB/ 12 GB crucial in each 4GB sticks in 3 chan/ 4GB sammy
Video Card(s) intel HD4000/ HD2000's/ HD 2000/ 1 MSI GT710, rest are MSI R7 240's/ HD4000
Storage 256GB Crucial Mx100 SSD/ ?HDD's/ 500 GB 7200rpm-er's/ 500 GB
Display(s) 1366x768/ one acer x223w between the rest
Case ALU, beauty!/ HP 8200 UltraSlim's/ HP 8200 mid tower/ Dell T3500's/ Dell 390
Audio Device(s) Sonic Master/ onboard's/ Beeper's!
Power Supply ASUS brick, 17W i5/ 19.5 volt bricks/ Dell PSU/ 525W sumptin/ same
Mouse cheap GigaWire930, CMStorm Havoc and a Logitech M510 wireless/iGear usb x2
Keyboard Dynex, 2 no name, SYX and a Logitech. All full sized and USB.
Software WIN8.1-64bit/ Mint 18 Sylvia/ Opti-Con Mint KDE/ T3500's on Kubuntu/HP 3770 is Win 10
Benchmark Scores World Community Grid is my benchmark!!
Around here? You are going to be in the minority. Even I, a casual, have done some tweaking, based on the things I find here.

:lovetpu:
 
Top