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

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

Joined
Jan 27, 2015
Messages
178 (0.09/day)
Processor i7-3700K
Motherboard asus z77 pro-v
Cooling Custom Loop
Memory ddr3-1866
Video Card(s) 980TI SC+
Storage PNY 1311 240Gb ssd, 1Tb and 3Tb spinners
Case cheap!
Audio Device(s) Recon3D
Power Supply eVGA supernova 750 G2
Mouse eats cheese
Sure, the security issues have been fixed; I'll give you that. But you can't sit there and tell me that they've been very honest about their TDP values. 95W... at what? 3.6 GHz? Who the hell runs a 9900K at 3.6 GHz? Nobody I know! They usually run it at closer to 5 GHz speeds and that's where their TDP values go to shit.
so you're bitching that running a chip out of spec causes the TDP to run out of spec?

amazing.
 
Joined
Nov 15, 2016
Messages
366 (0.28/day)
System Name Sillicon Nightmares
Processor Intel i7 9700KF 5ghz (no avx offset), 4.7ghz ring 1.374 vcore
Motherboard Asus Z390 Strix F
Cooling DEEPCOOL Gamer Storm CAPTAIN 360
Memory 2x8GB G.Skill Trident Z RGB 3733 16,18,18,36 2T
Video Card(s) ASUS GTX 1060 Strix 6GB OC, Core: 2202/2215, Vcore: 1.075v, Mem: 4909mhz (Sillicon Lottery Jackpot)
Storage Samsung 840 EVO 1TB SSD, WD Blue 1TB, Seagate 3TB, DoA PoS Nvme that makes me cry
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
Power Supply Corsair AX860i/Cable Mod Cables
Mouse Logitech G602
Keyboard Shitty Dell Office Keyboard
Software Windows 10 x64
Benchmark Scores ~`13500 Firestrike (1st for my hardware, *De Ja Fool can s\/ck me softly)
That's why I'm referring to the 9900K. Even the 8700K runs hot. How many of us complained about the 8700K running hot and how we were blaming the "toothpaste" and then Intel came back and told us "Well then if you don't like the temps then don't overclock!"

But again... this is an AMD thread, not an Intel thread. Now back to our regularly scheduled programming for this thread.
at least the response wasnt "our chips cant oc" and tbh id take toothpaste and a delid over solder that performs worse than a delid. notice how i mentioned pre kaby, because before then you would rarely get a chip to use more than its tdp in watts, just goes to show how well engineered 14nm + and ++ are if it can push more drive current at the same vcore, well done intel engineers
 
Joined
Mar 18, 2008
Messages
5,038 (1.12/day)
System Name Virtual Reality / Bioinformatics
Processor Undead CPU
Motherboard Undead TUF X99
Cooling Noctua NH-D15
Memory GSkill 128GB DDR4-3000
Video Card(s) EVGA 2080Ti
Storage Samsung 960 Pro 1TB + 860 EVO 2TB + WD Black 5TB
Display(s) Acer K272HUL, HTC Vive
Case Fractal Design R5
Audio Device(s) BOSE 2.0
Power Supply Seasonic 850watt
Mouse Logitech Master MX
Keyboard Corsair K70 Cherry MX Blue
Software Windows 10 Professional/Linux Mint
Good news, provided the fix is released soon... every day is still a say the product is on the market not performing as advertised, even if only by a miniscule amount.

Honestly, this should never have happened, but on the same token, I'd still buy a 3rd gen in a heartbeat for a new build.
X1000 with froggie, this should never have happened. Also on the same token I am very likely going to get Threadripper Gen 3
 
Joined
Dec 31, 2009
Messages
17,726 (4.62/day)
Sure, the security issues have been fixed; I'll give you that. But you can't sit there and tell me that they've been very honest about their TDP values. 95W... at what? 3.6 GHz? Who the hell runs a 9900K at 3.6 GHz? Nobody I know! They usually run it at closer to 5 GHz speeds and that's where their TDP values go to shit.
With overclocking, every CPU's TDP goes to shit...(though a 9900K will do that stock with all core boost - I get it).

Anyway, this is off topic, but here is a good read:
If you believe that TDP is the peak power draw of the processor under default scenarios, then yes, TDP is pointless, and technically it has been for generations. However under the miasma of a decade of quad core processors, most parts didn’t even reach the TDP rating even under full load – it wasn’t until we started getting higher core count parts, at the same or higher frequency, where it started becoming an issue.

So, kind of OFN...

I digress on this subject in this thread.
 
Joined
Mar 6, 2017
Messages
2,015 (1.66/day)
Location
North East Ohio, USA
System Name My Super Computer
Processor Intel Core i7 8700K
Motherboard Gigabyte Z370 AORUS Ultra Gaming
Cooling Corsair H55 AIO
Memory 2x8GB Crucial/Micron Ballistix Sport DDR4-2400
Video Card(s) ASUS GeForce GTX1060 6GB
Storage Samsung 970 EVO 500 GB NVMe SSD (System Drive), Samsung 860 EVO 500 GB SATA SSD (Game Drive)
Display(s) HP 2311x and Acer G206HQL
Case CoolerMaster MasterBox Lite 5 RGB
Audio Device(s) On-Board Sound
Power Supply EVGA Supernova 650 G3 Gold
Mouse Logitech M705
Keyboard Logitech Wave K350
Software Windows 10 Pro 64-bit
Benchmark Scores https://valid.x86.fr/liwjs3
it wasn’t until we started getting higher core count parts, at the same or higher frequency, where it started becoming an issue.
Yes, I just wished that Intel at least had the balls to admit that there wasn't going to be a hope in hell of running with a TDP 95W. If Intel had been more upfront about it all I wouldn't be complaining but no... they basically lied by omission.
 
Joined
Dec 31, 2009
Messages
17,726 (4.62/day)
Yes, I just wished that Intel at least had the balls to admit that there wasn't going to be a hope in hell of running with a TDP 95W. If Intel had been more upfront about it all I wouldn't be complaining but no... they basically lied by omission.
Was it by omission or being oblivious to what has been happening for generations? It's ok, rocks are lifted off me on a near daily basis. :p

If you believe that TDP is the peak power draw of the processor under default scenarios, then yes, TDP is pointless, and technically it has been for generations.
For example... a public paper: https://www.intel.com/content/dam/doc/white-paper/resources-xeon-measuring-processor-power-paper.pdf

Just saying the information is out there if you look. I can see how the average joe may feel mislead, however. But not sure how enthusiasts can say the same.

Cheers.
 
Joined
Dec 10, 2014
Messages
568 (0.28/day)
Location
Nowy Warsaw
System Name SYBARIS
Processor AMD Ryzen™ 5 3600
Motherboard MSI Arsenal Gaming B450 Tomahawk
Cooling Cryorig H7 Quad Lumi
Memory Team T-Force Delta RGB 2x8GB 3200CL16
Video Card(s) Colorful GeForce RTX 2060 6G V2
Storage WD Black WD1003FZEX 1TB + Crucial MX500 500GB
Display(s) LG 22MP68VQ-P 22" 75hz IPS
Case In Win Mana 136
Audio Device(s) HyperX Cloud X | iVOOMi iVO-169SUFBT 2.1
Power Supply Cooler Master G550M
Mouse Logitech G102 Prodigy | Logitech G402 Hyperion Fury
Keyboard Fantech MK871 RGB TKL Outemu Blue mechanical keyboard
Software Windows 10 Education 1909 x64
As I was saying in the other thread I'll hide my pitchforks until AMD makes a statement. If AMD came out and said "ha ha sucks to be you losers for trusting us" I'll effing stake them myself. Gj that it's not serious like AMD nerfing boost or hardware issue like many people feared.
 
Joined
Mar 6, 2017
Messages
2,015 (1.66/day)
Location
North East Ohio, USA
System Name My Super Computer
Processor Intel Core i7 8700K
Motherboard Gigabyte Z370 AORUS Ultra Gaming
Cooling Corsair H55 AIO
Memory 2x8GB Crucial/Micron Ballistix Sport DDR4-2400
Video Card(s) ASUS GeForce GTX1060 6GB
Storage Samsung 970 EVO 500 GB NVMe SSD (System Drive), Samsung 860 EVO 500 GB SATA SSD (Game Drive)
Display(s) HP 2311x and Acer G206HQL
Case CoolerMaster MasterBox Lite 5 RGB
Audio Device(s) On-Board Sound
Power Supply EVGA Supernova 650 G3 Gold
Mouse Logitech M705
Keyboard Logitech Wave K350
Software Windows 10 Pro 64-bit
Benchmark Scores https://valid.x86.fr/liwjs3
Joined
Dec 31, 2009
Messages
17,726 (4.62/day)
As I was saying in the other thread I'll hide my pitchforks until AMD makes a statement. If AMD came out and said "ha ha sucks to be you losers for trusting us" I'll effing stake them myself. Gj that it's not serious like AMD nerfing boost or hardware issue like many people feared.
You just posted in a thread where AMD "made a statement" admitted to there being an issue they will correct with firmware... o_O

It was NEVER what you inferred (intentionally nerfing boost), and people that said hardware issues, were mostly just wrong as plenty of people had the right hardware (board, cooling / nominal conditions) and still can't hit it (raises hand).
 
Joined
May 5, 2016
Messages
64 (0.04/day)
Honestly, this should never have happened...
I think you're assuming there will be big gains due to AMDs big error in configuring boost clocks. Zen 2 hits maximum boost quite readily under very specific / limited workloads.

I suspect AMD is tuning this to somewhat broaden the workloads under which full boost clocks are achieved, but I doubt it will provide any benefit to general workloads.
 

bug

Joined
May 22, 2015
Messages
7,666 (4.10/day)
Processor Intel i5-6600k (AMD Ryzen5 3600 in a box, waiting for a mobo)
Motherboard ASRock Z170 Extreme7+
Cooling Arctic Cooling Freezer i11
Memory 2x16GB DDR4 3600 G.Skill Ripjaws V (@3200)
Video Card(s) EVGA GTX 1060 SC
Storage 500GB Samsung 970 EVO, 500GB Samsung 850 EVO, 1TB Crucial MX300 and 3TB Seagate
Display(s) HP ZR24w
Case Raijintek Thetis
Audio Device(s) Audioquest Dragonfly Red :D
Power Supply Seasonic 620W M12
Mouse Logitech G502 Proteus Core
Keyboard G.Skill KM780R
Software Arch Linux + Win10
Three things:
1. There is an issue, despite countless posts here claiming there isn't.
2. AMD only acknowledged "reduces boost frequency in some situations". This is rather worrisome, people are seeing the problem pretty much across the board.
3. Even with a partial fix, the CPUs should get a tad faster ;)
 
Joined
Dec 31, 2009
Messages
17,726 (4.62/day)
I think you're assuming there will be big gains due to AMDs big error in configuring boost clocks. Zen 2 hits maximum boost quite readily under very specific / limited workloads.

I suspect AMD is tuning this to somewhat broaden the workloads under which full boost clocks are achieved, but I doubt it will provide any benefit to general workloads.
I dont expect to see much if any gains... I just expect to see what is advertised on the box happening much more frequently and to a lot more people.
 
Joined
Oct 17, 2014
Messages
4,596 (2.20/day)
Location
USA
I dont expect to see much if any gains... I just expect to see what is advertised on the box happening much more frequently and to a lot more people.
I wonder if it will cause ram to be more unstable as a side effect, lot of people who overclocked their ram might have to go back to XMP after this BIOS... just my two cents. Hopefully not... :/
 
Joined
Dec 31, 2009
Messages
17,726 (4.62/day)
Zen 2 hits maximum boost quite readily under very specific / limited workloads.
It doesnt though... that is the point..and why amd has reacted now 3x times over clocks in these CPUs.;)

I wonder if it will cause ram to be more unstable as a side effect, lot of people who overclocked their ram might have to go back to XMP after this BIOS... just my two cents. Hopefully not... :/
I doubt it. I dont see why or how.. its not like it changes the IF or anything the memory is associated with. We're talking behavior we're supposed to see at stock here. :)
 
Joined
Nov 24, 2017
Messages
746 (0.78/day)
Location
Asia
Processor Intel Core i5 4590
Motherboard Gigabyte Z97x Gaming 3
Cooling Intel Stock Cooler
Memory 8GB(2x4GB) DDR3-800MHz [1600MT/s]
Video Card(s) XFX RX 560 4GB
Storage Transcend SSD370S 128GB; Toshiba DT01ACA100 1TB
Display(s) Samsung S20D300 20" 768p TN
Case Delux DLC-MV888
Audio Device(s) Realtek ALC1150
Power Supply Corsair VS450
Mouse A4Tech N-70FX
Software Windows 10 Pro
Benchmark Scores BaseMark GPU : 250 Point in HD 4600
Wait, I thought there was nothing wrong and we idiots didn't understand FIT tables...

I'm just happy to see them fixing this.



Really? So Intel hasn't released fixes for security issues? Then why do I keep reading comments about Intel CPUs being slower now with the patches installed?
Well I haven't recieved any UEFI containing Specter/Meltdown fix. And my HD 4600 still has WDDM 2.0 not newer WDDM 2.6 or not even WDDM 2.4/5. Mind you my processor launched in Q2 of 2014.
 

bug

Joined
May 22, 2015
Messages
7,666 (4.10/day)
Processor Intel i5-6600k (AMD Ryzen5 3600 in a box, waiting for a mobo)
Motherboard ASRock Z170 Extreme7+
Cooling Arctic Cooling Freezer i11
Memory 2x16GB DDR4 3600 G.Skill Ripjaws V (@3200)
Video Card(s) EVGA GTX 1060 SC
Storage 500GB Samsung 970 EVO, 500GB Samsung 850 EVO, 1TB Crucial MX300 and 3TB Seagate
Display(s) HP ZR24w
Case Raijintek Thetis
Audio Device(s) Audioquest Dragonfly Red :D
Power Supply Seasonic 620W M12
Mouse Logitech G502 Proteus Core
Keyboard G.Skill KM780R
Software Arch Linux + Win10
Well I haven't recieved any UEFI containing Specter/Meltdown fix.
Because you don't need to. Both Windows and Linux have been capable of updating CPU firmware without the need for a BIOS/UEFI update.
Plus, you don't "get" BIOS/UEFI updates unless you run some stupid motherboard software all the time. You get those updates when you actively check for them instead.
 
Joined
Nov 24, 2017
Messages
746 (0.78/day)
Location
Asia
Processor Intel Core i5 4590
Motherboard Gigabyte Z97x Gaming 3
Cooling Intel Stock Cooler
Memory 8GB(2x4GB) DDR3-800MHz [1600MT/s]
Video Card(s) XFX RX 560 4GB
Storage Transcend SSD370S 128GB; Toshiba DT01ACA100 1TB
Display(s) Samsung S20D300 20" 768p TN
Case Delux DLC-MV888
Audio Device(s) Realtek ALC1150
Power Supply Corsair VS450
Mouse A4Tech N-70FX
Software Windows 10 Pro
Benchmark Scores BaseMark GPU : 250 Point in HD 4600
Because you don't need to. Both Windows and Linux have been capable of updating CPU firmware without the need for a BIOS/UEFI update.
Plus, you don't "get" BIOS/UEFI updates unless you run some stupid motherboard software all the time. You get those updates when you actively check for them instead.
I thought UEFI update+Windows gives less porformence impact than only Windows update!!
 

bug

Joined
May 22, 2015
Messages
7,666 (4.10/day)
Processor Intel i5-6600k (AMD Ryzen5 3600 in a box, waiting for a mobo)
Motherboard ASRock Z170 Extreme7+
Cooling Arctic Cooling Freezer i11
Memory 2x16GB DDR4 3600 G.Skill Ripjaws V (@3200)
Video Card(s) EVGA GTX 1060 SC
Storage 500GB Samsung 970 EVO, 500GB Samsung 850 EVO, 1TB Crucial MX300 and 3TB Seagate
Display(s) HP ZR24w
Case Raijintek Thetis
Audio Device(s) Audioquest Dragonfly Red :D
Power Supply Seasonic 620W M12
Mouse Logitech G502 Proteus Core
Keyboard G.Skill KM780R
Software Arch Linux + Win10
I thought UEFI update+Windows gives less porformence impact than only Windows update!!
Nope, the CPU firmware works the same, no matter who provides it.
The only thing that's different is the OS doesn't make changes to the UEFI. On startup it checks whether the firmware that came with the OS is newer than the one the UEFI presents and loads whatever is newer. But that's a once per boot operation that takes a few milliseconds.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Aug 20, 2007
Messages
13,104 (2.79/day)
System Name Pioneer
Processor Intel i9 9900k
Motherboard ASRock Z390 Taichi
Cooling Noctua NH-D15 + A whole lotta Sunon and Corsair Maglev blower fans...
Memory G.SKILL TridentZ Series 32GB (4 x 8GB) DDR4-3200 @ 14-14-14-34-2T
Video Card(s) AMD RX 5700 XT (XFX THICC Ultra III)
Storage Mushkin Pilot-E 2TB NVMe SSD w/ EKWB M.2 Heatsink
Display(s) 55" LG 55" B9 OLED 4K Display
Case Thermaltake Core X31
Audio Device(s) VGA HDMI->Panasonic SC-HTB20/Schiit Modi MB/Asgard 2 DAC/Amp to AKG Pro K7712 Headphones
Power Supply SeaSonic Prime 750W 80Plus Titanium
Mouse ROCCAT Kone EMP
Keyboard WASD CODE 104-Key w/ Cherry MX Green Keyswitches, Doubleshot Vortex PBT White Transluscent Keycaps
Software Windows 10 Enterprise (yes, it's legit.)
I think you're assuming there will be big gains due to AMDs big error in configuring boost clocks.
Not at all, no.

I just assume a product will do what it says.
 
Joined
Nov 13, 2007
Messages
7,974 (1.73/day)
Location
Austin Texas
System Name _
Processor 8700K @ 5.1 24/7
Motherboard MSI Z370-A PRO
Cooling 120mm Custom Liquid
Memory 32 GB 4000 Mhz DDR4 17-18-18-34-400 trfc - 2T
Video Card(s) Gigabyte GTX 2080 Ti Windforce (Undervolted OC 1905MHz)
Storage 3x1TB SSDs
Display(s) Alienware 34" 3440x1440 120hz, G-Sync
Case Jonsbo U4
Audio Device(s) Bose Solo
Power Supply Corsair SF750
Mouse logitech hero
Keyboard tenkeyless
Software Windows 10 64 Bit
Benchmark Scores pretty fast!
what they really need to do is add voltage curve tweaking to ryzen master.
 
Joined
Feb 18, 2017
Messages
501 (0.41/day)
Good news, provided the fix is released soon... every day is still a say the product is on the market not performing as advertised, even if only by a miniscule amount.

Honestly, this should never have happened, but on the same token, I'd still buy a 3rd gen in a heartbeat for a new build.
Let's be honest. Check Gamers Nexus' Steven's review of the 3600X. It has 200 MHz higher boost clock than the 3600 and has nearly zero difference. So this was an overexaggerated issue. I know it sounds like extenuation, but people who have seen maybe 100 MHz lower clocks will be disappointed when after the fix, there will be no performance bump. At least AMD responded quickly for the news.
 
Joined
Dec 31, 2009
Messages
17,726 (4.62/day)
Let's be honest. Check Gamers Nexus' Steven's review of the 3600X. It has 200 MHz higher boost clock than the 3600 and has nearly zero difference. So this was an overexaggerated issue. I know it sounds like extenuation, but people who have seen maybe 100 MHz lower clocks will be disappointed when after the fix, there will be no performance bump. At least AMD responded quickly for the news.
I dont recall a soul mentioning performance loss due to 100 mhz single core.. if so, they are misinformed as to the difference it actually means.
 
Joined
Mar 16, 2017
Messages
984 (0.82/day)
Location
Tanagra
Yes, I just wished that Intel at least had the balls to admit that there wasn't going to be a hope in hell of running with a TDP 95W. If Intel had been more upfront about it all I wouldn't be complaining but no... they basically lied by omission.
Anandtech has an article running the 9900K with a 95W cooler. You still get 5.0GHz on a single core. Where you see a big performance loss is under multi core load, and then the chip runs at the rated base clock. Give it more thermal headroom, and it runs at much higher clocks.
 
Joined
Jun 27, 2011
Messages
5,941 (1.80/day)
Processor Ryzen 3900x
Motherboard Asus Tuf Gaming x570-plus
Cooling Scythe Mugen 5 Rev B with push pull fans
Memory Corsair 4x8gb 3600mhz Cas 16
Video Card(s) EVGA 1060 3gb
Storage Adata SX8200 1tb
Display(s) Asus 144hz
Power Supply Cougar 850w
Software Windows 10 64 Bit
It is frustrating to have people tell us what we are saying, and then when we (again) tell them what we are saying, they tell us we are wrong.
 
Top