• 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
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
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.
5 GHz on a single core, big freakin' deal!!! I expect more, a hell of a lot more! I expect to be able to run at (or at least, close to) 5 GHz on all cores; that's where your TDP value goes through the roof.

Hell, my 8700K gets pretty hot as I ramp up the workload on it thanks to Intel's toothpaste.
 
Joined
Apr 10, 2013
Messages
287 (0.11/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
Tough wording in this article. I am not much for AMD but it seems pretty minor. Some chips or boards aren't running a specific core(s) at a specific frequency under some scenarios. AMD acknowledges the defect and responds with a promised fix. I don't really see any false advertising, just a bunch of really nice chips running close to max specification. Problem discovered, problem hopefully soon to be fixed.
 
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
Joined
Dec 31, 2009
Messages
17,726 (4.62/day)
It does technically reach full boost under certain workloads: https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/cfli2n
for that guy... but not for everyone and not for a majority. Please let's not rehash this crap again...amd already admitted there is something up and will be fixing it.

Remember, you said "quite readily" which is obviously not true and mainly what I responded to. If the chip 'quite readily'did that for a majority, we wouldnt be here right now, boss. :)



The post mortem denial from people is offputting.
 
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.)
Joined
Mar 16, 2017
Messages
984 (0.82/day)
Location
Tanagra
5 GHz on a single core, big freakin' deal!!! I expect more, a hell of a lot more! I expect to be able to run at (or at least, close to) 5 GHz on all cores; that's where your TDP value goes through the roof.

Hell, my 8700K gets pretty hot as I ramp up the workload on it thanks to Intel's toothpaste.
But that's not what it was designed to do. These multi-page forum threads may rage on about boost clocks, but simply put, multi-core CPUs take an opportunistic approach to boosting. Under light or low-threaded loads, you get higher clocks. This is a fantastic design idea, because the alternative is to not allow any core to exceed the safe all-core max load. So instead of a single core hitting its max capable clock, you get a much slower top clock regardless of load. Also, we're talking about 4400MHz+ clock rates. A modern CPU could have boosted to a max clock and put away instructions multiple times before a frequency polling tool even had a chance to take a measurement. Boost is an engineering and consumer win. It's just marketed and understood poorly.

I'm not here to excuse AMD, but they need a chance to make it right. We're talking about a 12C/24T CPU for $500 that can drop into existing boards. Two months ago, it cost $1200 for a 12C/24T CPU alone. What did a $500 CPU get you last year? To me, this is the same early adopter headache that shows up with every new product--in 6 months, everyone will be fuming about something else.
 
Joined
Jul 6, 2008
Messages
27 (0.01/day)
Sweet, now we only have to wait 2 or 3 months for the firmware to show up...
 
Joined
Mar 2, 2011
Messages
1,012 (0.30/day)
Location
Omaha, NE
System Name Parted out my rig.
To me, this is the same early adopter headache that shows up with every new product--in 6 months, everyone will be fuming about something else.
Since were talking about AMD...I'm in complete agreement.

When has AMD been "good to go" right out of the box? I can't recall when this was the case(and I was a member of AMDMB, so I've been around awhile!) and frankly, I know better than to expect it. I waited a solid year to purchase my Ryzen 5 2600 and I couldn't be more pleased with the processor. Simply put...144.99 in the past has never netted me something even close. Coupled with my 88.00 RX 580 and I'm good for....years. I absolutely LOVE my computer! Haven't had a single hiccup since I tossed it together.

Having just come back to AMD with the release of the ryzen 3 2200g, one thing I did notice....drivers are much much better. Even the catalyst software isn't half bad to look at!

Best,

Liquid Cool
 
Joined
May 7, 2014
Messages
48 (0.02/day)
Really. Security issues and lying about their TDP values and what they mean. Yeah...
I don't remember Intel lying to the public about the security flaws but they did knew about them, still was best to keep a secret from the public at that time or that would have generated more problems to the consumers.
Their TDP values are correct, ~95w for base frequency, they never advertise the chip TDP under boost on the box.
 
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
Their TDP values are correct, ~95w for base frequency, they never advertise the chip TDP under boost on the box.
Well, when a good majority of their users run their chips at boost speeds one would think that they should advertise their boost TDP. That way, we as enthusiasts, can make better-informed decisions about our builds. It would certainly make choosing high-end coolers much easier since we would be able to know what we need for the rated speed that we want.

For instance, if the chip has a TDP of 200W when running at say... 4.7 GHz, we would know right away that we would need either a high-end 240mm radiator or a BeQuiet Dark Rock Pro 4. Or, if we don't necessarily need those speeds we could then choose a lower-cost solution and save some money and put it towards other components in our system such as perhaps a bigger or better SSD or faster GPU.
 
Last edited:
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
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).
They admitted and said fix is incoming is the best case scenario. I consider the worst case is if they admitted and said it was "designed to run slower" for some weird-ass reason they come up with.

Now if the fix actually works is to be seen.
 
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.)
Joined
Apr 12, 2013
Messages
3,330 (1.26/day)
How can you explain that 6% of 3900x owners can hit the max advertised boost commonly, while 94% cannot under nominal conditions? I for example have not been able to achieve more than 4525.3mhz under any workload I have tried.
Your source, I assume you have personally verified this with little margin of error?
 
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
BTW der8eur's survey is specifically with pbo turned off. He said that pbo is hit and miss. I'm paraphrasing here but he said it downclocks for some while upclocks for others. While pbo technically voids warranty, I doubt many people would have it disabled. Hell, in my Tomahawk it was on by default for some reason.

He also ditched entries that the posters specified achieved with pbo. Now this leads me to believe that as per human trait of forgetting minute details some people could've forgot to or didn't state that their results were achieved with pbo and then the percentage of boost reaching chips (per his criteria) could be even lower.

Ultimately his survey isn't scientific and his numbers shouldn't be taken as gospel. However that does not make his data is invalid, not at all.
 

Mussels

Moderprator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 6, 2004
Messages
47,717 (8.30/day)
Location
Australalalalalaia.
System Name Big Fella
Processor Ryzen R7 3700X Stock w/ Dark Rock Slim (4.475GHz boost!)
Motherboard Asus B450-i ITX
Cooling GPU: Corsair H110 W/ Corsair ML RGB fans
Memory 16GB DDR4 3200 Corsair Vengeance RGB Pro @ 3200MHz
Video Card(s) MSI GTX 1080 Gaming X (BIOS mod to Gaming Z) (45C max load, H110 AIO)
Storage 1TB Sasmsung 970 Pro NVME + 1TB Intel 6000 Pro NVME
Display(s) Phillips 328m6fjrmb (32" 1440p 144hz curved) + Sony KD-55X8500F (55" 4K HDR)
Case Fractal Design Nano S
Audio Device(s) Razer Leviathan + Corsair Void pro RGB, Blue Yeti mic
Power Supply Corsair HX 750i (Platinum, fan off til 300W)
Mouse Logitech G Pro wireless + PowerPlay mousepad
Keyboard Corsair K65 Rapidfire
Software Windows 10 pro x64 (all systems)
Benchmark Scores Laptop: i7-4510U + 840M 2GB (touchscreen) 275GB SSD + 16GB
Bravo to AMD.
From what i read prior to this post, almost everyone got within 25Mhz of the targeted clock - it was hardly an epic massive failure.

AMD are still fixing it, with the magical power of BIOS updates - and they fixed it FAST too.
 
Joined
Feb 23, 2019
Messages
1,390 (2.81/day)
Location
Poland
Processor Ryzen 7 3700X
Motherboard Gigabyte X570 Aorus Elite
Cooling BeQuiet Dark Rock 4
Memory 2x8 GB Crucial Ballistix Sport LT 3200 CL16 @ 3466 CL 14
Video Card(s) EVGA 1060 6GB SSC
Storage SX8200 Pro 1 TB, Plextor M6Pro 256 GB, WD Blue 2TB
Display(s) BenQ BL2411PT
Case SilverStone Primera PM01 RGB
Power Supply SeaSonic Focus Plus Gold 750W
Mouse SteelSeries Rival 300
Keyboard MK Typist (Kailh Box White)
Sometimes I wonder who's more butthurt about it, people that got the CPUs and expected more or people that weren't even considering getting them in the first place?

I'm happy to see that AMD finally admitted that something was wrong on their part. Partially, but still.
 
Joined
Aug 5, 2019
Messages
288 (0.87/day)
System Name Neon Master
Processor AMD Ryzen 3900x
Motherboard x570 Aorus Master F11
Cooling H115i RGB Platinum 280mm/Case Fans NF-A14 x4
Memory 2x16GB 3733 C16 G.Skill Neo
Video Card(s) RTX 2070 Super Strix
Storage MP600 1tb+2tb / 860 Evo 1tb / WD4005FZBX
Display(s) LG 27GL850-b
Case Phanteks Evolv X
Audio Device(s) BeyerDynamic DT 770 Pro (250 Ohms)
Power Supply Seasonic Prime Ultra Titanium 1000w
Mouse Scimitar Pro rgb
Keyboard K95 Platinum rgb
Software W10Pro 1909
We'll see if it gets actually "fixed".

It is surprising reading this thread however, I always underestimate the number of id..
I mean fanboys on either side of the fence.
 
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
Bravo to AMD.
From what i read prior to this post, almost everyone got within 25Mhz of the targeted clock - it was hardly an epic massive failure.

AMD are still fixing it, with the magical power of BIOS updates - and they fixed it FAST too.
By what I have read and experience it is typically 100-200mhz less. In my case it is 75mhz less. 75mhz won't make or break the system performance but that isn't the point.
Your source, I assume you have personally verified this with little margin of error?
I am quoting debaurs survey data which was on the tpu front page. There is another thread talking about just that. You can argue against his methodology and data, but I am quoting a legitimate source.
 
Joined
Jun 18, 2015
Messages
358 (0.19/day)
Not at all, no.

I just assume a product will do what it says.
So no reaction when Intel lies about boost clock
partial lie is a lie too and intentionally misleading is even worse
Screenshot_20190904-105712.jpg

Screenshot_20190904-110402.jpg
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jul 5, 2016
Messages
155 (0.11/day)
System Name Purple Stuff
Processor Intel Core I7-8700K @ 5.0 Ghz
Motherboard Asus ROG Strix Z370-F Gaming
Cooling NZXT Kraken X62
Memory Corsair Vengence 16 GB DDR4 @ 3600 Mhz
Video Card(s) Asus ROG Strix GTX 1080 TI
Storage Samsung EVO 960 500 GB, HDD 4TB WD Black, SSD Crucial MX400 1TB
Display(s) Acer Predator XB271HU 27" x2
Case Phanteks Enthoo Evolv ATX Tempered Glass
Power Supply Seasonic Focus + Platinum 850 W
Mouse Steelseries Rival 700
Keyboard Razer Blackwidow Chroma V2
Software Win 10 Pro
So no reaction when Intel lies about boost clock
partial lie is a lie too and intentionally misleading is even worse
View attachment 130965
View attachment 130966
What is so misleading about those 2 SKUs? They all hit their boost clocks. It doesn't matter if you cool them down with a garden hose or with rocks, if put to work those 2 will reach the specified boost clocks 100% of the time, they might throttle after 1 second but hey the boost will be reached. The only difference is the silicon lottery you get to play for the max OC. I don't mind AMD's line-up even though they are running different clock speeds depending on the motherboard and whatnot and i'm willing to bet nobody will make a big fuss out of this, but if somebody decides to take it to court they would have a valid lawsuit which AMD is trying to avoid like the plague after the Bulldozer one.
 
Joined
Jun 18, 2015
Messages
358 (0.19/day)
It
What is so misleading about those 2 SKUs? They all hit their boost clocks. It doesn't matter if you cool them down with a garden hose or with rocks, if put to work those 2 will reach the specified boost clocks 100% of the time, they might throttle after 1 second but hey the boost will be reached. The only difference is the silicon lottery you get to play for the max OC. I don't mind AMD's line-up even though they are running different clock speeds depending on the motherboard and whatnot and i'm willing to bet nobody will make a big fuss out of this, but if somebody decides to take it to court they would have a valid lawsuit which AMD is trying to avoid like the plague after the Bulldozer one.
It is definitely misleading because 80% of people think all cores are going 5.0 GHz

The Bulldozer is no different that Intel's Hyperthreading hypocracy. 90% of people think Threads are actual cores and that's why Intel made them at first and lied misleaded 100 of millions of people
 
Top