Updated AMD Ryzen 3000 chipset drivers and power profile

[TheLostSwede]

Community Update #5: Let’s Talk Clocks, Voltages, and Destiny 2

Hello! Thank you for all of the interest and excitement around 3rd Gen AMD Ryzen™ Processors. We have some important updates today on our voltages, clockspeeds, and Destiny 2! We diagnosed and resolved the issue causing software monitoring tools to report high voltages and clockspeeds at the...

community.amd.com

Well, it did, f-all for me.
No higher clocks and their new power profile got me stuck again around 4.2-4.3GHz so this is clearly a dud...
This is loading one CPU core at 100% and then leaving the system at idle.

Actually, it seems to sort of work, but you have to select the Better Performance Power mode, or the CPU doesn't throttle.
If y you select Best performance, it stays at high Voltages and high frequencies all the time, which doesn't seem quite right to me.

Still not 1MHz above 4.4GHz, even with PBO enabled

 

[Psychoholic]

My 3800x boosts to 4.5ghz from time to time.. It's installed in an Aorus X570 Ultra.
Here are the best settings that have worked for me:

PBO: Disabled (in both places)
Any voltage settings in bios set to "normal" and not "auto"
Using windows high performance power mode with Processor Min and Max set to 1 and 100% respectively.

Give those a shot.

 

[TheLostSwede]

My 3800x boosts to 4.5ghz from time to time.. It's installed in an Aorus X570 Ultra.
Here are the best settings that have worked for me:

PBO: Disabled (in both places)
Any voltage settings in bios set to "normal" and not "auto"
Using windows high performance power mode with Processor Min and Max set to 1 and 100% respectively.

Give those a shot.View attachment 128133

Sadly, that made almost zero difference in my case
Yeah, one core boosted an extra 25MHz...
AMD really shouldn't have launched the 3800X, as it has no tangible benefits over the 3700X and at this point I'm almost about to call it a fraud, since it doesn't deliver what they claim.
I've never felt so cheated when it comes to buying a high-end SKU of a product.

 

[Space Lynx]

I mean 100-200 mhz shouldn't matter too much for games, so just leave everything at stock and leave BIOS at default? and XMP ram?

 

[TheLostSwede]

I mean 100-200 mhz shouldn't matter too much for games, so just leave everything at stock and leave BIOS at default? and XMP ram?

XMP doesn't work either. But the RAM runs just fine.

My issue is that I paid for a CPU that's supposed to boost to 4.5GHz, it never really goes beyond 4.4GHz, so what's the point of this SKU, when the 3700X boosts to 4.4GHz.
I threw $100 in the toilet for something I don't get, yet paid for. Not really cool.
Yes, the 100MHz most likely will make zero difference, but I still feel cheated out of my money, as you would think that the higher TDP SKU would boost better than the lower TDP SKU, but alas, that's not really the case.
No matter what I change or try, I can't get this CPU to behave as it's intended to, PBO on/off, Voltages on Auto/Normal, new drivers, nothing...
Maybe, but that's a hail Mary, the new AGESA and UEFI will fix it, but I have zero hope at this point.

 

[the54thvoid]

XMP doesn't work either. But the RAM runs just fine.

My issue is that I paid for a CPU that's supposed to boost to 4.5GHz, it never really goes beyond 4.4GHz, so what's the point of this SKU, when the 3700X boosts to 4.4GHz.
I threw $100 in the toilet for something I don't get, yet paid for. Not really cool.
Yes, the 100MHz most likely will make zero difference, but I still feel cheated out of my money, as you would think that the higher TDP SKU would boost better than the lower TDP SKU, but alas, that's not really the case.
No matter what I change or try, I can't get this CPU to behave as it's intended to, PBO on/off, Voltages on Auto/Normal, new drivers, nothing...
Maybe, but that's a hail Mary, the new AGESA and UEFI will fix it, but I have zero hope at this point.

I've held off upgrading while I watch this fairly common theme. One question though, does it run all cores at 3.9 base? Because the 3700X info says it runs 3.6 all core base. I'd rather have a cpu that runs 3.9 on all cores and boosted to 4.4, rather than 3.6 - 4.4.

 

[TheLostSwede]

I've held off upgrading while I watch this fairly common theme. One question though, does it run all cores at 3.9 base? Because the 3700X info says it runs 3.6 all core base. I'd rather have a cpu that runs 3.9 on all cores and boosted to 4.4, rather than 3.6 - 4.4.

Hard to say, as I can't load all the cores to something like 50%. With the driver changes and power profile updates, the CPUs goes to sleep or clock back to really low speeds if they're not loaded. If I load 14 cores (well, 7 + HT) at 100%, Ryzen Master reports the 7 cores running at 4,125MHz.
Problem is, my best performing cores, according to Ryzen Master, is core 4 and core 8, i.e. the last core in each CCX, which means they best performing cores, are often not loaded...

In all fairness, my system feels more responsive than my old Ryzen 7 1700 at 3.85GHz all core OC. Maybe it's because of the overall platform and CPU improvements, but it's weirdly noticeable. I'm not disappointed as such, I just feel like I wasted money on something I see no benefit from.

 

[Space Lynx]

well you helped me decide to just roll with ryzen 3600 non-x if I do do a new ryzen build. that sounds crappy. all of it.

 

[TheLostSwede]

well you helped me decide to just roll with ryzen 3600 non-x if I do do a new ryzen build. that sounds crappy. all of it.

It could just be a combination of my parts, as other people are having better luck with the 3800X, as you can see above.
But the 3800X doesn't seem worth it, as of today at least, over the 3700X in any way whatsoever.

 

[cucker tarlson]

I've held off upgrading while I watch this fairly common theme. One question though, does it run all cores at 3.9 base? Because the 3700X info says it runs 3.6 all core base. I'd rather have a cpu that runs 3.9 on all cores and boosted to 4.4, rather than 3.6 - 4.4.

and what would be the difference? both would go 4.4 when needed.

@TheLostSwede is that stock?cause 1.47v seems very high

 

[Wavetrex]

Do they have that rule in the place you live that you can return online purchases within a certain amount of time ?
Because it seems to me that that's what you should do.

To put a bit of salt on your wound, since it got cooler in Europe, my 3700X boosts on occasion to 4.525 (which is the PBO+125 which I've set in bios.... on a cheap X370 board). Doesn't stay there long, it's extremely short bursts, but it does reach it.

So yea 3800X should not have existed, it's a ripoff... the chip is identical to 3700X for all intents and purposes, and both are subjected to the silicon quality.

@TheLostSwede is that stock?cause 1.47v seems very high

Apparently that's quite normal for these chips... they up the voltage for a few fractions of the second to nearly 1.5 to kick in those boosts, then drop back.
Even AMD representatives said that the voltage can be anywhere between 0.3 an 1.5...

Not sure why people still think in previous gen terms... "1.4... 1.5 too high, too hot"... obviously new process, new manufacturer (TSMC), new CPU logic, new everything...
AMD didn't release millions of CPUs in the world so they all burn out from too high default voltage.

 

[TheLostSwede]

@TheLostSwede is that stock?cause 1.47v seems very high

Yes, all the Voltages are set to Normal in the UEFI.

Do they have that rule in the place you live that you can return online purchases within a certain amount of time ?
Because it seems to me that that's what you should do.

To put a bit of salt on your wound, since it got cooler in Europe, my 3700X boosts on occasion to 4.525 (which is the PBO+125 which I've set in bios.... on a cheap X370 board). Doesn't stay there long, it's extremely short bursts, but it does reach it.

So yea 3800X should not have existed, it's a ripoff... the chip is identical to 3700X for all intents and purposes, and both are subjected to the silicon quality.

Apparently that's quite normal for these chips... they up the voltage for a few fractions of the second to nearly 1.5 to kick in those boosts, then drop back.
Even AMD representatives said that the voltage can be anywhere between 0.3 an 1.5...

Not sure why people still think in previous gen terms... "1.4... 1.5 too high, too hot"... obviously new process, new manufacturer (TSMC), new CPU logic, new everything...
AMD didn't release millions of CPUs in the world so they all burn out from too high default voltage.

Yeah, a week, so we're way past that.

See, that's what's so insane, either I got a dud, or the 3800X is just a means for AMD to charge more to "stupid" people like myself who expected to get a bit more for that extra money.
Obviously It's boost clock, but with a 280mm liquid cooler, I should easily surpass 4.4GHz...

I actually emailed AMD's support today to ask what's going on, as this isn't what I paid for.
Sure, it might be, as I said, an AGESA or UEFI related issue, but this chip is clearly marketed as something that it doesn't deliver in comparison to the 3700X.

 

[FYFI13]

That's really sad, AMD should change their marketing a bit. Yes, every chiplet is slightly different, but when 3700X can boos higher than much more expensive 3800X then there's something definitely wrong. People who spent 25% extra should be getting more, not less.
I was about to get 3700X myself, but then all posts with different issues started to show up and... I don't even know now, might just end up with 3600(non X). Some of their SKUs makes no sense.

By the way, is it actually idling at +59C? That's with 280mm liquid cooler??

 

[TheLostSwede]

By the way, is it actually idling at +59C? That's with 280mm liquid cooler??

No no, that was just after loading the CPU, so ignore that. It idles somewhere around 40C, as I've set all the fans to run on low speeds.

 

[Vya Domus]

It should have been obvious to many that the 3800X is of much worse silicon quality than the 3700X. You can tell that from the TDP ratings, 105W vs 65W, that's a massive difference for not a whole lot of extra clock speed.

AMD can now sell chiplets that vary a lot in terms of quality, the 3800X is still not a rip off in my opinion you still get a CPU with a higher overall clockspeed under many conditions. It's just that people should look more carefully before buying something.

 

[HTC]

Question: what's the ambient temp in your location?

 

[TheLostSwede]

It should have been obvious to many that the 3800X is of much worse silicon quality than the 3700X. You can tell that from the TDP ratings, 105W vs 65W, that's a massive difference for not a whole lot of extra clock speed.

AMD can now sell chiplets that vary a lot in terms of quality, the 3800X is still not a rip off in my opinion you still get a CPU with a higher overall clockspeed under many conditions. It's just that people should look more carefully before buying something.

Sorry, but this is just plain wrong. The reason for the different TDP ratings in this case is that the 3800X is supposed to have more headroom than the 3700X, i.e. it should be more capable to run at higher speeds, just like previous generations of X and non-X CPUs from AMD.
The 3800X should've been the 8-core flagship, just like the 1800X and well, there was no 2800X so...
Obviously these chips don't really overclock, but there should be more headroom on the 3800X than the 3700X, which doesn't seem to be the case. So either the CCX:es ended up being of much better quality than anticipated and AMD put higher bins in the 3700X than they intended, or they're saving the higher quality CCX's for other products (3900X etc.) and screwed those getting the 3800X, by giving them the same binned CCX:es as the 3700X.
It's obvious that the 3900X performs better than the 3800X when it comes to boost speeds, so something is just plain wrong here.

And how could anyone look more carefully? AMD didn't seed 3800X CPUs to reviewers. So what can "people" look at to be more careful?

Question: what's the ambient temp in your location?

I have AC, although I can't tell you the exact temperature in the room, but it should be around 25 degrees C.

 

[kapone32]

Sorry, but this is just plain wrong. The reason for the different TDP ratings in this case is that the 3800X is supposed to have more headroom than the 3700X, i.e. it should be more capable to run at higher speeds, just like previous generations of X and non-X CPUs from AMD.
The 3800X should've been the 8-core flagship, just like the 1800X and well, there was no 2800X so...
Obviously these chips don't really overclock, but there should be more headroom on the 3800X than the 3700X, which doesn't seem to be the case. So either the CCX:es ended up being of much better quality than anticipated and AMD put higher bins in the 3700X than they intended, or they're saving the higher quality CCX's for other products (3900X etc.) and screwed those getting the 3800X, by giving them the same binned CCX:es as the 3700X.
It's obvious that the 3900X performs better than the 3800X when it comes to boost speeds, so something is just plain wrong here.

I honestly think it comes down to the Silicon lottery. Your CPU does 4.4 but not higher no matter what voltage you apply? I honestly think that unless you have a golden chip you will only see one Core run at or near boost speeds. It could also come down to your case that looks like it has limited air flow but also try dropping the voltage to 1.325 in Ryzen Master and see if it helps. I actually wrote a post yesterday talking about oddities I am seeing with GIgabyte boards specifically about voltage.

 

[Vya Domus]

Sorry, but this is just plain wrong. The reason for the different TDP ratings in this case is that the 3800X is supposed to have more headroom than the 3700X, i.e. it should be more capable to run at higher speeds, just like previous generations of X and non-X CPUs from AMD.
The 3800X should've been the 8-core flagship, just like the 1800X and well, there was no 2800X so...
Obviously these chips don't really overclock, but there should be more headroom on the 3800X than the 3700X, which doesn't seem to be the case. So either the CCX:es ended up being of much better quality than anticipated and AMD put higher bins in the 3700X than they intended, or they're saving the higher quality CCX's for other products (3900X etc.) and screwed those getting the 3800X, by giving them the same binned CCX:es as the 3700X.
It's obvious that the 3900X performs better than the 3800X when it comes to boost speeds, so something is just plain wrong here.

They wouldn't put up a TDP figure that's 50% higher just because the chip is supposed to have more headroom, that would make no sense, this simply means the chip will use more power. The 3950X , a 16 core that also runs at higher clocks is also rated for 105W, come on think for a moment here. The gaps in silicon quality AMD has right now are colossal.

But let's say that's true, 50% more TDP for 100mhz higher max boost clock ? No matter how you look at it, the 3800X is one of the worst quality silicon AMD sells right now and I am convinced that plays somewhat of role in what you've experienced.

The very moment I've seen the specs of the 3800X I knew it wasn't meant to be sharpest tool in the shed so to speak. There's a reason AMD provided the 3700X and 3900X first to reviewers.

So what can "people" look at to be more careful?

They can simply look at the AMD's website and infer all of this from that. Admittedly it's not something most people would even think about but for me the TDP ratings were a big red flag. The 3800X would be the last CPU I would pick from AMD's entire stack.

 

[TheLostSwede]

AMD only has two TDP's so far, 65W and 105W.
Also, if you'd read up on things, you'd see that the 65W chips have the power limit set to 88W/90A and the 105W TDP parts have the power limit set to 142W/140A.

The AMD 3rd Gen Ryzen Deep Dive Review: 3700X and 3900X Raising The Bar

www.anandtech.com

And yes, the 3900X and the 3950X are both 105W, which indeed makes the 3800X look a bit odd.

Again, why are you saying it's the worst quality silicon? Do you have some proof? Yes, my chip doesn't boost as it should be, but as I said, but I don't know the actual reason.
Maybe I did get a dud. Some people here are having a bit more luck with theirs. Sure, it looks crap in comparison to the 3700X and this is my issue.
I paid to get something that's better than the 3700X, but it seems I got something worse.
I also expected the 3800X to have higher overclocking or at least PBO headroom, but alas, PBO does nothing and my one attempt at overclocking, which was a single core, resulted in a system reboot after 5 minutes load...

Well, AMD is selling the 3800X as a superior product to the 3700X and the way things are, this isn't cool, since it's not a better part, as far as I can tell...

 

[HTC]

I have AC, although I can't tell you the exact temperature in the room, but it should be around 25 degrees C.

I thought you possibly had a high ambient temp, thus causing issues but those temps are reasonable so that doesn't seem to be it.

They wouldn't put up a TDP figure that's 50% higher just because the chip is supposed to have more headroom, that would make no sense. The 3950X , a 16 core that also runs at higher clocks is also rated for 105, come on think for a moment here. The gaps in silicon quality AMD has right now are colossal.

But let's say that's true, 50% more TDP for 100mhz higher max boost clock ? No matter how you look at it, the 3800X is one of the worst quality silicon AMD sells right now and I am convinced that plays somewhat of role in what you've experienced.

The first time I've seen the specs of the 3800X I knew it wasn't meant to be sharpest tool in the shed so to speak. There's a reason AMD provided the 3700X and 3900X first to reviewers.

That TDP is for base clock, regardless of the (Ryzen) CPU. In the case of 3700X VS 3800X, the latter has 300MHz higher base clock.

Supposedly, the 3800X has higher clock frequency average VS the 3700X:

It should drop less from 1T to 16T.

I do agree that there's a colossal gap in silicon quality as far as Ryzen 3000 series is concerned.

What the 3800X has for sure is, with PBO disabled, an all core of 3.9GHz under heavy load while the 3700X, in the same circumstances has an all core of 3.6GHz

 

[Wavetrex]

That 65W TDP means jack squat.

Out of the box, no tweaks or whatever, the CPU consumes up to ~95-100W or so on 100% load, measured by the motherboard (complete SoC, not just cores) ... so basically the amount of heat that the cooler needs to dissipate.

You can restrict it to 65W intentionally, but that would also make it A LOT slower.
I tested that, with 65W it only boosts all-core to about 3.7-3.8, and single core below 4.2. Nowhere near the 4.4 written on the box.

Add 10W and you get 3800X - that is, if it's not a dud like the one from TheLostSwede
The difference between them is extremely minor, it's not that one is better quality than the other... it's not.

... with PBO disabled .... while the 3700X, in the same circumstances has an all core of 3.6GHz

But that is not what happens. The CPU boosts between 4.0 to 4.1 during CB R20. My sample anyway. Yes, with PBO disabled. And it consumes more than 65 for sure while doing that...
Either my ASUS board is "dumb" for not intentionally choking the CPU to that 65W, or the CPU is simply designed to go higher than 65W from the factory.

(And that seems to be inline with reviewers, including TPU - The difference is that they have AC rooms, not my hot 30+ degrees attic.
I'm quite sure that during the winter my CPU will boost to 4.2 as well during CB run)

This is exactly the 9900K story with it's 95W TDP which in reality is about 150+ when actually using the CPU...
(which btw it would lose badly to 3700X if it would actually run at that 95W instead of getting hotter than the surface of the sun to clock to that magical 5.0 Ghz)

Basically, both vendors are selling now "factory overclocked" CPUs.
End of the story.

 

[Vya Domus]

Again, why are you saying it's the worst quality silicon?

An educated guess based on the fact that this CPU looks like it should have absolutely no place in the 142W/140A range you mentioned if there wasn't something peculiar about it.

Let's put things into perspective one more time.

3700X - 8 core - 3.6/4.4 Ghz - 88W/90A
3800X - 8 core - 3.9/4.5 Ghz - 142W/140A
3900X - 12 core - 3.8/4.6 Ghz - 142W/140A
3950X - 16 core - 3.5/4.7 Ghz - 142W/140A

Somehow doubling the cores and the max boost clock still makes the 3950X stay within the 145W limit but just a slight bump in clock speed made AMD want to rise the limit of the 3800X from 88W to 145W. You may chose to believe this doesn't mean anything in particular and that it's just supposed to have more headroom, but what am I to gather from this ? That the 3700X, 3900X, 3950X don't have any headroom ? Why would AMD pick the the 3800X of all CPUs and give it a disproportional amount of headroom compared to the rest of the stack. None of this makes sense.

I for one can't get over it knowing how these things work, this non-linearity sticks out like a sore thumb. Therefor my only conclusion is that the 3800X is simply of worse quality.

I do agree that AMD is selling the 3800X under dubious promises, all I am saying is that there are red flags that could have pointed out to that fact.

 

[HTC]

3800X - 8 core - 3.9/4.5 Ghz - 142W/140A

The base clock is 300MHz higher, VS the 3700X.

 

[kapone32]

The thing is that this is really no different than the first gen Ryzen chips. The 1700 was a 65W TDP and the 1800X was a 95W TDP. Even though the 1800x was faster as base OC the 1700 to 3.9 would put it near to the 1800x which had a maximum 4.1 GHZ OC based on what I have seen.