News AMD Issues Follow-up Statement On Ryzen Burnout Issues, Limits SoC Voltages

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Metal Messiah. said:
Most likely, yes ! And also a bit controversial.

Oh btw, I just saw your reply/update under the PC gaming sub-forum thread. I will reply after some time. It seems you got 2 of the latest AAA games free with your new hardware purchase. 👍 :)

And it sucks to know you were also one of victims of these Ryzen CPU burnout issues. Glad both parts were RMA'd though.
Click to expand...

Thanks man.... and yeah... Redfall and Jedi Survivor free with the GPU and CPU purchase. Pretty cool.

System has been back up and running 4 days. 👍
 
  • Like
Reactions: Deleted member 2731765
setx said:
The specs provided definitely listed the range of "default" voltages. As for how high you can go above that – of course official documentation won't say that as it's completely unsupported case.

Definitely would. The whole "extreme overclock" nonsense is based on providing means to set voltages and the rest well outside the spec. How else would the motherboard makers justify the price of their top/higher-end boards? And that overclocking is further tuned for complete idiots so pressing one button/changing one value would provide significant overclocks because board would also silently change other values, including voltages to insane levels.
Click to expand...
That is true if they know that there is not a lot of danger like with all previous AMD and Intel CPUs that don't just blow up.
If there is a good chance for CPUs to blow up and cause them RMAs (lost profit) then they wouldn't.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sluggotg
Metal Messiah. said:
Could this be really true ? The creator of the Hydra tool for AMD Ryzen CPU tuning and optimization claims that AMD and board partners knew about this issue before launch, but AMD had asked them to remain quiet.

Check the following tweets by Yuri.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1650791399699218433
View: https://twitter.com/1usmus/status/1650791399699218433

https://twitter.com/x/status/1650793064653287424
View: https://twitter.com/1usmus/status/1650793064653287424

https://twitter.com/x/status/1650810800745922564
View: https://twitter.com/1usmus/status/1650810800745922564
Click to expand...
If it is true, then AMD better inform their lawyers about this and start preparing a monumental apology to everyone who trusted AM5.

At least, they should clarify whatever happened and come out with a statement.

Imagine how this translates to the server sector as well. Who would want to trust AMD now? They better thread lightly here.

Regards.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sluggotg, atomicWAR, Deleted member 2731765 and 1 other person
-Fran- said:
If it is true, then AMD better inform their lawyers about this and start preparing a monumental apology to everyone who trusted AM5.

At least, they should clarify whatever happened and come out with a statement.

Imagine how this translates to the server sector as well. Who would want to trust AMD now? They better thread lightly here.

Regards.
Click to expand...
The build-up market will not be affected with these problems. All non-enthusiast PCs and servers are within AMD's provided specs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Flyfisherman
suryasans said:
The build-up market will not be affected with these problems. All non-enthusiast PCs and servers are within AMD's provided specs.
Click to expand...
Until it is found they're not. What happened here in the consumer market, while is less strict than whatever validations and long term testing you do for Enterprise, there's still room for questioning why it was allowed to happen in the consumer market, to which it can't be avoided to think: "was it known before now? would it happen on server? should they double check?". I mean, those twitts are very damning by themselves and paint a horrible picture form AMD's side.

Also, you say that as if AMD doesn't provide its ODMs "specs" on which to built on and validate. I believe the only reason this may not be known in the server world is because there's not many people "in the know" with what happens in the server world. Who knows? Maybe they just replace hardware constantly because it burns out at AMD's expense or something? This is a ludicrous statement, but maybe it does happen and it's just not well known and this will lead to people asking questions and putting one and one together.

Anyway, I'd like to know where those twitts lead. Ideally, it's just a misunderstanding and it was nothing in "bad faith" from AMD's part.

Regards.
 
This reminds me of back in the day (Pentium 4 era) when AMD Athlons didn't have any thermal controls and would literally start pouring out clouds of smoke if the heatsink didn't seat properly.


10tacle said:
Exactly. This is not a new issue either. I first experienced it with a 2011 Intel Sandy Bridge i5 2500K build and enabling XMP (and XMPII) profiles. It was an enthusiast ASUS board specifically for overclocking, but the factory overclocking profiles were just absurd as was even the default "base" XMP profile for running memory at the rated speed. If I remember correctly, it overvolted the CPU to 1.45 when low 1.3s were perfectly fine for a 4.5GHz all core O/C with a lot of manual fine tune setting. DRAM voltages were over the top too but can't remember those DDR2 settings.

I don't think it can be emphasized enough to warn new builders out there to stay far away from any motherboard's XMP profiler and especially overclocking software utilities by the motherboard. That's the first thing I warn about when giving new builders advice and instruction - besides warning that you are early killing the chipset as well as wasting electricity, especially in the summer when the PC is running hotter than it needs to be. Many unfortunately just do not have the patience or discipline or time (or all three) to take the time of learning the overclocking art.
Click to expand...
I actually had the same CPU with a different mobo (Z68 chipset, biostar something or another board). The XMP profile on the RAM never touched my CPU voltage. Then again, the computer never POSTed with the XMP enabled. However, it put the DDR3 vDIMM up at 1.8v from 1.65v (JEDEC said DDR3 needed to be able to survive, although not necessarily function, up to 1.8v, but the recommended voltage was like 1.565v or something). I didn't like going up to the limit and got better latency and overall performance at 1.7v tuning it manually. Sandy Bridges were 32nm, compared to present day chips they required more voltage and were better at staying cool with the lower transistor density. They'd take all kinds of voltage before seriously hitting diminishing returns (ran mine a little over 1.4v and saw 4.9Ghz all core with temps that peaked around 80C) .
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sluggotg and 10tacle
Kind of OFF TOPIC. What's really going on here ?

It has been noted that AMD Ryzen 7000 & Ryzen 7000X3D CPUs seem to have very high power spikes even when running in idle mode, as discovered by Hardware Busters & Igor's Lab.

The testing done by Hardware Busters and Igor's Lab seems to show that at idle, the latest AM5 chips produce very high power spikes that might not be related to the burnout issue but something that could be addressed by AMD & its partners in future BIOS updates.

The testing was done using the Powenetics v2 system for testing which allows full measurements of power including transients. Transients have been a topic for a long time but the recent ATX 3.0 push made it come to the limelight as most PSU manufacturers showed how the newer standard has been designed to tackle these high transient specs that can be up to 4x the typical usage and power load.

For testing, a variety of AMD Ryzen 7000 & Ryzen 7000X3D CPUs were tested, & the most extreme case of these high transient spikes was seen on the Ryzen 9 7950X3D CPU. The CPU sipped an idle power draw of 130.04W (peak) which is above its nominal TDP of 120W and also far above its idle average which sits at around 50W.

AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D CPU Power Metrics (Image Credits: Hardware Busters):

StatePower Consumption
Idle Peak (PBO/CO-15)130.04W (124.73W)
Idle AVG (PBO/CO-15)50.531W (45.952W)
Blender Peak189.586W
Prime95 (small FFTs) Peak170.352W

The AMD Ryzen 9 7900X also saw an idle power consumption of 109.005W at the peak which is almost twice its average idle consumption of 63.798W. The Non-X Ryzen 9 7900 also saw a 95W idle peak whereas the average idle draw is around 48W.

AMD Ryzen 9 7900X CPU Power Metrics:

StatePower Consumption
Idle Peak109.005W
Idle AVG63.798W
Blender Peak254.577W
Prime95 (small FFTs) Peak227.34W

AMD Ryzen 9 7900 CPU Power Metrics:

StatePower Consumption
Idle Peak94.354W
Idle AVG48.636W
Blender Peak137.948W
Prime95 (small FFTs) Peak128.404W

7900X_Idle_Max.jpg


7950X3D_Idle_Max.jpg


7900_Idle-1.jpg
 
TerryLaze said:
But jokes aside, did you reset the bios after the update?! Changes don't always take if you don't do it.
Click to expand...

My board has a new BIOS that I'm going to update when I get home. The previous version I was running when mine died (and am running now with EXPO disabled) has been removed from the page.
 
After 1 year of bad experience with 5900X and Gigabyte X570 Aorus Master, I've been sitting back and wait for Zen 4. Looks like AMD using us to beta test their products.....
 
Now why the negatives?
We have to start from the beginning.
Does anybody even now what SoC means and why for any Ryzen?

SoC voltage - system on a chip voltage; responsible for the voltage related to the memory controller.
Limit: up to 1.2 V.
1.2V is generally considered the upper limit of safe SoC voltages, particularly on Ryzen 3-5000CPUs.
And this can be applied for Ryzen 7000 as well.

DRAM boot voltage - voltage at which memory training takes place at system start-up.
Limit: up to 1.45–1.50

VDDP voltage - voltage for the transistor that sets memory contents.
Limit: up to 1.1 V.

---------------------------------------------
CPU
1.42V will cause degradation of the CPU
1.38V should be max for 24/7 - 1.35V would be safer

And we still talking Ryzen of any kind.
Best regards from Sweden
 
Last edited:
Flyfisherman said:
Now why the negatives?
We have to start from the beginning.
Does anybody even now what SoC means and why for any Ryzen?

SoC voltage - system on a chip voltage; responsible for the voltage related to the memory controller.
Limit: up to 1.2 V.
1.2V is generally considered the upper limit of safe SoC voltages, particularly on Ryzen 3-5000CPUs.
And this can be applied for Ryzen 7000 as well.

DRAM boot voltage - voltage at which memory training takes place at system start-up.
Limit: up to 1.45–1.50 V.4

VDDP voltage - voltage for the transistor that sets memory contents.
Limit: up to 1.1 V.

---------------------------------------------
CPU
1.42V will cause degradation of the CPU
1.38V should be max for 24/7 - 1.35V would be safer

And we still talking Ryzen of any kind.
Best regards from Sweden
Click to expand...
So which one of these at what setting is what kills the thermal sensor?!
 
I'm just saying.
The safe voltage that any Ryzen CPU will operate at, and try to explain what each of them does.
For example I have Ryzen 9 3950X on a mobo Asus ROG Crosshair VIII Hero with VENGEANCE® LPX 16GB (2 x 8GB) DDR4 DRAM 3200MHz C16
Now, I have these with the timings within the JEDEC spec running at 3200 MHz CL16, max 1,2 Volt, SoC 1.04 V, CPU 1.35 V, just by setting this to 3200 Mhz in the Bios, without even touching the XMP/or the equivalent.

I can say that I have a very stable and good, cool system, even if I gaming with my ASUS TUF Gaming Radeon RX 6900 XT OC on a 2560x1440 @165 Hz monitor (I have down set it to 120 fps with AMD Radeon Chill) and a second 1920x1200 @60 Hz monitor for everything else.

Best regards from Sweden.
Ps. I'm sorry for my poor English grammar.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom