[SOLVED] AMD!

Its not an issue of dishonesty. Its more of an issue of people being misinformed.

Most modern AMD or Intel chips with only ever hit rated boost under incredibly specific circumstances.

Intel chips are actually needlessly turbo duration limited, so even though it says 5ghz on a 9900k, if it ever reaches that it will only be for a short period of time.
 

DMAN999

Respectable
Apr 17, 2019
1,765
443
1,890
65
I just recently bought a Ryzen 3700x and I am VERY happy with it so far.
While it has never hit 4.4 GHz, it has hit 4.375 GHz on 3 different cores and hit 4.25 to 4.275 GHz on all cores.
So, personally I don't really care that it hasn't actually hit 4.4 Ghz on one core.
And as far as longevity goes, I really don't expect my CPU to fail in the next 10 to 15 years and by then I will almost certainly have upgraded anyways.
 
Reactions: Crosslhs82x2
And if you look at what the article says, the cpu runs faster and hotter with updates, but really this is only an issue with the stock cooler.

Might i add, an i9 9900 on the stock cooler does the same thing. Runs really hot on included cooler to reach boost clocks, but it never can.
 

TechyInAZ

Titan
Moderator
Lets not get our hopes up too high, my best bet is that this is a minor performance update.

I believe the biggest fix coming from this fix will be single core and dual core workloads.

As of now, the Windows scheduler and AMD chipset drivers do not put single and dual core loads on the appropriate cores. For my system they always choose cores 1 and 2, but my highest binned core is Core 6.

AMD said that Ryzen 3000 is supposed to put the proper workloads on the properly binned cores, so high single threaded tasks should be performed often or all the time on the highest binned core in your system.
 
Aug 17, 2019
97
8
35
0
Right now, I have a 3900X with a MSI Gaming Pro Carbon mobo... I can attest to the fact that the CPU will not go higher than 4.4 GHz. I can also attest to the fact that the MSI board has issues with the CPU always running at 1.375 volts and 95 degrees. The motherboard voltage regulators were poorly designed and reviews online show that they run 40 degrees hotter than some other boards with better VRMs. Because of the high heat, the CPU is throttled back almost immediately... AMD has now admitted that the BIOS needs to be updated and a fix will be released on Sep 10th. MSI itself has been really slow on releasing BIOS updates compared to other companies.

All this shows me that AMD is not ready for prime time. We early buyers are the guinea pigs and have to wait for fixes and patches to come out. What if the boards cannot be fixed? What will our recourse be? What if AMD's BIOS patches fixes the clock speed but shortens the life of the CPU? Will AMD replace the CPU when it fails?

I have a Corsair H115 RGB Platinum AIO cooler and it barely keeps the CPU temps down below the TJMax. The only way I can keep things under control is by throttling the CPU to 99% (3.724 GHz) in Windows control panel... It drops the CPU voltage to 1.10V and temps drop from 90 degrees to 55 degrees...

I do not game but use the PC for encoding and rendering. While it still outperforms the Intel i9 9900K, I am still concerned about its reliability and do not think that me throttling the PC was part of the deal.
 
Reactions: Tinibigz_1992
Lets not get our hopes up too high, my best bet is that this is a minor performance update.
---
I honestly don't believe it will be a 'performance' update. Whatever they do, at best it will only increase the opportunity for boosting to advertised max clocks so the we might get to see it register on utilities like Ryzenmaster more easily. But I can't see it being enough to move the performance bar any higher.

I just hope it doesn't lower performance by subsequently inhibiting it's boosting to mid-clocks where it really does it's heavy lifting for long duration encoding runs.
 

TCA_ChinChin

Reputable
Feb 15, 2015
266
57
4,890
10
Right now, I have a 3900X with a MSI Gaming Pro Carbon mobo... I can attest to the fact that the CPU will not go higher than 4.4 GHz. I can also attest to the fact that the MSI board has issues with the CPU always running at 1.375 volts and 95 degrees. The motherboard voltage regulators were poorly designed and reviews online show that they run 40 degrees hotter than some other boards with better VRMs. Because of the high heat, the CPU is throttled back almost immediately... AMD has now admitted that the BIOS needs to be updated and a fix will be released on Sep 10th. MSI itself has been really slow on releasing BIOS updates compared to other companies.

All this shows me that AMD is not ready for prime time. We early buyers are the guinea pigs and have to wait for fixes and patches to come out. What if the boards cannot be fixed? What will our recourse be? What if AMD's BIOS patches fixes the clock speed but shortens the life of the CPU? Will AMD replace the CPU when it fails?

I have a Corsair H115 RGB Platinum AIO cooler and it barely keeps the CPU temps down below the TJMax. The only way I can keep things under control is by throttling the CPU to 99% (3.724 GHz) in Windows control panel... It drops the CPU voltage to 1.10V and temps drop from 90 degrees to 55 degrees...

I do not game but use the PC for encoding and rendering. While it still outperforms the Intel i9 9900K, I am still concerned about its reliability and do not think that me throttling the PC was part of the deal.
Sounds like a motherboard issue.
 

DMAN999

Respectable
Apr 17, 2019
1,765
443
1,890
65
Lets not get our hopes up too high, my best bet is that this is a minor performance update.

I believe the biggest fix coming from this fix will be single core and dual core workloads.

As of now, the Windows scheduler and AMD chipset drivers do not put single and dual core loads on the appropriate cores. For my system they always choose cores 1 and 2, but my highest binned core is Core 6.

AMD said that Ryzen 3000 is supposed to put the proper workloads on the properly binned cores, so high single threaded tasks should be performed often or all the time on the highest binned core in your system.
I personally am happy with my BIOS/AGESA/Chipset/Scheduler as it is now.
My CPU did use my best cores when I ran multiple runs of Cinebench R15 andR20 single core.
My 3700x hit 4.375 GHz on core 4 (Gold star), 5, (Silver star), 1 (Silver dot) and core 3 (no dot).
And it idles around 32 to 34c and not much higher if I am just web browsing.
View: https://imgur.com/aoWbQU4
View: https://imgur.com/rFGMHSR
 
Last edited:

Tinibigz_1992

Honorable
Dec 13, 2012
87
8
10,535
0
Right now, I have a 3900X with a MSI Gaming Pro Carbon mobo... I can attest to the fact that the CPU will not go higher than 4.4 GHz. I can also attest to the fact that the MSI board has issues with the CPU always running at 1.375 volts and 95 degrees. The motherboard voltage regulators were poorly designed and reviews online show that they run 40 degrees hotter than some other boards with better VRMs. Because of the high heat, the CPU is throttled back almost immediately... AMD has now admitted that the BIOS needs to be updated and a fix will be released on Sep 10th. MSI itself has been really slow on releasing BIOS updates compared to other companies.

All this shows me that AMD is not ready for prime time. We early buyers are the guinea pigs and have to wait for fixes and patches to come out. What if the boards cannot be fixed? What will our recourse be? What if AMD's BIOS patches fixes the clock speed but shortens the life of the CPU? Will AMD replace the CPU when it fails?

I have a Corsair H115 RGB Platinum AIO cooler and it barely keeps the CPU temps down below the TJMax. The only way I can keep things under control is by throttling the CPU to 99% (3.724 GHz) in Windows control panel... It drops the CPU voltage to 1.10V and temps drop from 90 degrees to 55 degrees...

I do not game but use the PC for encoding and rendering. While it still outperforms the Intel i9 9900K, I am still concerned about its reliability and do not think that me throttling the PC was part of the deal.
What you said was more of my point, why have new hardware that does not give you security. Often we want to save money for performance by getting AMD and my point is there has to be more to it then just what meets the eye.
 
Aug 17, 2019
97
8
35
0
My MSi Gaming Pro Carbon Wi-Fi has the latest BIOS and chipset updates. I bought an IR Laser temperature gun and pointed it to all the critical areas of the motherboard... The highest temp I can get on the motherboard is about 55 degrees C. On idle, the VRMs are usually 41 degrees, running Cinebench it hits 68 degrees tops . The X.570 chips gets around 60 degrees max.

My biggest beef with MSi is that they are very slow in releasing BIOS updates on their non top tier motherboards. The MEG mobos has seen some updates and the MPG mobos are still missing the same ones.
 
Hello,

Please read this article before buying any chip:

https://www.tomshardware.com/news/amd-ryzen-3000-boost-clock-controversy-intel-attack,40231.html

Often price is lower for many factors we as consumers do not see.

Thank you
What you said was more of my point, why have new hardware that does not give you security. Often we want to save money for performance by getting AMD and my point is there has to be more to it then just what meets the eye.

I have to ask what your purpose was in even posting this. Do you think people on the Tom's Hardware forums don't read the Tom's Hardware articles?

Your wording in the first post seems to imply that AMD CPUs are cheaper for the "hidden" reason of not hitting their boost clocks.

Then, in your second post, you imply that there are security issues as well, while trying to reiterate that there are "hidden reasons" for AMD's lower prices.

You linked to a Tom's Hardware article, then vaguely tried to imply other sinister issues, without providing any real facts or data. It just comes off as "Don't buy AMD, because they're being sneaky!"


If you have something to add, post some data for us, rather than just hinting vaguely at things.
 

Tinibigz_1992

Honorable
Dec 13, 2012
87
8
10,535
0
I have to ask what your purpose was in even posting this. Do you think people on the Tom's Hardware forums don't read the Tom's Hardware articles?

Your wording in the first post seems to imply that AMD CPUs are cheaper for the "hidden" reason of not hitting their boost clocks.

Then, in your second post, you imply that there are security issues as well, while trying to reiterate that there are "hidden reasons" for AMD's lower prices.

You linked to a Tom's Hardware article, then vaguely tried to imply other sinister issues, without providing any real facts or data. It just comes off as "Don't buy AMD, because they're being sneaky!"


If you have something to add, post some data for us, rather than just hinting vaguely at things.
Security towards a big purchase not that the chips have security issues. I just want people that are buying new chips not to be mislead, and not every person reads the articles on the front page.

I never implied anything besides what the article claimed to be true. I have owned AMD chips in the past and it's not about Intel VS AMD it's about knowing the truth.

People have choice and I can choose to state what I want, but never did I state "sneaky" nor don't buy AMD just be careful with a big purchase that will affect you now and in the future.

"Your wording in the first post seems to imply that AMD CPUs are cheaper for the "hidden" reason of not hitting their boost clocks. " Your words not mine but his article would prove that something was not right within the chip and AMD is releasing a fix? Well that kind of proves my point.

Thanks for being so judgmental in a place that's known for opinion and discussion.
 
Last edited:

Tinibigz_1992

Honorable
Dec 13, 2012
87
8
10,535
0
So, hardware patches that intel lacks don't merit anything?
Security that what is suppose to be given or provided is. Not that the chips have security issues.

New product line is released and the performance it stated it would get is not the case by what this article says.

I have owned AMD chips they work great, I even have family that work in the semi-conductor field and they state minor differences between the two.

I just want people to know the truth and if a fix happens great if not the chip is still great but for someone like me to be mislead means more then just a few dollars I can save over buying a AMD chip. (Opinion)

Thanks
 
Well, we will have to wait for the AGESA update and a lot of testing to see if people got what they paid for.

Just remember, if these updates do start to prematurely kill CPUs (doubtfull considering high-end Intel non-k CPUs will run much hotter and throttle on stock cooler without any degradation issues) AMD does offer a 3 year warranty.
 
it's about knowing the truth.
And what "truth" is that?

That a firmware issue has ROBBED people of an imperceptible amount of performance and that a fix is possibly days away. DAYS! Who can wait that long when there is dissent to spread!?

In all honesty Der8auergate has caused very little unrest in the PC community. Nothing like Specter or Meltdown. Nothing like Bulldozer. Nothing like Phenom. Nothing like early Pentium IIIs. There are outright product fails out there that got less hype than AMD screwing up their firmware.

Launching an attack on AMD for something that seems to have been a firmware flaw that took very little performance from a great performing chip seems like people LOOKING for something to crucify them on. It is completely unreasonable, unless they don't fix it... which doesn't look like a possibility because Tom's already tested a beta version and found that correction is in progress and that the beta fixes the 3700x.
 

TJ Hooker

Illustrious
Herald
New product line is released and the performance it stated it would get is not the case by what this article says.
Given that it's impossible to predict performance just based on clock speeds, you'd need to look at benchmarks/reviews to know how Ryzen 3K performs. And those benchmarks/reviews will reflect the performance based on the boost clocks they actually achieve, regardless of the rated boost clocks. So the performance you get isn't any different than the performance you'd expect if you looked at reviews.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS