AMD's Future Chips & SoC's: News, Info & Rumours.

Page 110 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
So get this i redid windows 10 and now my fastest core changed in ryzen master and windows assigns the fastest cores first now instead of randomly putting single core loads on any core from 0-3.

This is so weird as i had 1903 installed before i simply did a clean wipe i will show proof down below.

after.png



before.png
 
InvalidError said:
"1% of 4096W"

Only 4096W? Bump that up to 1.21GW and power it up using lightning strikes! Side effects may include time travel.
Click to expand...

I noticed the way PBO is now that i only see around 1 to 2% difference in performance in R20+R15+Geek Bench 5. However my temps jump 10-15C under load. Given that i will keep PBO off and continue to tweak my memory instead and push that to the limit as that is where the real gains are.
 
As I've said many times now, Intel's biggest problem now is their own arrogance. They need to chill out, think and then act fast. But on the other hand, it's funny watching them shoot themselves at the foot. Makes for a nice change from laughing at AMD.

Cheers!
 
Yuka said:
They need to chill out, think and then act fast.
Click to expand...
Kind of hard to "act fast" when building 7nm fabs and bringing them up to speed takes about three years from breaking ground to production. All Intel can do until 2021 is attempt some form of damage control from missing the mark on 10nm by so many years and being late to the 7nm party.
 
InvalidError said:
Kind of hard to "act fast" when building 7nm fabs and bringing them up to speed takes about three years from breaking ground to production. All Intel can do until 2021 is attempt some form of damage control from missing the mark on 10nm by so many years and being late to the 7nm party.
Click to expand...

Makes me wonder how a company of that size can mess up so badly. Years of not doing any real progress caught up to them i guess.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NightHawkRMX
jdwii said:
Makes me wonder how a company of that size can mess up so badly. Years of not doing any real progress caught up to them i guess.
Click to expand...
Intel tried to push the limits of Deep-UV equipment into 10nm territory to avoid the previously high cost of Extreme-UV equipment, underestimated the amount of trouble they were going to run into, EUV got cheaper as Intel ran into delays, other fabs started leapfrogging Intel with more affordable EUV and now Intel is having to go EUV too to catch up.

Mostly the same story as the Broadwell delays five years ago, except Intel doesn't have a 3-4 years lead time on others this time around to immunize itself.
 
InvalidError said:
Intel tried to push the limits of Deep-UV equipment into 10nm territory to avoid the previously high cost of Extreme-UV equipment, underestimated the amount of trouble they were going to run into, EUV got cheaper as Intel ran into delays, other fabs started leapfrogging Intel with more affordable EUV and now Intel is having to go EUV too to catch up.

Mostly the same story as the Broadwell delays five years ago, except Intel doesn't have a 3-4 years lead time on others this time around to immunize itself.
Click to expand...

This is my take as well. Intel tried to save some money on development, and it backfired spectacularly.
 
InvalidError said:
Kind of hard to "act fast" when building 7nm fabs and bringing them up to speed takes about three years from breaking ground to production. All Intel can do until 2021 is attempt some form of damage control from missing the mark on 10nm by so many years and being late to the 7nm party.
Click to expand...
Nah, pinning ALL the problems they have now on process alone is misguided. I've been pointing out some of them that have nothing to do with process and what they would need to do in order to make this less of a ridiculous blunder, but I know they won't.

Cheers!
 
Boost issues are now fixed way to go Amd!(Slit and many others said Amd wasn't going to fix this and they did)

Also Amd said that the changes was never to improve reliability which means Intel was mistaken

So not only did Amd fix the boost issues they also fixed higher voltages on idle from the CPU boosting on even very light loads(background tasks).

Amd IMO is handling Zen 2 aka ryzen 3000 series perfectly and they are being honest.
 
Last edited:
rigg42 said:
Anyone doing an all core overclock on a 3900x doesn't know the best way to overclock a 3900x. You have 4 ccx's you can overclock individually. Why would you be want to be held down by your worst CCX(s)? Sure ryzen master isn't an ideal way to overclock but it's currently the best way to maximize the performance of a 3900x IMO. I'm praying they add this feature at the bios level sooner than later.
Click to expand...
DMAN999 said:
And like you said hopefully the options to OC each CCX individually will hopefully be added to my BIOS at some point.
Click to expand...

Horray!!! The latest bios for my motherboard now has this option!!!
 
  • Like
Reactions: DMAN999
t
jdwii said:
So get this i redid windows 10 and now my fastest core changed in ryzen master and windows assigns the fastest cores first now instead of randomly putting single core loads on any core from 0-3.

This is so weird as i had 1903 installed before i simply did a clean wipe i will show proof down below.

after.png



before.png
Click to expand...
Maybe there is very little perf diff between those two cores ?? Strange alright.
Did you install the new BIOS update/fix for the turbos ?
Edit maybe related:
View: https://youtu.be/VcBYhk-2fBo?t=574
 
Last edited:
Is RISC V a threat to x86.. An open source ISA giving Network Administrators a chance to modify their own ISA's tailored to their needs, not only to mitigate exploits as they arrive, but modifying the ISA to work better with your predominant workloads etc...the possibility's multiply.

View: https://youtu.be/67KW4t42SZk


Interested to here any thought's on this, I know the death of x86 may sound terrible to most of us me included... but I believe it is holding us back big time with backwards legacy support an it's "proprietary" nature...is this the future, not if the powers that be have anything to do with I'm sure.. but open source is like the weather ya can't stop the weather, can ya ?
 
Last edited:
TCA_ChinChin said:
Its pretty crappy if that is indeed what AMD did, but is that enough legal ground for a class action to come into play? I'm just thinking that ARM has high performance and low performance cores in big.LITTLE configurations and that might set some precedent for still being able to advertise 8 cores despite vastly different capabilities between high performance cores and power efficiency cores. Obviously ARM processors compared to AMD x86 is an apples to oranges comparison but does it have any legal ground to prevent class action?
Click to expand...
InvalidError said:
ARM SoC designers explicitly market their SoCs as being a big.LITTLE setup which uses two completely different core designs between the two clusters while AMD made no mention that I am aware of that it is pairing a higher bin chiplet with a lower bin one in the 3900X, which is why people have set out to determine whether this is the case by testing their chips core by core and the few results I've seen so far seem to be pointing that way.
Click to expand...

They meet advertised spec. They never once mentioned all core boost.

So why would this be a lawsuit again?

intel's advertised tdp is based on base clock and it doesn't advertise boost specs any more. If I spec'd out a server room (white room) and i found out my thermal tonnage was actually twice its rating due to boosting i would be pissed as hell. That could be a multimillion dollar up front fix plus additional cooling cost which rolls up into tco.

My point being if they meet advertised specs, none of which are lieing. And we didn't read the fine print that's more on us. I would be more apt to sue for intel for bad tdp numbers and security flaws.
 
NightHawkRMX said:
Both Intel and AMD are no stranger to inflating and misrepresenting CPU performance.

Just think of the intel pentium 4 lawsuit when AMD had a better product. Intel paid companies to make the pentium 4 superior to amd in software and make benchmarks designed to hide intels design flaws.

Or the more recent AMD FX lawsuit over the amount of cores the CPU has.

Now for some speculation.

I suspect some, not all of the Windows issues with Ryzen may have to do with a simmilar scenario.

Sounds far fetched, but intel and Microsoft were once tightly bound. There are a lot of issues with amd cpus in windows causing crippled performance. Microsoft doesnt seem to fix them even though some of the solutions seem simple.
Click to expand...
You can put your tin foil hat away. Microsoft has a very close relationship with AMD due to xbox. And im more than positive AMD is working with the windows core team on the scheduler. That is a win win
 
digitalgriffin said:
You can put your tin foil hat away. Microsoft has a very close relationship with AMD due to xbox. And im more than positive AMD is working with the windows core team on the scheduler. That is a win win
Click to expand...
Then why hasn't Microsoft done some easy things to help Ryzen? Like preselecting a power plan that is actually beneficial to the CPU.

I get the scheduler is complex, but there are some easy changes Microsoft can make, but doesn't.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom