News Ryzen Burnout? AMD Board Power Cheats May Shorten CPU Lifespan

[nofanneeded]

AMD should Sue Tomshardware against this misleading article and misleading TITLE .

 

[randomizer]

I want to know why the capability of monitoring power consumption was offloaded to the motherboard given that it's a key component for managing performance and longevity. It's like relying on casino staff to tell you when you've spent too much.

 

[canitocool]

HWinfo releases a new feature that detects which motherboard vendors are cheating AMD Ryzen power limits, which can result in decreased CPU lifespan.

Ryzen Burnout? AMD Board Power Cheats May Shorten CPU Lifespan : Read more
[/QUOTE

HWinfo releases a new feature that detects which motherboard vendors are cheating AMD Ryzen power limits, which can result in decreased CPU lifespan.

Ryzen Burnout? AMD Board Power Cheats May Shorten CPU Lifespan : Read more

So maybe this is the reason I am getting overheat and the temperature won't reach an idle ideal temp in my new pc????

https://imgur.com/x4BTX7l

View: https://imgur.com/x4BTX7l

 

[bit_user]

Separately I had a thought about running processors on the hot side, albeit at stock ratings.

Personally, I keep a spare processor on hand. I run my processors fanless, with massive heatsinks in order to get 100% silence. No fans, fanless power supply, everything. Even at full load I rarely go above the mid-hi 40C range. As I type this it's just under 20C.

Uh, are you talking about degrees above ambient? Because ~45 C is not hot for a CPU. And < 20 C would tell me you live somewhere cold.

 

[helper800]

AMD should Sue Tomshardware against this misleading article and misleading TITLE .

It is not misleading if you knew what the title was talking about. AMD would sue the mobo manufacturers if anything. But you wouldn't know anything about that, would you?

 

[bit_user]

you guys along with Hardware unboxed are always going after AMD. have you guys changed out your old overpriced xeons for epyc chips yet?

Instead of looking at it through a partisan lens, how about focusing on whether this is a legit story? If you agree that it's legit, then it shouldn't matter what brand of CPU it is.

I, for one, am glad to know about this. I wasn't going to buy a X570 mobo, anyway, but it's the kind of thing I'd be glad to know if I were.

 

[bit_user]

Eg. 3600 TDP is 65W and 3600x is 95W. Did AMD did some magic to allow 3600X to have 30W higher TDP?? Yeah, bigger heatsink.....Something all aftermarket coolers can do. Its not like 3600 cannot do 95W, the crappy stock cooler is to blame.

@helper800 pretty much answered this one, but it's basically like this:

During the production process, AMD tests and sorts the dies, based on what clock speed their various cores can hit. The ones which can't reach higher clocks get sold as lower-end models. And, at lower clocks, you don't need as much power. Finally, with less power-dissipation, you don't need a heatsink that's as big.

So, the heatsink isn't typically what's holding back a 3600 from being a 3600X. The cheaper heatsink is a cost-savings because a beefier one isn't needed.

 

[bit_user]

How is it that when Intel motherboards violate power limits by default and allow the CPU to draw far more current than is within Intel's spec which causes the CPUs to run hotter, you say doesn't have any effect of CPU longevity and don't bother to make any article. However, when AMD motherboards violate power by default limits causing the cpus to run hotter, you make an article titled "Ryzen burnout" and say that this may have damage to the processor.

The difference is that Intel doesn't consider changing those parameters to violate its warranty. The parameters you're talking about - mainly Tau, are provided specifically for manufacturers to change.

In this case, the parameters the motherboards are tweaking is not something they're supposed to change.

 

[helper800]

Instead of looking at it through a partisan lens, how about focusing on whether this is a legit story? If you agree that it's legit, then it shouldn't matter what brand of CPU it is.

I, for one, am glad to know about this. I wasn't going to buy a X570 mobo, anyway, but it's the kind of thing I'd be glad to know if I were.

I had the 3900x on the first hour of release. I wanted an out of box ready MOBO and when I got all the parts for the build at Microcenter in Tustin there were not any out of box capable MOBO's in the B450 lineup. Anyways, my point is that there is nothing wrong minus this issue with the x570 boards, they just tend to be much more expensive. My ASUS ROG x570-f was 299.99 on release, an arm, and half a leg so to speak.

 

[helper800]

So maybe this is the reason I am getting overheat and the temperature won't reach an idle ideal temp in my new pc????

https://imgur.com/x4BTX7l

View: https://imgur.com/x4BTX7l

No, these issues are when the CPU is under full load not when idling. If you are having temp issues I would either reapply the heatsink or get a better cooling solution.

 

[JarredWaltonGPU]

AMD should Sue Tomshardware against this misleading article and misleading TITLE .

Just so you know, trying to fit in the pertinent details in a short enough title is hard. We could have said, "AMD is frustrated that motherboard makers are using tricks to make Ryzen CPUs think they're using less power, which causes the CPUs to run hotter than expected and shortens the potential lifespan." That's about three or four times longer than desired. The important information is that some AMD motherboard makers are 'cheating' on stock clocks in order to attempt to boost performance, and that cheating is against AMD's policies.

It also reads as though The Stilt (who wrote up the lengthy explanation) either works for AMD or has direct contact with them -- which would make sense. He says "we" when seemingly referring to AMD several times. So AMD is basically taking a back channel after directly approaching motherboard makers and saying, "You are doing things that overclock the CPU and void its warranty without informing the users, and it needs to stop."

 

[escksu]

1. I agree, more could have been said to inform the less advanced users.

2. No. The TDP of a processor is not determined by the stock cooler included for the CPU's. The difference in TDP between the 3600 X and non X is determined by AMD's intended purpose of the CPU. AMD wants the 3600X to have a higher TDP because it is a better-binned silicone and its purpose is to be a higher performance part than the 3600. You need more power to get more performance, within reason, for CPU's.

3. No, you did not understand that statement with the proper context.

2. Prove that 3600x is better binned silicon? Its TDP is 46% higher than 3600 but its boost speed is just 5.5% more. 200MHz does not increase power consumption by 30W, but higher voltage does.

3. Onus is on the author to show statement with proper context. Its not on reader.

 

[GenericUser]

The amount of people who barely glance at the headline, don't actually the read the article within (or give it only a cursory glance), then immediately are up in arms about something that isn't even what the article is saying I would say is surprising, but unfortunately seems par for the course no matter what the given topic or setting is.

 

[RodroX]

The article does not have any missleading info, it actually link source. This was something a few motherboards makers do, and its really lame and strange that AMD haven't found this already.

Anyways, I really hope TomsHardware stays on this matter till the end and try to find out more and What is AMD and this motherboard makers doing to fix this invalid behavior.

I have tried this on my Rig, but I can't not even see that validation line, Im guessing is only visible for X570 owners.

Another thing that comes to my mind is, What will happend with B550 mobos comin out soon?, Would this mobo makers do the same thing there too?

Lets hope that, since AMD base its boost behavior on many parameters, thermals included, this should have a lesser impact in the end. Nevertheless it has to be fixed ASAP.

 

[bit_user]

The AD's on this site are damning. The "Just Buy It" (Nvidia) was damning.
Now this article.
Is INTEL paying you to pick sides? I don't get where this article is coming from.
Bye Tom..

I simply don't get why people are so outraged by this article. Did they not actually read it?

If you were going to pick an article to complain about - even a recent one - this certainly wouldn't be my pick.

 

[gdmaclew]

So what does it mean when it reports the following on my 2700X on an ASUS X570 TUF Gaming-Plus?

https://imgur.com/1V2k7LV

View: https://imgur.com/1V2k7LV

 

[bit_user]

2. Prove that 3600x is better binned silicon? Its TDP is 46% higher than 3600 but its boost speed is just 5.5% more. 200MHz does not increase power consumption by 30W, but higher voltage does.

The max boost number is just one metric. There's also how many, by how much, and for how long the cores are boosted. AFAIK, they don't publish that. So, you just have to go by benchmarks, I suppose.

BTW, clock vs. power is nonlinear.

 

[singemagique]

C'mon change the title! It makes it seem like AMD is sanctioning these motherboard tweaks which is NOT what the article is saying.

 

[DZIrl]

Wait a bit. I have Gigabyte x570 Ultra and reported deviation is 200% !!!

 

[AdrianVaughan]

So i have a GIGABYTE X570 AORUS PRO (AMD X570) with a 3700x while idle i have a Power Reporting Deviation of between 250% to 290% when i run Cinebench R20 its drops to 90% what does this mean ?

 

[cryoburner]

Just so you know, trying to fit in the pertinent details in a short enough title is hard. We could have said, "AMD is frustrated that motherboard makers are using tricks to make Ryzen CPUs think they're using less power, which causes the CPUs to run hotter than expected and shortens the potential lifespan." That's about three or four times longer than desired. The important information is that some AMD motherboard makers are 'cheating' on stock clocks in order to attempt to boost performance, and that cheating is against AMD's policies.

I kind of have to agree with the suggestion that the article's title is total clickbait, even if that wasn't the intention.

"Ryzen Burnout? AMD Board Power Cheats May Shorten CPU Lifespan"

If space is so limited, what's with the unnecessary "Ryzen Burnout?" part, that doesn't really add anything not already stated by the rest of the title, except for a dose of sensationalism? In fact, there hasn't really been any evidence that processors are actually burning out at an abnormal rate, as the question seems to imply, and CPUs in general tend to be one of the least likely components in a PC to fail.

What's more, while the article goes into more detail about the topic, the title only mentions "cheats", but doesn't say anything about motherboard manufacturers doing the cheating. So the implication is that AMD is performing "board power cheats" with their Ryzen processors at the expense of durability, when that isn't the case at all. Someone only catching the headline, or maybe skimming the article briefly, is likely to be left with a completely wrong idea about what the situation is about. And you wouldn't need to make the title a paragraph just to have it convey the situation better. For example...

"Some X570 Boards Misrepresent Power, May Shorten CPU Lifespan"

2. Prove that 3600x is better binned silicon? Its TDP is 46% higher than 3600 but its boost speed is just 5.5% more. 200MHz does not increase power consumption by 30W, but higher voltage does.

It does seem to be slightly better silicon, seeing as those chips appear to overclock slightly higher, by a percent or two. It's clear that AMD is doing detailed binning to determine which processor a given chiplet makes its way into, with the higher-end models generally being capable of slightly higher clock rates and better power characteristics. The differences are relatively minor, but seem to be there.

In any case, the 3600X doesn't draw an extra 30 watts. The TDP is just split into rough brackets, largely based on what kind of cooler AMD is suggesting to use with a given processor. In reality, a 3600X only draws maybe a little over 5 watts more than a 3600, with both drawing somewhere in the vicinity of 70 watts under heavy all-core loads.

you guys along with Hardware unboxed are always going after AMD. have you guys changed out your old overpriced xeons for epyc chips yet?

Hardware Unboxed actually tends to be one of the more AMD-friendly tech-channels, often recommending Ryzen and Radeon products.

However, they are not afraid to report on things any of these manufacturers do wrong, even going so far as to warn viewers about sub-par products from manufacturers that have sponsored them. For example, MSI has paid for their visits to trade shows in the past, and they highly recommended MSI's B450 motherboards, but were not afraid to pan their original X570 lineup, which they found to have very poor VRM thermals compared to similarly-priced boards from other manufacturers. Critically reporting on such things can be good though, as it holds the manufacturers accountable, and encourages them to fix problems or at least produce better products in the future. When MSI released some of their new X570 boards recently, like the X570 Tomahawk, they found it to fix everything wrong with the VRMs in the initial lineup, actually providing VRM thermals on-par with far more expensive boards costing hundreds of dollars more.

In general, they seem to make pretty good recommendations. If they find a product to be good and at a reasonable price, they will recommend it, but if they find it to have significant problems, they will point those out, and often thoroughly look into them, which arguably makes them one of the better sources for information about PC hardware.

 

[DZIrl]

Wait a bit. I have Gigabyte x570 Ultra and reported deviation is 200% !!!

Ok, I should read all comments before 😉
When running Cinebench R20 drops to cca 90%. That means all is ok.

 

[RodroX]

Well I have to admit, article title could have even something else like "Some Ryzen motherboard makers are cheating on power limits!"

 

[JarredWaltonGPU]

The article does not have any missleading info, it actually link source. This was something a few motherboards makers do, and its really lame and strange that AMD haven't found this already.

Anyways, I really hope TomsHardware stays on this matter till the end and try to find out more and What is AMD and this motherboard makers doing to fix this invalid behavior.

I have tried this on my Rig, but I can't not even see that validation line, Im guessing is only visible for X570 owners.

Another thing that comes to my mind is, What will happend with B550 mobos comin out soon?, Would this mobo makers do the same thing there too?

Lets hope that, since AMD base its boost behavior on many parameters, thermals included, this should have a lesser impact in the end. Nevertheless it has to be fixed ASAP.

If you read the post by The Stilt, it's pretty clear AMD is trying to do something about this motherboard manufacturer behavior. https://www.hwinfo.com/forum/thread...er-reporting-deviation-metric-in-hwinfo.6456/

"Since at least two of the largest motherboard manufacturers, still insist on using this exploit to gain an advantage over their competitors despite being constantly asked and told not to, we thought it would be only fair to allow the consumers to see if their boards are doing something they're not supposed to do. The issue with using this exploit is, that it messes up the power management of the CPU and potentially also decreases its lifespan because it is running the CPU outside the spec, in some cases by a vast margin. Also, it can cause issues when this exploit goes undetected by a hardware reviewer, since both the performance and the sofware based power consumption figures will be affected by it.

"For example, if we take a Ryzen 7 3700X CPU that has 65W TDP and 88W default power limit (PPT), and use it on a board which has declared only 60% of its actual telemetry reference current, we'll end up with effective power limit of ~ 147W (88 / 0.6) despite running at stock settings (i.e. without enabling manual overclocking or AMD PBO). While the 3700X SKU used in this example typically cannot even reach this kind of a power draw before running into the other limiters and limitations, the fact remains that the CPU is running far outside the spec without the user even acknowledging it. This exploit can also cause additional cost and work to the consumer, who starts wondering about the abnormally high CPU temperatures and starts troubleshooting the issue initially by remounting the cooling and usually, eventually by purchasing a better CPU cooler(s)."

Ok, I should read all comments before 😉
When running Cinebench R20 drops to cca 90%. That means all is ok.

You've actually got it backward. Again, referencing The Stilt:

'HWiNFO will display "Power Reporting Deviation" metric under the CPUs enhanced sensors. The displayed figure is a percentage, with 100.0% being the completely unbiased baseline. When the motherboard manufacturer has both properly calibrated and declared the reference value, the reported figure should be pretty close to 100% under a stable, near-full-load scenario. A ballpark for a threshold, where the readings become suspicious is around ±5%. So, if you see an average value that is significantly lower than ~ 95% there is most likely intentional biasing going on. Obviously, the figure can be greater than 100%, but for the obvious reasons it rarely is 😉'

So at idle, it will be way off and you shouldn't pay any heed to the deviation metric. Under a heavy load, you want the motherboard to be at 100% ideally. If it's higher than that, something is goofy -- it would theoretically mean your motherboard is underclocking or reducing performance. If it's less than 100%, 95% is probably okay, anything lower than that is intentional misreporting of current to the AMD CPU in order to boost performance. It's basically PBO without saying it's PBO. Your 90% result is probably going to be fine, but apparently at least one motherboard maker is setting the value at 50-70% lower than it should be, and that's going to result in some relatively dangerous behavior.

As an example of what can go wrong, I know someone (not at Tom's Hardware) that enabled the auto-overclock feature in the motherboard BIOS when Skylake launched. A bug in the Asus BIOS caused it to apply an extra 0.35V to the CPU and it killed the processor -- it applied a voltage offset, and then applied it again, so instead of 0.175V extra it pushed 0.35V extra. So when a motherboard maker gets fast and loose with the BIOS stuff that reports current and/or voltage, bad things can happen.

Incidentally, at stock operation this is probably only a concern if the motherboard is underreporting by more than 10%. If you overclock, however, note that this will compound the situation. AMD is already pushing its Ryzen CPUs to their limits, which is why it needs the current power information from the motherboard. Then the motherboard auto-overclocks, by lying about how much power is going to the CPU. Then you overclock, and you're trying to push things even further, and you increase voltage, power limits, etc. even more, and wonder why you're not getting much better performance than at stock, while power and temperatures jump even higher.

 

[punkncat]

Did read the article.

Something that wasn't clear to me. What is the test control? Is this "report" from the author, specifically about boards that are in "their" hands (and may or may not have been sent as review samples), or from a selection of data sent back to HWInfo?

Just to further that line of thought, and disregarding the review sample aspect...I can use three different monitoring programs and get three different results. Particularly where it comes to system temps I find more than one common program on the market giving false readings on AMD. Could this be the case here?