• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

AMD Announces BIOS Fix for Ryzen 3000 Boost Clocks, Update Comes September 10

N

nicalandia

Diamond Member
AMD Announces BIOS Fix for Ryzen 3000 Boost Clocks, Update Comes September 10
https://www.tomshardware.com/news/amd-ryzen-3000-boost-frequency-bios-fix,40308.html

“AMD is pleased with the strong momentum of 3rd Gen AMD Ryzen™ processors in the PC enthusiast and gaming communities. We closely monitor community feedback on our products and understand that some 3rd gen AMD Ryzen users are reporting boost clock speeds below the expected processor boost frequency. While processor boost frequency is dependent on many variables, including workload, system design, and cooling solution, we have closely reviewed the feedback from our customers and have identified an issue in our firmware that reduces boost frequency in some situations. We are in the process of preparing a BIOS update for our motherboard partners that addresses that issue and includes additional boost performance optimizations. We will provide an update on September 10 to the community regarding the availability of the BIOS.”
 
Any news on when the Ryzen 9 3950X will be avilable? I was guessing 09/07/2019 but I guess it will be after the 10th
 
In other words, enough people complained about ~0.1-0.2ghz that they are forced to fix it. The firmware thing sounds like a redirect tactic though...

I understand the variables and conditions but hopefully they learn from this and realize that if end users don't see 1:1 performance numbers that there is going to be certain repercussions.
 
EXCellR8 said:
In other words, enough people complained about ~0.1-0.2ghz that they are forced to fix it. The firmware thing sounds like a redirect tactic though...

I understand the variables and conditions but hopefully they learn from this and realize that if end users don't see 1:1 performance numbers that there is going to be certain repercussions.
Click to expand...
I wonder who has lost more performance, Amd Ryzen 3000 owners with less performance due to less ~0.1- 0.2ghz(per single core max boost) or Intel owners with all of the vulnerability patches?
 
nicalandia said:
I wonder who has lost more performance, Amd Ryzen 3000 owners with less performance due to less ~0.1- 0.2ghz(per single core max boost) or Intel owners with all of the vulnerability patches?
Click to expand...

Well, to be fair, most Intel users would answer that by stating AMD is #2 regardless of any performance lost.
 
Thus my point... I guess I could have elaborated. It's not about the actual performance as it is so much about marketing. The difference in actual speed in negligible in this case of course, but when most people buy something they want 100% of the potential and not 97%, respectively. I don't see consumers being wrong in stating that, whether they are happy with the product or not.

Personally, I am very happy with my 3700X regardless of what the box says it will boost to; it gets close on an older board and I take that as a massive win.
 
I figured there was a little more in the BIOS. I love my 2600X, and AMD products in general. But, they always have teething issues with new products out of the gate. Intel does as well, but they haven't had anything truly new since 2015 so their BIOS is pretty smooth by now.
 
I'm sceptical, my 3700x already hits 4400 briefly in ST workloads. There usually aren't free lunches, therefore I'm afraid this might end up hurting lightly threaded workloads. You know, everything, besides closing every other program and running Cinebench 1T
 
PotatoWithEarsOnSide said:
Winter is coming. Ambient temperatures will drop by a few degrees, and our clocks shall go up by the "missing" 0.025GHz.
Click to expand...

Case temps building up in un-airconditioned environments can be a big problem. 7nm seems particularly vulverable to it. der8auer estimates per 20C increase in cpu temp there is a considerable wattage increase for the CPU plus typically a 75-100 MHz drop for boost freqs.


20C differences can be easily encountered, even with the same stock cooler. Person A is running in a 20C or less room, with aggressive fan profile, good case ventilation and has their CPU sitting at 50C under full load. Person B doesn't use AC, runs his computer in a 80F~27C room, has poor case ventilation and possibly a poor fan profile, and has their CPU at ceiling temperatures 70C-75C.
 
Last edited:
I am more concerned about CPU longevity after the "fix." I do not know what kind of solution is going to be applied, but if the current boosting behavior is an indication pushing more voltages more often might be a quick fix. The problem is that many of these chips are already supplied ~1.5V for max boost out of box. With more volts more often a long term longevity of the chips can be an issue.
 
lopri said:
I am more concerned about CPU longevity after the "fix." I do not know what kind of solution is going to be applied, but if the current boosting behavior is an indication pushing more voltages more often might be a quick fix. The problem is that many of these chips are already supplied ~1.5V for max boost out of box. With more volts more often a long term longevity of the chips can be an issue.
Click to expand...
The issue is that the voltages are REDACTED. I'm running my 3700X via PBO & BCLK at up to 4.45GHz ST at only 1.387V versus the default 1.487V the CPU requests. AMD has a lot of clock headroom if they actually trim off the voltage margins instead of pushing for higher voltages creating a heat feedback effect and thus having to scale down to lower frequencies.

We have a zero tolerance policy for profanity in the tech sub-forums.

Iron Woode
Super Moderator
 
Last edited by a moderator:
lopri said:
I am more concerned about CPU longevity after the "fix." .
Click to expand...
The 3600(none X) already cut the Longevity of the first OG Zen just by being released, heck even going from 1700 to 3600 is now an upgrade for many people... So when Zen 3 is release people will be already feeling that their Zen2 is not up to task 😛
 
Andrei. said:
The issue is that the voltages are REDACTED. I'm running my 3700X via PBO & BCLK at up to 4.45GHz ST at only 1.387V versus the default 1.487V the CPU requests. AMD has a lot of clock headroom if they actually trim off the voltage margins instead of pushing for higher voltages creating a heat feedback effect and thus having to scale down to lower frequencies.
Click to expand...

That seems basically correct. There's really no problem pushing for higher voltages when current levels (and thus, heat) are low. But in all-core situations, I think a lot of these chips - well, 3700x and up anyway - are quite capable of 4.3-4.4 GHz all-core at reasonably low voltages. Especially in workloads that are non-AVX/AVX2. And it surprises me that such behavior isn't already baked into AMD's boost algorithm. It seems really conservative.

It's also too easy to mess up boost behavior with LLC settings and voltage offsets.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I just hope it was more of refinements they had to work out to get them to the top end speed instead of having to up any voltages.
 
DrMrLordX said:
That seems basically correct. There's really no problem pushing for higher voltages when current levels (and thus, heat) are low. But in all-core situations, I think a lot of these chips - well, 3700x and up anyway - are quite capable of 4.3-4.4 GHz all-core at reasonably low voltages. Especially in workloads that are non-AVX/AVX2. And it surprises me that such behavior isn't already baked into AMD's boost algorithm. It seems really conservative.

It's also too easy to mess up boost behavior with LLC settings and voltage offsets.
Click to expand...
You did see that I accidentally set the vcore to 1.1 and the speed to all core 4.1 and its running cooler and faster than stock ! Today I may try for 4,2 or more ! (I forget where I posted this)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top