• 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

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
nicalandia said:
heck even going from 1700 to 3600 is now an upgrade for many people...
Click to expand...

Upgrade and upgrade. The end performance is pretty similar, but the 3600 has -a lot- better single thread performance. (even more if you kick in PBO) Multi thread it's mostly a wash, depending on memory speed etc.

Thing is the 3600 only has 6 cores. That shows how much of an improvement Zen2 is... 😎
 
Insert_Nickname said:
Upgrade and upgrade. The end performance is pretty similar, but the 3600 has -a lot- better single thread performance. (even more if you kick in PBO) Multi thread it's mostly a wash, depending on memory speed etc.

Thing is the 3600 only has 6 cores. That shows how much of an improvement Zen2 is... 😎
Click to expand...
True, I was addressing a post about life expectancy of Ryzen 3000 cut short by increase of voltage(not that there is any evidence that it would), but due to AMD really pushing the performance boundaries I really doubt we will ever see a "Sandy Bridge" type of long lived CPUs, those days are Over and Ryzen 4000/5000 will be a real upgrade from the 3000 as much as they were from 1000/2000
 
Markfw said:
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)
Click to expand...

I am not surprised. Depending on the workload, I have observed similar performance on my 3900x. That horrible PrimeGrid workload VirtuaLarry had us all run was a key example. I don't know if I could have gotten 4.1 GHz stable @ 1.1v, but 4150 MHz in that particular workload required only ~1.2v actual (1.175v + LLC).
 
DrMrLordX said:
I am not surprised. Depending on the workload, I have observed similar performance on my 3900x. That horrible PrimeGrid workload VirtuaLarry had us all run was a key example. .
Click to expand...
Is PrimeGrid a "Real World" Application? Because if not, don't even worry about it because Intel no longer cares if its not.
 
nicalandia said:
Is PrimeGrid a "Real World" Application? Because if not, don't even worry about it because Intel no longer cares if its not.
Click to expand...

It's interesting at least from an academic perspective. Honestly I don't know how high I can clock my chip @ 1.1v fixed running . . . um . . . WebXPRT.
 
DrMrLordX said:
It's interesting at least from an academic perspective. Honestly I don't know how high I can clock my chip @ 1.1v fixed running . . . um . . . WebXPRT.
Click to expand...
I tried the same 1.1@4.2 ghz on my x370/3900x and it started to boot, and bluescreened. Then I changed the voltage to 1.15 and now it won't post. Have to clear the cmos. Odd, maybe it did not like that vcore.
 
I tried 1.2 vcore and 4100, and it booted and ran for a while, now the same thing. I think I have to clear the CMOS to change the BIOS to 1.3, it won't post.
 
Markfw said:
I tried 1.2 vcore and 4100, and it booted and ran for a while, now the same thing. I think I have to clear the CMOS to change the BIOS to 1.3, it won't post.
Click to expand...

That's why I do most of my voltage/clockspeed changes in Ryzen Master. Unless that's a Linux box you're running there?
 
DrMrLordX said:
That's why I do most of my voltage/clockspeed changes in Ryzen Master. Unless that's a Linux box you're running there?
Click to expand...
Well, no, but its got a linux boot. Once its stable in windows, then I boot linux. 1.3 didn;t work either. Not sure whats up. I will try 1.35 next.
 
EXCellR8 said:
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.
Click to expand...

I'm not so sure about this. We're all pretty much resigned to the fact and not-at-all-caring that our 1TB storage drives are actually ~987-996gb or thereabout. If the .1-.2Ghz means no actual performance gain, it seems like the same thing to me.

Why can't we get angry that SSDs and HDDs aren't sold as 987gb or 990gb or 992.5gb or 997gb drives, for each specific drive? why????
 
1.35 did not work, its something odd, its a x370 board, and not sure it likes the 3900x, I might have to buy a 3700x. Or a 3800x
 
zinfamous said:
I'm not so sure about this. We're all pretty much resigned to the fact and not-at-all-caring that our 1TB storage drives are actually ~987-996gb or thereabout. If the .1-.2Ghz means no actual performance gain, it seems like the same thing to me.

Why can't we get angry that SSDs and HDDs aren't sold as 987gb or 990gb or 992.5gb or 997gb drives, for each specific drive? why????
Click to expand...
While I see were you are coming from I don't really agree with you. The storage device you are purchasing is in fact 1TB in size but the file system that your OS uses rearranges that size to fit its needs. That is not the fault of the storage manufacturer.

Perhaps AMD was using an old trick once used by automobile manufactures. Along time ago automobile companies used to measure HP numbers of their engines at the flywheel and advertise those numbers to consumers because they were higher than the HP numbers at the wheels.
 
bbhaag said:
Perhaps AMD was using an old trick once used by automobile manufactures. Along time ago automobile companies used to measure HP numbers of their engines at the flywheel and advertise those numbers to consumers because they were higher than the HP numbers at the wheels.
Click to expand...

Horsepower numbers were more marketing and dancing around insurance companies. The big blocks from GM, Ford and Chrysler were seriously under rated.
 
bbhaag said:
While I see were you are coming from I don't really agree with you. The storage device you are purchasing is in fact 1TB in size but the file system that your OS uses rearranges that size to fit its needs. That is not the fault of the storage manufacturer.
Click to expand...
It's not only due to the OS although you also lose some there due formatting and extra partitions. It's due to interpreting 1T, 1G, 1M, 1K differently.
1M is 1000 000
But in the computer world they use powers of 2:
1M is 1024 * 1024 or 1048 576 bytes (more bytes in 1M)

So what did the clever manufactures, they use the first (correct outside data storage world) meaning.
1M you get 1000 000 bytes but in powers of 1024 equal to:
1000 000 / 1024 /1024 = 0.953 MB

My disk has 488258 MB but I bought an 512GB??, 512 000 000 000 B
488258 * 1024 * 1024 = 511 975 620 608 Bytes, pretty close to 512GB

This is not really the same thing for GHz, it doesn't have powers of 2.
They could only change the meaning of boost but it still needs to have a useful meaning for the buyer.
 
Last edited:
bbhaag said:
Perhaps AMD was using an old trick once used by automobile manufactures. Along time ago automobile companies used to measure HP numbers of their engines at the flywheel and advertise those numbers to consumers because they were higher than the HP numbers at the wheels.
Click to expand...

Manufacturer's still measure HP at the flywheel. The difference is back in the day they measured SAE gross horsepower which was flywheel HP but without any of the accessories installed (alternator, power steering pump, water pump, etc.). Back in the 70's manufacturer's switched to SAE net HP which included all accessory equipment installed (still at the flywheel).

Sorry for the OT.
 
Amazon currently has the 3900X on backorder to Sept 24th (and oh btw charging $582 for it). So... yeah... does look like AMD more or less pulled the 3900X because of boostgate and they tightened the binning.

I'll just go ahead and guess the 24th is the 3950X's release date.
 
Hmm, makes me wonder how much they can fix with UEFI updates and how much they can't. No matter. It's an excellent CPU anyway. Glad I got one (two, actually . . . heh).
 
I'm hoping it will make single thread sustains at the adv speeds e.g. 3600X will be able to maintain 4.4GHz on a single core but I'm hearing that's not what can or is being done.
 
@VirtualLarry probably wasn't a good thing to do.

Hmm....The 1.0.0.3 ABBA 7C37AMS.A41 is available for my MB on the MSI ftp server it looks like. No link for it yet on my MB's support page, nor in the beta bios thread on the MSI forum yet.

I guess I'll check after work to see if the link pops up on my MB's support page.
 
Looks like the ABBA BIOS is boosting correctly.

reddit.com/r/MSI_Gaming/comments/d1rv4f/x570_agesa_1003abba_beta_bios/
 
This really seems like a crapshoot. I'm having no trouble hitting advertised boost with AGESA 1.0.0.2 (Asus BIOS 5008) on my R5 3600 and Asus Prime X370-PRO (NH-D15, Phanteks Enthoo Pro M TG). So I'm not sure if there's any compelling reason for me to perform this update.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top