• 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.

Question AMD Ryzen 3950X boost behavior

K

Kocicak

Golden Member
My 3950X I got today seems to have a weaker chiplet in it or I have no idea what is happening. First 8 cores routinelly boost over 45x, the second 8 never hit 44. Did I get a lemon (again)? I am attaching HWmonitor screenshot after few minutes of running light load.

BTW after a few minutes of running after I screenshotted it, 2 of the second 8 cores hit 4341, they are not all the same as you can see in the picture.

3950x boost.png
 
Kocicak said:
My 3950X I got today seems to have a weaker chiplet in it or I have no idea what is happening. First 8 cores routinelly boost over 45x, the second 8 never hit 44. Did I get a lemon (again)? I am attaching HWmonitor screenshot after few minutes of running light load.

BTW after a few minutes of running after I screenshotted it, 2 of the second 8 cores hit 4341, they are not all the same as you can see in the picture.

View attachment 13651
Click to expand...
Are we going to do this again ???
 
Do what? I see the second chiplet behaving quite differently than the first one, can you see it too? I thought that the best AM4 CPU will have both chiplets of the highest quality. Silly me?
 
I just randomly run some light load and observe what is happening, i do not have any deeper knowledge. It is almost midnight here and I cannot continue with conversation now.
 
Kocicak said:
I just randomly run some light load and observe what is happening, i do not have any deeper knowledge. It is almost midnight here and I cannot continue with conversation now.
Click to expand...
Regarding your worries, two paths to take:

1) Let it perform, don't worry about the details. You paid for a $749 chip - if it does well for what you need it to, stopped stressing the details.

2) If you actually care about tweaking and pushing the processor, then you need to do a lot of reading on boost behavior, testing, stability, and so on. It's not for the faint of heart.
 
amrnuke said:
... Let it perform, don't worry about the details. You paid for a $749 chip ...
Click to expand...
Actually I payed 950 USD incl. VAT for it and I DO WORRY ABOUT THE DETAILS. So far it seems it has one very quick chiplet with 2 cores hitting sometimes 4.7 GHz and the second one slow never reaching 4.4 GHz. I expected to get TWO very quick chiplets for that kind on money, not just one.

One more screenshot of the CPU doing almost nothing.

3950 boost2.png
 
Kocicak said:
I expected to get TWO very quick chiplets for that kind on money, not just one.
Click to expand...
Sue AMD? Did they say that you could hit 4.7Ghz all-core, anywhere in the processor specs or documentation?

You do know that Intel has "fast cores" and "slow (relatively) cores", in their Turbo Boost 3.0 implementation on their HEDT multi-core CPUs, right?
 
Kocicak said:
Actually I payed 950 USD incl. VAT for it and I DO WORRY ABOUT THE DETAILS. So far it seems it has one very quick chiplet with 2 cores hitting sometimes 4.7 GHz and the second one slow never reaching 4.4 GHz. I expected to get TWO very quick chiplets for that kind on money, not just one.

One more screenshot of the CPU doing almost nothing.

View attachment 13666
Click to expand...

I don't understand why you are tolerated here as you either have unrealistic expectations, or are a troll. I feel bad that you are being a poor representative of Czechia (I preferred Czech Republic) . I studied abroad there and it was an amazing experience. Why are you crapping on AMD so much lately? Did you even mention what you are using as a cooling solution?
 
I believe that AMD should be more open about the details of how they make CPUs, first if would be interesting itself for everybody and second consumers would not be surprised that their CPU has a half of it running 300-400 Mhz slower than the other half.
 
Last edited:
Kocicak said:
Actually I payed 950 USD incl. VAT for it and I DO WORRY ABOUT THE DETAILS. So far it seems it has one very quick chiplet with 2 cores hitting sometimes 4.7 GHz and the second one slow never reaching 4.4 GHz. I expected to get TWO very quick chiplets for that kind on money, not just one.

One more screenshot of the CPU doing almost nothing.

View attachment 13666
Click to expand...

Does it outperform Intel's new 18 core Cascade Lake CPU most of the time? Yes, it does. With two less cores. Stop looking so much into clock speed and look at overall performance 🙄 .

Oh, and it costs less!
 
Kocicak said:
I believe that AMD should be more open about the details of how they make CPUs, first if would be interesting itself for everybody and second consumers would not be surprised that thair CPU has a half of it running 400 Mhz slower than the other half.
Click to expand...
Do you troll everything ? Their boost is not on all clocks. Read up on it or shut up, we are sick of your trolling.
 
I am not "pissed off about AMD", I am just surprised that one half of the CPU runs much slower than the other half. In case this is typical for this product, I believe it is the best for everybody so that the producer himself informs consumers about this.

If could be actually a way to promote the product, if could easilly be that both of the chiplets are highly binned, one for speed and one for energy efficiency.
 
Kocicak said:
I am not "pissed off about AMD", I am just surprised that one half of the CPU runs much slower than the other half. In case this is typical for this product, I believe it is the best for everybody so that the producer himself informs consumers about this.
Click to expand...

Your posting history say otherwise. You didn't like a 3900X because it fell 50MHz short of what you wanted. You posted at least two threads about your dream "3600 X 2", selling for what, $250? You called AMD a "money grabbing monster". You got upset and figured we were all shareholders of AMD. Why did you never respond to my post about Intel pulling money grab moves as well? Because there is no answer. If I dug deeper, I'm sure I could find more. But you won't care. You have your agenda.

If you were fair, you would say that Intel selling fully functional i9's and i7's as i5's and i3's is wrong. But you don't seem to care about that. Hence, that is why you have been called a troll.
 
Kocicak said:
Actually I payed 950 USD incl. VAT for it and I DO WORRY ABOUT THE DETAILS. So far it seems it has one very quick chiplet with 2 cores hitting sometimes 4.7 GHz and the second one slow never reaching 4.4 GHz. I expected to get TWO very quick chiplets for that kind on money, not just one.

One more screenshot of the CPU doing almost nothing.

View attachment 13666
Click to expand...

Just buy Intel and be happy. You will get your money's worth.
 
Kocicak said:
I believe that AMD should be more open about the details of how they make CPUs, first if would be interesting itself for everybody and second consumers would not be surprised that their CPU has a half of it running 300-400 Mhz slower than the other half.
Click to expand...
Intel does it too. If you were more well-versed in tech, you would understand this, and not make so many ignorant threads.
 
Kocicak said:
I just randomly run some light load and observe what is happening, i do not have any deeper knowledge. It is almost midnight here and I cannot continue with conversation now.
Click to expand...

Run the same light load, and set core affinity to cores from the second CCD only. See what performance you get. Remember to try to ignore clockspeed and instead focus on performance metrics.

For example, if I set SuperPi mod 1.5 XS core affinity on my 3900x to cores 0-11 in Task Manager, I get a score of 9.2 seconds in 1M running default speeds (with all my voltage tweaks that lowers ST performance a tiny bit; without those, I get around 9s flat). If I set affinity to cores 12-23 and run the same task, I get a score of 9.8s. It appears as though the first CCD is capable of hitting 4575 MHz at least briefly on one or two cores, while the second CCD struggles to get past 4.3 GHz. Personally I'm shocked that you're seeing 4.4 GHz on your weak CCD. That chip you have is pretty good compared to mine in ST tasks. And you have four more cores to boot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top