Is Ryzen 3000 Ready?

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Are you content with how your Ryzen 3000 based system is running?

  • There are showstoppers which make life very difficult/make me regret the purchase

    Votes: 6 12.8%
  • There are some issues I can live with

    Votes: 2 4.3%
  • There are small issues I can live with

    Votes: 13 27.7%
  • 100% satisfied

    Votes: 23 48.9%
  • Other situation (please leave a comment)

    Votes: 3 6.4%

  • Total voters
    47
Apr 27, 2000
12,759
1,563
126
#52
Did you ever run any of those custom bios builds out there?
Nah I was a low-information user at that point. I did build my own, but flashing custom BIOSes was beyond me. My board did perform pretty well for me, though. That was my leet 1.4 GHz Tbird.

T
  • The combination of Windows 10's new Ryzen-aware scheduler and AMD's chipset drivers allow the operating system to schedule single-threaded tasks into the fastest cores (thread pinning).
I wonder if the OEM-provided chipset drivers provide that functionality? On the stock UEFI for my x570 Aorus Master + OEM-provided chipset drivers, it sure looks like CBR20 (at least) isn't pinning itself in ST mode to any particular core. It jumps around like crazy.
 
Jan 12, 2019
98
106
51
#53
I wonder if the OEM-provided chipset drivers provide that functionality? On the stock UEFI for my x570 Aorus Master + OEM-provided chipset drivers, it sure looks like CBR20 (at least) isn't pinning itself in ST mode to any particular core. It jumps around like crazy.
Are you running the latest Windows 10 build? Last time I heard Windows 1809 doesn't include the new Ryzen 3000 optimized task scheduler.
 
Apr 27, 2000
12,759
1,563
126
#54
Are you running the latest Windows 10 build? Last time I heard Windows 1809 doesn't include the new Ryzen 3000 optimized task scheduler.
I'm actually running build 18945.rs_prerelease. I'm beyond the latest!
 
Jan 12, 2019
98
106
51
#55
Maybe all your cores are created equal and boost properly that's why none of them is the chosen one? ;-)
 
Apr 27, 2000
12,759
1,563
126
#56
Maybe all your cores are created equal and boost properly that's why none of them is the chosen one? ;-)
Ryzen Master has a few labelled with stars, so . . . I'm guessing not. I might need to try the latest AMD chipset drivers instead of the Gigabyte ones.
 

Kenmitch

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 1999
7,362
282
126
#57
f the OEM-provided chipset drivers provide that functionality? On the stock UEFI for my x570 Aorus Master + OEM-provided chipset drivers, it sure looks like CBR20 (at least) isn't pinning itself in ST mode to any particular core. It jumps around like crazy.
Which power plan are you running? Testing the below and using the Ryzen balanced power plan I get the bouncing around in single thread CB R20 also, but it does look to favor one core more than the others. I haven't tried the Ryzen performance plan yet to see if it pins to a core like it did when I was using the 3600 in my MSI x570 MB. The overall results look to be very similar anyways viewing the scores.

According to HWiNFO64 every one of my cores has hit 4192.4 MHz at one point or another during the 22 minutes it's been monitoring.

I'm in the very early stages of testing a 3600 on my CH6. I just got windows installed last night.

The CH6/3600 combo likes to halt on the C5 error code when playing around with the memory speeds. Even lower speed settings trigger the code for some reason.

Maybe it was a miracle, but I somehow managed to get my b-die running at 3600 CL14 @1.45v last night. I'm not sure if it'll be 100% stable yet. Aida64 shows latency at 68.1ns without even diving into the sub-timings. In the end it only took 2 mouse clicks and setting the dram voltage to 1.45v along with the vram dram boot voltage set to 1.45v's. Still testing this theory out, but it looks to be working.

I wound up loading the wrong bios file on my usb stick when I did the usb flashback to get the MB 3xxx series ready. It's Agesa 1.0.0.2 based, but is functional. I'm gonna play around as is for a while before I flash to the latest version which is 1.0.0.3ab based it looks like. I'm kind of hoping Asus will release a new one as many say the current one is buggy.

The CH6 has way too many settings in the uEFI for a person to monkey around with!
 
Last edited:
Apr 27, 2000
12,759
1,563
126
#58
Which power plan are you running?
I thought I was on Windows Performance, but after installing chipset drivers it defaulted me to Ryzen Balanced. I switched to Ryzen Performance. Now it's hitting basically one core . . . just not one of the cores that is fastest according to Ryzen Master. Seems to peak at ~4330 MHz or so. CBR20 ST. Enabling PBO seems to make it a little more consistent.

I've tried setting core affinity, but it picks cores that don't seem to line up with the numbers in Task Manager.

edit: looks like I significantly increased performance by setting Ryzen Master to poll every 4 seconds and activating the histogram (probably not related, but still). Now I'm getting core boosts in the 4.5 GHz range in CBR20. ST score: 508! And that's with DDR4-2133. And all without PBO. Core boosts seem to go up when I keep Ryzen Master minimized?
 
Last edited:
Feb 23, 2017
26
14
61
#60
Are these issues really a concern for a "set and forget" type of person in any case? These seem more like minutia that enthusiasts worry about. What issues are affecting peoples day to day usage in a perceptible way, not people poring over HWiNFO numbers?

I don't think it can be stated enough that reporting bias is a factor here especially when using reddit as some sort of basis for you being "shocked by the number of issues". "Nothing to report, everything working fine" posts don't get the upvotes that more controversial posts might.

Now I feel like an apologist so I'll say AMD should fix everything they can!

This PDF from AMD is worth a read.
 
Jan 12, 2019
98
106
51
#61
Are these issues really a concern for a "set and forget" type of person in any case? These seem more like minutia that enthusiasts worry about. What issues are affecting peoples day to day usage in a perceptible way, not people poring over HWiNFO numbers?

I don't think it can be stated enough that reporting bias is a factor here especially when using reddit as some sort of basis for you being "shocked by the number of issues". "Nothing to report, everything working fine" posts don't get the upvotes that more controversial posts might.

Now I feel like an apologist so I'll say AMD should fix everything they can!

This PDF from AMD is worth a read.
I've read the entire PDF - it looks and sounds like an excuse for a broken piece of silicon which warrants a new fixed revision. "Light" loads must not peg the CPU at maximum voltages and frequencies no matter what. You see that they even went ahead and released a "fixed" version of Ryzen Master which will no longer report the true data about the CPU - this is simply unacceptable. In my over 25+ years of running various CPUs I've never seen a situation when light monitoring tools like CPU-Z or HWiNFO would cause any discernible CPU clocks/voltages ramp up.

If I were AMD I'd admit I've -redacted- up and released a new revision of Ryzen 3000 CPUs which Intel does all the time. Still, I've been under the impression that both Intel and AMD nowadays have a big chunk of the CPU logic completely programmable via firmware, so I wonder why it's not the case right now at least for AMD.

Profanity in the tech forums is not allowed, even if you * parts of it out.

Daveybrat
AT Moderator
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Feb 23, 2017
26
14
61
#62
I've read the entire PDF - it looks and sounds like an excuse for a broken piece of silicon which warrants a new fixed revision. "Light" loads must not peg the CPU at maximum voltages and frequencies no matter what. You see that they even went ahead and released a "fixed" version of Ryzen Master which will no longer report the true data about the CPU - this is simply unacceptable. In my over 25+ years of running various CPUs I've never seen a situation when light monitoring tools like CPU-Z or HWiNFO would cause any discernible CPU clocks/voltages ramp up.

If I were AMD I'd admit I've f***ed up and released a new revision of Ryzen 3000 CPUs which Intel does all the time. Still, I've been under the impression that both Intel and AMD nowadays have a big chunk of the CPU logic completely programmable via firmware, so I wonder why it's not the case right now at least for AMD.
I don't agree with any of that and I don't think you're qualified to tell AMD to admit to anything or to revise anything.

Also the entire of my post except that link.
 

moinmoin

Senior member
Jun 1, 2017
915
402
106
#63
"Light" loads must not peg the CPU at maximum voltages and frequencies no matter what.
What's light load? You even put it in quotes yourself.

Whatever the load, it's a valid policy to execute the load as quickly as possible. The PDF even mentions and linked why that's commonly accepted as a valid strategy, race-to-idle. AMD increased the action granularity to 1ms and allowed this behavior to be used unrestricted. Now it turns out "idling" applications are essentially abusing this behavior and having loads for the CPU to process again and again, making a fool of the whole idle concept. AMD's reaction is to draw a line and reintroduce the previous 15ms window for short load bursts that stay within so the CPU actually gets a chance to idle.

I'm familiar with the efforts through powertop (a tool by Intel) under Linux which tracks devices and processes waking the CPU from sleep, thus decreasing power efficiency. The result of having this tool over the years was that such wake calls were vastly reduced, and if still necessary, combined in batches. To me the idle behavior under Windows looks like it could use such an optimization as well.
 
Feb 6, 2011
1,862
255
136
#64
What's light load? You even put it in quotes yourself.

Whatever the load, it's a valid policy to execute the load as quickly as possible. The PDF even mentions and linked why that's commonly accepted as a valid strategy, race-to-idle. AMD increased the action granularity to 1ms and allowed this behavior to be used unrestricted. Now it turns out "idling" applications are essentially abusing this behavior and having loads for the CPU to process again and again, making a fool of the whole idle concept. AMD's reaction is to draw a line and reintroduce the previous 15ms window for short load bursts that stay within so the CPU actually gets a chance to idle.

I'm familiar with the efforts through powertop (a tool by Intel) under Linux which tracks devices and processes waking the CPU from sleep, thus decreasing power efficiency. The result of having this tool over the years was that such wake calls were vastly reduced, and if still necessary, combined in batches. To me the idle behavior under Windows looks like it could use such an optimization as well.
I dont even think its broken, the problem is a error in sampling , both for temperature and for voltage. I've seen this a bunch of times on different forums, people get all huffy and then when you ask them to make sure they have nothing that does constant polling etc and see what temp/voltage looks like they flat out wont. It is very bizarre, Just like @birdie it was explained with an oscilloscope capture to boot but its apparently "broken silicon" , just explain to me how broken silicon can regulate its power requirements @ 1ms intervals and not be unstable/crash?
 
Apr 27, 2000
12,759
1,563
126
#65
You can set polling interval to anything you like. If the monitoring software isn't active on the desktop, you don't get clockspeed/temp spikes. Just use a histogram to see what I mean. If I keep Ryzen Master in the foreground, I get spikes of activity every 4-8 seconds. If I minimize it, nothing.
 

moinmoin

Senior member
Jun 1, 2017
915
402
106
#66
I dont even think its broken, the problem is a error in sampling , both for temperature and for voltage.
It's a case of PEBCAK imo. The sampling is a highly specific snapshot value that can change, at a granularity of 1ms, 1000 times per second (duh!). AMD now changes this to a running average across time and the whole package to fix the issue of perception.

Perception in general is an issue with Ryzen 3k, somebody did a huge rant on Reddit about that. Unlike him I do think the changes AMD did so far as a result of that are mostly alright though.

Edit: Removed the embedding of said reddit post as it's really way too long, follow above link instead please.
 
Last edited:

Kenmitch

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 1999
7,362
282
126
#67
It's a case of PEBCAK imo. The sampling is a highly specific snapshot value that can change, at a granularity of 1ms, 1000 times per second (duh!). AMD now changes this to a running average across time and the whole package to fix the issue of perception.

Perception in general is an issue with Ryzen 3k, somebody did a huge rant on Reddit about that. Unlike him I do think the changes AMD did so far as a result of that are mostly alright though.
Well that's how it goes when AMD launches a new product. The internet tends to single out what it considers to be it's major weakness and runs with it. I don't know why, but it happens on every launch.
 
Nov 18, 2009
144
68
101
www.teraknor.net
#68
"Light" loads must not peg the CPU at maximum voltages and frequencies
It doesn't .. I mean there are scope traces in there and everything. It absolutely does not and never did peg high voltages and frequencies at idle. Did you even read the pdf?

I do agree that the high idle temp thing was a bit of an issue that needed to be fixed -- especially when putting this arch into laptops, but it seems like their solution is good. They were being a bit too aggressive in coming from idle states.


Once I finally get some RAM for my build I would like to do some scope traces myself too for additional data. Just need to find some good probe points..
 
Jan 12, 2019
98
106
51
#69
It doesn't .. I mean there are scope traces in there and everything. It absolutely does not and never did peg high voltages and frequencies at idle. Did you even read the pdf?

I do agree that the high idle temp thing was a bit of an issue that needed to be fixed -- especially when putting this arch into laptops, but it seems like their solution is good. They were being a bit too aggressive in coming from idle states.


Once I finally get some RAM for my build I would like to do some scope traces myself too for additional data. Just need to find some good probe points..
I also hope to build a Ryzen 3000 based system but currently cannot afford it. The reason I didn't like that PDF is again because AMD decided they would no longer show true data from their CPUs. If they have lots of sensors I want to see multiple data points. If there are spikes I want to see them as a graph. I don't want them to dumb down their software to hide the data.
 

maddie

Platinum Member
Jul 18, 2010
2,734
688
136
#70
I also hope to build a Ryzen 3000 based system but currently cannot afford it. The reason I didn't like that PDF is again because AMD decided they would no longer show true data from their CPUs. If they have lots of sensors I want to see multiple data points. If there are spikes I want to see them as a graph. I don't want them to dumb down their software to hide the data.
Why would you want to build a Ryzen 3000 system? It seems you would be a nervous wreck, with all the issues you're investigating.
 
Jan 12, 2019
98
106
51
#71
Why would you want to build a Ryzen 3000 system? It seems you would be a nervous wreck, with all the issues you're investigating.
I prefer my silicon to be cool, low voltage and quiet. My last CPU which is Intel Core i5 2500 is still in a perfect condition eight years after I purchased it. My Nexus 5 phone still works perfectly six years after I bought it. I would like my Ryzen 3000 system to serve me for at least the next five years. I do understand that most middle-class Europeans and Americans (who I guess prevail at these forums) can afford a new PC every month but it's not my case. And I'm not content with my future CPU running at 1.45V at stock which doesn't sound like a safe figure.

And thanks for calling me a nervous wreck. Much appreciated. Being concerned about HW equipment longevity is a trait of a madman. Right, I get it.
 

Ajay

Diamond Member
Jan 8, 2001
5,308
261
136
#72
I prefer my silicon to be cool, low voltage and quiet. My last CPU which is Intel Core i5 2500 is still in a perfect condition eight years after I purchased it. My Nexus 5 phone still works perfectly six years after I bought it. I would like my Ryzen 3000 system to serve me for at least the next five years. I do understand that most middle-class Europeans and Americans (who I guess prevail at these forums) can afford a new PC every month but it's not my case. And I'm not content with my future CPU running at 1.45V at stock which doesn't sound like a safe figure.

And thanks for calling me a nervous wreck. Much appreciated. Being concerned about HW equipment longevity is a trait of a madman. Right, I get it.
Seriously then, wait around three months, follow progress on these forums, and then you will know if this is the right long term buy for you. If you can't wait buy a Ryzen 2700x/x470 board or go Intel again. It's just not worth it to fret about this as much as you are - it's not like you're buying a house.
 
Feb 14, 2017
120
49
71
#73
I prefer my silicon to be cool, low voltage and quiet.
Simple enough. Set a modest pstate OC, leave cool & quiet enabled, fix your fan curve, and you're golden.

Note my sig: my 3600X is probably the quietest machine (of 8 in use) in my house. Only a couple of dual-core Ivy/Sandy Bridge AIO's beat it at idle power consumption.
 

moinmoin

Senior member
Jun 1, 2017
915
402
106
#74
The reason I didn't like that PDF is again because AMD decided they would no longer show true data from their CPUs. If they have lots of sensors I want to see multiple data points. If there are spikes I want to see them as a graph. I don't want them to dumb down their software to hide the data.
While I can fully understand your OCD and tend to feel the same with wanting complete access to interesting data, this change is actually an improvement wrt "true data" if AMD's explanation that the new rolling averages are what their PB2 algorithm is actually acting upon is correct.
 

Elfear

Diamond Member
May 30, 2004
6,855
90
126
#75
I also hope to build a Ryzen 3000 based system but currently cannot afford it. The reason I didn't like that PDF is again because AMD decided they would no longer show true data from their CPUs. If they have lots of sensors I want to see multiple data points. If there are spikes I want to see them as a graph. I don't want them to dumb down their software to hide the data.
From the Anandtech article on the topic, it didn't sound like AMD was "dumbing down" their software, merely giving a more accurate representation of the average core temp. If Intel uses an average of multiple sensors and AMD's older chips do the same (just guessing here, not really sure), it would make sense to standardize it a bit so that end-users don't panic when temps are higher than they're used to.
 


ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS