That's odd. Greg at Science Studio tried a 3900X in an Asrock B350 motherboard. He didn't do a whole lot of testing, but apparently it worked. He's gonna try an A320 board next.
Get ready for software fixes which will likely impact ST and light threaded performance.
AnandTech said:(7/8): We've noticed large frequency boost behaviour changes with new motherboard firmware that was released on launch day (7/7). We are currently re-running all our test suite numbers and updating the article with the new data soon as appplicable. For further details please read here.
AnandTech said:We ran our original review numbers with the latest available firmware for the MSI MEG X570 ACE motherboard last week (Version 7C35v11). On Saturday the 6th MSI had shared with us a notice about a new version coming out, which became available to download to us on Sunday the 7th, the launch day and date of publication of the review.
We’ve had more time to investigate the new firmware, and have discovered extremely large changes in the behaviour of the frequency boosting algorithm. The new firmware (Version 7C35v12) for the motherboard contains AMD’s new ComboPI1.0.0.3.a firmware.
We discovered the following direct measureable effects between the two firmware versions:
We notice a significant change in the CPU’s boosting behaviour, now boosting to higher frequencies, and particularly at a faster rate from idle, more correctly matching AMD’s described intended boost behaviour and latency.
We’re currently in the process of re-running all our suite numbers and updating the article where necessary to reflect the new frequency behaviour.
yepOh my.
Just looking at those boost clock differences, that could potentially completely close or exceed the gap vs the 9900K in more than a few games.
yep
really looking forward to it
and if it does, man AMD screwed this release....promoting the r39x as the best gaming CPU and doing this
....they never learn
That's odd. Greg at Science Studio tried a 3900X in an Asrock B350 motherboard. He didn't do a whole lot of testing, but apparently it worked. He's gonna try an A320 board next.
I'm somewhat surprised by this as it seems overall IPC has definitely caught up to Skylake levels, or maybe even exceeded it slightly. Yet gaming is a bit behind. Does AMD need to get their latencies down even lower to finally beat Intel at gaming?
What you expect, on stock it is expected to work without any problems.How is that possible, well simple VRM is more then enough for stock CPU everyday normal work= it was tested by Asrock.
Here is one very bad MSI example, VRM-s are about same classe as on Asrock motherboard."But this motherboard didnt get suport not even for very power hungry R5 3600 or R7 3700X 65W CPU-s."
https://www.msi.com/Motherboard/support/B350-TOMAHAWK-ARCTIC
That's odd. Greg at Science Studio tried a 3900X in an Asrock B350 motherboard. He didn't do a whole lot of testing, but apparently it worked. He's gonna try an A320 board next.
Oh my.
Just looking at those boost clock differences, that could potentially completely close or exceed the gap vs the 9900K in more than a few games.
Oh my.
Just looking at those boost clock differences, that could potentially completely close or exceed the gap vs the 9900K in more than a few games.
Just looking at those boost clock differences, that could potentially completely close or exceed the gap vs the 9900K in more than a few games.
yep
really looking forward to it
and if it does, man AMD screwed this release....promoting the r39x as the best gaming CPU and doing this
....they never learn
Haven't seen much on motherboards yet. The focus has been on CPUs with navi reviews coming now. I'd like to see a few roundup reviews for motherboards, really interested in seeing how well passive cooling works with the Gigabyte Aorus Xtreme.Not bad, not bad. But the final boss would still be the 3950X on an A320 board.
Has anyone reviewed the chipset fan behaviour on various X570 boards? I think before the launch MSI were the only ones to state that their chipset fan is temperature controlled and can also have manual profiles in the BIOS.
And even then, the 3700X and 5700 look like an absolutely great combination for 1440p gaming.Looks like this 7/7 release was rushed/too early for both Navi and Ryzen 3.
This is only going to impact performance by 1-3% in average. Clock speeds in games should be pretty consistent and its the same reason why SpeedShift didn't show any changes outside of very bursty applications.
It took half a second to boost from idle. Half a second. And no, clock speed in games is far from consistent. It actually fluctuates wildly.
3% is huge considering how low the delta between 3900X and 9900K is in gaming. We're also bound to get a few percent more from scheduler and memory optimizations. At this stage every percent matters (for public perception).This is only going to impact performance by 1-3% in average.
3% is huge considering how low the delta between 3900X and 9900K is in gaming. We're also bound to get a few percent more from scheduler and memory optimizations. At this stage every percent matters (for public perception).
Their results are basically in line with the ones that AMD had on their slides as well.Thermal based fluctuations exist, but that's different from what we're seeing here.
Some rare games might see a bigger benefit but mostly CPUs run at similar levels and don't really transition between idle and peak in games. 0.5 seconds is nothing when games are played for hours.
Update: AT review seems rushed that's all.
Look at the Computerbase.de review. They did a test with the driver where it recognizes UEFI CPPC2 and the latest Windows updates.
https://www.computerbase.de/2019-07/amd-ryzen-3000-test/2/
It gained 4-5% in Cinbench R15/R20, and POV-Ray ST.
Yea, I think AT review was just rushed. Their R15 CB score is equal to Computerbase's result without the driver.
213/3168 in R15 ST/MT at Computerbase and 204/3090 for AT,