• 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.

Discussion Ryzen 3000 series benchmark thread ** Open **

Page 27 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
BTRY B 529th FA BN said:
So for the rest of us who don't care about the idle power savings and want a 1ms polling rate, we are now screwed cause people were complaining about a software layered observing app?
Click to expand...
for the "Ryzen Balanced" profile
I don't think that is true, the 15ms is only when it wakes up not when you are busy using it, then it's is still 1ms.
 
The binning here is crystal clear:

rcj824srl9e31.jpg
 
B-Riz said:
I would consider the 3900X one 3600X and one 3600 combined, worst case, and two 3600X combined best case.
Click to expand...

Makes me wonder which dice AMD will use for the 3950X. If it's two 3800x dice . . . look out.

edit: also, I tried my hand at AIDA64's FPU stress test. @ 1.3v + Medium LLC, my chip will do 4400 @ 72C. 4050 is a non-starter. I have no desire to push higher than that at this time. The voltage setting is, according to CPU-z, accurate, though I haven't done multimeter tests to see if I'm still getting significant vdroop with Medium LLC. It's possible that I am (HWiNFO64 says so).
 
Last edited:
BTRY B 529th FA BN said:
Is the issue with the Windows Timer Resolution, Windows CPU Power configuration, or "Chipset Drivers" according to this article? Chipset Drivers to me has always meant the motherboard drivers for things like the NB, SB, etc. https://www.techpowerup.com/review/new-amd-chipset-driver-performance-test-ryzen-9-3900x/
Click to expand...

The chipset driver changes the AMD balanced profile to poll every 15ms, reducing the higher voltage and temps my 3700x were getting with minimal stuff going on (and monitoring software hitting the cpu every 1ms). The high performance still does 1ms so if you use that you haven't lost any performance.
 
maddogmcgee said:
The chipset driver changes the AMD balanced profile to poll every 15ms, reducing the higher voltage and temps my 3700x were getting with minimal stuff going on (and monitoring software hitting the cpu every 1ms). The high performance still does 1ms so if you use that you haven't lost any performance.
Click to expand...

That's basically what the default Balanced profile does for Intel Chips. My old i7 970 & Windows 10.

So AMD made a Processor Power Management change via the Power plan through their AMD Chipset drivers for Ryzen 3? Is there that big a latency with dual ccx chips or whatever they are called, ?
 
BTRY B 529th FA BN said:
That's basically what the default Balanced profile does for Intel Chips. My old i7 970 & Windows 10.

So AMD made a Processor Power Management change via the Power plan through their AMD Chipset drivers for Ryzen 3? Is there that big a latency with dual ccx chips or whatever they are called, ?
Click to expand...

I don't think it was an issue with latency off the ccx's. the CPU's are designed to change voltage way faster than Intel CPU's and quickly boost to a high voltage/clock to provide snappy performance. The issue is some software was causing this behaviour to constantly happen needlessly. The AMD solution was to change the polling to 15ms. I don't think most of us will notice any difference. I am far from an expert though and am just going off the little info brochure AMD released a few days ago. I would link it but can't find it at the moment.
 
maddogmcgee said:
I don't think it was an issue with latency off the ccx's. the CPU's are designed to change voltage way faster than Intel CPU's and quickly boost to a high voltage/clock to provide snappy performance. The issue is some software was causing this behaviour to constantly happen needlessly. The AMD solution was to change the polling to 15ms. I don't think most of us will notice any difference. I am far from an expert though and am just going off the little info brochure AMD released a few days ago. I would link it but can't find it at the moment.
Click to expand...

I think I seen the PDF around here somewhere explaining some things about the chipset drivers, or it might of been on the Overclock forums.
 
Panino Manino said:
The binning here is crystal clear:

rcj824srl9e31.jpg
Click to expand...
We are talking about +0.3GHz (less than 10%) difference between their best and worst dies.
If we assume in best case this is their bottom half of silicon quality then the best is +0.6GHz, still not really 5GHz.
I think the wrong assumption of 5GHz is that it's only valid for the same Zen die design and since Zen2 is bigger with faster IF you obviously cannot just expect the same clock gain. (ask intel with Sunny Cove)
On top of that we don't get any power gain of the I/O die circuits even if that wouldn't make that much difference on 7nm.
 
Hitman928 said:

tl;dw - You can get a bit of a boost manually tweaking RAM timings compared to XMP settings. A couple games showed the biggest improvement.

e.g. Far Cry New Dawn

View attachment 9315
Click to expand...

:openmouth: Those are some impressive gains! I wonder if Intel gets a similar boost with tweaked sub-timings? IIRC, when a review site tested Gen 1 Ryzen and Coffeelake with XMP and optimized sub-timings, Intel saw increased performance but not as much as AMD got.
 
Shoot I've been tweaking subtimings since 2009! Only issue I'm having on my 3900x is that if you get too close to the razor's edge, sometimes you lose performance which is really weird.
 
Last edited:
I see the same behavior with 1st gen Ryzen and B-Die memory... Albeit stable some tight timing combinations actually regress in performance.

That's why tuning is time consuming: you need to test more than Aida64 to get the real performance impact and that's for each small change...
 
thigobr said:
I see the same behavior with 1st gen Ryzen and B-Die memory... Albeit stable some tight timing combinations actually regress in performance.
Click to expand...

My 1800x would just crash if I tightened the wrong timings or pushed for too much clockspeed. My 3900x will usually do that, but sometimes not so much. And performance regression isn't uniform. Something that runs "just fine" in y-cruncher might lead to regression in CBR20 (oddly enough).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top