Jump to content

DerBauer hardware survey highlights issues with max boost clock on Ryzen 3000 "It's worse than I thought"

Necrotic
Just now, VegetableStu said:

okay ,_, *hangs head in shame*

Plan for the worst and you can only get what you expected or good news

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, VegetableStu said:

oh yeah, with the TRX40 thingy I've already resigned to impending X399 limitations for TR3K ,_,

I'd like a stupid expensive 8 or 16 core TR with a full set of chiplets with the highest binned single cores active. Basically an XOC special SKU. I mean I wouldn't buy it but Steve would.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

im a compound bow shooter and the advertised speed for most compound bows is not achievable for most people. the speed is measured for a 350 grain arrow shot by a 70 pound 30 inch draw length version of the bow.  The most common draw length is probably 28 inches also if you are using it for hunting your arrow would be much heavier than 350 grains and on the other hand if you are a target archer for most competitions they limit the draw weight to 60 pounds. so should they be sued for marketing speeds most people cant obtain

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

And so the nontroversy comes to and end - AMD will rev up voltage a bit and clocks will be achieved thus gaining a ton of positive PR for free. They played it well, have to admit.

https://www.notebookcheck.net/AMD-addresses-issue-with-3rd-Gen-Ryzen-processors-failing-to-reach-advertised-boost-clock-speeds.434108.0.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, VegetableStu said:

official response (in form of an image because AIN'T NOBODY GOT TIME FOR 280 CHARACTERS)

EDjF1zmXYAABTYU.jpg:large

:)

 

it seems like AMD doesn't want another lawsuit after FX lawsuit payout. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Derangel said:

So you're just going to ignore that EVERY test on application method shows it does not matter at all just so you don't have to admit that you're wrong? If spreading a thin layer makes you feel secure that's fine, but it doesn't matter and you are willfully ignoring data to say otherwise. It shows you are only interested in what you believe is right, not what the facts show.

You have a very disillusioned concept of what "facts" are if you take the posts of random amateur builders online to be representative of such.

 

There's a reason the actual scientific community is so rigorous regarding the validity of data sets. A handful of complaints from users that in many cases don't understand many important concepts behind their complaints with a thousand different variables is about as far from factual as you can get.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, 5x5 said:

And so the nontroversy comes to and end - AMD will rev up voltage a bit and clocks will be achieved thus gaining a ton of positive PR for free. They played it well, have to admit.

https://www.notebookcheck.net/AMD-addresses-issue-with-3rd-Gen-Ryzen-processors-failing-to-reach-advertised-boost-clock-speeds.434108.0.html

Is more voltage a good thing? I've learned some mobos set the voltage way to high before these updates, at like 1.4volts.

1 minute ago, Crowbar said:

You have a very disillusioned concept of what "facts" are if you take the posts of random amateur builders online to be representative of such.

Not amateur builders, there are quite a few videos from tech youtubers that have done analysis on paste application, it really doesn't matter so long as the cpu IHS is covered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, VegetableStu said:

hey while we're all here (?), anyone knows if it's reasonable to expect all the BIOS fine-tuning work on Ryzen 3000 to reduce early-adopter issues on TR3K? o_o

Depends what issues you are referencing. If you use windows with threadripper theres no hope since the schedueller is garbage and microshaft's priorities seem to lie in data harvesting rather then implementing actual fixes for hardware performance that's restricted by a terrible operating system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Blademaster91 said:

Is more voltage a good thing? I've learned some mobos set the voltage way to high before these updates, at like 1.4volts.

Not amateur builders, there are quite a few videos from tech youtubers that have done analysis on paste application, it really doesn't matter so long as the cpu IHS is covered.

Which is exactly the point I made. None of these complaints that I have seen mentioned anything about paste application. Also, the difference between a boost frequency and a SUSTAINED one. Either way, if someone has such little going on in their life that whining about what's more often then not under 100 mhz difference and really a non factor at the end of the day performance wise, then I think they have bigger issues to worry about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Blademaster91 said:

Is more voltage a good thing? I've learned some mobos set the voltage way to high before these updates, at like 1.4volts.

Not amateur builders, there are quite a few videos from tech youtubers that have done analysis on paste application, it really doesn't matter so long as the cpu IHS is covered.

1.4v is perfectly safe. 1,45v is also safe, provided cooling is sufficient. 1.475v should be fine as well but that's basically on the edge imo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

As a person who in contact with Amd and Asrock i would like to say thank you to everyone who did the survey while not perfect it was good enough to convince Amd to do something. 

 

 

Lets all be happy that Amd really does listen to their community 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

In a quick look I've been unable to verify the source. These look like screenshots of youtube comments. For those not familiar, 1usmus is the writer of the Ryzen ram calculator.

Main system: i9-7980XE, Asus X299 TUF mark 2, Noctua D15, Corsair Vengeance Pro 3200 3x 16GB 2R, RTX 3070, NZXT E850, GameMax Abyss, Samsung 980 Pro 2TB, Acer Predator XB241YU 24" 1440p 144Hz G-Sync + HP LP2475w 24" 1200p 60Hz wide gamut
Gaming laptop: Lenovo Legion 5, 5800H, RTX 3070, Kingston DDR4 3200C22 2x16GB 2Rx8, Kingston Fury Renegade 1TB + Crucial P1 1TB SSD, 165 Hz IPS 1080p G-Sync Compatible

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, leadeater said:

Also I like how people are praising AMD on the twitter post, seems a bit odd you'd do that for having a bug, well fixing it but still amusing.

It seems really weird to me.

AMD fucked up and now that they are saying they will fix the issue people are praising them? This shouldn't have been an issue to begin with. If the chips couldn't hit those speeds then they shouldn't have been advertised as such.

 

You shouldn't praise a company for first lying and then fixing it so that their lie is true.

I am willing to bet that if it was Intel who fucked up like this then they would not have gotten any praise and everyone would have been calling for them to be sued. But now that it's AMD it's fine and they even get praised for fucking up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

the results are rubbish, cinebench is rubbish and will run and complete with multiple core power failures while running prime95

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, spartaman64 said:

im a compound bow shooter and the advertised speed for most compound bows is not achievable for most people. the speed is measured for a 350 grain arrow shot by a 70 pound 30 inch draw length version of the bow.  The most common draw length is probably 28 inches also if you are using it for hunting your arrow would be much heavier than 350 grains and on the other hand if you are a target archer for most competitions they limit the draw weight to 60 pounds. so should they be sued for marketing speeds most people cant obtain

That's not a good comparison... not even close. 

 

1.) Bows must handle a lot more than the users can handle otherwise the bows would break easily and users would get harmed. 

 

2.) This is the exact opposite of what you tried to describe. The CPUs can't handle their advertised specification otherwise we would be able to overclock them easily beyond their advertised spec if we went with your example. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, WereCat said:

That's not a good comparison... not even close. 

 

1.) Bows must handle a lot more than the users can handle otherwise the bows would break easily and users would get harmed. 

 

2.) This is the exact opposite of what you tried to describe. The CPUs can't handle their advertised specification otherwise we would be able to overclock them easily beyond their advertised spec if we went with your example. 

? there was nothing about durability in my post. and most versions of the bow that people buy cant hit their advertised speed either because the customer buys a lower draw weight because of the rules on target shooting or have a heavier arrow for hunting or their arms are just not long enough for 30 inch draw length.

 

true some compound bows can be adjusted to increase their draw length and weight so the speed is not wrong for those bows but those are actually usually the lower end bows and higher end bows are not as flexible. for example the hoyt prevail svx the top of the line target bow's draw length can only be adjusted 0.5 inches up and down so if you buy the 28 inch version the highest it can go is 28.5 while the speed its advertised with is at 30 inches and you can never achieve that speed unless maybe if you get an arrow so light that you are pretty much dry firing your bow

 

ok let me explain it this way lets say you are new or you have an injury so you buy the 30 pound version and you also have short arms so you buy the 25 inch draw length and you ask them what speed the bow fires at they are going to tell you the 70 pound 30 inch version of the bow's speed

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, LAwLz said:

This shouldn't have been an issue to begin with. If the chips couldn't hit those speeds then they shouldn't have been advertised as such.

Not defending AMD, but most tech related companies rush to market for a given date, and unless it is totally broken (like Intel original 10nm), will ship it anyway and fix it with a patch or software update later. Software, hardware, we get this. It isn't an ideal situation, but it is what we have. OG Ryzen also had months of bios updates before things really stabilised with decent ram compatibility. It's pretty much expected now, if you buy something soon after launch, there will be things that need fixing along the way.

Main system: i9-7980XE, Asus X299 TUF mark 2, Noctua D15, Corsair Vengeance Pro 3200 3x 16GB 2R, RTX 3070, NZXT E850, GameMax Abyss, Samsung 980 Pro 2TB, Acer Predator XB241YU 24" 1440p 144Hz G-Sync + HP LP2475w 24" 1200p 60Hz wide gamut
Gaming laptop: Lenovo Legion 5, 5800H, RTX 3070, Kingston DDR4 3200C22 2x16GB 2Rx8, Kingston Fury Renegade 1TB + Crucial P1 1TB SSD, 165 Hz IPS 1080p G-Sync Compatible

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 9/3/2019 at 10:07 PM, OlympicAssEater said:

:)

 

it seems like AMD doesn't want another lawsuit after FX lawsuit payout. 

just have to run a prime95 torture test and see all cores and threads running at maximum in HWInfo, if they arn't the core has probably failed due to lack of power

 

use daz3d with Iray and CUDA and SLI, and rendering will still max out your CPU

 

cinebench is trash

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 9/4/2019 at 5:56 AM, LAwLz said:

You shouldn't praise a company for first lying and then fixing it so that their lie is true.

I'm not prepared to say AMD necessarily lied about the boost numbers, but they definitely messed up somewhere.  I agree with the rest of your post, though.  Thanking them for the fix is one thing, praising them for fixing their screwup, is another matter entirely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 9/4/2019 at 8:56 PM, LAwLz said:

It seems really weird to me.

AMD fucked up and now that they are saying they will fix the issue people are praising them? This shouldn't have been an issue to begin with. If the chips couldn't hit those speeds then they shouldn't have been advertised as such.

 

You shouldn't praise a company for first lying and then fixing it so that their lie is true.

I am willing to bet that if it was Intel who fucked up like this then they would not have gotten any praise and everyone would have been calling for them to be sued. But now that it's AMD it's fine and they even get praised for fucking up.

 

And on top of that, CPU's are an extremely complicated product with literally thousands of variables that need to be considered during design and manufacture.   It seems petulant at best when the tech community (especially those who are effectively journalists running youtube channels) spend more time putting a personal spin on this shit rather than just addressing it for what it is.  It doesn't matter if it's a failing of boost clocks or a security flaw, it is similar a situation that is either being addressed or it isn't.  

 

With regard to this specific situation, it should just be accepted they are doing right by their customers for addressing it, but that doesn't excuse advertising something they would have tested and known not to be a thing.  

Grammar and spelling is not indicative of intelligence/knowledge.  Not having the same opinion does not always mean lack of understanding.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, mr moose said:

With regard to this specific situation, it should just be accepted they are doing right by their customers for addressing it, but that doesn't excuse advertising something they would have tested and known not to be a thing.  

Part of what happened here is that AGESA versions prior to 1.0.0.3 were achieving higher clocks but what ever they did with version 3 lowered them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, leadeater said:

Part of what happened here is that AGESA versions prior to 1.0.0.3 were achieving higher clocks but what ever they did with version 3 lowered them.

And they knew that. which means at best they knew there was a fix if necessary so didn't bother changing anything and at worse just pushed through for maximum sales.

 

 

Grammar and spelling is not indicative of intelligence/knowledge.  Not having the same opinion does not always mean lack of understanding.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, mr moose said:

And they knew that. which means at best they knew there was a fix if necessary so didn't bother changing anything and at worse just pushed through for maximum sales.

 

 

Did they? Per Steve at HU there were one or two motherboards that hit the boost clocks on the previous BIOS with all the chips, and we have no clue what AMD's internal testing methodology was at launch. It is entirely possible that they saw no issues in internal testing and then had to retest stuff after it was released to figure out why some motherboards weren't hitting it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, mr moose said:

And they knew that. which means at best they knew there was a fix if necessary so didn't bother changing anything and at worse just pushed through for maximum sales.

AGESA 1.0.0.3 came out after release of product and went on sale. AMD validates products much more in advance on earlier microcode revisions and bios versions. You're applying a post release issue as if it were a pre-release issue. Granted 1.0.03 came out very earlier on and actually being aware of a clock impact isn't necessarily known to be the case as soon as you/we might think.

 

Rough example:

AMD validates product on revision A and create product specifications around it

AMD release product for sale and review on revision B

AMD during release and review period addresses various issues and releases revision C (introduction of clock speed issue)

 

tenor.gif

 

Reviews were carried out on quite a few different AGESA versions, not even just two. I don't think anyone doesn't believe Ryzen 3000 was released a bit early but that doesn't actually mean these clock issues would have been spotted even with another month delay. Unless someone notifies you of an issue or you suspect there is one going and validating a large inventory of product that has already been manufactured to verify product meets specification wouldn't happen, far as you're concerned they already had and passed when manufactured.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×