Ryzen Release Thread

[SteelCrysis]

https://www.techpowerup.com/258978/intel...bious-data

Der8auer observed something curious about a few slides in particular that Intel used to discredit AMD's high-end desktop processors, relating to its Creator performance as tested in Maxon Cinema 4D's benchmark program, Cinebench. Intel claimed that AMD cannot use Cinebench data to represent "real-world" performance as "only 0.22 percent" of users polled by Intel's "Software Improvement Program" respondents use Maxon Cinema 4D. And who are these respondents? Close to 11 million of them, _all_ of whom are notebook and tablet users, and a majority of whom have Software Improvement Program part of OEM bloatware. This, according to Der8auer, is fundamentally dishonest on Intel's part as Maxon Cinema 4D is less likely to be used on portable computers, and more likely on premium desktops or HEDTs.

https://www.tomshardware.com/news/amd-ry...40231.html

We chose to look into the matter further based on a comment made by legendary overclocker and Asus engineer Shamino on the Overclock.net forums, which is the same comment that spurred the article Intel cited in the slide above. Shamino stated that AMD had dialed back the boost frequencies to bring its long-term reliability metrics more into line with the company's expectations.
...
It's noteworthy that Shamino made the statement from his private forum account, so we can't take it as a definitive statement from AMD, or Asus for that matter, on whether or not the company reduced the boost frequencies to extend the longevity of its chips. This is likely his opinion. Shamino also claimed that AMD might have a 'more customizable' version of its boost mechanisms in the future, but how that changes the already-existing settings is unclear.

However, Shamino's comments are even more interesting due to an earlier post by The Stilt, a well-known hardware reviewer and member of the enthusiast community that works for an unidentified motherboard vendor.
...
The Stilt claimed that AMD had lowered the temperature threshold for boost activity from 80C to 75C, which reigns in the boost activity when the chip reaches higher temperatures. This is an important distinction due to the nature of chip aging, which we'll do our best to simplify.
...
Having reached a dead-end in our attempts to get an official explanation from AMD about the matter, the only thing left to do was to test to see if we can spot a change to the temperature thresholds in the various firmware revisions. We can't verify the impact on reliability, as CPUs don't have a wearout indicator like we see with SSDs. However, the most logical starting point is to determine if there were intentional changes to boost behavior.
...
In either case, the trend here is undeniable: In contrast to the F4 BIOS, the Ryzen 7 3700X with the N11 BIOS stays above 4.2 GHz after it reaches the 75C threshold, with peaks that vary (4.25 to 4.225 GHz) on a per-run basis. Peak clocks only drop to 4.2 GHz after the chips exceed the 80C threshold. That means this BIOS is faster than the previous version during extended workloads.

The heightened clock speeds are relatively small, an increase of 225 to 250 MHz, but as we've seen with Der8eur's survey, many users that aren't reaching peak speeds are falling short by these relatively slim variances. While these variances are comparatively small, we're looking at a difference of 225 to 250 million cycles per second, which adds up to a billion extra cycles in ~four seconds, not to mention the number of additional cycles that the transistors and interconnects will experience throughout their three-year warranty period.

In other words, it's safe to assume that these small alterations, which occur during the time of peak stress with high heat/current density, could have a meaningful impact on long-term reliability. Of course, that doesn't mean that is the intention behind the temperature threshold adjustments, but it is a possibility. It's also possible that AMD is merely tuning its boost algorithms to provide a more targeted range of effective performance, and these alterations have nothing to do with reliability metrics.

The next step is to see the current state of the BIOS. Here we're testing Gigabyte's latest, the F5 BIOS with AGESA 1.0.03 ABB. Gigabyte doesn't specify the SMU revision on its site, but this is 46.40.0. Here we can see the chip drop to 4.2 GHz after it reaches 76C, where it remains well after 80C.

This is markedly different, and less desirable, than the N11 'reviewer BIOS.' This means the chip will run slower during lightly-threaded workloads, and you won't hit peak clocks if the chip is over 75C.

Finally, these are the results of F5P, a beta BIOS that Gigabyte posted a few days ago to Overclock.net. We're testing this latest revision to see if there are any measurable changes in what is expected to be the last pre-AGESA-fix BIOS. The chip remains above 4.2 GHz until it exceeds 77C for five seconds. Again, this is slower than the reviewer BIOS.
...
It's easy to vilify Intel for attacking AMD about these changes, especially given the unsubstantiated nature of the reports it's cited. We're accustomed to seeing unsavory marketing tactics from both AMD and Intel alike, among many other companies, but there should be some awareness at Intel that promoting unproven theories with its company logo next to them is inherently risky. It lends credibility to reports that might not have any real merit. Instead, Intel should work to put proven metrics behind statements that call into question the reliability of competing products.
...
Marketing hijinks aside, it's hard to determine if AMD has adjusted the temperature limits to reign in reliability metrics. But our tests show that there have been alterations, even after the company initially cut back to the 75C limit. And there's no doubt that the 'reviewer BIOS' is faster and sustains higher boost clocks for longer than the latest releases. Many chips aren't reaching their full boost potential even with the N11 'reviewer BIOS,' so AMD's fix might consist of returning to the original hard 80C boost temperature limit, which we're told hasn't been officially seen in the wild.

If AMD did adjust the threshold to align the chips with its reliability projections, and that's a big if, returning to the 80C limit would expose it to a higher failure rate. However, that doesn't mean Ryzen chips are going to die in droves. Chip longevity is strictly controlled to keep the number of RMAs at a tenable level, typically dictated by the financial impact to the company. Alterations could ultimately equate to a comparatively small increase in the number of failures over time. At this point, a minor increase in failure rates would certainly be preferable to a class-action lawsuit for false advertisement, not to mention the damage to the Ryzen brand.
...
Ultimately AMD's temperature adjustments aren't the only reason that users aren't reaching rated clock speeds, much of it could be users with older versions of Windows that don't target the favored cores correctly, or just general user error, but the altered thresholds are almost certainly a factor. AMD is binning these chips to the very limits of the silicon, so it has precious little wiggle room to play with.

To be clear, we stand by the recommendations we've made in both our reviews and our Best CPU articles. The Ryzen 3000 series processors bring a new class of performance, and value, to the mainstream desktop. But we also expect the products we purchase to reach their rated specifications, so we're happy to hear that AMD is busy working on a fix.

We now have a good base of knowledge to determine if AMD's forthcoming fix, which it will unveil September 10, involves adjusting the thermal threshold further. We won't know more until the new BIOS and/or SMU revisions are in hand, but we'll be ready at our test benches when it lands.