Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Ryzen Release Thread
https://www.techpowerup.com/258201/amd-u...ost-clocks
Quote:AMD over the weekend updated the product-pages of its Ryzen processors on the company website to be very specific about what they mean by "Max Boost Clocks," that are advertised almost as extensively as the processor's main nominal clock-speeds. AMD describes it has "the maximum single-core frequency at which the processor is capable of operating under nominal conditions." We read into this as the highest boost-clock given to one of the cores on the processor.
Reply
https://www.tomshardware.com/news/amd-ry...40227.html
Quote:The Ryzen 5 3500 first appeared last month in a EEC (Eurasian Economic Commission) listing with a bunch of other unannounced Ryzen 3000-series (codename Matisse) processors. TUM_APISAK has shed some light on the chip's specifications. The Ryzen 5 3500 is reportedly equipped with six cores and six threads, making it the first Ryzen 3000-series part to arrive without SMT (Simultaneous Multithreading). According to the leak, this AMD hexa-core processor has a 3.6 GHz base clock and 4.1 GHz boost clock. The previous EEC listing has the Ryzen 5 3500 with a 65W TDP (thermal design power).
Reply
https://www.techpowerup.com/258600/intel...ill-better
Quote:Here Intel describes that AMD wins in synthetic workloads, while its CPUs win in a real world usage scenarios for applications like Microsoft Office, Adobe Lightroom, Photoshop and more. While they claim to posses better overall productivity performance, Intel also claims few other trophies in areas like gaming, where Core i7-9700K "is on par or better" than AMD Ryzen 9 3900X across many games tested.

In our own testing, we found the claim about gaming performance to be true where Intel's Core i7-9700K did perform better than Ryzen 9 3900X. However when it comes to overall performance results that also includes many other tasks besides gaming, like productivity and science, the case is not proven.
Reply
https://www.tomshardware.com/news/amd-ry...40247.html
Quote:It was to be expected that the Ryzen 7 3700X and Ryzen 9 3900X would be in high demand; the former is $70 cheaper than the 3800X for about the same performance, and the latter is the world's first mainstream 12-core CPU that also happens to be AMD's best gaming CPU (though not by a massive margin). What is unexpected is the ongoing shortage with the 3700X and 3900X that has not entirely gone away since July 7th. These new CPUs have only been available in small quantities since launch and have been selling out almost immediately, leading to price gouging on eBay.
...
Other Ryzen SKUs, however, seem to have escaped these supply issues, most notably the 3800X, which is basically the same as the 3700X but binned a little better and $70 more. Perhaps AMD has intentionally constrained the supply of the 3700X to encourage impatient people to just buy the 3800X. On the other hand, the Ryzen 5 3600 doesn't seem to have ever gone out of stock (which would force buyers to choose the 3600X), so perhaps AMD's supply issues are entirely down to unprecedented demand.
Reply
https://www.tomshardware.com/news/amd-ry...40291.html
Quote:Overclocker and hardware reviewer De8auer, widely known for his Intel delidding tools and overclocking videos, has released the results of a survey he conducted late last month concerning Ryzen 3000's ability to reach its advertised boost clocks. Only 5.6% of respondents reported that their Ryzen 9 3900X is reaching its rated boost speed. The results are somewhat better with other SKUs, but still indicate that the majority of Ryzen 3000 series processors are not hitting their rated boost speeds.

Users and reviewers alike have been questioning whether or not AMD's new CPUs are always able to boost to the advertised clock speeds. We recently published an analysis on the 3600X detailing Ryzen 3000's new boosting behavior, and AMD confirmed that only one core on any given CPU is guaranteed to hit the rated boost clock. However, according to the survey, more users aren't even reaching the advertised frequency on any core.

De8auer's survey obtained the performance data of 2,700 systems from users who were asked to run the single threaded benchmark on Cinebench R15 and record the maximum clock speed using HWInfo (which was recommended by AMD). Most users reported that they were not able to hit the advertised boost clock, though many were within 25 MHz.

At AMD's best, about half of Ryzen 5 3600 users reported their CPU was boosting correctly, and at worst, only 5.6% of Ryzen 9 3900X users reported that their CPU was boosting correctly. Most users were within 100 MHz of the advertised boost clock, but there was still a significant number who were more than 100 MHz away.
...
He does admit that users who weren't getting the rated boost clocks would be more likely to submit their result than users who had no issues, something which could skew results, and that he could not ensure whether or not users applied the Windows 10 update that ensures the Windows scheduler would be using the fastest core for single-threaded workloads.

On the other hand, though, the data more or less demonstrates that most users are not getting the experience promised by AMD and De8auer says if a specific Windows version or something is required to achieve the rated boost, AMD should make that clear to its users.
...
Despite the controversy over AMD's advertised boost clocks, De8auer still says he recommends all the Ryzen 3000 CPUs; however, he also states that the results in his survey were much worse than he expected and is worried about whether or not AMD can solve this issue in a timely manner. He concludes his findings wondering why AMD would advertise these clock speeds.
...
AMD hasn't yet made a statement on whether or not this is the intended behavior of Ryzen 3000 CPUs, or if there is a fix in the works.
Reply
https://www.techpowerup.com/258891/amd-i...pdate-soon
Quote:AMD has now issued a statement regarding these lower than expected clock frequencies on Zen 2 processors, and it looks like there is indeed an underlying BIOS issue that's responsible. Let's hope that this new firmware gets released quickly and is able to restore faith in AMD's otherwise excellent track-record.
Quote:AMD is pleased with the strong momentum of 3rd Gen AMD Ryzen processors in the PC enthusiast and gaming communities. We closely monitor community feedback on our products and understand that some 3rd Gen AMD Ryzen users are reporting boost clock speeds below the expected processor boost frequency. While processor boost frequency is dependent on many variables including workload, system design, and cooling solution, we have closely reviewed the feedback from our customers and have identified an issue in our firmware that reduces boost frequency in some situations. We are in the process of preparing a BIOS update for our motherboard partners that addresses that issue and includes additional boost performance optimizations. We will provide an update on September 10 to the community regarding the availability of the BIOS.
Reply
https://www.extremetech.com/computing/29...oost-clock
Quote:Was that the right call? I’m not sure. This is a situation where I genuinely see both sides of the issue. The Ryzen 3000 family delivers excellent performance. But even after allowing for variation caused by Windows version, driver updates, or UEFI issues on the part of the manufacturer, we don’t see as many AMD CPUs hitting their maximum boost clocks as we would expect, and the higher-end CPUs with higher boost clocks have more issues than lower-end chips with lower clocks. AMD’s claims of getting more frequency out of TSMC 7nm as compared with GF 12/14nm seem a bit suspect at this point. The company absolutely delivered the performance gains we wanted, and the power improvements on the X470 chipset are also very good, but the clocking situation was not detailed the way it should have been at launch.

There are rumors that AMD supposedly changed boost behavior with recent AGESA versions. Asus employee Shamino wrote:
...
I have no specific knowledge of this situation, but this would surprise me. First, reliability models are typically hammered out long before production. Companies don’t make major changes post-launch save in exceptional circumstances, because there is no way to ensure that the updated firmware will reach the products that it needs to reach. When this happens, it’s major news. Remember when AMD had a TLB bug in Phenom? Second, AMD’s use of Adaptive Frequency and Voltage Scaling is specifically designed to adjust the CPU voltage internally to ensure clock targets are hit, limiting the impact of variability and keeping the CPU inside the sweet spot for clock.

I’m not saying that AMD would never make an adjustment to AGESA that impacted clocking. But the idea that the company discovered a critical reliability issue that required it to make a subtle change that reduced clock by a mere handful of MHz in order to protect long-term reliability doesn’t immediately square with my understanding of how CPUs are designed, binned and tested. We have reached out to AMD for additional information.

I’m still confident and comfortable recommending the Ryzen 3000 family because I’ve spent a significant amount of time with these chips and seen how fast they are. But AMD’s “up to” boost clocks are also more tenuous than we initially knew. It doesn’t change our expectation of the part’s overall performance, but the company appears to have decided to interpret “up to” differently this cycle than in previous product launches. That shift should have been communicated. Going forward, we will examine both Intel and AMD clock behavior more closely as a component of our review coverage.
Reply
https://www.techpowerup.com/258978/intel...bious-data
Quote: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
Quote: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.
Reply
https://www.tomshardware.com/news/amd-ry...40359.html
Quote:AMD's unreleased firmware, which the company says will fix the boost behavior of its Ryzen 3000 processors, has leaked onto the Chiphell forums. We grabbed the download and did a round of testing to see if the new BIOS and SMU fix the boosting behavior of the Ryzen 9 3900X and Ryzen 7 3700X processors.

We have to caution, however, that this is a leaked beta BIOS revision that may not be in its final state, so we'll have to take the results with a grain of salt. In either case, we do see some improvements that fall in line with our expectations for the Ryzen 7 3700X, but we also spotted an odd performance regression with the Ryzen 9 3900X, indicating this firmware is a work in progress.
...
Oddly enough, the fact that our Ryzen 7 3700X sample is already of good quality, barely missing the rated speeds even with the older firmwares, works against us. The performance uplift with the new BIOS is minimal, but the changes to the thermal thresholds indicate that the new firmware should correct the boost behavior for 3700X's of lower quality.

Unfortunately, we'll have to wait until tomorrow for the official word from AMD on the matter. While this BIOS revision does deliver some of the expected improvements in boost activity, at least with our Ryzen 7 3700X sample, we'll wait until the official release before we come to any firm conclusions.

We'll dive in deeper with these tests, and add frequency and voltage scaling, as well as a broader spate of real-world application testing, as soon as we receive the new firmwares. This firmware appears to be a work in progress, but shows that the bugs are being ironed out and should be fixable. Stay tuned.
Reply
https://www.techpowerup.com/259139/amd-u...nch-window
Quote:The slide for CPU microarchitecture states that the design phase of "Zen 3" is complete, and that the microarchitecture team has already moved on to develop "Zen 4." This means AMD is now developing products that implement "Zen 3." On the other hand, RDNA2 is still in design phase. The crude x-axis on both slides that denotes year of expected shipping, too appears to suggest that "Zen 3" based products will precede RDNA2 based ones. "Zen 3" will be AMD's first response to Intel's "Comet Lake-S" or even "Ice Lake-S," if the latter comes to fruition before Computex 2020. In the run up to RDNA2, AMD will scale up RDNA a notch larger with the "Navi 12" silicon to compete with graphics cards based on NVIDIA's "TU104" silicon. "Zen 2" will receive product stack additions in the form of a new 16-core Ryzen 9-series chip later this month, and the 3rd generation Ryzen Threadripper family.

https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-a...00x/6.html
Quote:Power-consumption of the Ryzen 9 3900X with the new AGESA 1.0.0.3ABBA comes as a pleasant surprise. For the kind of clock-speed and performance gains we're seeing, small as they are, they do not come at significant cost of power. Idle power draw is cut by 1 W, and single-threaded tests, which is where we were expecting the most deviation in power, post a mere 1 W gain in power draw (from 92 W to 93 W for the whole system). Multi-threaded power-draw increases by 7 W for the whole system, which is probably because all 24 threads on this chip are being boosted slightly higher, which add up. There's a similar 13 W increase in gaming power draw. This is probably because games tend to tell the processor to stay on its toes and be ready to boost all cores. Under a stress test, where the processor has reached its thermal and electrical limits, the new BIOS makes no difference, which reflects in the power draw staying the same.

AMD has succeeded in delivering on the advertised maximum boost frequencies with elevated clock speeds across all cores, which results in tiny performance gains at negligible increases in power draw. We do recommend AGESA 1.0.0.3ABBA over your existing BIOS provided you know how to update your motherboard BIOS and are willing to do it at your own risk. We appreciate AMD constantly listening to PC enthusiasts and coming out with solutions, rather than basing their customer feedback on some passive data-collection program that's been pushed down users' throats by OEMs.
Reply
https://www.tomshardware.com/news/amd-ry...40417.html
Quote:A mysterious Redditor, reportedly from Russia, has shared photographs that claim to be AMD's soon-to-be-released Ryzen 9 3950X 16-core processor and its packaging.
...
Digitec Galaxus AG, a Swiss IT, consumer electronics and telecommunication retailer, recently posted a listing saying the the Ryzen 9 3950X would hit shelves on September 30. However, the Swiss retailer has since changed the delivery date to unknown. Some might argue that the previous listed date could have been a placeholder only. However, Digitec is AMD's only Western European partner, so we think that the retailer's information is probably legit. The recent Reddit posting lends some credence to the September 30 release date.

AMD has announced a plethora of 7nm products this year, and TSMC probably has its hands full. We suspect AMD is most likely still building up its Ryzen 9 3950X supply so that there are enough chips to go around. The Ryzen 9 3950X is expected to be a big gamechanger. after all. Its release will mark the first time we see a 16-core processor in the mainstream market.

https://www.neowin.net/news/amd-ryzen-9-...-very-soon
Quote:Enthusiasts and AMD fans are looking forward to the chip as it will be the first 16-core CPU on a mainstream platform. Nonetheless, it's always best to temper expectations. AMD's 32-core 2990WX Threadripper processor, based on Zen+ architecture, was found to be bandwidth-starved in certain applications despite running on quad-channel memory and a similar situation could arise here since the 16-core 3950X will be fed by dual-channel memory. However, AMD has made several notable improvements to the Zen 2 design so it may be a non-issue after all.

https://www.tomshardware.com/news/amd-ry...40398.html
Quote:While the new firmware delivers smaller boosts than expected, especially in light of the up to 300 MHz shortfall reported with the Ryzen 9 3900X in a recent survey, AMD does say that it corrects a firmware bug that reduces performance in some scenarios. With our testing of the single-die models complete, we're now focusing on the improvements for the multi-die Ryzen 9 3900X, which seems to be most impacted by the frequency deficit. We'll also test some adjustments AMD made to idle power consumption and see how the new update impacts AMD's auto-overclocking Precision Boost Overdrive (PBO) feature, but most importantly, examine how the Windows scheduler is still causing AMD problems.
...
That's due to the reality that AMD's chips come with a mix of faster and slower cores. Because your chip can't boost to its top frequency on every core, any wayward workload that lands in slower cores will suffer. More often than not, we observed the chip boosting on an inactive core during some workloads, which does nothing for performance. This is a persistent trend with both current and older BIOS revisions on the Gigabyte and MSI motherboards.

Like we've already seen in the mobile space, this new binning strategy is innovative and promises to wring the utmost performance out of every piece of silicon that comes out of the fab. But as we've seen today, AMD's implementation is still in the midst of teething pains. The first big hurdle is to get the Windows scheduler to utilize the faster cores more efficiently, and that may already be in the works.
...
In either case, the current 46.49.0 SMU revision goes a long way to improving performance, but we're also told by our sources that a new 46.49.2 revision is already filtering out to motherboard vendors. That means we should see more improvements on the BIOS front quickly. That makes sense given the pending release of the Ryzen 9 3950X later this month.

AMD has also dismissed the reliability concerns that we recently investigated. The company says unequivocally that the heightened boost speeds will not impact processor longevity.

Overall, AMD's boost fix should meet the demands of most users that want to see their chips hit the numbers printed on the box, but you shouldn't expect miracles: Those increased boost clocks don't equate to much extra performance. We hope the company continues to work on optimizing the silicon and working with Microsoft to fine-tune the scheduler. Given AMD's history with the first-gen Ryzen processors, which were born into a world with zero optimization for the new Zen architecture but quickly served up massive post-launch gains, it's possible that we can see even more performance gains through optimization in the future.

We have to keep things in perspective, though. We're analyzing the finer details of the architecture to see how AMD can improve these chips in the future, but our recommendations remain unchanged. 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.
Reply
https://www.tomshardware.com/news/amd-ry...40434.html
Quote:Chinese retailer JD.com has listed the AMD Ryzen 5 3500X on its online store. The processor is in all likelihood the older brother of the previously leaked AMD Ryzen 5 3500.
...
Based on the marketing material from JD.com, the Ryzen 5 3500X specifically targets the Intel Core i5-9400F. Both processors share the same core count, boost clocks and TDP rating, but that's where the similarities end. On paper, the Ryzen 5 3500X has the upper-hand, with a 700 MHz higher base clock, 23MB more L3 cache, not to mention native support for the PCIe 4.0 interface and DDR4-3200 memory modules.
Reply
https://www.tomshardware.com/news/amd-ry...40442.html
Quote:AMD previously told us that it's long-awaited Ryzen 9 3950X, a 16-core 32-thread behemoth destined for the mainstream desktop, would arrive in September 2019, but today the company announced it is delaying the release until November while it focuses on meeting the demand for existing chips.
...
AMD's beastly 12-core 24-thread Ryzen 9 3900X is still a rarity at retail two and a half months after its launch, leading to price gouging from third-party retailers. While we're accustomed to scarce availability of chips from both Intel and AMD in the first few weeks of a launch, the persistent 3900X shortages are more pronounced than we've seen with other processors. That's led to plenty of speculation, with the most popular theories being that either AMD isn't yielding enough 7nm chips with high enough quality to satiate demand for the consumer chips, or that the company is setting the premium-quality compute die aside for its promising EPYC Rome data center processors, where demand is surely high due to the incredible blend of price, performance, and leading-edge features. In fact, the company just announced a newer, faster version of those chips two days ago, which would also obviously require cream-of-the-crop dies.

https://www.extremetech.com/computing/29...l-november
Quote:As annoying as this might be for anyone hoping to get their hands on a sweet 16-core chip or planning a near-term Threadripper upgrade, it’s the right call. Paper launches serve no one in the long term. They create frustration and distrust between a company and its customers, who feel that the availability of a product has been misrepresented, particularly if the only samples available are on eBay for 2-3x base retail price.

We don’t know anything about Threadripper clock targets yet, but the high boost clock on the Ryzen 9 3950X could be responsible for this delay. AMD has set an extremely aggressive target for itself and yields at TSMC may not have improved enough over the past few months to make the company certain of a launch. Overall demand for 7nm is high and lead times for hardware have reportedly been rising at the foundry manufacturer.
Reply
https://techgage.com/article/amd-3600x-3...ormance/8/
Quote:When we received the 3600X and 3400G, we planned to review them separately, aiming to spend more time on the GPU aspect with the 3400G. Over time, complications arose, and we never got around to it, and because we need to justify the time wasted, we’re putting this mini-rant to paper.

To keep our testing as accurate as possible, we always try to use the same motherboard for any given series of chips. Our plans for that with this article were thwarted when our Aorus X570 MASTER refused to boot with the 3400G installed, an issue that AMD ended up replicating. After weeks of EFI releases and no corrected support, we decided to suck it up and move the chip to an MSI B350 board. Despite it being last-gen, it had an EFI update to support Zen 2.

As it happens, this MSI board refuses to update its EFI. Either inside of the EFI itself, or with the Windows tool, any attempted flash will result in absolutely no action being taken after the reboot occurs. We even left the PC to sit for an entire hour on one occasion to see if that helped, but no cigar. Even clearing the CMOS on the board failed to improve the situation.

We then got hold of a newer B450 board from Aorus, and our issues finally disappeared. We’re not sure why we’ve had so many issues overall, but we can say that if you buy an APU, you should verify with a search that the chip is working as it should, since motherboard support pages may not always be accurate (and weren’t in our case).

Tying into all of this, we never managed to achieve 3200MHz DRAM speeds on the 2400G before in our previous-gen ASUS Crosshair VII HERO or the aforementioned MSI B350 board, but on this Aorus B450 PRO WIFI? It somehow works. It just seems like boards actually suited for these APUs support them better (go figure, right?)

We hate to hog so much of this page with those woes, but the truth is, we encountered one issue after another, and didn’t expect it, and because of it, we ended up not even getting around to IGP testing. We still want to do that, though, because we’ve been dying to know how it handles video game emulators for a while – and some real game testing wouldn’t hurt.
Reply
https://www.neowin.net/news/amds-ryzen-9...ays-report
Quote:A new report by Digitimes, however, claims that the Ryzen 9 3950X is facing boosting issues in its current state and the chip is exhibiting "unsatisfactory clock speeds". This could be accurate since AMD's Ryzen processors are quite notorious for running at lower speeds than advertised. The clocking issue was especially pronounced in the new 3000 series Ryzen CPUs as the majority of these chips even failed to ramp up to their advertised boost speeds. Famous overclocking guru "der8auer" conducted a survey which showed that only 5.6% of all the participants' chips were hitting the advertised boosts.

The problem was later acknowledged by AMD and the company released a firmware update dubbed AGESA 1003ABBA to fix the issue. Tests showed that the update seems to have fixed the clocking issue on the 12-core Ryzen 9 3900X and other third-gen chips. However, it is possible that this BIOS fix may not be working on the 16-core Ryzen 9 3950X forcing AMD to defer its launch by a couple of months.

https://www.techpowerup.com/259498/repor...et-surface
Quote:We've known for some time that AMD's mainstream-segment B550 chipset wouldn't bring all the bangs and whistles of its bigger, enthusiast-class cousin X570. For one, it wouldn't make sense to increase development and implementation costs of both the chipset and motherboards built for mainstream enthusiasts by adding PCIe 4.0 support and the more stringent signaling and power requirements the new standard entails. As such, B550 reportedly cuts down fully on PCIe 4.0 support, as well as on the latest USB standards, to offer a product that's sufficiently rounded up on I/O while offering overclocking support for users that demand it.
Reply
https://www.tomshardware.com/news/amd-b5...40467.html
Quote:According to a posting from German retailer Alternate, pre-built desktops that employ AMD B550 motherboards could debut as soon as next month. However, a DigiTimes report claimed that motherboard manufacturers will receive their B550 orders in the fourth quarter, which suggests a later release date for AMD B550-based motherboards.
Reply
https://www.neowin.net/news/amds-ryzen-9...ays-report
Quote:Update: A previous version of the article incorrectly stated that AMD's Ryzen processors are quite notorious for running at lower speeds than advertised, this was removed since there is no proof for such a statement.
Reply
https://www.tomshardware.com/news/amd-ry...40485.html
Quote:The Ryzen 9 3900 and Ryzen 9 Pro 3900 made their first appearance in an Eurasian Economic Commission (EEC) listing back in July. Today, Biostar has shed some light on the processors' specifications. As with any third-generation Ryzen chips, the Ryzen 9 3900 and Ryzen 9 Pro 3900 utilize AMD's advanced Zen 2 microarchitecture and are built on TSMC's 7nm FinFET process node.
...
As per Biostar's information, the Ryzen 9 3900 and Ryzen 9 Pro 3900 sport a 3.1 GHz base clock, which is 700 MHz or 22.58% slower than the Ryzen 9 3900X. The motherboard manufacturer didn't list the processors' boost clocks. However, a well-known hardware leaker known on Twitter as TUM_APISAK seems to think that the boost clock for the Matisse parts can be 4.3 GHz. So we're looking at a 9.52% lower boost clock in a worst-case situation.

It's unknown when AMD will launch the Ryzen 9 3900 and Ryzen 9 Pro 3900. The chipmaker is probably busy building up stock for the Ryzen 9 3950X, which has been pushed to November, and preparing the Ryzen Threadripper 3000-series release. On top of that, TSMC is reportedly in a bit of a pickle. The foundry's 7nm business has been booming lately, and high demand has increased the lead time from 2 months to 6 months. This could have an impact on AMD's CPU production.
Reply
https://www.tomshardware.com/news/amd-ry...40494.html
Quote:Computer hardware, like any other consumer product, conforms to the law of supply and demand. What's pretty intriguing is that the Ryzen 9 3900X has gone up in price in a little more than three month's time since the chip's release, and though we've already seen extreme price gouging on eBay and other third-party sellers, now retail outlets have also raised prices. It looks like AMD's supply of Ryzen 9 3900X is starting to run dry, which is evident since the 12-core part is practically out of stock at the majority of the major retailers. With TSMC's recent struggles to meet the high 7nm demands, it's probably going to take some time before the Ryzen 9 3900X's price starts to stabilize.
...
There are two possible explanations for the price discrepancy between the different retailers. Either the retailers are increasing their prices to take advantage of the high demand and very low supply, or AMD has secretly raised the MSRP for the Ryzen 9 3900X. Historically, AMD hasn't always publicly announced pricing updates for its products. When it does, it's usually a price cut.

We've reached out to AMD for comment and will update the article when the chipmaker gets back to us.

https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ryz...,6359.html
Quote:As we've been covering, AMD's Ryzen 3000 series CPUs often have issues hitting and sustaining the advertised boost clock speed. A recent motherboard firmware update improved things a little bit, but often boosts the wrong core. Results vary based on chip quality, motherboard, and firmware, so I set out to see if adding more cooling would help get my store-bought Ryzen 7 3700X to hit or exceed its advertised top-speed of 4.4 GHz. What I found out is that, even when I used liquid nitrogen to freeze my processor down to -180 degrees Celsius, it was still stuck at 4.35 GHz, 50 MHz below its boost. However, as we'll see below, you can hit boost clocks by manual overclocking.
Reply
https://www.tomshardware.com/news/amd-ry...40500.html
Quote:A new OPN (Ordering Part Number) for the Ryzen 9 3950X processor, which has been delayed until November, suggests that AMD will offer the flagship chip with and without the AMD Wraith Prism cooler.

Intel, for instance, has stopped including stock coolers for its unlocked Core i5, i7, and i9 processors for a while now. The general reasoning is that if you have the budget for a high-end chip, you most likely won't be using it with a stock cooler. However, a stock cooler still holds its value like when you need it to stand in the event that your aftermarket cooling solution fails and you need to RMA it. Unlike Intel, AMD might give its future Ryzen 9 3950X customers a choice to pick up the chip with the stock cooler or not.
Reply
https://www.tomshardware.com/news/ryzen-...40522.html
Quote:M D Computers has listed the AMD's unannounced Ryzen 5 3500 processor for 11,199 Indian Rupees (INR), which roughly translates to $157.51. The Indian retailer will start to dispatch Ryzen 5 3500 orders on October 5, which suggests AMD could launch the processor on the specified date or even before.
...
Early benchmarks reveal that the Ryzen 5 3500X is faster than the Core i5-9400F. We don't expect that to change with the Ryzen 5 3500. Even though the non-X part only has half the L3 cache, the difference in performance should be very little. Strangely enough, JD.com has the Ryzen 5 3500X for $153.74 while M D Computers is listing the Ryzen 5 3500 for a $157.51. We can't wait to see AMD's official pricing for these chips.

https://www.tomshardware.com/news/amd-ry...40549.html
Quote:German publication Planet 3DNow! caught an interesting bit of information during a transmission of the "MSI Insider Show" on YouTube. Eric van Beurden, one of the show's moderators and Marketing Director at MSI, revealed that a new AMD microcode should arrive next month. It will reportedly bring over 100 different improvements for owners of AMD Ryzen CPUs, the site reported today.
...
Van Beurden stated that AMD will start rolling out the new BIOS next week. The MSI exec didn't specifically mention the version, but we suspect it's the BIOS with the fresh AGESA 1.0.0.4 microcode. Van Beurden explained that the BIOS will first pass through the BIOS vendor, which is responsible for updating the BIOS code. Motherboard manufacturers will receive it afterwards and will probably spend a couple of weeks to finetuning the BIOS and adapting it for each model.
...
The ETA for the new motherboard firmware is November. However, we will likely start to see beta firmwares pop up before then.

https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd...,6371.html
Quote:The Ryzen 9 3900X brings 12 cores and 24 threads to the mainstream desktop, setting a new record for the platform, but it also brings a beastly 105W TDP. AMD still has a few Ryzen 3000 CPUs it hasn’t released, though, and the first hints of the new 12-core 24-thread Ryzen 9 3900 came with the company’s recent introduction of its PRO series. But we know a consumer version, likely with the exact same specifications as the PRO model, is coming to market, and after a quick word with a vendor, we now have the Ryzen 9 3900 and have already set a few world records.

The power-saving version of the Ryzen 9 3900X has a staggeringly low TDP of 65W. To achieve this, the processor runs at a lower base and boost speed, but otherwise, it is the same as its “X” counterpart. Like all Ryzen models, it is a fully unlocked CPU, meaning overclocking is on the menu, and has the same cache capacity and hierarchy as its bigger, faster brother, the Ryzen 9 3900X that sucks down a whopping 105W.
...
This CPU, depending on the price (assuming it costs less than the Ryzen 9 3900X), will allow AMD to give even more performance per dollar, and give small form factor builders a threaded beast for compact builds. TDP is irrelevant once you set manual overclocking, but you will miss out on a bit of boost clock compared to the 3900X. If that's important for you, stick with the “X” model. Having more options is never a bad thing.
Reply
https://www.tomshardware.com/news/amd-ry...40555.html
Quote:Gigabyte has released a Ryzen 9 3950X overclocking guide where the motherboard manufacturer was able to push its sample to an impressive 4.3 GHz on all 16 cores while using a beefy liquid cooling solution, and at a mere ~1.4V.

Gigabyte paired its Ryzen 9 3950X with the brand's own X570 Aorus Master motherboard, Aorus 16GB (2x8GB) DDR4-3200 memory kit and EKWB's EK-KIT P360 liquid cooling kit. The motherboard manufacturer used Cinebench R15 to evaluate the 16-core chip's stock and overclocked performance, which allows us to compare those results to ours.
...
The fact that the Ryzen 9 3950X could hit 4.3 GHz on all its cores is a great achievement, especially when Ryzen 3000-series processors are famous for not having much manual overclocking headroom. For comparison, our Ryzen 9 3900X sample, which has four fewer cores, maxes out at 4.1 GHz. That implies that AMD is setting aside the absolute best 7nm dies for its 16-core, 32-thread chip, especially given that Gigabyte hit a Prime95-stable (one hour run) 4.3 GHz with only 1.4 vCore. Gigabyte's Ryzen 9 3950X sample could even hit a devastating 4.4 GHz, but the company insinuated that it was only stable enough to pass a Cinebench R15 run.

There are also a few other interesting takeways from Gigabyte's Ryzen 9 3950X overclocking guide. For starters, Gigabyte states that 1.45V is the maximum safe voltage. The value might be too high for everyone's taste, and keeping it around 1.4V sounds more reasonable. In terms of thermals, Gigabyte noted that the Ryzen 9 3950X's operating temperatures are right in the same ballpark as last year's Ryzen 7 2700X.

That's pretty remarkable, so we'll say it again: According to Gigabyte, the 16-core Ryzen 9 3950X is as easy to cool as an 8-core part.
Reply
https://www.techpowerup.com/259869/amd-z...pdated-smt
Quote:With its next-generation "Zen 3" CPU microarchitecture designed for the 7 nm EUV silicon fabrication process, AMD could bid the "Zen" compute complex or CCX farewell, heralding chiplets with monolithic last-level caches (L3 caches) that are shared across all cores on the chiplet. AMD embraced a quad-core compute complex approach to building multi-core processors with "Zen." At the time, the 8-core "Zeppelin" die featured two CCX with four cores, each. With "Zen 2," AMD reduced the CPU chiplet to only containing CPU cores, L3 cache, and an Infinity Fabric interface, talking to an I/O controller die elsewhere on the processor package. This reduces the economic or technical utility in retaining the CCX topology, which limits the amount of L3 cache individual cores can access.

This and more juicy details about "Zen 3" were put out by a leaked (later deleted) technical presentation by company CTO Mark Papermaster. On the EPYC side of things, AMD's design efforts will be spearheaded by the "Milan" multi-chip module, featuring up to 64 cores spread across eight 8-core chiplets. Papermaster talked about how the individual chiplets will feature "unified" 32 MB of last-level cache, which means a deprecation of the CCX topology. He also detailed an updated SMT implementation that doubles the number of logical processors per physical core. The I/O interface of "Milan" will retain PCI-Express gen 4.0 and eight-channel DDR4 memory interface.
Reply
https://www.tomshardware.com/news/amd-re...40595.html
Quote:We recently took the then-unannounced Ryzen 9 3900 on a record-breaking spin, but now the chip is officially launched...kind of. AMD announced the Ryzen 9 3900 and Ryzen 5 3500X with little fanfare today, but for OEM and system integrator (SI) customers only. The 3900 is available globally, while the 3500X is only available in China.

AMD designed the Ryzen 9 3900 to offer most of the 24-threaded horsepower of the impressive 3900X, but within a much lower 65W TDP range than its bigger brother that sucks down 105W. It's really a shame this processor isn't coming to the retail market as it would present a great value option for budget builders, particularly for small form factor builds. It was plenty impressive in our testing, but as it stands now, this chip will only come in pre-built systems.

Meanwhile, the Ryzen 5 3500X slots in as a six-core model but comes without simultaneous multi-threading (SMT), meaning it only has six threads of performance on offer. Surprisingly, the 3500X will only be made available to OEM/SI customers in China. This chip is meant to tackle Intel's Core i5-9400F in the OEM market, but there are also rumblings of a Ryzen 5 3500 (non-X model) coming to market soon. Unfortunately, it might also be destined for the OEM/SI markets, but only time will tell.
Reply
https://www.tomshardware.com/news/amd-ry...40605.html
Quote:AMD officially launched the Ryzen 5 3500X yesterday. Regrettably, the new six-core chip will not be available outside of the Chinese OEM market. Today, Chinese website Expreview posted its review of the Ryzen 5 3500X, which is probably as close as we'll ever get to it.

https://www.tomshardware.com/news/amd-ry...otherboard
Quote:Due to the AMD Ryzen 9 3950X's power requirements, many entry-level AMD motherboards might not support the 16-core monster. However, a ComputerBase reader noticed that the chip will work on ASRock's A320M-DVS R3.0 motherboard, which gives us a bit of hope.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)