ASUS ROG Radeon RX 6750 XT STRIX review
AMD FidelityFX Super Resolution 2.0 - preview
Sapphire Radeon RX 6650 XT Nitro+ review
Sapphire Radeon RX 6950 XT Sapphire Nitro+ Pure review
Sapphire Radeon RX 6750 XT Nitro+ review
MSI Radeon RX 6950 XT Gaming X TRIO review
MSI Radeon RX 6750 XT Gaming X TRIO review
MSI Radeon RX 6650 XT Gaming X review
Deepcool AS500 PLUS CPU Cooler Review
Kioxia Exceria Pro 2 TB M.2 NVMe SSD Review
AMD delayed Ryzen 9 3950X launch due to unsatisfactory clock speeds?
A few days ago we've reported that the AMD Ryzen 9 3950X 16-core part has been delayed and pushed back towards November. The news was made official by AMD. To date, however, there has been no word given as to what the reason is behind the delay. We did ask, but there was no answer to that question.
Logic assumes that AMD is facing the boost issues it had with the previous Ryzen processors. Something that is fixed with the new AGESA 1.0.0.3 ABBA Firmware btw. Is the same issue affecting the Ryzen 9 3950X 16-core processor? As it turns out, production at TSMC is not an issue as Digitimes found out. However, they have a source that claims that AMD has problems 'reaching unsatisfactory clock speeds' with the sixteen core part. That source would be an employee active in the motherboard maker industry.
The Ryzen 9 3950X 16-core processor has been advertised with the fastest single-core bin boost at 4.7 GHz, its base frequency is an admirable 3.5 GHz. For them to be able to reach advertised clock frequencies on their many-core part (16c/32t) AMD likely made it a bit complicated for themselves, as it is the fastest boosting product, it has the most cores and it has two 8-core processor dies. To reach the advertised boost frequency of that impressive 4.7 GHz on a single core AMD has to bin all dies, gauntlet sort them for the best units if you will.
We have no doubt that AMD will be able to out the product at advertised performance, but what volume will be available in November remains an open question.
vbetts
Moderator
Posts: 15139
Joined: 2006-07-04
Moderator
Posts: 15139
Joined: 2006-07-04
#5714705 Posted on: 09/26/2019 03:35 PM
I'm talking about normal boost - from 4.3 up to 4.6 for single cores when needed.
As I said, my understanding is, when people manually OC their CPU to some setting such as 4.3 all core, this stops the CPU from ever going above this, even for a single core. So all single core tasks will be stuck at 4.3 and slower then.
That's the point of manual OC, you aren't relying on PB2 or XFR2. But you're assuming that an all core manual OC is going to be limited to 4.3. With the right loop, 4.6 all core should not be an issue on Zen 2.
I'm talking about normal boost - from 4.3 up to 4.6 for single cores when needed.
As I said, my understanding is, when people manually OC their CPU to some setting such as 4.3 all core, this stops the CPU from ever going above this, even for a single core. So all single core tasks will be stuck at 4.3 and slower then.
That's the point of manual OC, you aren't relying on PB2 or XFR2. But you're assuming that an all core manual OC is going to be limited to 4.3. With the right loop, 4.6 all core should not be an issue on Zen 2.
kakiharaFRS
Senior Member
Posts: 840
Joined: 2015-11-21
Senior Member
Posts: 840
Joined: 2015-11-21
#5714798 Posted on: 09/26/2019 09:19 PM
i don't know but 3900x have finally landed in Switzerland yay
i don't know but 3900x have finally landed in Switzerland yay
sunnyp_343
Senior Member
Posts: 515
Joined: 2009-11-24
Senior Member
Posts: 515
Joined: 2009-11-24
#5714873 Posted on: 09/27/2019 05:04 AM
But so far it was happening like this? From Intel 2nd generation 32nm to 10nm and in AMD as well.With decreasing in every NM performance is increasing and Power is decreasing by certain percent till now.So i was believing that as NM decreasing they gets more Density and Area to put more stuff in it.So wasn't it like that?
Why? Even if you ignored the fact that "x" nm is just a marketing name for a variety of characteristics of a node (it would be like complaining that 5700XT is slower than a 2080Ti despite a bigger number) - the performance metric itself can be measured several different ways. 7nm might be better for density but worse for power or vice versa. It depends on the application.
But so far it was happening like this? From Intel 2nd generation 32nm to 10nm and in AMD as well.With decreasing in every NM performance is increasing and Power is decreasing by certain percent till now.So i was believing that as NM decreasing they gets more Density and Area to put more stuff in it.So wasn't it like that?
Fox2232
Senior Member
Posts: 11809
Joined: 2012-07-20
Senior Member
Posts: 11809
Joined: 2012-07-20
#5714916 Posted on: 09/27/2019 08:49 AM
I would write short script that would change affinity for tested software from logical core to logical core in 1 second intervals. That would enable user to see how good each core is.
At idle, I would agree. You can let all cores to tick empty cycles with most of cores not drawing much current.
But as you load many/all cores, power draw will go crazy high.
My 2700X could do 4.3GHz on all cores. But under full load 220W. Definitely not worth it. With Zen2, that point where power draw at hiven clock goes way above reasonable is higher, but still certain clock on all cores is not best of ideas even with good cooling and good board.
ryzen master.
I would write short script that would change affinity for tested software from logical core to logical core in 1 second intervals. That would enable user to see how good each core is.
That's the point of manual OC, you aren't relying on PB2 or XFR2. But you're assuming that an all core manual OC is going to be limited to 4.3. With the right loop, 4.6 all core should not be an issue on Zen 2.
At idle, I would agree. You can let all cores to tick empty cycles with most of cores not drawing much current.
But as you load many/all cores, power draw will go crazy high.
My 2700X could do 4.3GHz on all cores. But under full load 220W. Definitely not worth it. With Zen2, that point where power draw at hiven clock goes way above reasonable is higher, but still certain clock on all cores is not best of ideas even with good cooling and good board.
Click here to post a comment for this news story on the message forum.
Senior Member
Posts: 947
Joined: 2010-01-04
@geogan
Depends which boost your talking about.
PBO is to boost past stock, if thermals/power etc allow it.
In reality, i have yet to see one site, able to "consistently" show an increase in performance, even when looking at avg numbers.
So far, all benchs/tests shown differences around 1%..
I'm talking about normal boost - from 4.3 up to 4.6 for single cores when needed.
As I said, my understanding is, when people manually OC their CPU to some setting such as 4.3 all core, this stops the CPU from ever going above this, even for a single core. So all single core tasks will be stuck at 4.3 and slower then.