AMD Ryzen 5 5600 review
PowerColor RX 6650 XT Hellhound White review
FSP Hydro PTM Pro (1200W PSU) review
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
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
#5715012 Posted on: 09/27/2019 02:21 PM
4.6GHz on all 12 cores? I'd say that would be hugely difficult - a lot of voltage / heat / continuous power used, and cooling would have to be amazing. Have you heard of anyone do this with 3900X?
And just to clarify - in this manual OC case... the CPU never downclocks when idle either? Yes? So IMO it is hugely impractical / inefficient way of running a day to day PC. Nice for short periods for special occasions only.
So I will admit, 4.6 is a little out of reach on the 3900x even at manual. One redditor was able to pull 4.5 on CCD1, and 4.3 on CCD2 running 1.32 vcore so that's not too horrible.
To answer your second question, depends if you turn off lower power states. This day in age, this doesn't affect the stability of your overclock much anymore. But even if you turn these off, sure your CPU might run constant but at the same time you aren't running the load voltage either. So you aren't actually doing any damage to your PC or electric bill.
4.6GHz on all 12 cores? I'd say that would be hugely difficult - a lot of voltage / heat / continuous power used, and cooling would have to be amazing. Have you heard of anyone do this with 3900X?
And just to clarify - in this manual OC case... the CPU never downclocks when idle either? Yes? So IMO it is hugely impractical / inefficient way of running a day to day PC. Nice for short periods for special occasions only.
So I will admit, 4.6 is a little out of reach on the 3900x even at manual. One redditor was able to pull 4.5 on CCD1, and 4.3 on CCD2 running 1.32 vcore so that's not too horrible.
To answer your second question, depends if you turn off lower power states. This day in age, this doesn't affect the stability of your overclock much anymore. But even if you turn these off, sure your CPU might run constant but at the same time you aren't running the load voltage either. So you aren't actually doing any damage to your PC or electric bill.
Denial
Senior Member
Posts: 13716
Joined: 2004-05-16
Senior Member
Posts: 13716
Joined: 2004-05-16
#5715023 Posted on: 09/27/2019 02:50 PM
I'm not saying that node shrinks don't bring improvements - they do. But you can't compare Intel's 10nm node to TSMC's 7nm node just by looking at "x"nm node number.
There is fin pitch, width, height, gate length, gate pitch, densities at varying performance requirements, different cell tracks, etc. In some areas Intel's 10nm is significantly head of TSMCs 7nm and in others TSMC is ahead. You can't just look at "7nm" and say it should be better - it doesn't show all the characteristics of the node.
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?
I'm not saying that node shrinks don't bring improvements - they do. But you can't compare Intel's 10nm node to TSMC's 7nm node just by looking at "x"nm node number.
There is fin pitch, width, height, gate length, gate pitch, densities at varying performance requirements, different cell tracks, etc. In some areas Intel's 10nm is significantly head of TSMCs 7nm and in others TSMC is ahead. You can't just look at "7nm" and say it should be better - it doesn't show all the characteristics of the node.
wavetrex
Senior Member
Posts: 1453
Joined: 2008-07-16
Senior Member
Posts: 1453
Joined: 2008-07-16
#5715027 Posted on: 09/27/2019 02:57 PM
3900X can now be bought in the Netherlands with 2-3 days delivery time.
But It took a while !!
3900X can now be bought in the Netherlands with 2-3 days delivery time.
But It took a while !!
D3M1G0D
Senior Member
Posts: 2068
Joined: 2017-03-10
Senior Member
Posts: 2068
Joined: 2017-03-10
#5715043 Posted on: 09/27/2019 04:10 PM
I'm a little confused about this. Typically, higher core count = lower clock speed, yet with Ryzen 3000 AMD seems to be trying to do the opposite. I also don't think it's necessary - those in the market for a 16-core CPU don't need to have the highest clock speed. I'd be perfectly happy if the 3950X can do 4.6 GHz on single core and 4.2 - 4.3 GHz all core.
I'm a little confused about this. Typically, higher core count = lower clock speed, yet with Ryzen 3000 AMD seems to be trying to do the opposite. I also don't think it's necessary - those in the market for a 16-core CPU don't need to have the highest clock speed. I'd be perfectly happy if the 3950X can do 4.6 GHz on single core and 4.2 - 4.3 GHz all core.
Click here to post a comment for this news story on the message forum.
Senior Member
Posts: 948
Joined: 2010-01-04
4.6GHz on all 12 cores? I'd say that would be hugely difficult - a lot of voltage / heat / continuous power used, and cooling would have to be amazing. Have you heard of anyone do this with 3900X?
And just to clarify - in this manual OC case... the CPU never downclocks when idle either? Yes? So IMO it is hugely impractical / inefficient way of running a day to day PC. Nice for short periods for special occasions only.