ASUS Radeon RX 7600 STRIX OC review
Corsair RM1200X SHIFT 1200W PSU Review
Intel NUC 13 Pro (Arena Canyon) review
Endorfy Arx 700 Air chassis review
Beelink SER5 Pro (Ryzen 7 5800H) mini PC review
Crucial T700 PCIe 5.0 NVMe SSD Review - 12GB/s
Sapphire Radeon RX 7600 PULSE review
Gainward GeForce RTX 4060 Ti GHOST review
Radeon RX 7600 review
ASUS GeForce RTX 4060 Ti TUF Gaming review
Ryzen 3000: AMD deliberately limited Boost behavior in favor of longevity, says Asus staff
An Asus employee gas mentioned that AMD has reduced the boost behavior of the Ryzen 3000 processors to a more moderate level as it was too aggressive and now is a bit more limited in favor of longevity.
It has been a bit of a discussion as to why motherboard differs in Boost frequencies with Ryzen 3000 on different motherboards. Now it is said by shamino (Asus employee) that AMD has limited the boost behavior in newer AGESA versions.
The motivation for this step would be that AMD apparently wants to ensure a longer life. As it says at least in the contribution of "shamino1978" in forums (via reddit.com).
"every new bios i get asked the boost question all over again, i have not tested a newer version of AGESA that changes the current state of 1003 boost, not even 1004. if i do know of changes, i will specifically state this. They were being too aggressive with the boost previously, the current boost behavior is more in line with their confidence in long term reliability and i have not heard of any changes to this stance, tho i have heard of a 'more customizable' version in the future"
As for the controversy surrounding the boost frequencies of the current Ryzen 3000 processors, have a peek here.
New Firmware update Reportedly solves Ryzen 3000 boot issues Linux - 08/14/2019 08:52 AM
We don't talk about Linus a lot, as the install base is small and not really the PC Gamers domain, however as it turns out Linux users have had Boot issues with Ryzen 3000. A problem that is now conf...
G.SKILL Releases Optimized DDR4-3800 CL14 Memory Kit for AMD Ryzen 3000 & X570 Platform - 07/31/2019 01:54 PM
G.SKILL is glad to announce Trident Z Neo DDR4-3800 CL14-16-16-36 4x8GB / 2x8GB memory kits for AMD Ryzen 3000 & X570 motherboard....
ASUS 300 and 400 AM4 Motherboards Fully Support AMD Ryzen 3000 Processors - 07/31/2019 09:18 AM
UEFI BIOS update delivers compatibility with 3rd Gen AMD Picasso APUs and Matisse CPUs with no loss of features, highlighting the ASUS commitment to customer care...
Destiny 2 AMD Ryzen 3000 Issues solved with chipset driver update - 07/29/2019 09:25 AM
Bungie’s Destiny 2 doesn’t currently work with on AMD’s latest CPU. It’s was not clear why this is currently the case. The problem cropped up a few days ago wh...
AMD Offers Free ‘Boot Kit’ for Struggling Ryzen 3000 Owners - 07/15/2019 08:12 AM
The launch of Ryzen Generation3 has been positive overall. The processors are hard to get as they are in high demand. Some of you purchased one, installed is on a Series 300 or 400 motherboard but nev...
LEEc337
Senior Member
Posts: 160
Joined: 2015-08-13
Senior Member
Posts: 160
Joined: 2015-08-13
#5704683 Posted on: 08/27/2019 04:09 PM
It seems like AMD has pushed their processors at launch to beat Intel in various benches get the sales an dial it back to avoid an avalanche of cpus that died prematurely... Bad form
It seems like AMD has pushed their processors at launch to beat Intel in various benches get the sales an dial it back to avoid an avalanche of cpus that died prematurely... Bad form
Netherwind
Senior Member
Posts: 8538
Joined: 2009-11-13
Senior Member
Posts: 8538
Joined: 2009-11-13
#5704687 Posted on: 08/27/2019 04:15 PM
Sorry to hear that you've had problems man.
An ASUS fan made something cool and modded a AGESA 1.0.0.3 BIOS with the 1.0.0.2 boost behavior. Hope everyone could get something like that in the end
I'll do some extensive testing at some point. I just know that when I first got my x570-E with original bios, I saw within 25mhz of advertised boost - with the latest bios (at the time before the board died) that dropped to 125mhz away from advertised. I then switched to gigabyte aorus pro and now its roughly 100mhz. I don't stare at it or record it throughout the day but in my quick testing with a few different apps that's the behavior I've seen.
Sorry to hear that you've had problems man.
An ASUS fan made something cool and modded a AGESA 1.0.0.3 BIOS with the 1.0.0.2 boost behavior. Hope everyone could get something like that in the end
MegaFalloutFan
Senior Member
Posts: 1029
Joined: 2015-06-27
Senior Member
Posts: 1029
Joined: 2015-06-27
#5704693 Posted on: 08/27/2019 04:33 PM
Go for it, see how far you get.
Which Ryzen 3000 cpu did you get ?
I can buy any model and sue them, i bet there is squad of greedy lawyers that only look for a reason to sue anyone and ill be happy to get a small cut from it.
Free money is free money.
The X570 chipset wasn't designed.
If you read a bit more, you would know that it is just the IO chip from the Ryzen chips themselves, because ASMedia didn't have the actual chipsets ready in time...
Nothing was "squeezed in" to the chipset, it just doesn't have any power saving states, as it wasn't meant to be a motherboard chipset....so it runs pretty fast and hot.
They used the IO chip as basis but its semi-custom chip, and it can be easily proved by comparing the amount of PCIe lanes coming from CPU x24 vs Chipset x16
Go for it, see how far you get.
Which Ryzen 3000 cpu did you get ?
I can buy any model and sue them, i bet there is squad of greedy lawyers that only look for a reason to sue anyone and ill be happy to get a small cut from it.
Free money is free money.
The X570 chipset wasn't designed.
If you read a bit more, you would know that it is just the IO chip from the Ryzen chips themselves, because ASMedia didn't have the actual chipsets ready in time...
Nothing was "squeezed in" to the chipset, it just doesn't have any power saving states, as it wasn't meant to be a motherboard chipset....so it runs pretty fast and hot.
They used the IO chip as basis but its semi-custom chip, and it can be easily proved by comparing the amount of PCIe lanes coming from CPU x24 vs Chipset x16
NCC1701D
Senior Member
Posts: 265
Joined: 2015-05-20
Senior Member
Posts: 265
Joined: 2015-05-20
#5704714 Posted on: 08/27/2019 05:49 PM
3900x and I've yet to see boost clocks or even similar clocks to what the reviewers were getting on initial bios.
Do I care that much? Not really - chip still performs well and better than my 7820x - should AMD be called out on it though? Absolutely. The larger point here is exactly what loophole said - if any other company had done this people would be losing their crap but AMD does it and half the community just handwaves it away, some people trying to make it out as a good thing. As I said in the other thread it sets a precedent for AMD to get away with things like this as they have for years now.
Agree 100%. I have the 3700X and it's never hit its boost clock either. My X570 board shipped with a newer bios from the get go. It's still a good chip and I'm not going to sell it and replace with an Intel chip, but they should have rated the chips lower so people would know what to expect. Bottom line, it's simply not a 4.4GHz chip. Every time I've brought up the boost clock issue, people jump all over me in defense of AMD. They shouldn't get a free pass because they are the good guy underdog. If anything, AMD has put a sour taste in my mouth after giving them a shot for the first time. Everything leading up to the launch painted a different picture. Thought we would see single cores boosting 200MHz over max boost, but it turns out they can't even hit max boost for most users. Then it became "ideal conditions" are necessary to hit max boost. They did what they did to have a good launch and they succeeded. We'll see what AMD responds with, but they've been pretty good at talking in circles so far and the faithful have no problem just taking their word for it. Maybe I'm just experiencing a bad case of the "observer effect".
3900x and I've yet to see boost clocks or even similar clocks to what the reviewers were getting on initial bios.
Do I care that much? Not really - chip still performs well and better than my 7820x - should AMD be called out on it though? Absolutely. The larger point here is exactly what loophole said - if any other company had done this people would be losing their crap but AMD does it and half the community just handwaves it away, some people trying to make it out as a good thing. As I said in the other thread it sets a precedent for AMD to get away with things like this as they have for years now.
Agree 100%. I have the 3700X and it's never hit its boost clock either. My X570 board shipped with a newer bios from the get go. It's still a good chip and I'm not going to sell it and replace with an Intel chip, but they should have rated the chips lower so people would know what to expect. Bottom line, it's simply not a 4.4GHz chip. Every time I've brought up the boost clock issue, people jump all over me in defense of AMD. They shouldn't get a free pass because they are the good guy underdog. If anything, AMD has put a sour taste in my mouth after giving them a shot for the first time. Everything leading up to the launch painted a different picture. Thought we would see single cores boosting 200MHz over max boost, but it turns out they can't even hit max boost for most users. Then it became "ideal conditions" are necessary to hit max boost. They did what they did to have a good launch and they succeeded. We'll see what AMD responds with, but they've been pretty good at talking in circles so far and the faithful have no problem just taking their word for it. Maybe I'm just experiencing a bad case of the "observer effect".
Click here to post a comment for this news story on the message forum.
Senior Member
Posts: 14092
Joined: 2004-05-16
Care to share some of your results?
I'll do some extensive testing at some point. I just know that when I first got my x570-E with original bios, I saw within 25mhz of advertised boost - with the latest bios (at the time before the board died) that dropped to 125mhz away from advertised. I then switched to gigabyte aorus pro and now its roughly 100mhz. I don't stare at it or record it throughout the day but in my quick testing with a few different apps that's the behavior I've seen.
We don't need his results.
Something like 96% of 3900x's don't hit their advertised boost.
3800x, the processor that both Netherwind and Evildead666 have on average are the best at hitting their advertised speeds - mine is the worst - feels bad =(
Like I said it's not that big of a deal but when you give a little companies tend to take a lot. If these processors weren't capable of hitting those speeds reliably they should have never been advertised as that speed.