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
MSI Radeon RX 6650 XT Gaming X review
Deepcool AS500 PLUS CPU Cooler 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...
Denial
Senior Member
Posts: 13712
Joined: 2004-05-16
Senior Member
Posts: 13712
Joined: 2004-05-16
#5704761 Posted on: 08/27/2019 08:35 PM
Is this 6% consumed completely/significantly by a 50MHz reduction?
Is the "hundreds of dollars extra" consumed completely/significantly by a 50MHz reduction?
Are we over-obsessing to a degree?
Is it over obsession or just a desire to keep these companies in check?
Look at the mobile industry - where SoC vendors were creating specific profiles so that when benchmarking apps were detected the processor would go to a boost state that isn't normally available. It wasn't until Anandtech called them out repeatedly that it stopped. How about Nvidia, with the 970 fiasco - 3.5GB+.5GB partition - only effected some games and even in those games it created slightly more stutter than you'd get hitting the 4GB barrier anyway.. class action suit and tons of negative press later and I'm willing to bet Nvidia doesn't make that mistake again.
Same thing needs to happen to AMD or they'll just keep doing it.
Is this 6% consumed completely/significantly by a 50MHz reduction?
Is the "hundreds of dollars extra" consumed completely/significantly by a 50MHz reduction?
Are we over-obsessing to a degree?
Is it over obsession or just a desire to keep these companies in check?
Look at the mobile industry - where SoC vendors were creating specific profiles so that when benchmarking apps were detected the processor would go to a boost state that isn't normally available. It wasn't until Anandtech called them out repeatedly that it stopped. How about Nvidia, with the 970 fiasco - 3.5GB+.5GB partition - only effected some games and even in those games it created slightly more stutter than you'd get hitting the 4GB barrier anyway.. class action suit and tons of negative press later and I'm willing to bet Nvidia doesn't make that mistake again.
Same thing needs to happen to AMD or they'll just keep doing it.
schmidtbag
Senior Member
Posts: 6477
Joined: 2012-11-10
Senior Member
Posts: 6477
Joined: 2012-11-10
#5704768 Posted on: 08/27/2019 08:53 PM
Is this 6% consumed completely/significantly by a 50MHz reduction?
Is the "hundreds of dollars extra" consumed completely/significantly by a 50MHz reduction?
Are we over-obsessing to a degree?
Yes, we are over-obsessing. That's pretty much my point - people are willing to spend 60% more money for a 6% performance increase (even if only in specific workloads), and people are willing to fight tooth an nail over a 3% performance loss in specific environments. Neither makes sense as far as I'm concerned. But...:
Is it over obsession or just a desire to keep these companies in check?
...
Same thing needs to happen to AMD or they'll just keep doing it.
This is a good point. If AMD really has tried to be sneaky by silently limiting the boost clocks (I'm still not convinced this is their decision), shame on them, and they need to be called out for it. So far, I'm having a hard time believing if that is the case. Like I said before, they can't possibly be dumb enough to sell a product that is currently only accessible and appealing to enthusiasts, and think that those people aren't going to notice that they can't reach boost clocks, regardless of what they have. I'll give them a pass for their "up to" boost clock claims, where it's up to the user to provide the appropriate conditions to achieve them. But the thing is, if AMD really did make this tweak, does that not mean they changed the definition of what the CPU boosts up to? At that point, it would still be false advertising, especially if they didn't announce it (which, according to this article, they haven't).
Unless there are reports of many of these CPUs prematurely failing, I just don't see how they could possibly think limiting the boost clock is a good idea, and, one they can get away with. Seems like doing this is just asking for a lawsuit.
Is this 6% consumed completely/significantly by a 50MHz reduction?
Is the "hundreds of dollars extra" consumed completely/significantly by a 50MHz reduction?
Are we over-obsessing to a degree?
Yes, we are over-obsessing. That's pretty much my point - people are willing to spend 60% more money for a 6% performance increase (even if only in specific workloads), and people are willing to fight tooth an nail over a 3% performance loss in specific environments. Neither makes sense as far as I'm concerned. But...:
Is it over obsession or just a desire to keep these companies in check?
...
Same thing needs to happen to AMD or they'll just keep doing it.
This is a good point. If AMD really has tried to be sneaky by silently limiting the boost clocks (I'm still not convinced this is their decision), shame on them, and they need to be called out for it. So far, I'm having a hard time believing if that is the case. Like I said before, they can't possibly be dumb enough to sell a product that is currently only accessible and appealing to enthusiasts, and think that those people aren't going to notice that they can't reach boost clocks, regardless of what they have. I'll give them a pass for their "up to" boost clock claims, where it's up to the user to provide the appropriate conditions to achieve them. But the thing is, if AMD really did make this tweak, does that not mean they changed the definition of what the CPU boosts up to? At that point, it would still be false advertising, especially if they didn't announce it (which, according to this article, they haven't).
Unless there are reports of many of these CPUs prematurely failing, I just don't see how they could possibly think limiting the boost clock is a good idea, and, one they can get away with. Seems like doing this is just asking for a lawsuit.
AsiJu
Senior Member
Posts: 7923
Joined: 2010-10-16
Senior Member
Posts: 7923
Joined: 2010-10-16
#5704771 Posted on: 08/27/2019 09:06 PM
Boost is automatic overclocking, it does work out of the box. Basically AMD is already overclocking CPU for us, no much gain by overclocking it manually.
Still, would be awesome to have an option to "disable" this safe feature and go for higher clocks.
Precision Boost Overdrive is pretty much just that. Also from personal experience the drop in maximum boost was a whopping 25 MHz for me...
(AGESA 1003ABB vs. AGESA1001)
Oh, and even the "lower" clock is 4525 which is actually 25 MHz higher still than advertised max. boost (4.5 GHz, 3800X).
Boost is automatic overclocking, it does work out of the box. Basically AMD is already overclocking CPU for us, no much gain by overclocking it manually.
Still, would be awesome to have an option to "disable" this safe feature and go for higher clocks.
Precision Boost Overdrive is pretty much just that. Also from personal experience the drop in maximum boost was a whopping 25 MHz for me...
(AGESA 1003ABB vs. AGESA1001)
Oh, and even the "lower" clock is 4525 which is actually 25 MHz higher still than advertised max. boost (4.5 GHz, 3800X).
NCC1701D
Senior Member
Posts: 252
Joined: 2015-05-20
Senior Member
Posts: 252
Joined: 2015-05-20
#5704773 Posted on: 08/27/2019 09:12 PM
Is this 6% consumed completely/significantly by a 50MHz reduction?
Is the "hundreds of dollars extra" consumed completely/significantly by a 50MHz reduction?
Are we over-obsessing to a degree?
I don't think so. That's like a gas station not making sure their pumps are regulated to dispense the right amount of gas. Maybe you're only losing 10 miles/KM's on a full tank which is not super noticeable, but it's still not what you paid for. Worst part is, this isn't AMD making a regulation mistake. They knew about this at launch and talked around it.
Intel is about to release their 9900KS with a 5.0GHz all core bin. Do you think people will let them slide if it doesn't hit the mark. Nope. AMD messed up. There's enough data to support that and this will be expanded upon. Ryzen 3000 is a very good series, but it was overrated for sales purposes. They should be called out and hopefully they owe up to it instead of talking in circles around the issue.
Is this 6% consumed completely/significantly by a 50MHz reduction?
Is the "hundreds of dollars extra" consumed completely/significantly by a 50MHz reduction?
Are we over-obsessing to a degree?
I don't think so. That's like a gas station not making sure their pumps are regulated to dispense the right amount of gas. Maybe you're only losing 10 miles/KM's on a full tank which is not super noticeable, but it's still not what you paid for. Worst part is, this isn't AMD making a regulation mistake. They knew about this at launch and talked around it.
Intel is about to release their 9900KS with a 5.0GHz all core bin. Do you think people will let them slide if it doesn't hit the mark. Nope. AMD messed up. There's enough data to support that and this will be expanded upon. Ryzen 3000 is a very good series, but it was overrated for sales purposes. They should be called out and hopefully they owe up to it instead of talking in circles around the issue.
Click here to post a comment for this news story on the message forum.
Senior Member
Posts: 244
Joined: 2016-10-19
Is this 6% consumed completely/significantly by a 50MHz reduction?
Is the "hundreds of dollars extra" consumed completely/significantly by a 50MHz reduction?
Are we over-obsessing to a degree?