AMD Confirms AGESA 1.0.0.3 ABBA firmware with a Blog post
Click here to post a comment for AMD Confirms AGESA 1.0.0.3 ABBA firmware with a Blog post on our message forum
jwb1
I look forward to seeing the tests from Roman and others. AMD isn't being very clear what happened from when reviews came out till now.
Why did this happen?!
Some of what they are saying is just uh... odd.
Isn't this how most modern CPUs operate? How is this special to them?
Honestly, it really just seems they are saying most of the problem is how people are using current software to report what is going on. So it isn't really AMD's fault, its you, so we are putting together our own thing to make us look better.
Again, wait for Roman and others. This isn't over, I bet.
Mesab67
@jwb1: a little bit hasty there. Of course, wait for reviews, however the 3000 series is a new - and particularly complex - product, and with ANY new product...etc....should there not be some common sense applied?? Are you really that surprised that 'details' may need ironing out?
I also think it needs continual reminding that CPU's are now starting to be released that are essentially pre-overclocked i.e. with reduced o/c headroom, and with that comes very obvious consequences, as anyone who has overclocked will instantly recognise. I wonder how much o/c headroom will be available for a certain competitor's 5GHz imminent release?...a binned chip by any other name?
jwb1
That isn't the problem here. The issue is that from the time of review to now something has changed and it has nothing to do with people overclocking as overclocking is not guaranteed. It is that they are not properly reaching their advertised clock speeds AMD said they should get to.
Denial
I mean it is over because everyone who's tried the bios sees the correct boost frequencies (in some cases over it) and the results of benchmarks show the improvement.
I don't see how having a boost algorithm issue is any more odd then any other bios issue.
jwb1
Actually, no, Tom's showed different: https://www.tomshardware.com/news/amd-ryzen-3000-boost-frequency-bios-fix-agesa,40359.html
schmidtbag
Literally 2 sentences earlier, they mention the 3700X working as expected. So, Tom's does in fact show some progress being made. Note that "some progress" is the key phrase here, because as you so-conveniently cropped out of the 3900X quote "...may be due it still being a beta version".
jwb1
I linked to the whole article. I was not talking about the 3700X. I am talking about the 3900X. Some progress is different than what he claimed which is that it was all better. It isn't.
Could it get better? Maybe. Or not. Or worse. You just never know with AMD.
Denial
Okay sorry, 1/3 tests on one processor shows a loss but every other test on every other processor shows some level of improvement.
Also keep in mind their original 3900x test was only 25mhz short of advertised boost. Some people are 300mhz short of boost - so their 25mhz jump will show less of an improvement than someone that's now 300mhz more.
jwb1
This is why I am interested in finding out more from others and seeing if they can get AMD from being so cagey.
Every consumer should get exactly what they paid for. What is going on here has nothing to do with overclocking or silicon lottery. Those are other topics of discussion. So if any company says you will get these clocks in this situation or whatever, you should. And you certainly shouldn't get less! I don't care if this means a small amount of performance you won't feel. It is still unacceptable.
Aura89
Oh look @jwb1 is flaming in this thread too. Surprise surprise.
jwb1
For someone who has me blocked, he seems to want to talk to me. Yet, he wants me to be banned for having an opinion. Interesting.
vbetts
Moderator
How about you stop the AMD hate train in every post that has anything to do with AMD, that would be great.
Ricardo
I like the fact that they recognize the jumpy behavior of those CPUs. I mean, my 3700x is running regular windows balanced power plan, because both Ryzen performance and balanced never really went under 3.5ghz, as if was always jumping the gun thinking there was some kind of workload that needed it, even if I only had just afterburner open. Windows power plan, OTOH, allows it to go as low as 2.2ghz, and temps are much more stable on idle, even if they still jump between 42ºC and 59ºC each ~3 or so seconds.
Improving 25~50mhz is also in line with what I'm missing in terms of maximum boost vs advertised clocks, so if they deliver all these things, I'm good.
Fox2232
@jwb1 : AMD's boosting is much more complex than intel's. That's thing even with 1st Zen generation. They likely added even more internal measurement points and may be measuring other things.
It is quite possible that CPU is capable to detect voltage drop, and reduce clock to prevent CPU from calculating error.
That's why I did ask about VRMs frequency people are using. That can play role in boosting too. Most people can't imagine voltage and current graph over time. They just see 1 second averages and think that it is what goes on.
But in reality, on microsecond basis there is storm of spikes depending on workload type and what core/cache is being used.
jwb1
Okay.
I'd love if you could say the same thing when AMD fans flood Intel threads with their hypocrisy. And if someone has me blocked, maybe they shouldn't quote me which alerts me as if they want to talk to me, but instead want to post something negative?
vbetts
Moderator
That wasn't a suggestion.
And if you look at previous warnings I gave out, I have. Let's stop before it gets too far.
s1DDy
am i the only one that heard some oldskool '80's songs the moment i saw that firmware's name?
if so..., then i feel old.... 🙁
Netherwind
Waterloo...dada-da-dadadada 🙄
Jokes aside, nice going AMD!
Jagman
Nah! It's just you, you old Dancing Queen.....
slyphnier
i dont think many people messing with vrm frequency, except they doing some OC
even so, some people still getting boost-loss
and with default setting, then its mobo-maker-bios handling VRM freqs automatically right?
thats why the test result have slight different between mobo
while it might have some related to VRM freq. but i personally think user cant really do anything with "boost" difference, its not like OC which we can "tweak" to get more performance...
i mean that AGESA is even limited to mobo-maker to make changes right ?
if by simply changing vrm-freq can fix "boost", then some people should already figure out by changing to manual vrm freq and should already spreading by now.
either-way we getting fix coming in 3weeks, so except some other/new issue, this problem is solved
