This is basically an admission that the Windows controls for CPUs aren't refined enough.

FYI I guess some people have been having problems installing the custom profile, AMD Robert posted this over on reddit:

Hi, all. I see that a few of you are having trouble installing the .ppkg file. I'm looking into this and will provide an update when I know more. 🙂 //EDIT: As a short-term solution, you can remove the provisioning package and delete the power plan. Reboot and reinstall. You can also perform additional cleanup by deleting: C:\ProgramData\Microsoft\Provisioning\{d3c94476-1550-4f65-942f-258753d6815a} %localappdata%\Temp\ProvisioningPkgTmp\{d3c94476-1550-4f65-942f-258753d6815a}

https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/63vv0q/amd_ryzen_community_update_3/dfxisc4/

This is basically an admission that the Windows controls for CPUs aren't refined enough.

Or a sad admission that the design is wildly flawed and needs custom Windows tweaks to function properly. I have said this many times and will say again, this launch has been a failure from a market perspective. AMD's stock continues to decline (14.94 at launch, 13.27 at close yesterday) and was just flagged as sell by Goldman as it will continue to fall because of poor March sales. We needed Ryzen to exceed Intel performance offerings at a fair price. It needed to give you more for less. Instead it gave you a bit less for a lot less. Good value, not a disruption.

Enthusiasts should be ecstatic over the responsiveness and two way communication between end users and the CPU manufacturer. There's nothing but upside for Ryzen.

Or a sad admission that the design is wildly flawed and needs custom Windows tweaks to function properly. I have said this many times and will say again, this launch has been a failure from a market perspective. AMD's stock continues to decline (14.94 at launch, 13.27 at close yesterday) and was just flagged as sell by Goldman as it will continue to fall because of poor March sales. We needed Ryzen to exceed Intel performance offerings at a fair price. It needed to give you more for less. Instead it gave you a bit less for a lot less. Good value, not a disruption.

What do you mean not a disruption? The 1800x is offered at a ridiculous price and you'd be stupid to buy a 6900k. The 1600 is $200 and beats a 7700k in everything except games. AMD has heavily disrupted the CPU market. Even gamers are considering Ryzen because they know it's the more future proof solution. Games will continue to ascend preference towards 8-core CPUs.

Or a sad admission that the design is wildly flawed and needs custom Windows tweaks to function properly. I have said this many times and will say again, this launch has been a failure from a market perspective. AMD's stock continues to decline (14.94 at launch, 13.27 at close yesterday) and was just flagged as sell by Goldman as it will continue to fall because of poor March sales. We needed Ryzen to exceed Intel performance offerings at a fair price. It needed to give you more for less. Instead it gave you a bit less for a lot less. Good value, not a disruption.

I agree that the launch was an huge mess but to call the design "wildly flawed" makes no sense. Ryzen has already proved to be a great cpu for MT purposes and has good single threaded performance. But it has is flaws, like any other product, and one of those flaws seems to be gaming. AMD is trying to alleviate that weakness the best they can, that´s it. Also don´t use the stock market to draw conclusions about anything because they don´t follow any logical rules of any kind... P.S. offering the performance of a 1.000€ cpu for a third of that value seems very disruptive, at least for me...

Look at it this way

Or a sad admission that the design is wildly flawed and needs custom Windows tweaks to function properly. I have said this many times and will say again, this launch has been a failure from a market perspective. AMD's stock continues to decline (14.94 at launch, 13.27 at close yesterday) and was just flagged as sell by Goldman as it will continue to fall because of poor March sales. We needed Ryzen to exceed Intel performance offerings at a fair price. It needed to give you more for less. Instead it gave you a bit less for a lot less. Good value, not a disruption.

I see your point, but i also challenge you to think about what Intel has done for you. AMD being a smaller company in general have released a NEW technology based on existing foundry processes that incorporate more cores for more performance and they are doing it for YOU at a lower cost. I can't imagine their profit margins are anything close to an Intel using plain common sense. Intel has had years of the same architecture out and no real new breakthroughs in design or performance. Now they are cutting corners with cheap TIM so de-lidding is the only way to get a cool CPU with the Kaby Lakes. The new Ryzen CPU architecture is awesome, completely new, and will become faster once platforms can learn to utilize its cache technology and core scheduling. They drove prices down while getting the closest i have ever seen them to Intel in terms of performance. To expect any more than this on a new platform at launch is simply delusional. Heck if you game at 4k there is no difference at all!

To be fair Intel Skylake and KabyLake also have Windows 10 power plans issues. In Skylake and KB there is a little talked about CPU feature called Speed Shift which is directly tied to Win 10 power plans but utilizes the CPU for power decisions. Only just recently have some manufactuerers actually added the Speed Shift support to the bios. Win 10 has had it for about a year now. Anyhow needed both...like I said this is a little talked about feature. For all system it provided better CPU power management as the CPU is in control it also reduces system latency by up to 150 ms from the few testing I have seen. Now getting to the point of this and how it AMD is also in this....the Win 10 power plan settings that AMD changed are the same ones needed for Intel SpeedShift...go figure. The issue with the windows 10 power plans is all the particular options are hidden by default by Microsoft and the defaults that MS uses are not any where optimal. As I have learned over my year and half quest into Speed Shift info, is you can indeed unhide these options and adjust them in windows via powercfg commands in an admin prompt. What I have not figured out is how to actually test the changes in a home environment. I would refer technical AMD users to several website for more info on both all these commands as well as take a quick read of the only "speed shift testing" I found. Only reason I am saying this is the parallels of the power cfg options are the same that are being adjusted. Very Helpful Powercfg at MSDN: https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/hardware/mt608264(v=vs.85).aspx Speed Shift Testing ( note this does not get into the power cfg needed) https://www.pcper.com/reviews/Processors/Intel-Speed-Shift-Tested-Significant-User-Experience-Improvements This thread in another forums had some people actually uncovering the Power cfg needed for speed shift. http://forum.notebookreview.com/threads/dell-xps-speed-shift.796891/ It is this last one that also after reading the release from AMD on the Ryzen Power plan that showed me the same power cfg settings that windows 10 and microsoft set as default are bad for both AMD and Intel...and both need these changed for better performance for different reasons. Sorry I kind of rambled, getting old these days.

If someone still has issue with installation... Just unpack (7zip) it and open admin command prompt to its location: ""..\Ryzen_Balanced_Plan\DataAsset\2\Ryzen_Balanced.pow_2a73e" use command: powercfg /import "" Let's pretend that you copied "Ryzen_Balanced.pow" into D:\, command would look like: powercfg /import "D:\Ryzen_Balanced.pow" = = = = Btw, does anyone here know how to edit "pow" files outside of windows power plan settings? There are some options which are not available for editing in standard windows power options.

To be fair Intel Skylake and KabyLake also have Windows 10 power plans issues. In Skylake and KB there is a little talked about CPU feature called Speed Shift which is directly tied to Win 10 power plans but utilizes the CPU for power decisions. Only just recently have some manufactuerers actually added the Speed Shift support to the bios. Win 10 has had it for about a year now. Anyhow needed both...like I said this is a little talked about feature. For all system it provided better CPU power management as the CPU is in control it also reduces system latency by up to 150 ms from the few testing I have seen. Now getting to the point of this and how it AMD is also in this....the Win 10 power plan settings that AMD changed are the same ones needed for Intel SpeedShift...go figure. The issue with the windows 10 power plans is all the particular options are hidden by default by Microsoft and the defaults that MS uses are not any where optimal. As I have learned over my year and half quest into Speed Shift info, is you can indeed unhide these options and adjust them in windows via powercfg commands in an admin prompt. What I have not figured out is how to actually test the changes in a home environment. I would refer technical AMD users to several website for more info on both all these commands as well as take a quick read of the only "speed shift testing" I found. Only reason I am saying this is the parallels of the power cfg options are the same that are being adjusted. Very Helpful Powercfg at MSDN: https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/hardware/mt608264(v=vs.85).aspx Speed Shift Testing ( note this does not get into the power cfg needed) https://www.pcper.com/reviews/Processors/Intel-Speed-Shift-Tested-Significant-User-Experience-Improvements This thread in another forums had some people actually uncovering the Power cfg needed for speed shift. http://forum.notebookreview.com/threads/dell-xps-speed-shift.796891/

http://forums.guru3d.com/showthread.php?t=409110 Custom power plan doesn`t necessary mean that it has some new settings. It can also mean that it has customized values for a standard settings.

http://forums.guru3d.com/showthread.php?t=409110 Custom power plan doesn`t necessary mean that it has some new settings. It can also mean that it has customized values for a standard settings.

Yeah these power options they changed already have defaults set by MS in Windows for all users and they are hidden. I never said these were some new settings. I only stated that the power options they adjusted also have to be adjusted for Speed Shift as the defaults that both AMD and Intel get from Windows are bad. And also stated the options are hidden by default by Microsoft and Windows. I was also getting at that is not just an AMD issue but also an Intel issue...the difference is no one talks about it with Intel. I have spent a year and half just trying to get info about it. Only thing Intel ever told me was it was up to the motherboard manufacturers to enable...but never mentioned anything about how and what things might need to be changed in Windows 10. It was when I read the AMD release on the power plan and what they changed as well as the comparisons to Intel that it hit me, they both need to tweak defaults in Win 10. The very same options to boot. The difference is AMD is openly admitting it and offering a solution...Intel has remained totally quiet on this for a year and half. While I realize the power plan (powercfg) changes affect the CPUs differently, they are needed for both CPUs I have mentioned.

Yeah these power options they changed already have defaults set by MS in Windows for all users and they are hidden. I never said these were some new settings. I only stated that the power options they adjusted also have to be adjusted for Speed Shift as the defaults that both AMD and Intel get from Windows are bad. And also stated the options are hidden by default by Microsoft and Windows.

Sorry, my phrase about custom power plan was aimed not at you. Bad formatting of post it was. As for settings in power plan - they can be explored by powercfg.exe.

- list - l Lists all power schemes in the current user's environment.

- query [Scheme_GUID] [Sub_GUID] - q [Scheme_GUID] [Sub_GUID] Displays the contents of the specified power scheme. Usage: powercfg -query [Scheme_GUID] [Sub_GUID] SCHEME_GUID (Optional) Specifies the GUID of the power scheme to display. Can be obtained by using the powercfg -l command. SUB_GUID (Optional) Specifies the GUID of the subgroup to display. Requires a SCHEME_GUID to be provided. If neither SCHEME_GUID or SUB_GUID are provided, the settings of the current user's active power scheme are displayed. If SUB_GUID is not specified, all settings in the specified power scheme are displayed.

And to be able to edit settings in advanced power plan settings dialog you unhide them like this: powercfg -attributes SUB_GUID power-setting-GUID -ATTRIB_HIDE

Sorry, my phrase about custom power plan was aimed not at you. Bad formatting of post it was. As for settings in power plan - they can be explored by powercfg.exe.

It was just odd to me to see AMD adjusting the exact same power options I needed to adjust for Speed Shift. MY takeaway was that at least in this, this is not an AMD or Intel problem but a Windows problem to a certain degree. In that AMD or Intel need to issue power plans for specific CPUs to be optimal. Windows defaults are designed to work for all CPUs though not optimally for some. TBH I am not sure I have yet looked at all the power cfg options for Speed Shift since there is so little information on it but that is not the point of this thread.

^ I am perfectly happy with power plans as they are (since I have way to edit them to my liking). Power plan is such tiny peak of an iceberg. To me the OS kernel using features of CPUs on 100% looks more important.

This is basically an admission that the Windows controls for CPUs aren't refined enough.

Optimization is needed everywhere, people tend to forget when Intel needs it too though...

...this launch has been a failure from a market perspective. AMD's stock continues to decline (14.94 at launch, 13.27 at close yesterday) and was just flagged as sell by Goldman as it will continue to fall because of poor March sales. We needed Ryzen to exceed Intel performance offerings at a fair price. It needed to give you more for less. Instead it gave you a bit less for a lot less. Good value, not a disruption.

I agree the launch was a failure, they should have waited a month and optimized what needed to be optimized so initial reviews wouldn't bash so hard a new tech. In 2015 stock hit a low of 1.67 and precisely 1 year ago it was 2.64. Before Ryzen launch it had a max of 15.2 after a full year on the rise. After Ryzen launch the low was 13.03 on day 3 of March and is 13.25 today. I have no idea how you analysed it was falling and will continue to do so, neither how you know sales are poor (so many people is buying them). No, you wanted for Ryzen to exceed Intel at lower prices so you could buy your Intel CPUs cheaper. Ryzen doesn't exceed Intel but is a better buy Price/Performance ratio. You wouldn't buy AMD anyway so I don't know why are you posting this.

Or a sad admission that the design is wildly flawed and needs custom Windows tweaks to function properly. I have said this many times and will say again, this launch has been a failure from a market perspective. AMD's stock continues to decline (14.94 at launch, 13.27 at close yesterday) and was just flagged as sell by Goldman as it will continue to fall because of poor March sales. We needed Ryzen to exceed Intel performance offerings at a fair price. It needed to give you more for less. Instead it gave you a bit less for a lot less. Good value, not a disruption.

The Goldman downgrade had nothing to do with March sales; they basically said that the upside has already been priced in and the success of Ryzen (and Vega) will be countered by price cuts by Intel (and Nvidia). And frankly, a Ryzen 7 performing on par with a 6900K at half the price is the most disruptive thing imaginable (it's the main reason why I bought a Ryzen 7). If the Ryzen 7 performed a bit better than the 6900K but sold at $900 I wouldn't have touched it - such prices would have basically maintain the status quo and provided zero disruption to the market.

The minimim and maximum cpu performance values in the new power profile were set to: Min: 90% ? Max 100% I've dropped the Min value to 5%. Will test and see if the cores are ramping up correctly, and then dropping back down etc.

Or a sad admission that the design is wildly flawed and needs custom Windows tweaks to function properly.

LOL. That's why these Windows settings are customizable, you realize that, right? Do you know what a "widly flawed" design actually is? You don't, because none of them have ever even reached the market. Some of the worst examples (the P4 and Bulldozer), were actually decent performers. Please learn at least the basics of OS function and design before you call 5-year long engineering efforts "failures". The same exact stuff has happened with Skylake and SpeedShift, and even Sandy and turbo multipliers in the early days.

I have said this many times and will say again, this launch has been a failure from a market perspective. AMD's stock continues to decline (14.94 at launch, 13.27 at close yesterday) and was just flagged as sell by Goldman as it will continue to fall because of poor March sales. We needed Ryzen to exceed Intel performance offerings at a fair price. It needed to give you more for less. Instead it gave you a bit less for a lot less. Good value, not a disruption.

-Limited cooler support at launch since they changed the board specs -RAM speeds are still an issue for 90% of boards -Majority of UEFI's are glorified beta releases -The goddamn 20 degree temp offset for -X processors, which causes most CPU fans to ramp up unnecessarily -Unless proven otherwise, XFR is underwhelming in relation to the $60-$100+ premium -Requires hacks and tweaks for maximum performance AMD's products have always been fairly impressive on paper, but they utterly lack when it comes to the delivery.

LOL. That's why these Windows settings are customizable, you realize that, right? Do you know what a "widly flawed" design actually is? You don't, because none of them have ever even reached the market. Some of the worst examples (the P4 and Bulldozer), were actually decent performers. Please learn at least the basics of OS function and design before you call 5-year long engineering efforts "failures". The same exact stuff has happened with Skylake and SpeedShift, and even Sandy and turbo multipliers in the early days.

Should hardware conform to software, or should software conform to hardware? The market usually dictates that answer, and majority of people agree that, when it comes to enthusiast level hardware, it should 'just work'. Most people agree that Windows may not be up to speed when it comes to supporting Ryzen hardware, but to that extent, Ryzen should have been fully aware of the capabilities of whatever operating systems they expected to run on their hardware. It's a fallacy to compare AMD with Intel's technological failures because optimistically every major release should be flawless--comparing another companies failures shouldn't excuse your own.