-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
AMD Zen 2 (Ryzen 3000) - *** NO COMPETITOR HINTING ***
- Thread starter Jamin280672
- Start date
Associate
- Joined
- 21 Sep 2018
- Posts
- 895
@RavenXXX2 beta Chipset drivers... They suck stability is worse also. 3 hours of messing about and reverted old ones i dont play destiny tho
You can revert back.
Soldato
- Joined
- 5 Aug 2006
- Posts
- 11,379
- Location
- Derbyshire
Thanks for posting. I will have another bash tomorrow evening and post back. Had enough of it for this evening
.alrd done i reinstalled 2 times to be sure its drivers. Also got this infrared thermometer just to kill time while im benching and check temps of stuff like my radiator
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 May 2010
- Posts
- 23,288
- Location
- London
I'm not sure if I'm stable now at 3600MHz CL16. Over the last few days I've play about 5hrs across 3 games with no issues.
But just now whilst in a menu in new Wolfenstein I got the windows 'ding dong' chime and the mouse turned to an hourglass.
Windows tho completely fine. Cntl alt delete the game and then relaunch with no issues.
Reading online the game does have lots of bugs so might not be the ram...
But just now whilst in a menu in new Wolfenstein I got the windows 'ding dong' chime and the mouse turned to an hourglass.
Windows tho completely fine. Cntl alt delete the game and then relaunch with no issues.
Reading online the game does have lots of bugs so might not be the ram...
Soldato
- Joined
- 26 Aug 2004
- Posts
- 5,155
- Location
- South Wales
Email from Gskill
Looks like I'll have to get a plain 32GB 3200mhz kit, or 16GB for higher speed than that.
Well that's stupid.. why sell the kits then, probably only works right on the stupidly expensive boards.
Looks like I'll have to get a plain 32GB 3200mhz kit, or 16GB for higher speed than that.
Last edited:
Ah, are you in a similar situation as I am where you can only set an offset?
From my experience, if you can't set the voltage in the BIOS, the AMD software in Windows does a better job, whether it's Overdrive or Ryzen Master (depending on what you have).
Toms Hardware have analysed core by core performance and concluded that only a small number of cores ( potentially just 1 ) in each CPU may be able to reach the advertised boost speed. I think others have suggested this, but this is the strongest evidence I've seen so far ... and from Toms , a site I've long since abandoned.
Unlike Ryzen 1000 and 2000 ( and Intel ) where all cores are individually able to hit boost clock ( + a bit more with pbo ).
A bit put off by this, will definitely be waiting for later revisions / next gens to see how this works out. Be interesting to see if Intel have similar growing pains when 10nm parts are fully available.
https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-3000-turbo-boost-frequency-analysis,6253.html
They've also got AMD to fess up to this behaviour.
We asked AMD if some cores are faster, and if the minimum requirement for a core is to reach the base frequency, to which AMD responded:
There are faster cores, as noted in Ryzen Master. All AMD processors are tested to ensure boost clocks and performance across various workloads meet the product definition.
Technically, AMD's only specified boost clock applies to a single-threaded workload, which you could argue means AMD only has to deliver a single core capable of delivering the maximum frequency. But, if there are several slower cores that can only reach the base frequency, that would surely impact performance in various multi-threaded workloads. We hope that AMD provides more clarity in the days to come.
Unlike Ryzen 1000 and 2000 ( and Intel ) where all cores are individually able to hit boost clock ( + a bit more with pbo ).
A bit put off by this, will definitely be waiting for later revisions / next gens to see how this works out. Be interesting to see if Intel have similar growing pains when 10nm parts are fully available.
https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-3000-turbo-boost-frequency-analysis,6253.html
They've also got AMD to fess up to this behaviour.
We asked AMD if some cores are faster, and if the minimum requirement for a core is to reach the base frequency, to which AMD responded:
There are faster cores, as noted in Ryzen Master. All AMD processors are tested to ensure boost clocks and performance across various workloads meet the product definition.
Technically, AMD's only specified boost clock applies to a single-threaded workload, which you could argue means AMD only has to deliver a single core capable of delivering the maximum frequency. But, if there are several slower cores that can only reach the base frequency, that would surely impact performance in various multi-threaded workloads. We hope that AMD provides more clarity in the days to come.
Last edited:
Permabanned
- Joined
- 28 Sep 2018
- Posts
- 0
I think people just need to go in with the expectation that these chips are set and forget. You might get the occasional performer but it's going to be very rare. At best, control your temps and let the chip do it's thing.
I do think AMD are on the verge of dishonesty with their promotion of max clocks and should be taken to task for it. If they're allowed to walk away from this, we can't then turn around and crucify other companies when they follow suit, which they will.
I do think AMD are on the verge of dishonesty with their promotion of max clocks and should be taken to task for it. If they're allowed to walk away from this, we can't then turn around and crucify other companies when they follow suit, which they will.
Is this another reasons they run much hotter than previous gen, that single threaded workloads are always pointed at the same core , rather than bouncing around from core to core , thus increasing load and temp in a much more local manner ?
Last edited:
Has that not always been the case, that the boost is just on one core?
With mine its core 5, indicated with a star in Ryzen Master, however they all boost to 4.2Ghz in light workloads, which surprised me as i was expecting just one or two to go full boost.
Also, we have to remember, these CPU's are on a brand-new 7nm node, Intel, on years old 10nm cannot get their CPU's much past 3Ghz, i think AMD did remarkably well to get them to <4.5Ghz
Yes it is the case that it would only boost on 1 core at any given moment, but .. all cores should be capable of hitting the boost individually. Now it seems via binning individual cores, potentially only 1 core in the whole CPU die may be capable of hitting boost clocks.
So on the 2700x , my single core will hit 4300 on any core, or 4349 with PBO. Not simultaneously, but any core can boost to max as needed.
Last edited:
Ok, maybe on these higher boost CPU's, but i've seen my CPU stick 4.2Ghz on all cores in light worklods line CS:GO, in heavy games like Star Citizen 4.05 to 4.1Ghz. Insurgency Sandstorm which is also quite heavy but not as much as ST its <4.15Ghz, in Cinebench its 3.95Ghz, tho i can lock them all to run at 4.2 permanently.
Sarcasm I hope?
Thats not the point thats being made.
On previous Ryzen , the single threaded boost clock , i.e 4300 on 2700x would reach 4300 on any of the cores in single threaded workloads.
Not 4300 on core 2 and 4 , but only 4100 on cores 0, 1 and 7 and only 4200 on 3 , 5 ,6
Ryzen 3600x now potentially wont hit 4400 single threaded bar one core and only one core, the other cores may only be capable of i.e. 4200 single threaded. At the most generous, thats dodgy marketing.
I'm telling you my CPU doesn't behave like that, it will boost to its advertised boost speed on any or all cores, I don't think its dodgy marketing, boost speeds have always been on one core only, the fact that only one core might be capable of that is irrelevant, its doing what CPU's have always done, as advertised.
No, youre completely avoiding the point and waffling on about your all core clocks and overclocking, nothing in that post talked about hitting boost clocks single core. You are aware your 3600x has a boost clock of 4.4 not 4.2 ?
And, NO, thats not how Ryzen (or Intel ) have worked previously.
Put down your AMD shield of steel. Your making yourself look a bit silly.
9900K boosts one core to 5Ghz, 1800X boosts one core to 4.1Ghz. 3700X boosts one core to 4.4Ghz, what's the problem?
i think he's getting at the fact it's apparently only 1 specific core as opposed to any of the cores, singly, being able to hit the boost freq