• 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.

OcUK Ryzen 3000/Zen 2 review thread

Soldato
Joined
9 Nov 2009
Posts
24,767
Location
Planet Earth
AMD is offering free boot kits to update motherboard BIOSes


AMD new chipset drivers 01/08/2019




Ryzen 9 3900X



Ryzen 7 3800X


Ryzen 7 3700X


Ryzen 5 3600X


Ryzen 5 3600


Ryzen 9 3900X and Ryzen 7 3700X

https://techreport.com/review/34672/amd-ryzen-7-3700x-and-ryzen-9-3900x-cpus-reviewed
https://hexus.net/tech/reviews/cpu/132374-amd-ryzen-9-3900x-ryzen-7-3700x/
https://www.pcgameshardware.de/Ryze...Tests/Ryzen-7-3700X-Benchmark-Review-1293361/
https://www.techspot.com/review/1869-amd-ryzen-3900x-ryzen-3700x/
(World War Z has now been patched according to Techspot/Hardware Unboxed)
https://www.anandtech.com/show/14605/the-ryzen-3700x-3900x-review-amd-done-did-it
https://pcper.com/2019/07/amd-ryzen-7-3700x-ryzen-9-3900x-review/
https://hothardware.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-9-3900x-and-ryzen-7-3700x-zen-2-review
https://www.hardwareluxx.de/index.p...-ryzen-7-3700x-und-ryzen-9-3900x-im-test.html
https://www.overclock3d.net/reviews...n_7_3700x_ryzen_9_3900x_x470_vs_x570_review/1
https://www.kitguru.net/components/cpu/luke-hill/amd-ryzen-9-3900x-ryzen-7-3700x-zen-2-cpu-review/
https://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/amd-ryzen-7-3700x-ryzen-9-3900x-review,1.html
https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ryzen-9-3900x-7-3700x-review,6214.html
https://www.tomshw.de/2019/07/07/amd-ryzen-3900x-und-3700x-im-test-igorslab/
https://nl.hardware.info/reviews/9397/amd-ryzen-7-3700x-a-ryzen-9-3900x-review-intel-voorbij
https://lab501.ro/featured-articles/amd-ryzen-3000-part-ii-amd-ryzen-9-3900x-amd-ryzen-7-3700x
https://www.eteknix.com/amd-ryzen-7-3700x-&-ryzen-9-3900x-processor-review/
http://www.comptoir-hardware.com/ar...zen-2-x570-a-ryzen-7-3700x-ryzen-9-3900x.html
https://www.sweclockers.com/test/27760-amd-ryzen-9-3900x-och-7-3700x-matisse
https://news.mynavi.jp/article/20190707-854576/3
https://tweakers.net/reviews/7192/8...d-stoot-intel-van-de-troon-praktijktests.html
https://www.xanxogaming.com/reviews...w-english-dethroning-the-intel-core-i9-9900k/
https://www.planet3dnow.de/cms/47396-zen-2-amd-ryzen-7-3700x-und-ryzen-9-3900x-im-test/25/ <---- this has ARMA III results
http://www.comptoir-hardware.com/ar...70-a-ryzen-7-3700x-ryzen-9-3900x.html?start=0 <----Lightroom and DxO results
https://adoredtv.com/ryzen-9-3900x-and-ryzen-7-3700x-review-closing-the-gaming-gap/

Ryzen 9 3900X,Ryzen 7 3700X and Ryzen 5 3600


Ryzen 9 3900X,Ryzen 7 3700X and Ryzen 5 3600X


Ryzen 5 1600X vs 2600X vs 3600X vs Core i8 8700K in 30 games

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZzJCQkHXQSQ

Ryzen 5 3600 vs Core i5 9400F


Memory scaling benchmarks


Storage review


Tests on B450 and X470 motherboards


Tests on B350 motherboard

With top down air cooler blowing air on VRMs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRaZ2Txv13M


Without top down air cooler blowing air on VRMs

https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-ryzen-9-3900x-tested-on-cheap-b350-motherboard/

DAW Testing


Photoshop Testing


Linux Testing


The Stilt's analysis of Ryzen 3000



Video reviews

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDVUdpcKZMA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7AbNeht4tAE

(World War Z has now been patched according to Techspot/Hardware Unboxed)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUPBDzrpTdw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z3aEv3EzMyQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNH9FYgW8m4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IDyNDMzIC-Q

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98TO2KM30o0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZAqV6yo2vo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqQ2X1y0jvw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLwbhxckfqc
 
Last edited:
Soldato
OP
Joined
9 Nov 2009
Posts
24,767
Location
Planet Earth
Launch problems list

1.) Asus motherboards have BIOS problems which affect performance.

The Stilt said:
AMD supplied four different motherboards to the media, one from ASRock, ASUS, GIGABYTE and MSI. In case of the ASUS Crosshair VIII Hero Wi-Fi motherboard, the media was instructed to use 0066 bios build, which had been vetted and approved by AMD. However, newer bios builds were available and ASUS has also (allegedly) told the media to use those versions. What exactly has transpired here is still under investigation, but regardless of the actual reasons behind it, the consequences might be rather significant. In practical terms, all reviews which were done on ASUS Crosshair VIII Formula or Hero motherboards using other than 0066 bios build must be considered invalid, at least partially. Reviews using other ASUS motherboard models (not provided by AMD) are under suspicion as well.


The external power measurements (VRM DCR) revealed that the CPU was consuming significantly more power, than its power management should have allowed it to. I initially suspected that this was AMDs own doing, in an effort trying to boost the performance of the new CPUs even further, but further investigation indicated otherwise.

AMD had no part in it, and the actions by ASUS are the sole reason behind it. The investigation revealed that ASUS is altering one or more power management parameters of the CPU, causing it believe it consumes less power than it actually does. As a result, the frequencies will be higher than the actual power budget would normally allow to. Tricks like this are pretty much a common (mal)practice these days however, there is a good reason why this must be considered worse than the others: this "thing" is completely undetectable without external measurements and rather deep knowledge, but also there is no way to disable it either.

Asus responds!

07/08/2019 6:33 PM (GMT) - Update on the bios issue on Crosshair VIII Hero motherboard ("the thing").

Earlier today I received a response to my inquiries from ASUS. The response was rather technical and I cannot go into the specifics of what exactly it involved.
However, it confirmed my suspicions of what actually has caused the seen anomalies. A long story short; a mistake has been made and it has affected the results of multiple reviewers, including my own. In my own case, I ended
up discarding my own affected multithreaded results alltogether, before even releasing them. I'm still angry because of a lot of my own and other peoples work went to waste because of it. But like I said, mistakes do happen.
In this case all of the evidence and known facts suggest that this was indeed a mistake, caused by an extremely tight schedule and miscommunication between several different parties. Infact, all of the facts I can personally verify
indicate that despite the rather suspicious way this mistake happened, there never was any malicous intent involved.

ASUS also provided me a new bios versions for both Crosshair VIII Hero and Formula boards, which correct the mistake made in newer than the AMD approved 0066 bios builds.
Based on my own testing done on the 3900X SKU, the CPU now meets its specification in terms of the allowed power consumption (same way, as the approved 0066 build did). The new build has currently not been validated, so
it will take some time until its changes get reflected to builds available to the larger audience.

What kind of effects will the fixed bioses have then?

Based on my own testing (do note that silicon variation exists and that the sample size is one for 3900X):

- ~ 27W lower average power package power consumption (VDDCR_CPU & VDDCR_SoC, i.e. the main power rails)
- 7°C lower temperature (tDie, while using DeepCool Assassin II cooler)
- < 90MHz average frequency loss across all twelve cores in MT workloads

The above figures were recorded during Blender 2.80b runs, but they should translate almost directly to Cinebench R20 NT as well (based on my experience).

The peak power difference between the faulty and the fixed bioses is around 35W (Prime95).

Despite there is no question that a mistake was made, I'd still like to thank ASUS for two specific reasons: they didn't try to deny the existence of the issue (which btw. is the usual reponse within the industry), but also fixed it immediately.
I also do feel bad for the bios engineer, who had to stay over(over)-time to get the bios build done. Thanks for that. I also have to feel bad for ASUS, because this mistake might have smirched the reputation of their brand new Crosshair VIII -series motherboards.
And make no mistake, these are one of the best, if not the best X570 boards available at the market (a personal opinion).

At this point you should ask yourself if ASUS paid me off?
Everyone can be bought, its just the matter of the offered sum or bargain. Everyone claiming otherwise either lives in self-deception or frankly, is a moron.
I myself could definitely be bought. And rather cheaply too, I think. The thing is, just that at least until writing this, nobody has even tried to do so.

Besides of this statement, I also corrected an error AMD pointed out to me.
Despite the 3900X CPU has fused (factory programmed) Fmax ceiling of 4.65GHz, AMD only advertises 4.60GHz maximum boost.
I must admit that I was initially surprised to see the 3900X having 4.65GHz fused maximum boost limit, since AMD indeed only mentions 4.60GHz in their marketing materials.
Nevertheless, I'm yet to reach the advertised 4.6GHz either, so in that regard the only thing which changes is the CPU falling 25MHz short instead of 75MHz short of its advertised frequency.

2.)BIOS problems with even MSI motherboards. Anandtech is retesting their CPUs with a new BIOS.

Anandtech retesting with a new BIOS:
https://twitter.com/andreif7/status/1148170909322293248


D-8fA7DXUAAmQUf.png



3.)Possible Nvidia driver conflict causing lower clockspeeds.

Spanish article here:
https://www.xanxogaming.com/reviews...s_WHEA_PCI_Express_en_tarjetas_NVIDIA_GeForce

Comments from 4Reddit:

"Driver level errors associated with either the PCI Express bus and/or Nvidia GPUs may have prevented the chips from boosting properly - which was interesting because several reviewers today commented on not hitting advertised boosts. The author observed this behavior on both Gigabyte and MSI boards but only with Nvidia cards and at least for their own work decided it was sufficient enough to warrant not publishing any FPS benchmarks until sorted out."

"This is huge dude, he said he got boost to 4.65 GHz with the older 1.0.0.2 bios, even though PBO did not work on that BIOS. The newer 1.0.0.2 (NPRP press code) & 1.0.0.3AB BIOS were limiting his boost to 4.35 GHz
The driver WHEA errors seem to be unrelated and are a nVidia specific problem. They are probably still causing slowdown in benchmarks."

Thread:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/cacasv/very_interesting_writeup_of_an_issue_that_may/

More about the problem:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/cacwf9/psa_ryzen_3000_gaming_performance_is_being_gimped/

During the first three hours of testing of the AMD Ryzen 9 3900X processor, using the X570 AORUS XTREME board, I noticed the problem when PCMark 8 did not pass the first test after 40 minutes (this is a total of ten tests). I noticed WHEA error (Windows Hardware Error Architecture) in HWInfo64 (se this software for PC telemetry, highly suggested).

From there I also decided to pay more attention to HWInfo64 and also checked that the BOOST frequencies of the processor had problems, since it didn’t get to “boost” all its cores to the maximum that it should, which is 4.6 GHz. It reached 4.5 GHz to 4.575 GHz in a pair of cores and the rest of cores to 4.3-4.4 GHz… We used manufacturers chipset driver, we have used press chipsets, as more current chipset driver version, same results.



It seemed strange to me, so I first decided to write to my contact with GIGABYTE USA (Matthew Hurwitz, I thank him for all the time he has put in to find a solution) and showed him the WHEA (PCI Express) errors, as well as the rare behavior of the 3900X boost frequencies.

Midnight (Wednesday) GBT HQ gives us news and according to their tests, the new AGESA code, including NPRP BIOS (BIOS for press) replicated our results in single-core frequencies, BUT, the original BIOS (AGESA 1002, without code introduced NPRP) turbo boost was working well.

With this information, I decided to flash BIOS, the first BIOS released for the X570 AORUS MASTER board and surprise, the boost frequencies were working as they should, even beyond the processor at 4.65 GHz. The WHEA error problem in the PCI Express was still going on, so I kept pressing and trying if the problem was maybe the chipset driver.

Gigabyte responds:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/cag6gb/wtf_is_going_on_why_is_there_so_much_disparity/

Important distinction. AGESA !=BIOS. We are all provided the same AGESA code. If you go back and re-read Alex (reviewer) clearly states which BIOS had which AGESA. Further to this point he tried multiple vendors boards, and multiple boards per vendor. The thread you are looking for is what board had what AGESA.

Direct quote "the original BIOS (AGESA 1002, without code introduced NPRP) turbo boost was working well."
To clarify -

    • BIOS F4 (AGESA 1003) is the BIOS from the factory.
    • BIOS N11 (AGESA 1002 Combo) was the review BIOS.
    • BIOS F3C (AGESA 1003A) he tried.
    • BIOS F5C (AGESA 1003AB) he tried.
So lets not interchange BIOS versions with the base AGESA code.


    • Side note but may help parse the information. NPRP refers to the board/cpu/bios/driver/etc provided to media.
P.S. Today was day 1. We are all maxed out. Many of us missed our 4th of July and most of our weekend getting everything ready for today (Reviewers and companies alike). All the information you guys want is coming. We aren't machines :)

4.)Some 400 series motherboards will need to cut back on BIOS UI and RAID to use Ryzen 3000

https://www.techpowerup.com/257201/...ail-amds-zen2-backwards-compatibility-promise

AMD succeeded in delivering on its backwards-compatibility promise for the 3rd generation Ryzen processors on motherboards based on AMD 300-series and 400-series chipsets. This promise was very close to being derailed suggests a community thread on MSI forums. According to MSI representatives active on the forum, the capacity of the SPI flash EEPROM chip that stores the motherboard UEFI firmware is woefully limited to cram in the AGESA ComboAM4 1.0.0.3a microcode on many of its motherboards.

The company had to make several changes to its UEFI BIOS package that's currently being circulated as a "beta," to accommodate support for 3rd generation Ryzen processors along with AGESA ComboAM4 1.0.0.3a. First, it had to kick out support for A-series and Athlon processors based on the 28 nm "Bristol Ridge" silicon. Second, it had to [and this is a big one], kick the RAID module, breaking SATA RAID on many of its motherboards. Third, it had to replace its feature-rich Click BIOS 5 setup program with a barebones "GSE Lite" Click BIOS program, which lacks many of the features of the original program, and comes with a dull, low-resolution UI. This program still includes some essential MSI-exclusive features such as A-XMP (which translates Intel XMP profiles to AMD-compatible settings), Smart Fan, and M-Flash.The scary part? Many other motherboard brands appear to be using 16-megabyte EEPROMs on their older socket AM4 motherboards. These companies are bound to run into similar ROM capacity issues unless they keep their UEFI setup programs lightweight. Motherboards based on the latest X570 chipset feature 32-megabyte EEPROMs. The AMD X570 chipset lacks support for not just "Bristol Ridge," but also first-generation Ryzen "Summit Ridge" and "Raven Ridge" processors.

We recommend that unless you literally possess a 3rd generation Ryzen processor, do not update the BIOS of your older socket AM4 motherboard. You may risk losing features and break your RAID volumes. Find out the latest version of BIOS that has the classic AGESA PinnaclePI 1.0.0.6 microcode, and use that instead.

5.)AMD responds to concerns regarding idle voltages:

https://old.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/cbls9g/the_final_word_on_idle_voltages_for_3rd_gen_ryzen/

6.)Decoupling the Infinity Fabric and setting it manually improves gaming performance:
https://old.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/ccsh2v/has_anyone_tried_this_potential_gaming/

7.)Possible problem with NVME SSDs triggering WHEA,might be Windows

EDIT: Seems Intel SSDs are also affected. It's perhaps probable that all data storage devices that interface via PCI-E are affected.
EDIT2: There are reports that "putting an NVMe SSD in an m.2 slot that supports both PCIe and SATA (even if you're running in PCIe mode) eliminates the issue."
EDIT3: A Windows 10 bug from July 10th could also be the culprit: https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/ne...cannow-cant-fix-corrupted-files-after-update/

https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/cd7pqb/warning_samsung_nvme_ssds_also_subject_to_whea/

8.)MSI B450 Tomahawk problems

https://www.reddit.com/r/MSI_Gaming/comments/ch9qud/msi_livestream_conclusion/

MSI LiveStream Conclusion
renderTimingPixel.png

  • B450 Tomahawk will stay on GSI Lite and will not recieve the Click Bios 5 again, at least for Ryzen 3000 Series and upcoming. Users of 1000/2000 Series should stay on their BIOS.

  • GSI Lite BIOS will not going to have OC profiles again. Update: They are looking into it. No promise. Quote: " ***MSI Gaming:*** just checking some bios release note, OC Profiles might be back in future GSE-Lite bioses "

  • MSI is *now* aware of the problems regarding the Tomahawk and CPU Debug light issues and will investigate that problem. They hopefully have some new Infos next week, but no promise.

  • "Old" B450 MB (including Tomahawk) will have Ryzen support until 2020 (?)

  • If you just bought any B450 Board, you should return it and buy a MAX board instead. Its more "futureproof" for upcoming BIOS updates and its no hassle with Ryzen 3000 Series. (Official statement on livestream from MSI, wow.) Timestamp on stream: 1:40:29, you can watch it here -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_elcRHeVjI

  • After i asked this question: "Will there be an option to RMA an not working B450 Tomahawk and recieve an B450 Tomahawk MAX (maybe with additional charge) ?" They closed the stream. Quote: " ***MSI Gaming:*** Sorry it seems the stream dropped, anyway we are out fixing your Tomahawk issues. thanks for joining this was the last topic anyway. Thanks for joining and see you next week, hope to have an update on Tomahawk... no promise."

9.)AMD beta driver to fix Destiny 2 problem has been released:
https://www.guru3d.com/news-story/amd-ryzen-3000-issues-solved-with-chipset-driver-update.html

01/08/2019 update!

Community Update #5: Let’s Talk Clocks, Voltages, and Destiny 2

https://community.amd.com/community...te-5-let-s-talk-clocks-voltages-and-destiny-2
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
22 Oct 2004
Posts
13,367
Good work, only managed to watch hardware unboxed so far.
So for a gamer the smart money is a 3600x on a 470/450 board like a MSI tomahawk or pro carbon. So pretty much what most people are expecting.
 
Soldato
Joined
10 Jul 2010
Posts
6,277
Luckily I have no plans to upgrade at this moment (touches wood). But if I were to upgrade, I'd probably seriously consider AMD now - and that's coming from me who I admit myself that I am a fanboy, rightly or wrongly so. But I just can't ignore the price/performance of AMD and Intel any more.

Intel have had it good for far too long in my opinion. But will this be the push that has been desperately needed from AMD for so long that forces Intel to actually make something good and reasonably priced? I am not holding my breath, but it would be nice to see now.
 
Soldato
OP
Joined
9 Nov 2009
Posts
24,767
Location
Planet Earth
Bruh where is the 3800X? That is the one I bought lol

Not seen it reviewed so far!

Good work, only managed to watch hardware unboxed so far.
So for a gamer the smart money is a 3600x on a 470/450 board like a MSI tomahawk or pro carbon. So pretty much what most people are expecting.

Thanks. I think the Ryzen 5 CPUs look good value too.

Shouldn't that be Ryzen 3 or Zen 2 review thread?

I just noticed - I changed the title now!
 
Soldato
OP
Joined
9 Nov 2009
Posts
24,767
Location
Planet Earth
The Stilt said:
Strictly technical: Matisse (Not really)
First and foremost, a word of warning. When reading ANY of the AMD Ryzen 3000-series "Matisse" launch-day reviews, the first thing you should do is navigate to the page which lists the hardware setups.
AMD supplied four different motherboards to the media, one from ASRock, ASUS, GIGABYTE and MSI. In case of the ASUS Crosshair VIII Hero Wi-Fi motherboard, the media was instructed to use 0066 bios build,
which had been vetted and approved by AMD. However, newer bios builds were available and ASUS has also (allegedly) told the media to use those versions. What exactly has transpired here is still under investigation,
but regardless of the actual reasons behind it, the consequences might be rather significant. In practical terms, all reviews which were done on ASUS Crosshair VIII Formula or Hero motherboards using other than 0066 bios build must
be considered invalid, at least partially. Reviews using other ASUS motherboard models (not provided by AMD) are under suspicion as well.


Few days ago, I noticed certain anomalies, while measuring the power consumption of the different Matisse SKUs. Inspection of the power management parameters revealed no issues, which could have explained those anomalies.
The external power measurements (VRM DCR) revealed that the CPU was consuming significantly more power, than its power management should have allowed it to. I initially suspected that this was AMDs own doing, in an effort trying
to boost the performance of the new CPUs even further, but further investigation indicated otherwise.

AMD had no part in it, and the actions by ASUS are the sole reason behind it. The investigation revealed that ASUS is altering one or more power
management parameters of the CPU, causing it believe it consumes less power than it actually does. As a result, the frequencies will be higher than the actual power budget would normally allow to. Tricks like this are pretty much a common (mal)practice these
days however, there is a good reason why this must be considered worse than the others: this "thing" is completely undetectable without external measurements and rather deep knowledge, but also there is no way to disable it either.
Even a person such as myself, who can control most things on these platforms cannot disable this "thing". As you may notice, at the moment I call this issue the "thing", since I'm giving ASUS the benefit of a doubt.

The release schedule of Ryzen 3000-series CPUs was rather ridiculous to begin with for two reasons. The retail (or PR, production ready) silicon has been available for at least two months, and relatively finished motherboard designs even longer than that.
Yet AMD had decided to enforce EXTREMELY strict control (NLTR, nothing leaves the room) over the silicon samples. I could have had several different X570 motherboard models months ago, but I managed to lay my hands on the first CPUs just three weeks ago (give or take). The actual CPU samples were distributed to the media just six days prior to the launch date.

Due to the extremely tight schedule, I have worked around 16 hours per day, for the last couple of days. There is nothing I hate more in this world than seeing my work being wasted.
This time a substantial part of it was wasted because of something I had no control over. Unless ASUS can clearly prove that this "thing" happened due to a human error and wasn't intentional, I have to reconsider my relations with them.
Mistakes do happen, but regardless of the actual reasons behind it definitely shouldn't have happened.

Despite AMD instructed the media to use the approved 0066 bios build with Crosshair VII Hero, at the moment I have no idea how many of the reviewers ended up following those instructions and how many thought it would be a good idea to use the latest build (which in case of a new platform, most often is). Potentially this "thing" might have caused significant financial losses as well, in terms of additional salaries required to get the products re-tested with proper settings.

So then, what is affected? Technically every scenario on every Ryzen 3000-series SKU, which might be power limited. Purely single threaded workloads are fine, as well as at least most of the pure gaming tests.
However, every multithreaded CPU workload / benchmark must be considered invalid, if ASUS Crosshair VIII Hero with any other than 0066 bios version was used as the platform.

I used Crosshair VIII Formula for my tests, and since this model wasn't supplied to the media by AMD, there was no "official" (i.e vetted and approved) bios build for it either.
In my case I ended up discarding all of my multithreaded results. Since the Ryzen 3000-series multithreaded results were invalid, there was no point in keeping the multithreaded results for the other platforms either.
Since single threaded workloads are never power limited, these results were fine. In case of testing the SMT-yield on different architectures, the power limits were disabled anyway to avoid any potential biasing, so these results are included as well.

I originally intended to provide a lot more, but unfortunately the reality is that there was never enough time to do it all. The various different issues on several platforms and the "thing" (which was confirmed only yesterday) didn't help things either.
Also the issues with AGESA cross-compability also prevented testing the SMT-yield on Pinnacle Ridge. Because of that, I only provide the figures for Matisse, Coffee Lake Refresh and Skylake-X.

The Asus launch BIOSes have serious problem as they are breaking official spec!!
 
Associate
Joined
31 Dec 2010
Posts
2,427
Location
Sussex
The Asus launch BIOSes have serious problem as they are breaking official spec!!
Despite The Stilt's generous presumption of innocence, don't Asus have a long history of this kind of thing? Back in the socket 7 days (I think it was that long ago), they used to default to running the FSB +5% or so to come ahead in benchmark scores.
Decades later, (almost) everyone's doing it?
 
Soldato
OP
Joined
9 Nov 2009
Posts
24,767
Location
Planet Earth
Despite The Stilt's generous presumption of innocence, don't Asus have a long history of this kind of thing? Back in the socket 7 days (I think it was that long ago), they used to default to running the FSB +5% or so to come ahead in benchmark scores.
Decades later, (almost) everyone's doing it?

Main concern is what this is doing to the performance of the CPUs.
 
Associate
Joined
11 Jun 2013
Posts
167
wow. well done AMD! Although the gfx cards leave a lot to be desired - if i was to upgrade now it would be my first AMD system since the k6. I dont look at price/performance i just get the best mainstream i can at the time and its always been intel. AMD just ripped intel a new one at amazing prices. Although im very tempted to uograde my 8700k to the 3900X..
 
Soldato
OP
Joined
9 Nov 2009
Posts
24,767
Location
Planet Earth
Spanish article here:
https://www.xanxogaming.com/reviews...s_WHEA_PCI_Express_en_tarjetas_NVIDIA_GeForce

Comments from le Reddit:

"Driver level errors associated with either the PCI Express bus and/or Nvidia GPUs may have prevented the chips from boosting properly - which was interesting because several reviewers today commented on not hitting advertised boosts. The author observed this behavior on both Gigabyte and MSI boards but only with Nvidia cards and at least for their own work decided it was sufficient enough to warrant not publishing any FPS benchmarks until sorted out."

"This is huge dude, he said he got boost to 4.65 GHz with the older 1.0.0.2 bios, even though PBO did not work on that BIOS. The newer 1.0.0.2 (NPRP press code) & 1.0.0.3AB BIOS were limiting his boost to 4.35 GHz
The driver WHEA errors seem to be unrelated and are a nVidia specific problem. They are probably still causing slowdown in benchmarks."

Thread:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/cacasv/very_interesting_writeup_of_an_issue_that_may/
 
Caporegime
Joined
1 Jun 2006
Posts
33,484
Location
Notts
I havn't been AMD since the Athlons, but im seriously considering the 3700x, it seems fine for gaming, not that far behind the 9700/9900, and doesn't have all the security flaws. :p

seriously considering updating one of my rigs to a 3700x for a play what mobo ans ram to go with it though. not a 570x as dont like the fan or the price of them currently. fan goes your left with a waiting to be dead mobo. so which mobo do you pick ?
 
Back
Top Bottom