Survey finds huge proportion of AMD Ryzen 3000 CPUs aren't hitting advertised clock speeds

Written by Stuart Thomas on Wed, Sep 4, 2019 9:34 AM

UPDATE: Following the survey publicised yesterday, AMD has issued a statement addressing the widespread failure of its AMD Ryzen 3000 series processors to hit the advertised boost clock speeds.

Much more detail can be found in the original story below, but the general gist of the survey results was that as many as 94% of Ryzen 9 3900X users reported slower than expect clock speeds during benchmark testing.

"AMD is pleased with the strong momentum of 3rd Gen AMD Ryzen processors in the PC enthusiast and gaming communities. We closely monitor community feedback on our products and understand that some 3rd Gen AMD Ryzen users are reporting boost clock speeds below the expected processor boost frequency," wrote the AMD Ryzen account on Twitter.

"While processor boost frequency is dependent on many variables including workload, system design, and cooling solution, we have closely reviewed the feedback from our customers and have identified an issue in our firmware that reduces boost frequency in some situations. We are in the process of preparing a BIOS update for our motherboard partners that addresses that issue and includes additional boost performance optimizations. We will provide an update on September 10 to the community regarding the availability of the BIOS."

It's good to see AMD address this issue head-on and with speed. It's not a good luck to be selling potentially misleading products but, thankfully, it would appear as if it's just a simple BIOS update which separates most users from the advertised clock speeds.

We'll be sure to update you next week just as soon as AMD provides further information on the new BIOS update.

Original Story: 03-Sep-2019 - Survey finds huge proportion of AMD Ryzen 3000 CPUs aren't hitting advertised clock speeds

It emerged last month that a large proportion of AMD Ryzen 5 3600X owners were struggling to hit the advertised boost clock speeds. Now, it turns out the problem may run even deeper. Overclocker and YouTuber ‘der8auer’ ran an extensive survey with more than 2700 participants in an attempt to discover which Ryzen 3000 series processors suffered worse than expected boosting.

The survey asked AMD Ryzen 3000 users to run Cinebench R15 single core benchmarks, monitor the data using HWinfo, and then pass along the results. Der8auer filtered out of all of obvious troll results and outliers in an attempt to reduce the margin of error, although this data is, of course, not 100% reliable. The results, however, are certainly quite eye-opening.

CPUs tested included the Ryzen 5 3600 (21% of users surveyed), Ryzen 5 3600X (7%), Ryzen 7 3700X (40%), Ryzen 7 3800X (6%), and the Ryzen 9 3900X (26%). 

Failure to hit the advertised boost rates was more prominent in the higher-end processors. Approximately half of the Ryzen 5 3600 users survey could achieve the advertised boost clock speed of 4.2GHz, with the rest falling around 100 MHz short.

Things get worse for the Ryzen 5 3600X, with just 9.4% managing to hit the advertised clock speeds. That’s 90.6% of surveyed R5 3600X owners who couldn’t hit 4.4 GHZ. Ever. A handful fell as much as 300 MHz short.

Don’t go believing the news gets any better for high-end users though. The figures continue to drop the higher up the series we go, culminating in the Ryzen 9 3900X. This top-end Ryzen 3000 CPU could hit the advertised 4.6 GHz boost clock speed on only 5.6% of the systems tested.

The one big question mark hanging over a test such as this is the results and the methodology itself. Der8auer took plenty of measures to prevent rogue results, but upset customers are surely the likelier to respond. Despite this, the sheer mass of data points towards big problems on AMD’s end.

AMD will argue the advertised clock speeds are achieved under ‘optimum conditions’, naturally, but what just what are the conditions necessary when over 94% of their users are struggling to meet the target? Boost clock speeds are also typically advertised on a single core, and yet as we can see a large number of these CPUs can’t hit the rated clock speed whatsoever, on any core.

None of this necessarily makes these AMD Ryzen CPUs bad, necessarily, but AMD basing its marketing on those boost clock speeds sure does come across as misleading. It’s an advertising faux pas more than anything, with CPUs very rarely even expected to hit their top boost clock speeds, particularly for any extended period.

What are your thoughts on this little mess then, should AMD be re-branding its advertised Ryzen 3000 series boost clock speeds? Any Ryzen 3000 owners out there that have done any testing for themselves? Let us know below!

Source

Our favourite comments:

Just to add a note, AMD actually noticed this and they are working on new BIOS update, supposed to come out on 10th September. My source: https://twitter.com/AMDRyzen/status/1168901636162539536

Seth22087

Login or Register to join the debate

Rep
6
Offline
20:01 Sep-04-2019

Steve from Hardware Unboxed has a good take on this as well - board specific issues it seems :/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2SzF3IiMaE

0
Rep
76
Offline
admin approved badge
21:56 Sep-04-2019

Actually Der8auer did check that as well and found out that motherboard is not everything, because owners of HUB best board also had results all over the place. Steve from HUB did good job with small sample he has, but unfortunately the problem of small sample was that it didn't tell whole story. Still his video was made with good intention and I still appreciate him taking time to test it.

0
Rep
6
Offline
00:56 Sep-05-2019

To his credit Der8auer did cover this, yet was unable to conclude what was the true cause was. Meanwhile Steve had more to say... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iNcEwAJ4IQk&t=3265


Bios updates may solve some of this but who knows!

0
Rep
19
Offline
02:52 Sep-05-2019

If you ask me it's not the BIOS or the motherboards but the agesa aka "management engine" both are horrendous garbage inside of Intel or AMD CPU's. They enable some good stuff but are huge security risks not just the more public spectre and meltdown (you can download the mds tool) and you'll see how many issues there a

2
Rep
8
Offline
12:39 Sep-04-2019

It is true. Mine never get 4.4GHz. My PC is custom watercooled with coolant, two radiators, 2 120mm fans, and 2 140mm fans, and using Kryonaut. I also using 750W titanium PSU.


Highest I can get is 4316Mhz single core and 4057 all core. And that's with PBO and Auto OC.


Shame for whoever defending AMD for this case. But I hope it can get fixed soon.

4
Rep
97
Offline
admin approved badge
05:43 Sep-04-2019

Apparently it's a bug.


Sure AMD.

3
Rep
76
Offline
admin approved badge
21:59 Sep-03-2019

Just to add a note, AMD actually noticed this and they are working on new BIOS update, supposed to come out on 10th September.
My source: https://twitter.com/AMDRyzen/status/1168901636162539536

10
Rep
191
Offline
junior admin badge
08:07 Sep-04-2019

Looking fwd to the update.
If they finally fix that issue I'll praise them, if not I'll shame them.

3
Rep
94
Offline
19:15 Sep-04-2019

Either way, there's no point in shaming them. As if you have a better choice. Intel with their spectre/meltdown flaws, amd with this stuff. What other x86 cpu manufacturer is competing? Oh yeah, none.

3
Rep
76
Offline
admin approved badge
21:52 Sep-04-2019

Personally I am just happy that they are doing the right thing, meaning they admitted issue is there and they promised to fix it. As for whether issue gets fixed, we will have to see, I definitely hope they deliver. But only time will tell.

2
Rep
19
Offline
22:01 Sep-04-2019

btw the BIOS update isn't coming out on the 10th they said this "September 10 to the community regarding the availability of the BIOS" so theyll probably just say when the BIOS will become avalaible to AIB partners and then it's on them to get it worked out on their mobos. Tipically this takes awhile a few weeks

3
Rep
76
Offline
admin approved badge
22:05 Sep-05-2019

Now that I read it again, you are right. I guess I got excited bit too quickly. :-D But in any case, I do hope partners will be get BIOS updates out soon, based on nature of what it fixes.

0
Rep
19
Offline
23:00 Sep-05-2019

Yeah i think it depends on the partners apperently some are updating BIOSes daily and some take weeks/month to get an update out but hopefully they can nail down the issue atleast the stock boost clocks should work correctly regardless of motherboard/PSU/cooling solution (unless overheating ofc) the chips should hit it

0
Rep
191
Offline
junior admin badge
07:03 Sep-07-2019

Let's hope this whole fiasco will end before Intel does any more of their pitiful marketing.

0
Rep
-23
Offline
18:52 Sep-03-2019

This is still nothing compared to the Intel cpu flaw, I'd rather have lower clock speeds than having my cpu to meltdown or getting a Specter bug. AMD is doing fine, way better than their rivals.


We don't even know if that's even true, for all we know it could be just a BIOS issue.

3
Rep
14
Offline
17:28 Sep-03-2019

My 3600 only reaches 4075 in single core and 3975 in all core. If i activate PBO it could go to 4050 in all core and 4100 in single core in some cases, most of times it will stay in around those first numbers. i have a MA410M cooler.

0
Rep
7
Offline
17:34 Sep-03-2019

What motherboard are you using?Other than PBO, do you set everything manually or automatically?

1
Rep
14
Offline
00:36 Sep-06-2019

ASUS TUF X570 wi-fi with latest BIOS update. i have made no other changes than activating DOCP (XMP profile). Before that the CPU was running at the same speeds also...

0
Rep
405
Offline
admin approved badge
08:55 Sep-06-2019

I'm having pretty much same frequencies, actually a bit better with a low end B450 MOBO. Have personally tried all kinds of settings from BIOS and Ryzen Master but definitely cant get my 3600 to advertised boost speeds. Doesn't really bother me since the performance I'm getting with these speeds is almost equal to people managing to get their CPUs to bit higher frequencies.

1
Rep
-26
Offline
17:05 Sep-03-2019

please use brain


AMD use water cooler solution reach advertise boost speed!!!


all DEPEND Cooler TDP solution / Branded Power Supply/ Motherboard

0
Rep
3
Offline
18:41 Sep-03-2019

Dude no.

15
Rep
405
Offline
admin approved badge
10:58 Sep-04-2019

There have been tries where enthusiast overclockers like Der8auer and such have been attempting to hit advertised boost frequencies with liquid nitrogen without success.

0
Rep
19
Offline
16:55 Sep-03-2019

Statement from AMD: While processor boost frequency is dependent on many variables including workload, system design, and cooling solution, we have closely reviewed the feedback from our customers and have identified an issue in our firmware that reduces boost frequency in some situations.

10
Rep
19
Offline
16:55 Sep-03-2019

We are in the process of preparing a BIOS update for our motherboard partners that addresses that issue and includes additional boost performance optimizations. We will provide an update on September 10 to the community regarding the availability of the BIOS.” So it does look like it was a BIOS issue according to AMD

9
Rep
-13
Offline
14:48 Sep-03-2019

Maybe those clock speeds are achievable with better coolers, and turning off SMT could help achieve those clock speeds

1
Rep
58
Offline
admin approved badge
14:20 Sep-03-2019

Well they have just settled the bulldozer lawsuit so their lawyers won't get bored until the ryzen-gate lawsuits.

4
Rep
19
Offline
14:29 Sep-03-2019

They settled for 12mil when it would have costed 80mil+ to cover all of the CPU's. absolute fiesta of a lawsuit AMD saying "we'll settle this but we still dont agree with the fact that we "lied"about how many cores are in FX chips" atleast nvidia made the settlement fund unlimited for the 970 but still paid 30$ LUL

8
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
14:54 Sep-03-2019

Chances are that everything was fine while at low volume but it all went wrong when mass production started

0
Rep
19
Offline
15:50 Sep-03-2019

Probably but if you look at the video from der8uer very few can go above 4.5 i think most can do that on x570 only and thats mostly single core. But it's also true Ryzen doesn't really benefit from clock speed all that much unlike Intels 14nm and previous chips which scale incredibly well with clock speed. so it's fine

0
Rep
75
Offline
13:28 Sep-03-2019

They must have recruited their marketing team from the broadband providers....with speeds of up to...

5
Rep
7
Offline
13:11 Sep-03-2019

Already answered on previous similar topic,but I'll just post it again.My 3600 have no trouble running 4.2 all core almost all the time.Cooler is H100iV2,X470 Gaming Pro Carbon on 2.9M BIOS,PBO disabled.16GB of HyperX Predator 3200Mhz.

0
Rep
7
Offline
13:15 Sep-03-2019

If CAM software is accurate,then the clock max out occasionally at high 4.3Ghz,with voltage around high 1.4v.But HWinfo readings shows consistently 4.2 all core all day.Feel sorry for people who're having problems with their new CPU.

0
Rep
383
Offline
senior admin badge
13:19 Sep-03-2019

Yeah, just gotta get lucky I guess. I doubt it has a hugely meaningful impact on gaming performance though

1
Rep
7
Offline
15:21 Sep-03-2019

Yes, I also doubt that that's going to have any impact on performance.

2
Rep
7
Offline
13:17 Sep-03-2019

Let's just hope that future BIOS update will improve the CPU performance. If that's possible, that is.

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
13:27 Sep-03-2019

Chanced are that future bioses will lower the boost clock target

2
Rep
19
Offline
13:32 Sep-03-2019

What i don't understand is why he doesn't use PBO. Do you use PBO? Doesn't it perform better than a manual OC? Atleast that's what i heard or is that wrong? Either way manually OCing Ryzen seems pointless unless it gets a benefit to perf

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
14:19 Sep-03-2019

First gen ryzen has next to no boost when running on all cores, my cpu runs at 3.725ghz all core boost at best, but manual overclocking is pointless as 4.0ghz is only 7% higher than 3.725ghz

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
14:19 Sep-03-2019

Also I was referring to ryzen 3000 series

0
Rep
19
Offline
14:24 Sep-03-2019

Im talking about pbo not "boost" ? lol have you used PBO? PBO is avalaible to all Ryzens now with the bios updates right? Unless you havent updated and yeah i know you were referring to ryzen 3000 but im asking you whether or not you used pbo?

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
14:44 Sep-03-2019

No still no point.
An overclock less than 20% is not even worth thinking about let alone considering it. Only the r7 1700 and r5 1600 are worth overclocking as they can get a solid 30-35% overclock easily

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
14:56 Sep-03-2019

R3 1200 overclock to 4.1ghz easily too, be it pro or manual for those.
Ryzen 2000 and 3000 are just pointless and all ryzen 1000X cpus

0
Rep
7
Offline
15:15 Sep-03-2019

PBO in its current state freaked me out.When I first test my 3600 with cinebench R20, the temp rose up to low 100C.Never in my life I had that kind of temp,and using an AIO.I was too panicked and didn't saw what's the voltage and clock

0
Rep
7
Offline
15:19 Sep-03-2019

I left PBO enabled when I used my late R5 1600 because there's no strange behaviour.My R5 1600 ran at 3.9 with 1.35V and the max temp was around 70c

0
Rep
7
Offline
15:25 Sep-03-2019

That's why after I saw that kind of temp,I went on an assuming that's the PBO in action.Disabled it and everything runs well after that,at least this far.I also read somewhere that AMD removed the temp limit for Ryzen 3000

0
Rep
19
Offline
15:40 Sep-03-2019

Yep PBO spikes temps to 90C-100c easily as it maxes out Ryzen clocks and it also shows the "headroom" on Ryzen more clearly i get similar temps at 5.4 but im not running at that clock speed as those temps are too high even though Intel chips have no problem running at Tjunc just like Ryzen it will just throttle itself

0
Rep
19
Offline
15:42 Sep-03-2019

Apple runs the macs with i7s and i9s at 90-100C constantly and they just throttle them. This isnt a smart thing to do as im sure the lifespan is getting reduced by a lot but modern hardware just throttles itself only way it will shut down is if the VRM's are overheating past 100-125C usually burns out the VRM's

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
15:44 Sep-03-2019

Idk about ryzen 3000, but for ryzen 2000 and ryzen 1000 to reach 90-100C it's the Voltage that is more worrying than the temperature itself

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
15:47 Sep-03-2019

In the past 3 years or so, all the vrms I've see on motherboards and gpus have a minimum safe operating temperature of 125C, many have started using better silicon and maybe something else and the safe operating temperature is 150C on many midrange and highend boards/pcb.


Happily the 105C vrms are gone

2
Rep
19
Offline
15:53 Sep-03-2019

Also yeah the voltage is scary and that's what PBO hammers it goes easily up to 1.6V atleast from what i've seen which is far too much. I once disabled the "SVID behavior" on my mobo and my CPU legit booted with 1.55V at stock settings...apperently disabling "SVID behaviour" sets it to Intel default settings LOL

0
Rep
19
Offline
16:10 Sep-03-2019

Oh okay good im glad they got rid of the 105C VRM's those were always the worst. I know PCB layering has gotten better for sure over the years.

0
Rep
7
Offline
16:50 Sep-03-2019

You guys are stud, because I honestly can't tolerate continuous 80c temp for my CPU. I'm on paranoid mode if the temp go slightly above 80c.Maybe later I'll test the CPU with PBO and see the clock and voltage value

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
17:32 Sep-03-2019

Can't say that the 105c ones are gone for sure, but even tgw two a320 boards ive looked at had 125c ones and with a ryzen 7 they would have throttled the clock speeds for sure xd


@Blueblabber, we are talking vrm temperatures, not core/cpu temperatures.


Also 80C is 15C away from 95C

0
Rep
7
Offline
17:45 Sep-03-2019

But you are comfortable with 90c - 100c CPU temp, aren't you?

0
Rep
19
Offline
19:23 Sep-03-2019

i dont think either me or psycho are comfortable with 90-100C temps. Pretty sure he doesnt exceed 70C and i also at 5Ghz never go over 75C (this is full AVX Cinebench r20 load so the worst case scenario for my CPU) gaming temps are 55-60C. Mostly around low 50's. But at 5.4 i get between 90-100C but i dont run my cpu

0
Rep
19
Offline
19:24 Sep-03-2019

at 5.4 cause i dont like 90-100C temps but like i said apple runs the intel chips at 90-100c in their macs so it must be fine. Never heard of CPU's dying in a mac mostly just a GPU and battery issues from what i remember so VRM's are usually the bigger issue.

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
21:40 Sep-03-2019

@Bluesblabber I'm fine up to 92-93C, but the last 4-5x chips I've had have been extremely cool. Core 2 duo, Core 2 duo, Core 2 quad, fx 6300 and ryzen 5 1600x, all CPUs with the stock coolers on full load with p95 ran under 55-60C(worst case scenario after long time of stress testing and until two months ago I didn't even have case fans) and I even overclocked my core 2 duo e7300 to 3.4Ghz on the stock cooler and never went over 70C(back then 82C was the max safe temp), but I couldn't find VRM spec for my motherboard, so I didn't push further, said motherboard is still alive and kicking.

0
Rep
19
Offline
21:53 Sep-03-2019

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gV2ra6N--XQ check this out for Control the 2080ti is actually 40% ahead lol but yeah these are 1440p settings still only a 1080ti will get you 60fps+ in this game on "optimized" medium-high settings pretty crazy stuff its insane to see such performance obviously no "RTX ON"

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
21:56 Sep-03-2019

RTX on or off I'd say the rtx 2080TI is still not worth it over a gtx 1080Ti for control(or in general for gaming anyway). :D

0
Rep
19
Offline
21:58 Sep-03-2019

Nah its not the 1080ti gets the job done but it is a bit scary to see a game hammer it this much it does mean only a 5700xt and 2070super will provide a solid 60fps experience (atleast at 1440p) :) but yeah this is the best case scenario ive seen of the 2080ti usually its only 20-30% ahead especially at 1440p or 4k

0
Rep
19
Offline
22:02 Sep-03-2019

I do wonder how the r9 290x or 290 hold up in this game the 780ti gets crushed but it's also aged piss poorly compared to the r9 200 series. Would be interesting too see if delivers a better performance although i kinda expect it to be 30fps with how unoptimized this game can be XD

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
22:04 Sep-03-2019
0
Rep
19
Offline
13:26 Sep-03-2019

4.2 or 4.3 is very common on Ryzen aka basically almost all of them can hit that clock speed on all cores. AMD however advertised them boosting up to 4.7 (in OC mode) in a marketing video before the CPU's came out. And since you are eating 1.4V at barely 4.3Ghz there's no headroom for 4.4 let alone 4.7Ghz. Either way

0
Rep
19
Offline
13:29 Sep-03-2019

Either way if you look at the video at the 3900x chart (which basically looks like a middle finger XD) 4225Mhz is the most common and only 4 actually hit 4.7Ghz. "under optimal conditions" So basically LN2? I can't think of any other way to hit that speed or above it the "boost" is also very temp dependand atleast PBO

0
Rep
7
Offline
15:37 Sep-03-2019

Just like my previous post in similar topic,I'm only stating the fact that my 3600 hit the advertised speed.I don't know about other CPUs in this series.If the author asking about CPUs other than 3600,I wont bother answering :D

0
Rep
19
Offline
13:08 Sep-03-2019

They should definetly advertise them more honestly and this applies to Intel aswell. However this does either show the terrible binning of these CPU's or either AMD lied about the clock speeds (or seriously rounded the numbers up) since they must have known how few actually hit them. the lower stack does better though

4

Can They Run... |

| 30FPS, Medium, 1080p
Ryzen 5 3500U 4-Core 2.1 GHz Radeon RX 540X 2GB Mobile 8GB
| 30FPS, Low, 1080p
Core i5-4670 3.4GHz GeForce GTX 1050 Ti EVGA Gaming 4GB 8GB
| 60FPS, High, 1440p
Ryzen 7 3700X 8-Core 3.6GHz GeForce RTX 2080 EVGA XC Ultra Gaming 8GB 32GB
| 60FPS, Medium, 1080p
Ryzen 7 4800H 8-Core 2.9GHz GeForce GTX 1650 Ti 4GB 8GB
| High,
Ryzen 7 2700 8-Core 3.2GHz Radeon RX 5600 XT Gigabyte Gaming OC 6GB 16GB
100% Yes [2 votes]
| 60FPS, Medium, 1440p
Ryzen 5 3600 6-Core 3.6GHz GeForce GTX 1070 Palit Super JetStream 16GB
50% Yes [2 votes]
| 60FPS, Ultra, 1080p
Core i7-11700K 8-Core 3.6GHz GeForce GTX 1060 Asus ROG Strix Gaming OC 6GB Edition 32GB
75% Yes [4 votes]
| 60FPS, Low, 1080p
Core i7-4770 4-Core 3.4GHz GeForce GTX 1060 Inno3D Compact 6GB 8GB
100% Yes [1 votes]
| 60FPS, High, 1080p
Core i5-9300H 4-Core 2.4GHz GeForce GTX 1650 8GB
| 60FPS, Low, 1080p
Ryzen 5 5600 6-Core 3.5GHz Radeon RX 5500 XT 8GB 16GB
Ryzen 5 5600 6-Core 3.5GHz Radeon RX 5500 XT 8GB 16GB
| 60FPS, Low, 1080p
Ryzen 5 5600 6-Core 3.5GHz Radeon RX 5500 XT 8GB 16GB
| 60FPS, Medium, 1080p
Ryzen 5 5600 6-Core 3.5GHz Radeon RX 5500 XT 8GB 16GB