Skip to main content

Silicon Lottery Reveals AMD Ryzen 3000 Binning Stats

Silicon Lottery not only sells binned processors, but it's also a great source of information for binning statistics. The company has recently added the stats for AMD's Ryzen 3000-series processors to its database.

(Image credit: AMD)

The AVX2 frequency is the highest stable all-core speed the processor is able to achieve under AVX2 workloads. Silicon Lottery emphasizes that the AVX2 workloads are comparable to ones from Intel LINPACK and Prime95 version 28.9 and later. Unfortunately, the company didn't mention the sample size for each Matisse chip.

AVX2 FrequencyVoltage% Capable
AMD Ryzen 9 3900X4.20 GHz1.250VTop 6%
4.15 GHz1.237VTop 35%
4.10 GHz1.225VTop 68%
4.05 GHz1.212VTop 87%
4.00 GHz1.200V100%
AMD Ryzen 7 3800X4.30 GHz1.300VTop 20%
4.25 GHz1.287VTop 58%
4.20 GHz1.275V100%
AMD Ryzen 7 3700X4.15 GHz1.262VTop 21%
4.10 GHz1.250VTop 74%
4.05 GHz1.237V100%

Starting with the AMD Ryzen 9 3900X, Silicon Lottery's data show that only 6% of its samples were able to hit 4.20 GHz on all 12 cores with a voltage of 1.250V. Needless to say, this is a pretty disappointing figure for performance seekers who love overclocking their processors for extra performance. On the bright side, 35% of the tested Ryzen 9 3900X chips could do 4.15 GHz on 1.237V.

The numbers start to look more encouraging as we drop down to the Ryzen 7 models. Silicon Lottery notes that 20% of the AMD Ryzen 7 3800X samples were able to achieve an all-core boost of 4.30 GHz with a 1.300V Vcore. More than half hit the 4.25 mark GHz at 1.287V. Surprisingly, the Ryzen 7 3700X shows lower overclocking potential. Only 21% of Ryzen 7 3700X parts got to 4.15 GHz on 1.262V.

In conclusion, Silicon Lottery's statistics practically confirm what AMD has previously insinuated: that Matisse's performance has been optimized to the teeth, and there really isn't much manual overclocking headroom left. If you think it was hard to win the Silicon Lottery before, it's even harder now with Matisse. Barring you can get your hands on a ton of Matisse parts, like Silicon Lottery or Caseking, the chances of you finding a very superior chip is extremely slim.

  • MrN1ce9uy
    What's keeping AMD from hitting higher clock speeds?
    Reply
  • redgarl
    OC is now a thing of the past. SL themselves admit it. On the contrary, the fact that those chips are so close in term of frequency from each others demonstrate standard in the manufacturing process.

    ?rel=ugc]https://www.extremetech.com/computing/295693-the-end-of-high-performance-overclocking-may-be-nigh
    SL then writes:
    AMD has done a fantastic job here overall, and we’re very aware this is the start to the end of our company in general. As both AMD and Intel optimize their binning process more and more, overclocking will not be possible as CPUs will boost themselves on their own to the highest clocks possible.
    Reply
  • Aspiring techie
    MrN1ce9uy said:
    What's keeping AMD from hitting higher clock speeds?
    Likely density and architecture.
    Their IPC increase likely came at the expense of a little clockspeed.
    If they had simply done a die shrink of Zen+, I guess they would have hit slightly higher (~200MHz) clocks.
    But that's just my 2 cents.
    Reply
  • MrN1ce9uy
    I will give it to AMD for making very efficient chips. Intel's i9-9900K will heat up even the beefiest air coolers past comfortable temps even at stock clocks. So I will admit high clock speeds aren't everything.
    Reply
  • hannibal
    7nm... Intel has big difficulties to get high frequences at 10nm. So no wonder than amd is Also hitting the wall! It was surprice to even amd that They could increase the speed from zen+ so much!
    More cores less gigaherts in the future!
    Reply
  • TCA_ChinChin
    I might be completely misinterpreting something or just didn't catch something from the article, but is there a reason why voltages were kept so low? Surely they could have gained another 100 or 200 MHz simply by raising voltages to 1.35-ish volts without much detriment to the health of the processor? If it is heat related, then does SL mention that? Or is it simply because that number is the highest clock they will reach regardless of the voltage used, so they simply lowered the voltage to the lowest they could while keeping that max clock? That and the voltages used to achieve each result for each chip is quite different?

    Obviously SL isn't here to provide benchmark data for processors, they are just tuning these chips to their own standard, then going the extra mile to publish data on the results, but I'm just curious.
    Reply
  • AlistairAB
    TCA_ChinChin said:
    I might be completely misinterpreting something or just didn't catch something from the article, but is there a reason why voltages were kept so low? Surely they could have gained another 100 or 200 MHz simply by raising voltages to 1.35-ish volts without much detriment to the health of the processor? If it is heat related, then does SL mention that? Or is it simply because that number is the highest clock they will reach regardless of the voltage used, so they simply lowered the voltage to the lowest they could while keeping that max clock? That and the voltages used to achieve each result for each chip is quite different?

    Obviously SL isn't here to provide benchmark data for processors, they are just tuning these chips to their own standard, then going the extra mile to publish data on the results, but I'm just curious.

    Because it is 12 cores. That makes a lot of heat. If you try to run 12 cores at 1.35V too much heat would be produced, it isn't really a problem with voltage safety. Silicon Lottery tests with Prime95 for hours, so you can imagine how much heat Prime95 makes. If you're just gaming you can push up your voltage more.
    Reply
  • MrN1ce9uy
    TCA_ChinChin said:
    Or is it simply because that number is the highest clock they will reach regardless of the voltage used, so they simply lowered the voltage to the lowest they could while keeping that max clock?

    That's what I assumed. But...

    I know my board cranks my voltage to 1.45-1.5V and I consitently hit 4.275GHz on my Ryzen 7 3700X with everything on Auto. Temps are great too.

    Check it out.

    *Edit: I suppose they were using synthetic benchmarks. This is just a game using 40-50% of the CPU. Soo go figure.

    du97S72KT3AView:&rel=ugc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=du97S72KT3A]View: &rel=ugc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=du97S72KT3A
    Reply
  • derekullo
    On the bright side the difference in performance for the lowest versus the highest frequency is only
    4.7 % for the 3900X
    2.3% for the 3800X
    2.4% for the 3700X

    At least when compared to the i7-9700K with a 7.8% difference between the best and worse chips with AVX2.

    ?rel=ugc]https://siliconlottery.com/pages/statistics
    Some may look at this as a lack of overclocking room ... on the flipside it ironically means more guaranteed performance if you aren't buying from silicon lottery.
    Reply
  • tennis2
    Basically you can expect to eke out an extra 10% all-core over stock. Certainly not exciting for overclockers, but good news for the uninitiated.
    Reply