Even at -180 Degrees, Ryzen 3000 May Not Hit Boost Clock Speeds

As we've been covering, AMD's Ryzen 3000 series CPUs often have issues hitting and sustaining the advertised boost clock speed. A recent motherboard firmware update improved things a little bit, but often boosts the wrong core. Results vary based on chip quality, motherboard, and firmware, so I set out to see if adding more cooling would help get my store-bought Ryzen 7 3700X to hit or exceed its advertised top-speed of 4.4 GHz. What I found out is that, even when I used liquid nitrogen to freeze my processor down to -180 degrees Celsius, it was still stuck at 4.35 GHz, 50 MHz below its boost. However, as we'll see below, you can hit boost clocks by manual overclocking.

Testing AMD's Latest Update

Allen 'Splave' Golibersuch
Contributing Writer

A world-champion competitive overclocker who frequently tops the charts at HWBot, a site which tracks speed records, Allen will do just about anything to push a CPU to its limits. He shares his insights into the latest processors with Tom’s Hardware readers from a hardcore, push-it-to-the-limit overclocker’s perspective.

  • Darkbreeze
    The end of the article repeats the same paragraph twice, once before the CPU-Z graphic and once at the end of the article.
    Reply
  • NightHawkRMX
    We are seeing clock speeds that are 1% lower than what AMD advertised. I'd consider Ryzen 3000 boost clocks good enough, although I'm not sure if the results would be the same with a decent normal cooler.

    This entire article screams "I will complain about AMD being 1% off" since I have nothing useful to report on. Anyone that gripes about getting 99% of what they expect is a real pessimist and wasting their time.

    Can I see whether a 9700k hits rated boost clock under the same load and same scenarios?
    Reply
  • justin.m.beauvais
    Did you listen to nothing AMD said when they were talking about when they were discussing their boost speeds? They specifically said that Cinebench was NOT the proper way to measure maximum boost clock speed.

    I'll give you credit for excellent ABBA puns. It takes quite the Super Trooper to come up with all those. It just seems that by AMD's statements that your testing methodology was fundamentally flawed. Tom's previously tested the ABBA update and found AMD's statement to be accurate as well. They achieved higher momentary boost clocks with other workloads. Soooooooo, yeah. Thank You for the Music but When All is Said and Done I feel like this test is at best inaccurate.
    Reply
  • TJ Hooker
    This does seem to be beating a dead horse.

    And as said above, AMD has since clarified that a bursty single threaded load is the best way to observe max boost clocks, not consistent sustained loads like Cinebench.

    Following the installation of the latest BIOS update, a consumer running a bursty, single threaded application on a PC with the latest software updates and adequate voltage and thermal headroom should see the maximum boost frequency of their processor. PCMark 10 is a good proxy for a user to test the maximum boost frequency of the processor in their system. It is fully expected that if users run a workload like Cinebench, which runs for an extended period of time, the operating frequencies may be lower than maximum throughout the run.
    https://community.amd.com/community/gaming/blog/2019/09/10/ryzen-community-update-bios-updates-for-boost-and-idle-plus-a-new-sdk
    Reply
  • NightHawkRMX
    I think the only thing lost here is the writer's time, and not the performance of the CPU tested.

    They went through the trouble of testing on liquid nitrogen and still used a workload that AMD has stated will not boast the CPUs performance. This really reminds me of the Verge PC build where they built a high-end PC but yet played league of legends on it.

    Really if you test an AMD CPU and have an issue with it, you should show how the Intel equivalent performs to see if that CPU exhibits the same issue.
    Reply
  • Darkbreeze
    What those other articles DON'T cover though, is the fact that you can reduce the core voltage (Which we KNOW increases the longevity of the CPU) WHILE increasing the all core manually configured boost frequency, by manually configuring an overclock yourself and simply not allowing any of the automatic features to do their thing.

    That is worth noting, however, it isn't anything new and has been universally true across the board for as long as manufacturers have been CREATING boost profiles and automatically configuring voltage, for just about any platform you'd care to look at. So, it's really not a revelation, although it IS the first time I've seen anybody interject that into a major article pertaining to these concerns on Ryzen.
    Reply
  • TJ Hooker
    1.49V Vcore under load with stock settings does seem unusually high. I was under the impression that with Ryzen you may see it spike to high 1.4x sporadically under light/bursty load, but it would be less under sustained heavy load.
    Reply
  • CountMike
    Cinebench was never meant to or able to push CPU to limits, jus to measure performance for Cinema4D. My 3700x with 1003ABBA gets one or two cores up to 4.391GHz with other cores 4.25GHz while using Geek bench for instance can go over 4.41Ghz. That looks good enough on paper but beside it being close enough to "promised frequency" OS and programs may not hit preferred cores. RM declares that those are 02, 03 and 07 in that order in my case.
    Reply
  • owh88
    Many whiners here complaining about nothing and missing the point. I found this article very informative. The voltage delta between boost and fixed clocks is huge. The performance differential between boost and fixed at near identical clocks is also interesting. I would definitely want to know that, if I owned a Ryzen 3000, or was planning to buy one.
    Reply
  • splave
    NightHawkRMX said:
    We are seeing clock speeds that are 1% lower than what AMD advertised. I'd consider Ryzen 3000 boost clocks good enough, although I'm not sure if the results would be the same with a decent normal cooler.

    This entire article screams "I will complain about AMD being 1% off" since I have nothing useful to report on. Anyone that gripes about getting 99% of what they expect is a real pessimist and wasting their time.

    Can I see whether a 9700k hits rated boost clock under the same load and same scenarios?
    Only thing I complained about really was that using a fixed clock speed that is at the same speed as their reported boost of 4.4ghz you can use 0.25v less, have more performance and less heat on ALL cores! The entire article is about that, have another look. I even complimented that the cpu is 3600mhz on the box and runs at 4200mhz all cores without even changing anything in the bios.


    justin.m.beauvais said:
    Did you listen to nothing AMD said when they were talking about when they were discussing their boost speeds? They specifically said that Cinebench was NOT the proper way to measure maximum boost clock speed.
    I don't recall seeing it saying "4.4 boost clock (just not cinebench)" on the box anywhere? This is the point of independent testing. Regardless the article was to show that the maximum boost is irrelevant. Apply that clock to all your cores and enjoy maximum performance all the time while saving power. Please reference the charts.
    Reply