Who's Happy So Far with Ryzen 3000 Series?

JCNiest5

2[H]4U
Joined
Apr 25, 2005
Messages
3,830
Okay, tell us why you are happy so far with your new Ryzen 3000 series PC. Is it what you expected? Is it as hyped?
 
Joined
Feb 23, 2009
Messages
971
Me,My Ryzen is better than everyone else.10% Single IPC Increase over last generation.15% Multi IPC increase over last generation
 

jhatfie

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Mar 19, 2003
Messages
1,462
So far I am loving my 3900X. Had a 7820X before it that was a beast to cool when overclocked. Have not noticed a difference in gaming, but most everything else, the 12 cores are beast. Set it to 4.3Ghz all core and has been rock solid.
 

cybereality

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 22, 2008
Messages
5,189
Yeah, I'm happy. Updated from a 1600X to a 3600X on my secondary rig. It's been running great.
 

tangoseal

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Dec 18, 2010
Messages
8,371
Swapped my motherboard because I think the last one was bad. Much better performance.

I like the 3900x
Its hitting 4.5 jiggahurts regularly.
 

pandora's box

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 7, 2004
Messages
4,556
Me,My Ryzen is better than everyone else.10% Single IPC Increase over last generation.15% Multi IPC increase over last generation
This and the fact that it was plug and play with my asrock x470 taichi board. Minimum frame rates in games have skyrocketed VS my 2600x
 

Calavaro

Whiskey & Honey
Joined
Apr 11, 2001
Messages
8,235
My brand new 3900x build is amazing. It does more than I hoped it would. It equals and surpasses the TR1950x every time, and even beats the TR2950x in many loads.
These many core CPU's are insanely good. Fuck Intel for gimping the desktop with 4 cores for a decade. Fuck them to hell and back for that.
 

tangoseal

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Dec 18, 2010
Messages
8,371
What motherboard?
Gigabyte aorus master


Something was wrong with that board.

After swapping I get higher boost clocks as well as an overall more stable system.

It was dumping bios and for no reason I had to use Q flash plus twice to restore the board. New board has been great.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: N4CR
like this

somebrains

Gawd
Joined
Nov 10, 2013
Messages
896
My brand new 3900x build is amazing. It does more than I hoped it would. It equals and surpasses the TR1950x every time, and even beats the TR2950x in many loads.
These many core CPU's are insanely good. Fuck Intel for gimping the desktop with 4 cores for a decade. Fuck them to hell and back for that.
Obviously you didn't run 7900x or 7840x to generate invoices.
 

Mode13

Gawd
Joined
Jun 11, 2018
Messages
757
I'm mostly happy with my new rig (3700x + Aorus Pro Wifi + 32GB Hynix CJR). It's twice as fast as my old 4790k at everything (except gaming of course). Have had no crashing or driver issues but I do have some gripes. I get good enough performance, though of course when I do high refresh gaming - there is a bit of remorse and wondering if I should have grabbed a 9700k/9900k, but I'm planning on upgrading this to a 16 core (hopefully 4950x) down the line, so it felt like the better investment. In the short term (minus power consumption) the 9900K with a cheaper board would have come out to about the same price and be the better performer in nearly everything.

My gripe, like mostly everyone, is the boost clocks / nothing happening with PBO. I was excited when I saw that Robert Hallock (link) video advertising the ability to +200 boost these CPUs. Out of the box with PBO on, I get 4250 on all 8 cores during gaming (4175ish under AIDA64 stress load) so the all core performance is very nice. However, My max boost is only 4315 and that comes very rarely in a small enough flash to make it useless. So I effectively have a 4.25ghz all core CPU that doesn't boost at all, and I've never seen the box rated 4400 (chip is under water too). I'd like to see a fix, but not expecting much as it's hard enough to even get a single ccx above 4300mhz on the 3700x. This chip is completely maxed out, and clearly the lowest of the low binned full 8 core CCDs.

The gimped memory write speed also annoyed me a bit (didn't do my due diligence before buying), I understand it's still within spec and wont hurt games and most mainstream applications, but, it's still literally a 50% drop in write performance and the "to save power" reason they gave makes no sense, unless the 3800x has dual CCDs, that chip should also have 28000MB/s~ write speeds at the same 105W as the 3900x, so that sounds like a lie to me. The truth is it's just a side effect of the design, but one that won't be noticed by the average consumer, so I'm just annoyed by the explanation primarily.

so, knowing what I know now. I would do a 3600 for $199 or go all out on a 3900x (or soon 3950x). 3700x is kind of the monkey in the middle, too expensive for what it is, too cheap to be the top of the line. Same should apply to 3800x.
 
Last edited:

janas19

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 20, 2012
Messages
1,759
I don't own a Ryzen 3000 CPU. I just love the fact that threads like this exist
Intel was the only player in town from Sandy Bridge until Ryzen. Things were extremely boring on the CPU side for years. Whether you are pro Intel or AMD, at least we have options and a debate going on again.
 
Joined
Feb 23, 2009
Messages
971
I'm mostly happy with my new rig (3700x + Aorus Pro Wifi + 32GB Hynix CJR). It's twice as fast as my old 4790k at everything (except gaming of course). Have had no crashing or driver issues but I do have some gripes. I get good enough performance, though of course when I do high refresh gaming - there is a bit of remorse and wondering if I should have grabbed a 9700k/9900k, but I'm planning on upgrading this to a 16 core (hopefully 4950x) down the line, so it felt like the better investment. In the short term (minus power consumption) the 9900K with a cheaper board would have come out to about the same price and be the better performer in nearly everything.

My gripe, like mostly everyone, is the boost clocks / nothing happening with PBO. I was excited when I saw that Robert Hallock (link) video advertising the ability to +200 boost these CPUs. Out of the box with PBO on, I get 4250 on all 8 cores during gaming (4175ish under AIDA64 stress load) so the all core performance is very nice. However, My max boost is only 4315 and that comes very rarely in a small enough flash to make it useless. So I effectively have a 4.25ghz all core CPU that doesn't boost at all, and I've never seen the box rated 4400 (chip is under water too). I'd like to see a fix, but not expecting much as it's hard enough to even get a single ccx above 4300mhz on the 3700x. This chip is completely maxed out, and clearly the lowest of the low binned full 8 core CCDs.

The gimped memory write speed also annoyed me a bit (didn't do my due diligence before buying), I understand it's still within spec and wont hurt games and most mainstream applications, but, it's still literally a 50% drop in write performance and the "to save power" reason they gave makes no sense, unless the 3800x has dual CCDs, that chip should also have 28000MB/s~ write speeds at the same 105W as the 3900x, so that sounds like a lie to me. The truth is it's just a side effect of the design, but one that won't be noticed by the average consumer, so I'm just annoyed by the explanation primarily.

so, knowing what I know now. I would do a 3600 for $199 or go all out on a 3900x (or soon 3950x). 3700x is kind of the monkey in the middle, too expensive for what it is, too cheap to be the top of the line. Same should apply to 3800x.
I have no remorse with my purchase of 3600X yep you made a bad purchase.I agree.

Just to rub it in my 3600X on a crap X470 cheapest motherboard around

3600X Hitting 4500Mhz Cinebench 20

3600X Hitting gaming 4525Mhz as all the Ryzen 3xxx should do.

Valley Benchmark/outlast 2/Alien Isolation
 

Mode13

Gawd
Joined
Jun 11, 2018
Messages
757
I have no remorse with my purchase of 3600X yep you made a bad purchase.I agree.

Just to rub it in my 3600X on a crap X470 cheapest motherboard around

...
lmao, all that money for the x570 board and you get the big boost :p.. I see you have your memory at 3733 as well, I've had people telling me the reason for my boost not working properly is because of the RAM speed (reports of boost breaking at 3600 and above).. Clearly not true.

Is this typical for all 3600x though or are you just the lucky one? I haven't seen anybody with consistent boosts to [box rating] and above on any chip yet.
 

Ocellaris

Ginger @le, an alcoholic's best friend.
Joined
Jan 1, 2008
Messages
18,866
x570’s primary selling point is e-points for end users and it’s “new”. The value proposition for the platform is non existent and there are already people running Ryzen 3x00 chips on A3x0 motherboards with no performance loss (and the VRMs aren’t melting). By the time PCIE 4.0 matters everyone will have moved on to something else. That’s OK though, because it’s shiny and new with a lot of the boards looking really nice.

Mostly X570 is keeping motherboard OEMs happy with new expensive products to sell.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Feb 23, 2009
Messages
971
x570’s primary selling point is e-points for end users and it’s “new”. The value proposition for the platform is non existent and there are already people running Ryzen 3x00 chips on A3x0 motherboards with no performance loss (and the VRMs aren’t melting). By the time PCIE 4.0 matters everyone will have moved on to something else. That’s OK though, because it’s shiny and new with a lot of the boards looking really nice.

Mostly X570 is keeping motherboard OEMs happy with new expensive products to sell.
This is so true,X570 is nice if someone had a need for PCIE 4.0 and fast transfer speeds or buy a cheap AMD 5700 and it is just as fast as RTX 2080 in encoding videos for content creaton. Note:to the person I trigger ,it is not faster in every encoding scenario but for the price good buy.

lmao, all that money for the x570 board and you get the big boost :p.. I see you have your memory at 3733 as well, I've had people telling me the reason for my boost not working properly is because of the RAM speed (reports of boost breaking at 3600 and above).. Clearly not true.

Is this typical for all 3600x though or are you just the lucky one? I haven't seen anybody with consistent boosts to [box rating] and above on any chip yet.
Well glad you did not take my post the wrong way,I knew there would be no real difference in X370/X470/X570 so I was keeping my X470 Motherboard from the get go but I still may buy a X570 for fun.

Boost override thing,it really all depends on how the BIOS works.(I assume)
I am using AMD Combo PI1.0.0.3 BIOS so I can set boost override over what's written on the box without problems.IF I used newer BIOS Combo PI1.0.0.3ab I may not get the same boost override.I suspect this is the same with X570 Motherboards.

I also can run my memory @ CL16 4200Mhz with ease and boost override still works the same but it does not give a gaming performance advantage over CL16 3733Mhz with all clocks 1:1:1.
I only just game so all is good and that is what I want with boost override for gaming,not that it makes a difference.

I also not seen people reporting boost override clocks higher than what's on the box but it is possible and Ryzen is new maybe most people just do not even know about it.
 

N4CR

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 17, 2011
Messages
4,466
I'm mostly happy with my new rig (3700x + Aorus Pro Wifi + 32GB Hynix CJR). It's twice as fast as my old 4790k at everything (except gaming of course). Have had no crashing or driver issues but I do have some gripes. I get good enough performance, though of course when I do high refresh gaming - there is a bit of remorse and wondering if I should have grabbed a 9700k/9900k, but I'm planning on upgrading this to a 16 core (hopefully 4950x) down the line, so it felt like the better investment. In the short term (minus power consumption) the 9900K with a cheaper board would have come out to about the same price and be the better performer in nearly everything.

My gripe, like mostly everyone, is the boost clocks / nothing happening with PBO. I was excited when I saw that Robert Hallock (link) video advertising the ability to +200 boost these CPUs. Out of the box with PBO on, I get 4250 on all 8 cores during gaming (4175ish under AIDA64 stress load) so the all core performance is very nice. However, My max boost is only 4315 and that comes very rarely in a small enough flash to make it useless. So I effectively have a 4.25ghz all core CPU that doesn't boost at all, and I've never seen the box rated 4400 (chip is under water too). I'd like to see a fix, but not expecting much as it's hard enough to even get a single ccx above 4300mhz on the 3700x. This chip is completely maxed out, and clearly the lowest of the low binned full 8 core CCDs.

The gimped memory write speed also annoyed me a bit (didn't do my due diligence before buying), I understand it's still within spec and wont hurt games and most mainstream applications, but, it's still literally a 50% drop in write performance and the "to save power" reason they gave makes no sense, unless the 3800x has dual CCDs, that chip should also have 28000MB/s~ write speeds at the same 105W as the 3900x, so that sounds like a lie to me. The truth is it's just a side effect of the design, but one that won't be noticed by the average consumer, so I'm just annoyed by the explanation primarily.

so, knowing what I know now. I would do a 3600 for $199 or go all out on a 3900x (or soon 3950x). 3700x is kind of the monkey in the middle, too expensive for what it is, too cheap to be the top of the line. Same should apply to 3800x.
Seen recent bios and tweaking get people to the 4.5 range. Dan D had Same experience also tangoseal rma his board and got much better clocks. Seems setup/config/mostly firmware issue at the moment.
 

ole-m

Limp Gawd
Joined
Oct 5, 2015
Messages
452
4450 mhz over 12 cores with excellent ipc without using trillion watts- I'm a happy camper
 

Criticalhitkoala

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Apr 17, 2015
Messages
1,727
I'm content. To be fair, after the initial hooplah of having several new pieces of gear...it quickly died down into being normal again. I ended up getting a 3900x and a 3700x to replace my 5930k/2700x system. I still have my 5960x and to be honest my general usage feels the same on all the machines. Apex does run nice on the 3900x, and it churns on the 3700x with a 1660 but it's not FLOOR me it's fast. Pretty much it feels like I got the same performance equivalent or slightly better over machines I purchased 3 years ago. This isn't a complaint, or something bad...I just feel like the honeymoon period ended fairly quickly.

Would I buy Ryzen 3 again if given the choice. Yep!
 

RamonGTP

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Nov 9, 2005
Messages
7,895
Overall I'm pretty happy, but not 100% satisfied.

I feel AMD overplayed the boost potential of these chips. I'd be very luck to get to 4.5GHz and that which lasts for about half a second (chip is advertised for 4.6 single core).

Traditional overclocking is dead. These chips are running at full potential right out of the box, which means as soon as this thing starts getting slow, there's no option for me to go in there and squeeze out a bit more performance to extend it's useful life. I suppose I could do a drop in CPU upgrade if that is an option, but that's not free and I don't remember the last time I did a CPU upgrade without going with a whole new build/platform.

The bug affecting Destiny 2/Linux is annoying. I own Destiny 2 but I don't really play it but it makes me feel like I have a faulty part, particularly since there's no fix yet and we are going on 3 weeks with these CPU's and chipsets having been released.

A handful of other bios bugs that are also annoying

As far as usage, it's been pretty good. General usage is slightly snappier, thanks to the OS running on a PCIe 4 NVME drive vs a SATA SSD in my previous system. Not a huge difference in general usability, but it's noticeable depending on application.

Gaming performance is better in some cases, the same in some and worse in one (two if you count Desitny 2). BF5 is silky smooth and i'm hitting significantly higher FPS and maintaining much better minimum FPS. Assassins Creed: Unity on the other hand has the same FPS characteristics as BF5 (higher average and minimums) but has quite a bit more hitching than it did before (which was almost never). I'm hoping as drivers and BIOS' mature this will smooth out, but updates seem to be taking their time.

The system appears to be quite stable which is of course a good thing. I have not had a single system hang, random reboot, etc etc.

4k video editing/encoding is really where this new machine puts a smile on my face each time. H265 only takes half a life time instead of 3 lifetimes to complete
 

DuronBurgerMan

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
1,354
Overall I'm pretty happy, but not 100% satisfied.

I feel AMD overplayed the boost potential of these chips. I'd be very luck to get to 4.5GHz and that which lasts for about half a second (chip is advertised for 4.6 single core).

Traditional overclocking is dead. These chips are running at full potential right out of the box, which means as soon as this thing starts getting slow, there's no option for me to go in there and squeeze out a bit more performance to extend it's useful life. I suppose I could do a drop in CPU upgrade if that is an option, but that's not free and I don't remember the last time I did a CPU upgrade without going with a whole new build/platform.

The bug affecting Destiny 2/Linux is annoying. I own Destiny 2 but I don't really play it but it makes me feel like I have a faulty part, particularly since there's no fix yet and we are going on 3 weeks with these CPU's and chipsets having been released.

A handful of other bios bugs that are also annoying

As far as usage, it's been pretty good. General usage is slightly snappier, thanks to the OS running on a PCIe 4 NVME drive vs a SATA SSD in my previous system. Not a huge difference in general usability, but it's noticeable depending on application.

Gaming performance is better in some cases, the same in some and worse in one (two if you count Desitny 2). BF5 is silky smooth and i'm hitting significantly higher FPS and maintaining much better minimum FPS. Assassins Creed: Unity on the other hand has the same FPS characteristics as BF5 (higher average and minimums) but has quite a bit more hitching than it did before (which was almost never). I'm hoping as drivers and BIOS' mature this will smooth out, but updates seem to be taking their time.

The system appears to be quite stable which is of course a good thing. I have not had a single system hang, random reboot, etc etc.

4k video editing/encoding is really where this new machine puts a smile on my face each time. H265 only takes half a life time instead of 3 lifetimes to complete

AMD released a beta chipset driver that fixes Destiny 2 just today. I have a thread about it elsewhere in here.
 

daglesj

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 7, 2005
Messages
5,181
I'm asking my customers to wait another 3 months if they call up asking me to build one or just go with a top range 2000 series.

Nothing more boring than a PC that doesnt work. Plus I hate having to send parts back.

As for Boost? Well it's early in the process. Give it 6 months and those newer chips will be boosting like crazy most probably.
 

jolli

Gawd
Joined
Dec 17, 2010
Messages
773
I am mostly happy with my build. Like almost everyone else, my stock boost numbers for the 3900X are lower than expected (especially for a single core). However, the temperatures really aren’t that bad, and I have set my fan profile to not start ramping up until 65 degrees Celsius (which made a huge difference in the noise level even while gaming or running benchmarks).

The combination of the 3900X, a 2080 Ti, and a 144Hz Gsync monitor is providing an amazing gaming experience. I am constantly amazed how subjectively smooth everything appears.

If I could do it again I might have waited for the 3950X and bought different RAM. The platform should be a lot more mature by then and I would have had a better idea which components to purchase, instead of blindly ordering what I thought looked good launch day.
 

RamonGTP

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Nov 9, 2005
Messages
7,895
If I could do it again I might have waited for the 3950X and bought different RAM. The platform should be a lot more mature by then and I would have had a better idea which components to purchase, instead of blindly ordering what I thought looked good launch day.
Honestly, with the exception of the 3950x being the better multi-threader, I think you're just fine with your component selection. This is the 3rd Ryzen system I've built (1st one for myself). The first two were 2700X machines with x470 boards. The first was an early one which was very picky, the second was a later one which went a lot smoother. Ryzen 3000 has made memory selection even eaiser still with pretty much any stick being compatible and having relatively flat performance with a wide array of speeds and timings. Even if you were very deliberate with your RAM selection, difference in performance would likely be unnoticed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jolli
like this

motqalden

[H]ard|DCOTM Feb 2018, June 2019
Joined
Jun 22, 2009
Messages
1,399
Gotta say I am pretty happy so far. Like someone else in this thread said my 3900x is equal or often better than my 1950x and it sucks less power and produces less heat. I also saved quite a bit on full platform costs.
 

Link

Gawd
Joined
Jul 28, 2002
Messages
638
Overall I'm, but the fact that there is no overclocking headroom really annoys me.
You can say I'm spoiled by Intel.
 

STEM

Gawd
Joined
Jun 7, 2007
Messages
583
My brand new 3900x build is amazing. It does more than I hoped it would. It equals and surpasses the TR1950x every time, and even beats the TR2950x in many loads.
These many core CPU's are insanely good. Fuck Intel for gimping the desktop with 4 cores for a decade. Fuck them to hell and back for that.
Did you own a Threadripper 1950X or a 2950X for an extended period of time?

Intel didn't gimp the "desktop", they just didn't give a shit and because of lack of competition, there wasn't really a demand for more. It's kinda silly to compete with yourself, just ask NVIDIA.
 

RamonGTP

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Nov 9, 2005
Messages
7,895
Gaming performance is better in some cases, the same in some and worse in one (two if you count Desitny 2). BF5 is silky smooth and i'm hitting significantly higher FPS and maintaining much better minimum FPS. Assassins Creed: Unity on the other hand has the same FPS characteristics as BF5 (higher average and minimums) but has quite a bit more hitching than it did before (which was almost never). I'm hoping as drivers and BIOS' mature this will smooth out, but updates seem to be taking their time.
Just wanted to update this portion of my post. The latest chipset drivers from AMD have addressed the hitching issues I was having in AC: Unity. So as of now, all the games I'm playing are running perfectly.
 

Work

n00b
Joined
Aug 31, 2012
Messages
34
I have no remorse with my purchase of 3600X yep you made a bad purchase.I agree.

Just to rub it in my 3600X on a crap X470 cheapest motherboard around

3600X Hitting 4500Mhz Cinebench 20

3600X Hitting gaming 4525Mhz as all the Ryzen 3xxx should do.

Valley Benchmark/outlast 2/Alien Isolation
You lucky so and so! :-D

If my 3700x boosted that well I’d have kept it.
If my RAM worked at 3600MHz and not just at 3200MHz, I’d have kept it.
If AMD RAID worked reliably I’d have kept it.

Rant over.

EDIT:

Just watched your first video and noticed that yes two cores boosted well, but the rest were well under-clocked?!

That’s not I was expecting to see...
 
Last edited:

Malfrex

n00b
Joined
May 29, 2018
Messages
6
I am quite happy with my build. Given I jumped from a 3770K to a 3900X the performance gain is mind blowing. I am waiting for the chipset/BIOS systems to officially be more stable before I do any tweaking but from reading the performance others have so far I think I probably got decently lucky in the silicon lottery as I have had a couple cores hit 4.6Ghz, with 6 of them hitting 4.45Ghz when more heavily loaded.

Despite some people saying the X570 chipset is a waste of money, given I'm likely going to hold onto the system for at least 5 yrs I'd rather have PCIe 4.0 available for when GPUs can exceed the capacity of 3.0 than need to go out and buy a new motherboard.
 

STEM

Gawd
Joined
Jun 7, 2007
Messages
583
Despite some people saying the X570 chipset is a waste of money, given I'm likely going to hold onto the system for at least 5 yrs I'd rather have PCIe 4.0 available for when GPUs can exceed the capacity of 3.0 than need to go out and buy a new motherboard.
AMD will release X590, and if I had to guess, it will address a lot of the issues that X570 has. I believe that heat output will be one of those issues that AMD will address.
 

RamonGTP

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Nov 9, 2005
Messages
7,895
I am quite happy with my build. Given I jumped from a 3770K to a 3900X the performance gain is mind blowing. I am waiting for the chipset/BIOS systems to officially be more stable before I do any tweaking but from reading the performance others have so far I think I probably got decently lucky in the silicon lottery as I have had a couple cores hit 4.6Ghz, with 6 of them hitting 4.45Ghz when more heavily loaded.

Despite some people saying the X570 chipset is a waste of money, given I'm likely going to hold onto the system for at least 5 yrs I'd rather have PCIe 4.0 available for when GPUs can exceed the capacity of 3.0 than need to go out and buy a new motherboard.
That's the exact jump I made and i'm also waiting for a BIOS update. The only issues I really have are my idle voltages are sky high and boost frequencies are about 200MHz shy of advertised. And of course, PBO doens't do anything regardless of setting.

AMD will release X590, and if I had to guess, it will address a lot of the issues that X570 has. I believe that heat output will be one of those issues that AMD will address.
Curious what you're basing this on? While AM4 has aged well, it still has aged. Personally, I highly doubt AMD is going to develop [another] new chipset for it when they just released one less than a month ago. I don't think the heat and power consumption warrant a rework for AM4. Seems the mobo manufacturers are more than capable of dealing with it and if I had to guess, AMD will let them do just that while looking towards the future.

I could be wrong here, but I actually hope i'm not. I'd rather AMD keep making progress with CPU's and stay on par with Intel, unless x590 actually brings some real benefits beyond simply power/heat issues.
 
Last edited:

Calavaro

Whiskey & Honey
Joined
Apr 11, 2001
Messages
8,235
The new beta Ryzen drivers are a bit agressive in keeping the CPU at a low state...

12core-sleep.jpg
 
Joined
Feb 23, 2009
Messages
971
You lucky so and so! :-D

If my 3700x boosted that well I’d have kept it.
If my RAM worked at 3600MHz and not just at 3200MHz, I’d have kept it.
If AMD RAID worked reliably I’d have kept it.

Rant over.

EDIT:

Just watched your first video and noticed that yes two cores boosted well, but the rest were well under-clocked?!

That’s not I was expecting to see...
What were you expecting because that is how light work loads works with boost,not all cores boost On AMD chips.Although up to 6 cores at once boost.
Mine boost 4525Mhz
My Ram works CL16 4200Mhz
My Raid works but not doing a bunch of raids anymore,just 4TB stripped volume for some games.

Well I am just having fun but they are good CPU's ,I have not had any problems but with all new things ,I get how people/companies fuck up there shit.
I do not use my Intal machines for gaming anymore,just AMD Ryzen @ 4K and I am perfectly fine with it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: N4CR
like this

Work

n00b
Joined
Aug 31, 2012
Messages
34
What were you expecting because that is how light work loads works with boost,not all cores boost On AMD chips.Although up to 6 cores at once boost.
Having looked again I noticed that you run single thread bench, so my bad. I thought it was MT.

I do not use my Intal machines for gaming anymore,just AMD Ryzen @ 4K and I am perfectly fine with it.
Good for you. At 4k you shouldn't notice any CPU bottleneck in low 1%. I noticed fair bit even in 1440p.
 
Top