1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

AMD AGESA 1.0.0.3 ABBA BIOS That Should Fix Boost issues Spotted and Tested

Discussion in 'Frontpage news' started by Hilbert Hagedoorn, Sep 10, 2019.

  1. gerardfraser

    gerardfraser Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    2,734
    Likes Received:
    452
    GPU:
    R9 290 Crossfire
    LOL Star Trek FTW

    Just letting people know how to get the MSI BIOS

    X570 Beta Fixed Boost BIOS is on the MSI FTP site free for anyone to grab them.
    I am sure they will post the rest in soon B350/X370/B450/X470.

    MSI FTP server if you wanna check it out ,just hit login. Go to your Motherboard and check date of BIOS for newest Beta 2019-09-10.
    Do not download the wrong BIOS and Brick your board.
    http://msi-ftp.de:8080/main.html
     
    Exodite, theoneofgod and insp1re2600 like this.
  2. Aura89

    Aura89 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    7,579
    Likes Received:
    845
    GPU:
    -
    @jwb1 has been warned repeatedly about his constant fanboyism and people getting tired of it, but the mods don't seem to actually follow through with their warnings it seems. I have no idea what is going on in this thread, since i have him blocked, but it sure seems like a utter nonsense has been flung all over the place over him. I just wish the mods would actually deal with him, since so many are constantly getting fed up with his nonsense.
     
  3. jwb1

    jwb1 Master Guru

    Messages:
    448
    Likes Received:
    46
    GPU:
    MSI GTX 1080 Ti
    This is hilarious. I have not been warned by any mods. If they come in and say okay guys let's move on from this discussion, I stop. But I have never been warned. Ever. You can't even tell the truth about that! So people should be banned because they have an opinion. Anyone is free to block me all they want like this snowflake, apparently. But in what world does it make sense to ban someone from having an opinion you don't agree with. I am not getting personal or attacking anyone here.
     
  4. Denial

    Denial Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    12,313
    Likes Received:
    1,500
    GPU:
    EVGA 1080Ti
    "The maximum single-core frequency at which the processor is capable of operating under nominal conditions" - this is the description AMD gives for max boost and I don't think means "up to" at all. Especially when their last two processors also advertised "max boosts" and successfully hit those speeds often.

    How do I know better what that answer is when reportedly only 6% of 3900x's were even hitting their advertised speeds? You're essentially saying that's okay because somewhere (no where) they said "up to" - what if it was 1%? What if it was 1 processor with liquid nitrogen? Why are you setting the line at 6%?

    I disagree with JWB1 - I don't think this is a big issue and I think his overall stance is extreme and comparing it to Intel is a joke - that being said it does blow my mind that people are defending this - especially after AMD literally admitted it's wrong, caused by an issue and presumably already fixed it.

    It's pretty clear to me given the outrage around this topic here, on /r/amd, other forums, etc that most users expected their processors to hit the maximum boost frequency. It was further solidified when AMD released a video of a guy specifically saying under normal conditions you'll see what's on the box. Now it's 100% solid because AMD literally released a patch that fixes the behavior.
     
    Last edited: Sep 10, 2019

  5. D3M1G0D

    D3M1G0D Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    1,864
    Likes Received:
    1,196
    GPU:
    2 x GeForce 1080 Ti
    And you are a lost cause if you cannot recognize both are instances of broken promises and misleading products - the Xeon that eventually arrived was nothing like what they promised. Again, you give Intel a pass because you are an Intel fanboy while AMD needs to be held to account and publicly tarred and feathered.
     
  6. jwb1

    jwb1 Master Guru

    Messages:
    448
    Likes Received:
    46
    GPU:
    MSI GTX 1080 Ti
    I'm no lawyer, but I don't think you can sue a company for changing something before you bought it.
     
  7. Only Intruder

    Only Intruder Maha Guru

    Messages:
    1,085
    Likes Received:
    124
    GPU:
    Sapphire Fury Nitro
    Guys, come on relax - I'm sure we can all agree both Intel and AMD has done stuff that is either false or misleading but splitting hairs like this and throwing up "what if scenarios" in addition is just silly.

    In this case, AMD users are the ones affected and AMD users are the ones complaining as they are not getting the performance they were expecting and as a result AMD themselves are attempting to address it. There's really no need to compare this to Intel...
     
  8. Mundosold

    Mundosold Active Member

    Messages:
    87
    Likes Received:
    27
    GPU:
    eVGA GTX 560
    What is really going on is pretty simple - it's just binning. They put a low-binned CCX with a higher-binned CCX. You get a 1 core boost (and it can be possible to get a full CCX boost) that hits spec, and then the other CCX doesn't.
    It's not the BIOS or anything else. As yields improve you will see boosts improve, just like they did with Ryzen 1. Maybe by then they will just call it 7nm+ and Ryzen 4 or something though.
     
  9. schmidtbag

    schmidtbag Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    4,341
    Likes Received:
    1,309
    GPU:
    HIS R9 290
    Of course that doesn't mean the same thing, because it's not the same thing that I'm talking about. Max boost is basically the [artificial] speed limit AMD put on the CPU. But max boost != turbo core technology. Turbo core is what determines whether the CPU will reach max boost. I'm a bit surprised you aren't seeing the difference here, since you're normally pretty good about this kind of stuff.
    The last 2 generations had relatively minimal boost speeds, both in terms of raw numbers and proportionate to their base clocks. From what I can tell, the silicon was also very intolerant of going any faster. It was much easier for them to reach those speeds.
    Frankly, I don't really know why AMD bothered to set a max clock speed at all. The boost clocks they set are already ostensibly damaging to the CPU, so, why not just make it go as high as cooling and power delivery will let it?
    EDIT:
    As for "setting the line at 6%", I'm not. I acknowledge there is an actual problem here since CPUs that should reach the max boost aren't. But, if hypothetically all CPUs were equally capable of reaching the max boost but only 6% of them did, I wouldn't fault AMD for that, because as long as the chip can do it, it's up to the user to make sure the cooling and power delivery is sufficient.
    The only thing I'm defending is "it's not that bad" and that there isn't false advertising. I'm not saying AMD isn't at fault, because clearly there's some microcode glitches when people with ample cooling and power delivery still aren't getting the correct results. But, that is now purportedly fixed.
    But if this is where we complain, what about every other product that has a max whatever? Take a sports car engine for example - how many people are really going to unleash all that potential? You need to be at the right altitude, right oil, clean fuel, right fuel octane, right temperature, right RPM, clean air intake, etc etc. The probability of you reaching that peak power is incredibly slim outside of a dyno (or, maybe even on a dyno). Should people complain that the real-world results are worse than advertised there?

    It's all so incredibly petty. The performance where it matters is good and (to my understanding) where it should be.
     
    Last edited: Sep 10, 2019
  10. jwb1

    jwb1 Master Guru

    Messages:
    448
    Likes Received:
    46
    GPU:
    MSI GTX 1080 Ti
    Truly, there are probably some people who buy these CPUs who don't even know what is going on. And never will. Never even do an update with AGESA. But that doesn't matter. If they bought a CPU that is not working as it was advertised to do, its a big problem. It doesn't matter if they notice or not.

    This is why you hear about cars and gas mileage. If they promote a certain mileage and it doesn't reach, you see class actions and might randomly get a letter in the mail. Would you say no to free money in that case? And be like, well I never noticed so no big deal. Answer honestly.

    AMD is no white knight as people like to think they are. Neither is Intel. They are a business. They want to sell as much as they can for how much they can and will do things to muddy the waters unless they get caught doing something unethical or illegal. And consumers have to call them out when they **** up.
     

  11. gerardfraser

    gerardfraser Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    2,734
    Likes Received:
    452
    GPU:
    R9 290 Crossfire
    Evildead666 and AsiJu like this.
  12. jwb1

    jwb1 Master Guru

    Messages:
    448
    Likes Received:
    46
    GPU:
    MSI GTX 1080 Ti
  13. schmidtbag

    schmidtbag Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    4,341
    Likes Received:
    1,309
    GPU:
    HIS R9 290
    You're right - if they don't know, don't notice, and are happy with the results, it really doesn't matter. So why are you making a fuss out of this?
    Uh, no? They were penalized because they blatantly cheated on the tests... So if I owned one of such cars and somehow didn't realize my fuel economy was crap compared to what they advertised, then yes, I would want compensation because the company actively lied to me and was costing me money in excess fuel. Realistically, I'd actually pay attention to my fuel economy and just return the car since it didn't perform to my expectations.
    But here's the thing: AMD didn't cheat because some people are getting the results (and with this new ABBA update, apparently there's now going to be more). There is clearly a defect in the microcode which AMD should be held accountable for (which they openly have been). When 0% of your customers can reach the advertised specs under nominal or even near-perfect conditions (which AMD does specify), then I figure you might have a lawsuit ready. I'm not entirely sure if that's true, but I would be surprised if it wasn't.
     
  14. jwb1

    jwb1 Master Guru

    Messages:
    448
    Likes Received:
    46
    GPU:
    MSI GTX 1080 Ti
    Um, or less .We just don't know this conclusively... yet. We'll see. This also reminds me of Star Trek Insurrection when Captain Picard asks how many people does it take before its wrong with force relocation. Super nerd of me. But HOW MANY DOES IT TAKE BEFORE ITS WRONG ADMIRAL!?
     
  15. Denial

    Denial Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    12,313
    Likes Received:
    1,500
    GPU:
    EVGA 1080Ti
    Why are you bringing up turbo core? The description I posted is the clarification AMD added to the terminology "max boost" - I didn't mention turbo core or the idea of turbo core at all?

    AMD basically said the max boost number "is the highest clockspeed you can expect to see under nominal conditions" which is a far cry from saying "max boost means you can see up to this frequency"

    That's not to mention, historically it didn't mean that (previous generations all had max boost with no clarifications necessary), they released a video saying you'd see the highest listed frequency on the box, and they issued a statement saying that the bios has a problem preventing chips from hitting it.

    Seems pretty clear to me - now that it's fixed (presumably) it's fine but I literally had people telling me "my configuration must be wrong" "it's fine because AMD said "up to" (they didn't) "it doesn't matter anyway because it's only 3% performance" etc.

    Edit:
    Also they updated it again:

    Original:

    https://www.techpowerup.com/img/LlMlz7T7XxNjQK2t.jpg

    Now:

    "Max boost for AMD Ryzen processors is the maximum frequency achievable by a single core on the processor running a bursty single-threaded workload. Max boost will vary based on several factors, including, but not limited to: thermal paste; system cooling; motherboard design and BIOS; the latest AMD chipset driver; and the latest OS updates."
     
    Last edited: Sep 10, 2019

  16. Fox2232

    Fox2232 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    9,684
    Likes Received:
    2,158
    GPU:
    5700XT+AW@240Hz
    Make an fake Advert for that CPU and put it on intel's reddit. :D
     
  17. vbetts

    vbetts Don Vincenzo Staff Member

    Messages:
    14,615
    Likes Received:
    1,190
    GPU:
    RTX 2070FE
    Seriously, 2 topics?! No more talk of it, next time points will be given out.
     
  18. Fox2232

    Fox2232 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    9,684
    Likes Received:
    2,158
    GPU:
    5700XT+AW@240Hz

    Edit: Sorry vbetts.
     
  19. schmidtbag

    schmidtbag Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    4,341
    Likes Received:
    1,309
    GPU:
    HIS R9 290
    Because turbo core is the entire basis behind the whole "up to" thing...
    Hence me bringing up turbo core.
    Historically, boost clocks, for both Intel and AMD, have always been dynamically affected by conditions like power and temperature. The only difference now is AMD went way too ambitious with the 3000 series and didn't release it with stable firmware.
    In some (not all) cases, their configuration (specifically, hardware related, not BIOS related) may have been wrong. In reality, the AGESA code was most likely the issue
     
  20. Kool64

    Kool64 Master Guru

    Messages:
    291
    Likes Received:
    98
    GPU:
    Gigabyte GTX 1070
    Meh they released the 1000 gen chips is just about as bad of a state. Though I can't say worse because WHEA was by far the worst thing. I couldn't even install Windows for almost a month.
     

Share This Page