Either that or it’s Zen 5% failure rate+32% IPC Zen5 on August 15th!!
Prove it, otherwise. . .
10 Ways to fix SETUP and HOLD violation: Static Timing Analysis (STA) Basic (Part-8)
VLSI Basics, Static Timing Analysis , Parasitic Extraction , Physical Design, DFM, Interview Questions, Resume Sample and Other VLSI Informationwww.vlsi-expert.com
It can occur if the signal comes too early but in this case it s only if the clock is too high and as a consequence that there s not enough time for the stage to be triggered during the relevant clock cycle as to hold the desired value.
So assuming that frequency is low enough at the start there will be no time violation by other mean than the transistors not switching fast enough, that is, too low transconductance to charge parasistic capacitances in due time, i.e, signal being too late as a result.
You re just repeating what i said, so how should i prove it otherwise, didnt i say that if clocks are low enough there will be no time violation..??
So read first what is said, since you re now trying to make a point out of something you once negated a few post above, your quote is saying exactly what i stated in my post that i just quoted above.
Anyway, at least i got a good pile of lols for free.
Here the quote you posted :Read it again, it agrees with me.
Hold violation happen when data is too fast compared to the clock speed. For fixing the hold violation, delay should be increased in the data path.
The pudding interior say that time violation occur mainly when the data signal is too late.
It can occur if the signal comes too early but in this case it s only if the clock is too high and as a consequence that there s not enough time for the stage to be triggered during the relevant clock cycle as to hold the desired value
Here the quote you posted :
And here what i said before you posted this quote :
So what you quoted is just the same thing as what i said, and the contrary to what you said in your first posts on the subject.
Edit : The data signal state will last as long as the clock signal doesnt change state, if the clock signal is of low enough frequency the data signal will have all necessary time to trigger the driven stage.
Is it a geekbench issue that it says "Memory Channels : 4"?Arrow Lake Leak got somebody excited enough to tune up a 9950X on Geekbench. Multiple different runs of 5950 MHz all core OC today, probably DI or LN2
ASUS System Product Name - Geekbench
Benchmark results for an ASUS System Product Name with an AMD Eng Sample: 100-000001277-60_Y processor.browser.geekbench.com
ASUS System Product Name - Geekbench
Benchmark results for an ASUS System Product Name with an AMD Eng Sample: 100-000001277-60_Y processor.browser.geekbench.com
View attachment 103765
From GB6.3: if it’s dual channels it will say 2.
Me. Its not a problem. READ. Its a QA issue. In other words, allowing a 9950x to be sold at under the advertised MHZ or the like.So who wants to be guinea pig and buy a CPU from the first batch now, unless AMD discloses what the actual problem was and how well it could be fixed?
that's an old 6GHz sample.Arrow Lake Leak got somebody excited enough to tune up a 9950X on Geekbench. Multiple different runs of 5950 MHz all core OC today, probably DI or LN2
Reading the other posts in this thread, it does not seem to be clear what exactly the reason for the delay is. QA could mean lots of things. How come you think it’s likely a frequency only issue?Me. Its not a problem. READ. Its a QA issue. In other words, allowing a 9950x to be sold at under the advertised MHZ or the like.
Worse case, allowing a 9950x to be sold that does not meet QA and at top frequency, is not stable. Sound familiar ?
Edit: If it was an actual issue with the chips, there's no chance they would be able to get them fixed and new ones out the door within a week or two. It would have to be either the QA testing miss as explained, or something wrong with the microcode/firmware that they could fix and push out quickly.
I wonder how that i9 14900KS is feeling. Probably in a world of pain.
These talented and highly professional people don't get it in their heads to do crazy or stupid things on the CPUs. That's how they got their job in the first place. Usually someone wanting to monkey about with things isn't tolerated at most workplaces around the world.These companies are packed with talented and highly professional people, yet things go wrong from time to time. This (Zen 4/RPC) gen should be very indicative of that.
Maybe some smartass in the art department drew a really tiny doodle on the Zen 5 IHS and one or some of the reviewers discovered it while examining the IHS with magnification. And it's probably NSFW.It’s good that AMD found this issue before launch. But as I finding this issue this close to launch is a bit concerning. AMD should have done tested all scenarios and not skipped on some.
hello Domdtxdissar This guy is on Overclock.net forum and also here with Det0x nick ,-)
Source is forum posts or what?Some Bits from Computerbase:
-nobody had review samples, so nobody can tell if the SKUs are really taken back and switched out
-AMD knew about a problem for weeks, so they put 31th as release and tried fixing it until then.
-AMD specifically told the press on AMD Tech day over 2 weeks ago that supply of Ryzen 9 SKUs will be (extremely) tight.
-with these info, Computerbase Editor definitely thinks what AMD said to the Verge isn't the truth.
-However, he doesn't know the real reason
Overall it makes me think my Yield Theory gets increasingly more likely. There must be something different for the big SKUs and the only real difference is higher boost clocks.
Tight for 9950X only or both 9900X and 9950X?Some Bits from Computerbase:
-nobody had review samples, so nobody can tell if the SKUs are really taken back and switched out
-AMD knew about a problem for weeks, so they put 31th as release and tried fixing it until then.
-AMD specifically told the press on AMD Tech day over 2 weeks ago that supply of Ryzen 9 SKUs will be (extremely) tight.
-with these info, Computerbase Editor definitely thinks what AMD said to the Verge isn't the truth.
-However, he doesn't know the real reason
Overall it makes me think my Yield Theory gets increasingly more likely. There must be something different for the big SKUs and the only real difference is higher boost clocks.