That explanation makes it crystal clear how these features work. It looks like there is a fair bit left in tank for enthusiasts to get out of the platform with tangible performance increases from headroom for both CPU and memory clocks.
Yes, that's the idea. It then tapers off depending on many conditions.
Have a look at Robert's explanation and replies in both of these links, he goes in depth what the algorithm does and how it behaves.
---------------------------
I like the new PBO on 3rd gen, it's more flexible and the best way to overclock these chips.
So that's 4.9GHz max boost clock for the 3950x with PBO on, a suitable motherboard, and an adequate cooling solution. A little motherboard trickery as with PBO parameters on second gen parts gets that to 5GHz for lightly threaded workloads.
+200MHz across the board for the max boost clock and a similar boost for the average clock speed, simple as toggling a BIOS switch. Gotta love that, and the fact that now we have control over the max clock. No bclk overclocking needed...
Looking at the game perfomance comparisons from AMD slides made 3900X appear as the fastest gaming CPU of their stack. Although considering it has 2 chiplets and 4CCXs it really shouldn't. That got me thinking if AMD is using some tricks to boost perfomance on such chips. Could it be possible that they're sending as many threads to one CCX/chiplet as possible (similar to what the new Windows update is doing) and in return they could use the largely unused L3 cache on the other chiplet as some sort L4 cache (aka "gamecache") to boost perfomance? Just a wild thought.
So that's 4.9GHz max boost clock for the 3950x with PBO on, a suitable motherboard, and an adequate cooling solution. A little motherboard trickery as with PBO parameters on second gen parts gets that to 5GHz for lightly threaded workloads
What? The rumors are saying 5ghz, how can you not accept that as fact?
Those rumours likely pertain to static OC, not necessarily PBO/XFR.
To me it seems, that 3600 is running @ 4.4 Ghz (up from 4.2) pretty much the entire test, 3600X and 3700X boost to only about 4.5 (and probably not the entire duration) while 3800X barely goes above 4.5.
My guess is that the 4.7 GHz 3950X is already heavily binned and probably won't go all that much higher in single threaded apps, even with PBO (being limited by other factors than the clock-limit). Multi threaded is cetainly another story. I would be happy to be proven wrong, though
Well how much your profit from PBO depends on your cooler which might be listed in the *footnotes not visible. So if you have an AIO on a 3800x, you will get a higher score than here assuming stock cooler was used.
I wouldn't mind higher clocks, I'm just trying to reign in the assumptions and the hype-train
Well how much your profit from PBO depends on your cooler which might be listed in the *footnotes not visible. So if you have an AIO on a 3800x, you will get a higher score than here assuming stock cooler was used.
Also, do note that PBO also increases average clock speeds, not only peak clocks. The chips might not be able to clock much higher than their default boost clock on lightly threaded workloads, yet enjoy a decent +200MHz boost in multithreaded stuff.
I would be very surprised if > 4.7GHz can be managed on 1st generation 7nm chips (outside of single/dual core boosts, and maybe the 3950X). It seems unlikely to me that 4.8GHz+ would be possible on early 7nm without either winning the silicon lottery or getting a binned part down the road (like the 3950X or Threadripper 3).
As much as I would love a 5Ghz Ryzen 3, I'd also be very surprised if they were able to hit those clocks. At E3 (or maybe it was Computex) there was a demonstration of a 3950X breaking the Cinebench world record. It was on LN2 and only able to hit 5Ghz all core. To me that doesn't bode well for big overclocks from the 3000 series.
Those rumors were around for Ryzen 1000 and Ryzen 2000... I'll believe it when I see it. Preferably with no chiller or LN2.
As much as I would love a 5Ghz Ryzen 3, I'd also be very surprised if they were able to hit those clocks. At E3 (or maybe it was Computex) there was a demonstration of a 3950X breaking the Cinebench world record. It was on LN2 and only able to hit 5Ghz all core. To me that doesn't bode well for big overclocks from the 3000 series.
That doesn't answer the question: why?
It was my fault. He put the blame for Windows not being prepared for Threadripper 2 WX topologies solely on AMD, and I called him out on that referring to the zero issues Linux has with that topology. He then referred to the issues Windows has/had with Bulldozer's CMT topology, and I spoke my thoughts that he's distracting from the initial discussion....
Well then it really wasn't your fault, you just stated what is true. There was some confusion about Threadripper 2 originally with the argument being memory channels, but that seemingly is not true. Oh well, wish he was still around but it is what it is.