It's been a long two weeks since we completed our AMD test weekend with extensive coverage of the new Ryzen 3000 Series CPUs, the new Radeon RX 5700 Series Navi GPUs, and our full review of 7/7 have motherboards based on X570 chipsets.
Among the things that did not go as planned in the hectic time before Sunday was the issue of BIOS launches. Always a delicate issue with new platform launches – BIOS versions are often heavily developed until a new platform is delivered – and there was a situation where several BIOS versions with performance differences appeared on some boards. And while Moore's law may be dead, Murphy's Law is alive and well, so the BIOS we ran our first Ryzen 3000 tests was not the best BIOS for the platform, of course.
So, we would like to clarify the timeline of events for the initial tests, retests and if and how the new BIOS behavior could change our original conclusion of the Ryzen 3000 series.
Looking Behind the Scenes and Speaking About AMD's sampling process, the company initially focused on providing auditors with a choice of 4 different X570 motherboards. Among them was MSI's flagship, the MSI MEG X570 Godlike, which we already had in the lab along with the MSI MEG X570 Ace for use in our first round of motherboard testing. In an unfortunate moment, our gods could not reach us, and we were never able to get it up. After another comedy of logistical issues where we got the CPUs just days before the start date ̵
The MSI X570 MEG Ace, in turn, is still one of MSI's high-end motherboards and is usually a good choice for a test board. The danger of using Ace in this situation, however, is that it is not one of the startup boards that AMD has worked with. So there was no explicit and well tuned test BIOS like Godlike.
Due to time constraints and unfamiliarity with the new Ryzen 3000 boosting behavior, we were finally unable to identify any problems. The BIOS of the board (or was warned of problems) until after we read the review article of MSI A / B Skills obtained new public BIOS and tested it.
In a custom frequency test, we were able to verify that AMD's new UEFI-CPPC2 interface on the board was not working properly because it was not raised to the higher frequencies Most importantly, however, the frequencies were not increased in the 1 to 2 ms promised by AMD, but in rather slow ~ 500 ms.
Retesting and updating our numbers
Since then, we have been able to re-test both the Ryzen 9 3900X and the Ryzen 7 3900X and updated the review with the new numbers. In addition, for those who have already read the first review, we wanted to publish a summary of the changes in the various workloads of the 3900X:
The The biggest change was in tests tied to the performance of a single thread. These tests mainly consist of either multiple threads with only one heavy thread or just one thread period. Here we have seen the effect of the new BIOS in action, which allows the CPUs to approach their specified maximum boost speeds, and we have seen the biggest increases in web testing between 4% in SPEC and 7-9% ,
Interactive tests such as WebXPRT showed, in particular, major changes as the frequency increases were boosted by the faster rate of increase in frequency, resulting in increases above the 5.8% higher boost frequencies we could verify.
* Note: The 3900X AppTimer result is probably an outlier.
 In the tests for systems, rendering, and encoding, the performance changes and improvements strongly depended on Multithreaded behavior of the workload. Agisoft's Photoscan test is similar to the Web test in terms of enhancements, but no changes were detected during extensive multithreaded testing in the System Suite. Some tests have bottlenecks on single thread components, leading to intermediate improvements of on average 2-3%.
Changes in the gaming benchmark were a The results were slightly different, mainly because we were seeing major deterioration. The main reason for this is that some titles have multiple threads, but only a limited number of threads. In those titles and situations where we are not just tied to the performance of a single big thread, it's likely that the CPU clock in the BIOS of the new version is slightly lower compared to what we originally tested. Our results have been consistent across multiple runs, so this is not an artifact of normal run to run variation.
Overall Conclusion: Better Single-Thread Results but Same Positioning
Total Updated Startup of MSI The BIOS improved our original numbers most in areas where the new Ryzen 3000 has already excelled: office and productivity applications. Particularly exclusive single-threaded workloads experienced a greater boost, making the new Zen 2 all the more impressive. In the meantime, the revaluation of game results seems to indicate that AMD's boosting algorithms need to be improved. None of this changes our overall performance analysis or recommendations, but if the difference between Intel and AMD is sometimes an inch game, it's not surprising that everyone is keenly interested in the slightest change from manufacturer BIOS to manufacturer BIOS. In this regard, we will continue to monitor the BIOS changes over the next few weeks and see if the new Precision Boost 2 mechanism contains more comprehensive behavior updates.
Certainly, if you do that If you want to buy a new Ryzen 3000 CPU, keep up to date with the latest BIOS, as the versions shipped with new X570 boards are unlikely to offer the full power of the new CPUs ,