The BIOS is no better or worse than any other BIOS, simply because they all basically have the same BIOS called AGESA.
No, the AMD marketdroids wanted clockspeed, and the only way to achieve that is by shoving in a stupid amount of voltage.
The AMD engineers probably wanted multi-core performance at a reasonable voltage (1.3 Volts maximum), but the marketdroids said "What about single core boost speeds" and the Engineers said, "What about it, it's irrelevant".
The markedroids won out and it did naff-all good, because reviewers (who I am convinced are recruited from the shallow end of the gene-pool, but not as shallow as where they recruit salescritters/marketdroids from, which, on a good day, barely counts as a puddle ) will just point to the single core benchmark and denigrate AMD anyway in comparison to Intel.
RE: JayzTwoCents like you, does not know the meaning of the term "Overclcock".
OK I understand now, you are NOT talking about overclocking.
I have to agree with nec_v20 on that. I have never observed a UEFI update having a large impact on manual overclock settings. They obviously affect boosting settings, but I haven't personally observed a large change in what is possible in manual settings by changing a UEFI.
Well, that will be interesting. You tested both 3600X's in the motherboard he has? Or at least the identical board? If that chip still matches on his motherboard, you can likely rule it out.
"The chiplets used in the 3900X are of higher silicon quality than that used in the 3600X."
They are. And beyond that, I do have a custom loop in my system with a CPU block that also covers the VRMS, so nothing is getting very hot. So that could certainly lead to a difference as well. Certainly not an apples to apples comparson.
I did notice something that was tied to a different thread you posted regarding the AGESA 18.104.22.168. In all previous UEFI releases, my chip would boost to about 1.325V all core and 1.475V on lightly threaded. It would limit out at these voltages despite extra EDC, TDC, and PPT and temperature headroom. And indication that the FIT feature is working as intended. However, when I installed the Combo AGESA 22.214.171.124, my chip would boost over 1.4V on all core workloads. That is most certainly horrible, and I promptly switched back to 126.96.36.199 ABBA. Not sure which AGESA release he was using? But 188.8.131.52 seemed to be borked. I have not yet tried the 184.108.40.206 release.
"I am not really going to entertain the whole "Anecdotal" and "N=1 sample size"; because I predicted this would happen and it is a coincidence (and an unfortunate one) that he didn't apply the settings the way I told him to."
Sounds a little like confirmation bias there . But keep up the posts, this is really useful info.
Oh! The other thing I was going to ask before I forget was the concerning the performance data from those Cinebench R20 runs? Even if his clocks are lower now, is the performance also lower? Just trying to make sure the discrepancy wasn't caused by a "clock stretching" phenomenon which could be altered by firmware.
From what I can gather, your comprehension seems to be permanently out to lunch.
In all the time you have been whining you have not, as far as I can tell, ever defined the term "Overclocking".
If I go with what I have garnered, it appears that you think that anything beyond base clock is overclocking, thus anything beyond 3.5 GHz on my 3950X is overclocking - this being the only number that AMD categorically states with regards to an all-core clockspeed. Thus, if everything is overclocking then nothing is overclocking, and we are left with a term which has no meaning.
The only other clockspeed mentioned is "4.7 GHz" for a single core boost but this is prefaced by the salescritter/marketdroid weasel-words "Up to" (which basically means, "Never gonna happen"). The only time the 3950X ever achieves a 4.7GHz single core boost is when the system is not under load, and that's really when you NEED the boost, i.e. when the system is doing naff-all.
You are not arguing in good faith having been nothing other than deliberately obtuse and therefore superfluous to requirements as far as any kind of discussion is concerned.
I am very much aware of the situation where an indicated clockspeed does not translate to an actual increase in performance and took that into account in my months long experimentation with my 3rd Gen Ryzen CPUs (3600X, 3900X and 3950X).
Here is something which I have noticed is that ambient temperature affects the CineBench runs from one day to the next.
Obviously ambient temperature is the starting point for the efficacy of the cooling solution.
The way this manifests is that a CineBench R20 score I can achieve with my settings can vary by 100 or more (outside the normal run to run variance) depending on how cool my room is.
Because I have had two spine operations and I have spinal arthritis, I keep my room temperature at 28 degrees Celsius; however if I do a run just after I wake up, when I have not turned on the heating and the room temp is around 20 degrees Celsius, with the same settings the CineBench R20 score is markedly higher even though the clockspeed is set to the same value.
I have a temperature sensor about an inch and a half away from middle intake fan of my 360 rad and it is in the same position for every test, and I use this measurement to define my ambient temperature.
I am not just talking about a single run either.
This difference in ambient temperature does not however affect the single core score.
On any given day, the score I get at 1.3 Volts is the same score I get if I raise the voltage to 1.3125 or 1.325 (and yes, I do reboot the system between raising the voltage even though I can change it without the need to reboot).
The first version of the 220.127.116.11 B AGESA based BIOS for my motherboard was abysmal with regard to my test results compared to 18.104.22.168 ABBA; however GigaByte brought out three further 22.214.171.124 B BIOS revisions and finally go it sorted.
The thing is that I didn't expect to have first hand experience of the degradation, having set up the system I sent to my friend specifically to avoid it.
To answer your question, I tested both CPUs in both boards for a week or so.
" I also cannot test the scenario you listed above, as I never logged the maximum manual overclock at a set voltage to compare to."
Wait, wait, wait a minute. I actually did test a scenario similar to this.
Read my initial post hear from August 28th 2019.
I can try and reapply those same CCX settings at 1.3V and see if I can duplicate your friends results. I think i'll give that a go this weekend.