Jump to content
HWBOT Community Forums

Ryzen memory clock misreport


Recommended Posts

it's been awhile, there are records out there since ryzen 3000 launch 

I think it's not hard to figure out there are mis readings of ryzen 3000's memory speed up to 5.1GHz

which barely there is no single one software can particularly report it right

people choose not to say or take advantage from it, used for marketing or competition, some may presented for companies

last week I take a chance to check out those weird results, and double check with some softwares

and oscilloscope, and found out those softwares are truly broken and fail to report the right frequencies


as you can see from attached pitcures, all software except ryzen master are reporting the wrong clock

and they still can pass cpuz validation which means software fail to report correctly

though, rzyen master is not always right, becasue it can't detect the out side BCLK, once you jump up 

the BCLK rzyen master only reads the memory clock at 100MHz

here is the validation I just add to show CPUz's buggy memory frequency

CPUz shows 5.916GHz, but actually it's 55*102 not 58*102




  • Like 1
  • Thanks 10
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for the insight, Hicookie! I think we need to take this seriously and have a look at the underlying implementation of the Ryzen memory clock detection in CPU-Z and HWiNFO. This is not the first time that clock frequency detection via software is untrustworthy. This has happened before due to CPU vendors not being able to provide the necessary functionality to read frequencies reliably.

I've contacted Martin from HWiNFO as well this morning to get his take on the issue. Will update as soon as I know more.

Hicookie, have you tried the latest Ryzen Master tool as well ( and above)? It should have the new AMD Monitoring SDK built in and might bring some changes: https://community.amd.com/community/gaming/blog/2019/09/10/ryzen-community-update-bios-updates-for-boost-and-idle-plus-a-new-sdk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the problem really only lies in allowing AMD in memory frequency results though right? Because ofc you will have skewed data for benchmarks, but the overall score doesn't change and that's the most important thing. At the end of the day we never banned X48 when it reported incorrect ram speeds and it's been doing that since it's inception on certain dividers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because encoding of mem clock changes past 5000. This was not initially accounted for in earlier BIOS code (AGESA, ABL) and tools . It was fixed in later tool versions and ABL WABLMT95222040. So if older ABL is used in combination with later tools it might report an incorrect result.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Create New...