The "Hertzbleed" vulnerability

Posted Jun 15, 2022 14:34 UTC (Wed) by nye (subscriber, #51576)
In reply to: The "Hertzbleed" vulnerability by flussence
Parent article: The "Hertzbleed" vulnerability

> I do that already because I've never seen a single measurable benefit from it on a Ryzen and it only increases peak CPU temps by 20°C

If you can't measure a performance difference, you have something very wrong with one or more of your hardware, BIOS, and/or kernel - you should generally be seeing around 30% depending on the specific CPU.

I'd say maybe it's just not working at all, but that wouldn't explain the heat increase so there must be something more going on, eg you have bad hardware and it's increasing the voltage a huge amount in order to get a tiny boost. I had a 3700x which was absolute garbage so AMD is definitely producing some bad silicon, but even then the speed difference was meaningful; it's just that the temperature increase was wildly non-linear.

The "Hertzbleed" vulnerability

Posted Jun 15, 2022 18:10 UTC (Wed) by flussence (guest, #85566) [Link] (1 responses)

BIOS most certainly kicks rocks - it's a Gigabyte board. The normal max clock is 3800 without boost and something like 4400 with, but leaving it turned on doesn't improve life in any way for me while the downsides are immediately visible. If it's dud silicon then I can accept that, but I'd at least like it to last long enough to replace with a Linux-running M2 down the line :-)

The "Hertzbleed" vulnerability

Posted Jun 20, 2022 15:58 UTC (Mon) by eduperez (guest, #11232) [Link]

Going from 3800GHz to 4400GHz is a 16% increase, but only in CPU frequency, among a myriad of other factors that affect performance... it's probably imperceptible for many use cases, and not worth the cost.