Gadgetory

welcome back to our unboxed today is bloody windy here I am so if there's a lot of background noise then yeah I apologize for that but unfortunately there isn't too much I can do about it Rison processes just aren't quite powerful enough to control the weather yet anyway today we're looking at how the new 3rd generation processors work on a really affordable be 350 motherboard and the test subject for this experiment is the asrock a B 350 M pro 4 and you might be asking why this particular as rocker micro ATX motherboard and the reason is quite simple this was one of my top picks for the best ultra cheap be 350 motherboard and coming in at just $75 it was a steal back in 2017 it's also a great candidate for our 3rd gen rise and testing on a be 350 board because it is extremely basic it packs a three phase V core very amusing a four phase is l9 571 - controller but we do get a doubling of components so each phase features two high side MOSFETs and two low side MOSFETs so in that sense it's pretty decent for a sub $100 a m4 motherboard now in this video I want to investigate two main things can a budget be 350 motherboards safely support the horizon 930 900 X for example how hot does the vrm get during a torture test so we'll be strapping on a few k-type thermocouple to find out then assuming we don't cook this poor little motherboard we'll be looking at things like well are there any thermal issues power limitations or anything else that may be limiting performance of the third gen Rison CPUs and obviously to do that I will be testing the 3900 X 3700 X and then the vanilla 3600 that we just reviewed and I'll be testing yes all of those out on this asrock board and then comparing that to the data we've already gathered on the MSI x5 70 creation using BIOS version 5.9 T the asrock a be 350 M pro 4 does support them two processors using their GC version 1.0 0.1 please the MSI x5 70 Croatian was tested using the latest bias which uses a juicer version 100.3 and this version was used for all previous testing and performs as expected so let's jump straight into the results and first up we have the RM temperatures and we'll look at what I would say as a worst case scenario first at least until the horizon 939 50x arrives I don't expect many will be looking at pairing a 3900 X with an entry level be 350 motherboard but it is useful information for a few years down the track at which point you'll likely be able to snag one of these 12 core parts for peanuts now all this testing has been conducted on an open test bench with no additional cooling however it's not that unrealistic as I'm using the Box cooler which does direct airflow over the vrm heatsink or at least one of them anyway so this setup has the advantage of cool air circulation as it's not stuffed in a poorly ventilated case but it has the disadvantage that there is no direct airflow from case fans so stock the Rison 930 900 sucked down 145 watts and this push of RM temps to peak at 65 degrees for the underside of the PCB where most of the heat is dissipated while the top side of the mosfet driver picked at just 51 degrees both are very safe operating temperatures for these components and with 8 sensors I covered the board very well so what you see here are the hot spots now enabling PBO with the Box cooler it is rather pointless as all it does is increase power consumption while resulting in really no extra performance still it does stress the vert more so for this testing we are interested in doing exactly that this increased the peak temperature on the underside of the PCB by 22% and now we're seeing the board get up to around 80 degrees although these temperatures aren't dangerous they are getting a bit too hot to sustain for long periods of time the board is also right on the edge now and with the PBO plus order OC feature enabled in the rise and master software the asrock a B 350 M pro 4 did come unstuck the board didn't suffer any major failure or crash but the blender won our stress test did closed down to the desktop after about 20 minutes and this happened three times in a row so I just took the hint and gave the little be 350 board arrests in short it looks like the asrock a B 350 M four can comfortably deliver 150 watts but once you start pushing over 180 watts it just wants to pack it in moving over to the 65 watt TDP horizon 730 700 X the be 350 board didn't break a sweat sadly I didn't measure the peak package power consumption when testing with a 37 under X I just didn't think of it at the time I did test this protestor first and it only occurred to me that this would be an interesting thing to report when I was testing with the more power-hungry 3900 X anyway even with PB o plus Auto C enabled the 3700 X ran flawlessly on the asrock board and vrm temps only picked at 46 degrees which is obviously very safe that being the case I didn't waste any time testing the rise in 536 hundred it's obviously not going to stress the vrm so let's just move on actually I did encounter one issue with the r5 3600 the memory support was a little bit flaky on this board whereas the rise and 5 processor worked just fine with ddr4 3200 memory on the x5 70 board it only worked up to ddr4 3000 on the asrock be 350 board which is a bit interesting because the 3700 X and 3900 X worked just fine with ddr4 3200 memory on this exact board though ddr4 3600 didn't work at all and I should just clarify by not work it actually did post with ddr4 3200 memory it loaded into Windows and it ran a lot of our benchmarks but if blue screened every time we tried to run at the blender stress test so it works to a degree so maybe a future BIOS can iron out those stability issues but for now if you want it to be perfectly stable ddr4 3000 is the limit so memory support isn't nearly as good as the x5 70 motherboards but that was almost certainly going to be the case so no surprises there it's possible that future BIOS revisions will enhance memory support but it's just as likely that the signal quality on the a be 350 pro 4 just isn't good enough to go beyond ddr4 3200 and then for the lower quality been CPU such as the r5 3600 even 3200 is out of the question this means for the benchmarks that you're about to see the 3900 X and 3700 X were tested using ddr4 3200 CL 14 memory while the 3600 was tested using ddr4 3000 CL 14 memory interestingly despite the change in memory frequency the r5 3600 actually sees the smallest performance discrepancy between the two boards tested the x5 70 board was just under 1% faster so chalk that up to margin of error the 3700 X on the other hand was 3 percent faster on the x5 70 board not a big margin by any means but it was consistently 2 to 3% faster then we see the 3900 X was 4 percent faster on the x5 70 board again not a big margin but there was clearly a small performance uplift when using the more modern board but the board also Custer and seven times more so I guess keep that in mind when testing with blender I noticed the typical all core clock frequency it did jump around quite a bit but after about half an hour it settled into the clock speeds that you see reported here basically the 3100 X clocked two and a half percent higher on the X 570 board the 3700 X clock 2.7 percent higher and the r5 1600 clocked 0.1 percent higher ensure performance was the same for the r5 3600 the 3700 X took 2 percent longer to complete the test and the 3900 X took 4 percent longer pretty much in line with the mind in the scene when testing with Cinebench this time we're testing with VRA the 3900 X was 5 percent faster on the X 570 board while the 3700 X was just 3 percent faster and we see the r5 3600 performing 1% better on the be 350 board so again within the margin of error as for gaming performance the r5 3600 was again able to deliver the same level of performance on both boards the same was true for the 3700 X while the 3900 X dropped a few frames Assassin's Creed Odyssey is a much more demanding game on the CPU and here the 3100 X and 3700 X were 4 percent faster on the X 570 board while the 3600 saw a 1% FPS difference finishing up the benchmarks we have total system power consumption while running the blender tests the 39 her X or total system consumption dropped by 10% 16% for the 3700 X and 11% for the 3600 there are likely a few reasons for this the hyatt x5 70 motherboards might waste more power due to their extreme verum implementations we know the x5 70 chipset uses quite a bit more power as well and pods are generally littered with RGB LEDs though the MSI creation is pretty good in that regard either way it seems AMD's enter CPUs are much more power efficient on 300 and 400 series boards okay so the good news for those of you who own an entry-level am4 motherboard is that they can easily handle the new rise in five thirty six hundred thirty six hundred X and horizon seven thirty seven hundred X so no issues there with perhaps the exception of questionable memory support though that won't be anything new for anyone who's running a first or second generation part on boards such as this and really even the Raisa 930 900 X that worked perfectly fine in its out-of-the-box configuration just don't expect that you'll be able to go overclocking the hell out of the 12 core CP on this board in fact just don't go overclocking it at all and again memory support on this particular be 350 motherboard was a little bit limited ddr4 3200 but really that's all you need to get the maximum performance anyway from these rice and processors assuming you're using a low latency memory and honestly I don't believe riser 930 100x support is relevant right now still relevant but right now not so much in a few years time where you can get the CPU secondhand for what I'm guessing will be around a hundred to two hundred dollars then yeah getting one and sticking it on a cheap be 350 boards such as this will be a really nice option as for higher end be 350 boards yet to test any of those but I'm just going to assume that those with beefier VRMs should be even better assuming that the BIOS support is there as for by our support we are obviously in the really early days here so the state of these older boards is likely to improve as the BIOS is get updated I'm not sure whether they will update them any further there's not a huge amount incentive for board partners to do so obviously they want to sell their newer boards but they have rolled out updates so yeah maybe they will continue to work on those we'll just have to see there should be no real performance differences or improvements between the adjacent one 0 0 1 and 1 0 0 3 versions things like memory compatibility they could be improved along with stability in general but I'm not expecting to see the bias revisions make any real difference to performance I am aware of the challenges aim day and its board partners faced with their backwards compatibility promise for example the storage capacity of the SPI flash EEPROM chip that stores the motherboard UEFI firmware it isn't really big enough to house the latest GC microcode and that is a problem for a number of the entry-level and mid-range boards that only use a 16 megabyte prom the x5 70 boards they've been upgraded to a 32 megabyte prom that's no doubt to combat this compatibility issue moving forward though they do drop support for first gen parts anyway to try and work around this issue as ROC has made a light version of their BIOS that doesn't feature any colors and it has a very basic layout but anyway I'll be testing more be 350 boards soon as well as some of the cheaper X 370 boards and I'll be looking at other brands such as MSI of Susa and gigabyte on a final note that's pretty much unrelated to the testing in this video but I just want to make mention of this issue here it's an issue I was having with World War Z with the Rison processors performance was well down on where I was expecting it to be a bit like what we see with Far Cry New Dawn but there's no bug or issue there so basically yesterday I was testing the 3100 X again just to make sure that all the numbers were where they should be and I went to fire at World War Z and there was an 8 gigabyte patch so I downloaded the patch installed it didn't think too much of it then re ran the tests and the performance was significantly better than what I'd reported in my reviews so that was a bit of an issue I went back reconfirmed yeah the rising performance is now very very close to the night ok now this patch was apparently released early last week so about the time that I started testing the Rison processors but for whatever reason the epic store only updated my copy on Monday now at this point I don't know if the patch addressed rising performance there's no mention of it in the notes that I've been out of find so if it doesn't address performance with Verizon there was probably just something wrong with my copy and the a gigabyte patch just fixed that so I've reached out to AMD to try to help me on this one see if they can find out what was going on I have seen a few other reviewers that tested World War Z and did get better results than me so it seems they probably tested with this updated Apache four did address performance or yeah perhaps there was just something wrong on my end in either case I will be updating my results next week at the moment I'm revalidating my third gen rising numbers also go back and just make sure 1st and 2nd gen parts haven't changed and I'll do the same for the Intel CPUs but I want to let you guys know that I'm aware of this issue and I am working to resolve it so yeah sorry but it'll be fixed next week I promise anyway I should wrap this video up so I can go back to doing that testing if you liked the video please hit the like button subscribe for more content and if appreciate all the time and effort we put in here at harbor unbox then consider supporting us on patreon you can gain access to our exclusive discord chat monthly live streams all that good stuff thank you for watching I'm your host Steve and I will see you again next time you