Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 17 to 32 of 36

Thread: AMD Ryzen 3000 boost survey "worse than expected": der8auer

  1. #17
    Senior Member Jonj1611's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    3,367
    Thanks
    809
    Thanked
    339 times in 282 posts
    • Jonj1611's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Gigabyte Gaming 5 X370
      • CPU:
      • Ryzen 7 1700X
      • Memory:
      • 16GB DDR4 3000Mhz
      • Storage:
      • 500GB Samsung 970 EVO, 1 x 1TB, 1 x 2TB
      • Graphics card(s):
      • 8GB EVGA GTX1080 FTW2
      • PSU:
      • EVGA 750W SuperNova G2
      • Case:
      • Coolermaster H500
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 10 Pro 64-Bit
      • Monitor(s):
      • Acer 31.5" QHD IPS LED
      • Internet:
      • Virgin Fibre

    Re: AMD Ryzen 3000 boost survey "worse than expected": der8auer

    Have to agree LSG501, I always looked at boost speeds as a free overclock, never got upset because I couldn't achieve them, as long as it run it's base speed was happy
    Jon

  2. Received thanks from:

    ohmaheid (03-09-2019)

  3. #18
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    806
    Thanks
    6
    Thanked
    35 times in 27 posts
    • rob4001's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Gigabyte z97
      • CPU:
      • Xeon 1231 v3
      • Memory:
      • 16GB
      • Storage:
      • Samsung 840 256GB SSD
      • Graphics card(s):
      • GTX980
      • PSU:
      • Sliverstone 500w SFX-L
      • Case:
      • Silverstone SG13 mitx
      • Operating System:
      • windows 10 64 bit
      • Monitor(s):
      • Asus 27" 1440p
      • Internet:
      • Comcast 75MB

    Re: AMD Ryzen 3000 boost survey "worse than expected": der8auer

    The hardware aspect of pc's for gaming is full of guys talking amd vs intel overclocking custom water loops etc best air coolers. The game side of PC market is full of sjw marketing #metoo making baseless allegations while game devs hang themselves.

  4. #19
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    286
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked
    9 times in 8 posts

    Re: AMD Ryzen 3000 boost survey "worse than expected": der8auer

    Let's be honest. If this were intel, they would get so much aggro. I don't regret my 3600, but AMD did seem somewhat misleading about the boosting potential.

  5. #20
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Wonderful Warwick!
    Posts
    2,663
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    101 times in 84 posts

    Re: AMD Ryzen 3000 boost survey "worse than expected": der8auer

    Dunno what all the fuss is about as I have a 2600
    Old puter - still good enuff till I save some pennies!

  6. #21
    Senior Member kalniel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    29,176
    Thanks
    1,515
    Thanked
    2,930 times in 2,374 posts
    • kalniel's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Gigabyte X58A UD3R rev 2
      • CPU:
      • Intel Xeon X5680
      • Memory:
      • 12gb DDR3 2000
      • Graphics card(s):
      • nVidia GTX 1060 6GB
      • PSU:
      • Seasonic 600W
      • Case:
      • Cooler Master HAF 912
      • Operating System:
      • Win 10 Pro x64
      • Monitor(s):
      • Dell U2311H
      • Internet:
      • O2 8mbps

    Re: AMD Ryzen 3000 boost survey "worse than expected": der8auer

    Quote Originally Posted by FRISH View Post
    Let's be honest. If this were intel, they would get so much aggro.
    I doubt that. Where was the uproar about Intel's PL2 power states? Quite.

    AMD were right to quote a max boost clock as long as retailers pass on that important 'max' modifier. I do want to know what the maximum turbo frequency is, and I want to know what the base clock is. If you always expect to see a turbo frequency then that's the base clock, not the max boost frequency.

  7. #22
    Hooning about Hoonigan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    2,027
    Thanks
    137
    Thanked
    365 times in 256 posts
    • Hoonigan's system
      • Motherboard:
      • GIGABYTE X570 AORUS MASTER
      • CPU:
      • AMD Ryzen 7 3700X
      • Memory:
      • 32GB Corsair Dominator Platinum RGB @ 3766MHz - CAS 15
      • Storage:
      • 2TB Gigabyte NVMe 4.0 + 1TB Samsung 970 EVO NVMe + 1TB Corsair MP510 NVMe
      • Graphics card(s):
      • MSI NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080Ti VENTUS OC
      • PSU:
      • be quiet! Straight Power 11 650W
      • Case:
      • be quiet! Dark Base Pro 900
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 10 x64
      • Monitor(s):
      • Acer Predator Z35P + ASUS ROG PG279Q
      • Internet:
      • Virgin Media Vivid 350

    Re: AMD Ryzen 3000 boost survey "worse than expected": der8auer

    https://twitter.com/AMDRyzen/status/1168901636162539536



    Quote Originally Posted by kalniel View Post
    AMD were right to quote a max boost clock as long as retailers pass on that important 'max' modifier. I do want to know what the maximum turbo frequency is, and I want to know what the base clock is. If you always expect to see a turbo frequency then that's the base clock, not the max boost frequency.
    I think the trouble with that is that users of high end CPUs like this have now come to expect their CPU to reach the maximum boost frequency quite often, perhaps not for prolonged periods but at least some of the time.

    I agree though, I'd rather see AMD giving the CPU some genuine shtick, pushing it as hard as they can, even if it will only reach those maximum clock speeds very rarely.
    Last edited by Hoonigan; 03-09-2019 at 04:46 PM.

  8. Received thanks from:

    Corky34 (03-09-2019),Jonj1611 (03-09-2019)

  9. #23
    boop, got your nose stevie lee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    southport
    Posts
    2,568
    Thanks
    400
    Thanked
    389 times in 296 posts
    • stevie lee's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Gigabyte GA-870A-USB3
      • CPU:
      • Phenom II X6 1090T 6core 3.2ghz
      • Memory:
      • 8GB Corsair DDR3 1600 MHZ
      • Storage:
      • Hitachi 500, 640GB + 1TB. WDblue 2TB, Crucial M500 240GB
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Nvidia Palit 750 Ti
      • PSU:
      • Enermax Naxn 350 W
      • Case:
      • Xigmatech Midgard
      • Operating System:
      • Win 10 Home
      • Monitor(s):
      • 22" Samsung SM2233BW
      • Internet:
      • 20mb plusnet unlimited!

    Re: AMD Ryzen 3000 boost survey "worse than expected": der8auer

    UPDATE:

    THERES A BIOS/FIRMWARE BUG

    https://twitter.com/AMDRyzen/status/1168901636162539536



    (what hoonigan said, but said again as it's worth mentioning twice )

  10. Received thanks from:

    Jonj1611 (03-09-2019)

  11. #24
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,930
    Thanks
    396
    Thanked
    362 times in 252 posts

    Re: AMD Ryzen 3000 boost survey "worse than expected": der8auer

    Quote Originally Posted by SlickR View Post
    Steve from hardware unboxed this a scientific test with 1 CPU and found that based on different motherboards it performed differently. On some it wasn't getting the proper boost, on others it was.

    I think it depends on motherboard, cpu, cooling, OS, bios version, chipset version, and which program you are running, therefore everyone is seeing different boost speeds. Plus who the idiots out there, boost clocks are opportunistic clocks, amd does not guarantee them, they only guarantee base clocks, so any notion of a lawsuit is absurd.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jonj1611 View Post
    An X570 board will likely get different results than a B350 board. Additionally I was reading the article that stated different hardware/speeds etc
    If that's the case then AMD should've informed customers that that's the case so they can make an informed decision.

    EDIT: Posted that before i read ^^that^^ announcement, better late than never as this boost issue has been being discussed since 1.0.0.3 AGEAS and no one could nail it down, they could've save people a lot of time there.

  12. #25
    Registered+
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    85
    Thanks
    3
    Thanked
    5 times in 4 posts

    Re: AMD Ryzen 3000 boost survey "worse than expected": der8auer

    I'm surprised this nonsense is getting traction in the tech press...Well, maybe not so surprised.
    Boost speeds will always depend on M/B. BIOS. Cooling solutions etc.
    No-one in the Tech Press seems to mind Intel quoting TDP figures that bear no resemblance to the real world.
    Go figure....

  13. #26
    Long Time Lurker
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Newcastle
    Posts
    376
    Thanks
    28
    Thanked
    17 times in 16 posts
    • mercyground's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Gigabyte GA-MA790X-UDP4
      • CPU:
      • AMD Phenom II X4 955 (3.2ghz)
      • Memory:
      • 8GB
      • Storage:
      • 160gb intel SSD + 3TB of HDDs
      • Graphics card(s):
      • 4770 512mb
      • PSU:
      • Akaska 550w
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 7
      • Monitor(s):
      • LG M1917TM
      • Internet:
      • 50mb Fibre

    Re: AMD Ryzen 3000 boost survey "worse than expected": der8auer

    Now you just have to beat the mobo makers to you know... update their rubbishrubbishrubbishrubbishty bios's...

  14. #27
    Long Time Lurker
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Newcastle
    Posts
    376
    Thanks
    28
    Thanked
    17 times in 16 posts
    • mercyground's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Gigabyte GA-MA790X-UDP4
      • CPU:
      • AMD Phenom II X4 955 (3.2ghz)
      • Memory:
      • 8GB
      • Storage:
      • 160gb intel SSD + 3TB of HDDs
      • Graphics card(s):
      • 4770 512mb
      • PSU:
      • Akaska 550w
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 7
      • Monitor(s):
      • LG M1917TM
      • Internet:
      • 50mb Fibre

    Re: AMD Ryzen 3000 boost survey "worse than expected": der8auer

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonj1611 View Post
    Personally I would like to see a controlled test rather than random users with different hardware taking random times to do the test.

    I'm surprised Hexus published this as a "news" article. Should have just said bloke gets random users with random hardware to do a test. Results inconclusive.
    Shame that the Random guy only happens to be one of the worlds best overclockers eh?

  15. #28
    Senior Member Jonj1611's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    3,367
    Thanks
    809
    Thanked
    339 times in 282 posts
    • Jonj1611's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Gigabyte Gaming 5 X370
      • CPU:
      • Ryzen 7 1700X
      • Memory:
      • 16GB DDR4 3000Mhz
      • Storage:
      • 500GB Samsung 970 EVO, 1 x 1TB, 1 x 2TB
      • Graphics card(s):
      • 8GB EVGA GTX1080 FTW2
      • PSU:
      • EVGA 750W SuperNova G2
      • Case:
      • Coolermaster H500
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 10 Pro 64-Bit
      • Monitor(s):
      • Acer 31.5" QHD IPS LED
      • Internet:
      • Virgin Fibre

    Re: AMD Ryzen 3000 boost survey "worse than expected": der8auer

    Whats that got to do with anything? Also I never said random guy so where you getting that from?
    Jon

  16. #29
    Long Time Lurker
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Newcastle
    Posts
    376
    Thanks
    28
    Thanked
    17 times in 16 posts
    • mercyground's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Gigabyte GA-MA790X-UDP4
      • CPU:
      • AMD Phenom II X4 955 (3.2ghz)
      • Memory:
      • 8GB
      • Storage:
      • 160gb intel SSD + 3TB of HDDs
      • Graphics card(s):
      • 4770 512mb
      • PSU:
      • Akaska 550w
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 7
      • Monitor(s):
      • LG M1917TM
      • Internet:
      • 50mb Fibre

    Re: AMD Ryzen 3000 boost survey "worse than expected": der8auer

    meaning he understands the hardware and has been seeing "odd" results. So getting the community to crowdsource data is a smart move. And now AMD has confirmed issues. Problem is that now you have to wait for bios updates (if they come).

    Theres been plenty of issues on bios forums as ppl try to dial in their new chips. Its still bit of a mess depending what board you have. Also now you have to be careful updating if you have older chips as what was stable gets narfed in the new patch fest.

  17. #30
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    1,414
    Thanks
    88
    Thanked
    190 times in 134 posts

    Re: AMD Ryzen 3000 boost survey "worse than expected": der8auer

    If within 1% of advertised frequencies is a mess, i wonder what adjectives you would use to describe 2% variances.

  18. #31
    IQ: 1.42
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    old trafford
    Posts
    1,104
    Thanks
    132
    Thanked
    76 times in 67 posts
    • Tunnah's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus P8P67 PRO
      • CPU:
      • Core i7 2700K
      • Memory:
      • 12GB DDR3-1600
      • Storage:
      • Various SSDs, 90TB RAID6 HDDs
      • Graphics card(s):
      • 1080Ti
      • PSU:
      • Silverstone 650w
      • Case:
      • Lian-Li PC70B
      • Operating System:
      • Win10
      • Internet:
      • 40mbit Sky Fibre

    Re: AMD Ryzen 3000 boost survey "worse than expected": der8auer

    I buy my hardware based on the performance, not on what the box says. A lot of people are still obsessed with the raw speed rather than performance/clock (or more importantly performance/dollar) and I think that's why they've risked putting a number they knew the parts couldn't quite reach.

    Although I do think we should take them to task, because slippery slope and all that, I think it's important for the reaction to be measured

  19. #32
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,930
    Thanks
    396
    Thanked
    362 times in 252 posts

    Re: AMD Ryzen 3000 boost survey "worse than expected": der8auer

    Quote Originally Posted by Tunnah View Post
    I buy my hardware based on the performance, not on what the box says. A lot of people are still obsessed with the raw speed rather than performance/clock (or more importantly performance/dollar) and I think that's why they've risked putting a number they knew the parts couldn't quite reach.

    Although I do think we should take them to task, because slippery slope and all that, I think it's important for the reaction to be measured
    The issue is/was that the performance was measured using AGESA 1.0.0.2 and (afaik) AMD updated review guides 2-3 days before release to say reviewers should us the new 1.0.0.3 AGESA, obviously very few reviewers had time to retest everything so the published performance figures on release where using the un-buggy version, people who bought the product however ended up using the buggy version (at least if they updated their BIOS they did) and so did not get the performance reviewers got.

    Either way it seems they're talking about a September the 10th release for the update so depending on how much testing board partners do it should be addressed shortly after that.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •