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

[DanceswithUnix]

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

I think anything we do that makes chip makers timid about how aggressively their devices can boost would be bad.

If AMD were forced here to make sure that 100% of their chips can always get the full boost frequency on the cheapest motherboard in a badly vented case then they may feel compelled to cripple the boost tables for all chips by 200MHz and advertise that figure instead. I like that my chip in my system will always try and do the best it can.

[philehidiot]

If you ever see "maximum" or "up to" you know full well real world conditions will not provide that.

I thought it was well understood that the AMD chips are essentially self overclocking to the maximum that bit of silly-cone can achieve and that, like all overclocking, depends on many factors outside the CPU.

I also thought it was well understood that to make maximum use of this facility, you needed aftermarket (ideally water) cooling.

I don't see 75MHz from randomly built, configured and operated PCs as being an issue. I would see it as an issue if a properly built, optimised and configured PC could not achieve the stated boost clocks.

This is like putting that silly petrol in your car that says "up to 30% more mileage!" and then complaining it makes only 10% difference in the real world. The advertised maximum is just that.

Intel saying you can do 5GHz on all cores and having a small fridge worth around a grand plumbed into the CPU is clearly an issue with disingenuous marketing.

I hope they have found a BIOS issue that will shut this up because it's blown out of all proportion.

[preter_s]

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?

Except that when you overclock/over-volt or whatever, AMD doesn't guarantee ANYTHING! Max boost is opportunistic, as has been emphasized ad nauseum deoending on whatever thermal headroom might be available and depending on whatever mobo/firmware etc.

So convenient for the whiners and moaners like you to neglect to mention that!

[Corky34]

If it's opportunistic depending on thermal headroom then they got something wrong as in a GN video they showed a 3900X only reached its advertised boost clock when it reached -80c.

Not that it matters much now as going on tests conducted on a leaked update it seem they've fixed things.