Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 33 to 36 of 36

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

  1. #33
    root Member DanceswithUnix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    In the middle of a core dump
    Posts
    10,066
    Thanks
    501
    Thanked
    1,037 times in 881 posts
    • DanceswithUnix's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus X470-PRO
      • CPU:
      • 3700X
      • Memory:
      • 16GB 3200MHz
      • Storage:
      • 1TB Linux, 1TB Games (Win 10)
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Asus Strix RX Vega 56
      • PSU:
      • 650W Corsair TX
      • Case:
      • Antec 300
      • Operating System:
      • Fedora 30 + Win 10 Pro 64 (yuk)
      • Monitor(s):
      • Benq XL2730Z 1440p + Samsung 2343BW 2048x1152
      • Internet:
      • Zen 80Mb/20Mb VDSL

    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
    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.

  2. #34
    Long member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    1,402
    Thanks
    56
    Thanked
    250 times in 179 posts
    • philehidiot's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Father's bored
      • CPU:
      • Cockroach brain V0.1
      • Memory:
      • Innebriated, unwritten
      • Storage:
      • Big Yellow Self Storage
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Semi chewed Crayola Mega Pack
      • PSU:
      • 20KW single phase direct grid supply
      • Case:
      • Closed, Open, Cold
      • Operating System:
      • Cockroach
      • Monitor(s):
      • The mental health nurses
      • Internet:
      • Please.

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

    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.

  3. #35
    Banned - repeated insults to other members
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    146
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    4 times in 3 posts

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

    Quote Originally Posted by mercyground View Post
    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?
    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!

  4. #36
    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

    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.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

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
  •