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

[HEXUS]

For example, only 5.6 per cent of Ryzen 3900X users could boost to the advertised clock speeds.

Read more.

[Bagpuss]

Is that a 'class action' law suit I see approaching on the horizon?

[DanceswithUnix]

Is that a 'class action' law suit I see approaching on the horizon?

Sadly you might be right. I always see way more than base clock even when hammering all threads for some minutes on the retail cooler, so I actually think AMD have been quite generous with their ratings for where it really matters. That won't stop the vultures from circling at the first opportunity though.

[Jonj1611]

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.

[yeeeeman]

I am quite shocked that people are not able to open an image, think and then read what the click-baity article says. As you can see, the majority of samples for 3900X boost to 4525Mhz, which is 75Mhz lower than advertised boost speed. If that isn't close enough I don't know what it is...
Also, to prove that the title is click bait, it should have been: "Ryzen 3000 boost is very close to the one advertised in most cases". No, they transformed this 75Mhz gap which is 1-2% into a huge deal breaker and they seem to be insisting with this since there are not many bad things to say about the new AMD cpus...

[yeeeeman]

Matter of fact is that these new CPUs are great performers, great prices, great consumption and I sense a bit of hatred from Intel supporters since they don't have many things to say. Also lets not forget about that Israeli firm that made a site and some videos specially for AMD to denigrate them. It is up to consumers to use their brains and not be fooled.

[Irien]

Also, most motherboards will only run "close to" the advertised speed. I routinely see intel chips running up to ~25Mhz lower than quoted speeds just because of how the clocks run and how the BIOS is configured. Effectively there's a small margin in the various clockings that determine CPU speed, and mobo vendors always err on the side of caution to avoid rma issues.

This is probably different, due to the magnitude of the discrepencies (75 Mhz is a much bigger difference), but so many factors affect this that it is hard to be certain when it is a "boost clock". One odd thing, though, is that I thought precision boost (or similar name) was supposed to push *beyond* stock clocks if there was suitable headroom, so I'd have expected slight overclocks not underclocks on 3x00X parts?

[Percy1983]

My 3700x is a strange beast all core of 4ghz and single core of 4.3ghz.
If I enable PBO I get all core boost of 4.16ghz and single core of 4.2ghz.

Always running rather cool with a Nepton 140XL.

[Corky34]

Personally I would like to see a controlled test rather than random users with different hardware taking random times to do the test.

I wouldn't exactly call it an uncontrolled test as the parameters were defined and isn't having random users the entire point, we're not talking about what the max boost is in strictly controlled laboratory conditions here, we're talking about what your average customer would achieve out of the box, IDK what times have to do with it or different hardware as it was the maximum boost speed recorded that mattered, if different hardware effects that then shouldn't AMD make people aware that they should be using X hardware.

[Tabbykatze]

I think they can easily say 25mhz-75mhz is within a culpable margin of error.

Frankly, this is better than Intel advertising 5GHz boost on U/H processors of which the PL1 value only lasts for less than a minute or so before thermal dial back to PL2/3 to base clock or even under base clock. That is far more disingenuous.

[SlickR]

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.

[Kamikaze-X]

I am quite shocked that people are not able to open an image, think and then read what the click-baity article says. As you can see, the majority of samples for 3900X boost to 4525Mhz, which is 75Mhz lower than advertised boost speed. If that isn't close enough I don't know what it is...
Also, to prove that the title is click bait, it should have been: "Ryzen 3000 boost is very close to the one advertised in most cases". No, they transformed this 75Mhz gap which is 1-2% into a huge deal breaker and they seem to be insisting with this since there are not many bad things to say about the new AMD cpus...

75Mhz lower still isn't the advertised speed. If the advertised speed was 'up to...' then yes, it would be close enough.

why do you think broadband providers now have to say 'up to'?

[Jonj1611]

I wouldn't exactly call it an uncontrolled test as the parameters were defined and isn't having random users the entire point, we're not talking about what the max boost is in strictly controlled laboratory conditions here, we're talking about what your average customer would achieve out of the box, IDK what times have to do with it or different hardware as it was the maximum boost speed recorded that mattered, if different hardware effects that then shouldn't AMD make people aware that they should be using X hardware.

An X570 board will likely get different results than a B350 board. Additionally I was reading the article that stated different hardware/speeds etc

[Jonj1611]

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.

Exactly my point, well mentioned

[Jonj1611]

75Mhz lower still isn't the advertised speed. If the advertised speed was 'up to...' then yes, it would be close enough.

why do you think broadband providers now have to say 'up to'?

If this gains any traction then I expect they will say up to eventually

[LSG501]

Got to be honest I don't take much notice of boost speeds as my main interest is what it's like with all cores... I fully expect that any amd ryzen 3 cpu I buy will be able to run at the base clock speed on all cores 24/7, just like I expect my i7 4790k to be able to run at it's stock 4ghz on all cores 24/7...

Boost clocks to me have so many variables, and heat being a major factor. The UK, as did most of EU iirc, just had a heatwave and a I saw 10-20 degrees higher temps under load and I'm sure that would have actually impacted some of those results seeing as they're from the general public.

Should AMD have been so aggressive in their 'max boost clocks' assertions, probably not but I remember a time when boost clocks weren't even a thing...at the same time I don't think it's a class action worthy issue either because of the amount of variables at play AND the fact that AMD have used max boost clocks rather than saying straight up it will clock to this speed.