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
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
ohmaheid (03-09-2019)
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.
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.
Dunno what all the fuss is about as I have a 2600
Old puter - still good enuff till I save some pennies!
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.
https://twitter.com/AMDRyzen/status/1168901636162539536
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.
UPDATE:
THERES A BIOS/FIRMWARE BUG
https://twitter.com/AMDRyzen/status/1168901636162539536
(what hoonigan said, but said again as it's worth mentioning twice )
Jonj1611 (03-09-2019)
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.
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....
Now you just have to beat the mobo makers to you know... update their rubbishrubbishrubbishrubbishty bios's...
Whats that got to do with anything? Also I never said random guy so where you getting that from?
Jon
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.
If within 1% of advertised frequencies is a mess, i wonder what adjectives you would use to describe 2% variances.
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.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)