Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 16 of 36

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

  1. #1
    HEXUS.admin
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    28,815
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    1,864 times in 637 posts

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

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

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    363
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked
    23 times in 17 posts
    • Bagpuss's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Gigabyte Z390 Aorus Pro Wi-Fi
      • CPU:
      • Intel i9-9900K
      • Memory:
      • 32GB Corsair Vengeance RGB Pro DDR4 3400
      • Storage:
      • Gigabyte 512GB NVMe SSD, Crucial 1Tb NVMe SSD, 6Tb Seagate 7200
      • Graphics card(s):
      • EVGA 2080 Black Edition
      • PSU:
      • Corsair 850 RMx 850 Gold
      • Case:
      • Fractal Meshify C Copper Front Panel
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 10
      • Monitor(s):
      • LG UK850 27in 4K HDR Freesync/Gsync
      • Internet:
      • Three Mobile 4G Unlimited Data (35-45Mbit)

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

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

  3. #3
    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 Bagpuss View Post
    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.

  4. #4
    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

    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.
    Last edited by Jonj1611; 03-09-2019 at 12:32 PM.
    Jon

  5. Received thanks from:

    Strawb77 (15-09-2019)

  6. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    121
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    3 times in 3 posts

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

    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...

  7. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    121
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    3 times in 3 posts

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

    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.

  8. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    219
    Thanks
    3
    Thanked
    17 times in 14 posts

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

    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?

  9. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Manchester
    Posts
    1,285
    Thanks
    20
    Thanked
    61 times in 51 posts
    • Percy1983's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Gigabyte x570 Aorus Pro
      • CPU:
      • AMD 3700x + Cooler Master Nepton 140XL
      • Memory:
      • 64GB (4x16GB ) Corsair Vengence 3200mhz @ 3600mhz CL16
      • Storage:
      • 500GB Silicon Power NVME + 2x 4tb Raid 0 (2tbx2) arrays with 250gb Silicon Power NVME cache
      • Graphics card(s):
      • 8Gb RX580 Nitro+
      • PSU:
      • 875w Thermaltake Toughpower XT
      • Case:
      • Thermaltake Level 10 GT Snow Edition
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 10 Pro 64bit
      • Monitor(s):
      • 24" Acer UHD x2
      • Internet:
      • Talk Talk!

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

    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.

  10. #9
    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 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 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.

  11. #10
    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

    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.

  12. #11
    Registered+
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    42
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    4 times in 4 posts

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

    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.

  13. #12
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    13
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    0 times in 0 posts

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

    Quote Originally Posted by yeeeeman View Post
    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'?

  14. #13
    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

    Quote Originally Posted by Corky34 View Post
    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
    Last edited by Jonj1611; 03-09-2019 at 03:15 PM.
    Jon

  15. #14
    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

    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.
    Exactly my point, well mentioned
    Jon

  16. #15
    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

    Quote Originally Posted by Kamikaze-X View Post
    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
    Jon

  17. #16
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    1,355
    Thanks
    8
    Thanked
    67 times in 59 posts

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

    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.

  18. Received thanks from:

    Strawb77 (15-09-2019)

Page 1 of 3 123 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
  •