ManofGod
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2007
- Messages
- 12,864
Wow, 7 pages already and I am still loving my 1600, 1700 and 2600. Upgrading to the 2600 will be not worth it, since the games are play, like Shadow of the Tomb Raider, are GPU bound games.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
meh, my max boost is around 4575 as of now. Either way I am running all core OC at 4350 with 1.31v and memory at 3733 with below 65ns latency. While everyone has the right to bitch, I am not complaining since it blows away anything intel has at that price point. So AMD has given me a great bang for buck, I am okay with losing 25mhz on max boost for now, I am pretty sure future bioses will do just fine as the platform matures.
Feel free to return your processors event though it doesn't make shit of a difference as you are getting the same performance as the reviews. if single core boost is what you are after on a 12 core beast all power to you.
I have been considering that. Where I am the local good part shop has Cool Master 240L AIOs for $80 Canadian. A D15 is $140... main reason I was leaning toward the AIO. Having said that they do have the NH-U14s for $100. Your point is well taken though... for 20 bucks probably be quitter and leaks won't ever be an issue.
So, excuses I've heard about Ryzen 2 not reaching stock speeds now.
It's new tech!
Boost is close enough!
User errorrrrrrrrr
Moon phases
<insert Intel product that sucks, or may potentially suck here>
Moar fans
Dark matter
hAvE yOu uPdAtEd uR bIoS?
"cutting edge"
what difference, at this point, does it make?
BLENDER!
Well, I use the NH-U14s on my 1600 running at 4.0 GHz and 1.4v and it works great. My Corsair H100i is much more noisy, fan wise, than the Noctua coolers.
Boost speeds are not stock speeds, please use the proper terminology.
Oh goodie, now defend the AMD overclocking video touting 3900x @ 4.8ghz.
Calm down, no one is defending anything but using proper english.
Thank God you are here Captain Webster. Society would surely grind to a halt, otherwise.
So, excuses I've heard about Ryzen 2 not reaching stock speeds now.
It's new tech!
Boost is close enough!
User errorrrrrrrrr
Moon phases
<insert Intel product that sucks, or may potentially suck here>
Moar fans
Dark matter
hAvE yOu uPdAtEd uR bIoS?
"cutting edge"
what difference, at this point, does it make?
BLENDER!
Please just return your 3000 series CPU and get a refund. Then you can go buy an Intel 9900KFC and we will all be happier for it. Good luck.
The thing is, there are hundreds of thousands sold around the world, and yet, not a peep about boost problems from the majority in the past 3 months... Until this bogus survey.
If it was actually true, we would have heard about it long before now.
So are the 3700x/3800x 8 cores at say 4.2ghz faster than a 5960x at 4.6ghz?
Let's say I bought the 3800x for $70 more than the 3700x for the extra boost clock. But my 3800x won't ever hit 4.5GHz and stay stuck at 4.4GHz. Would that count as AMD having scammed me of $70?
Anyone unhappy with their Ryzen 3000 series CPU should immediately return it for a full refund and purchase a comparable Intel product immediately.
...................Instead of filing a class-action lawsuit.
Let's say I bought the 3800x for $70 more than the 3700x for the extra boost clock. But my 3800x won't ever hit 4.5GHz and stay stuck at 4.4GHz. Would that count as AMD having scammed me of $70?
The thing that everyone is missing (maybe no one reads my posts): higher clocks do not always mean higher performance in gaming.
If that was true, going from 3.2 GHz to 4.3 GHz would almost be a 30% boost in FPS, but this doesn't happen.
See here, for example, the performance is the same basically:
View attachment 184745
https://www.pcgamesn.com/amd/ryzen-7-3700x-overclocking-benchmarks-performance
AMD has tuned Ryzen with the latest AGESA to have increased performance even *with* slightly lower clocks.
If you think about it, AMD has given us *more* performance than the launch reviews stated, not less. Forget about the GHz, it's not an accurate determination of real-world performance.
The thing that everyone is missing (maybe no one reads my posts): higher clocks do not always mean higher performance in gaming.
If that was true, going from 3.2 GHz to 4.3 GHz would almost be a 30% boost in FPS, but this doesn't happen.
See here, for example, the performance is the same basically:
View attachment 184745
https://www.pcgamesn.com/amd/ryzen-7-3700x-overclocking-benchmarks-performance
AMD has tuned Ryzen with the latest AGESA to have increased performance even *with* slightly lower clocks.
If you think about it, AMD has given us *more* performance than the launch reviews stated, not less. Forget about the GHz, it's not an accurate determination of real-world performance.
Good call. I read the chart wrong.They OC’d the memory ... that’s what the 3.2 vs 3.733 was.
No, actually we really do need a class-action lawsuit and I hope there is one.
With millions in fines. This is the only way AMD can learn their lesson. There has to be severe damages until they realize they need to be legit at all times.
I know a lot of people have lost an incredible amount of their new found respect for AMD.
Well, I use the NH-U14s on my 1600 running at 4.0 GHz and 1.4v and it works great. My Corsair H100i is much more noisy, fan wise, than the Noctua coolers.
I was outside the return window before the bios bringing the boost clock up from 4.3ghz to 4.575ghz was released. AMD didn't respond to my RMA request for almost a month and a half. I've had major reconstructive wrist surgery in the mean time and it would be physically impossible for me to rebuild my system, at this point, for months now.
It's been a well documented problem on reddit, overclock.net, tweaktown and guru3d forums. There are Google sheets running around with people submitting data and trying to figure out what's going on.
Just because you have not had a problem, or are ignorant of the problem existing, does not mean a problem does not exist.
Beyond wishful thinking, but he's right.. It's what was explained to consumers in that video in plain English as within reason given ample cooling and a good vrm. I posted the SS on the prior page where he showed PBO taking a 4550 boost core up to 4750.
Seeing it written down that way makes it even more hilarious with the 3950x.
This is straight from AMD themselves and still posted on their youtube. I can also bet precisely 0 people without LN2 have seen 4.75ghz on any ryzen 3xxx core.
I guess that's their euphemism for "doesn't work at all".AMD was also clear in its reviewers guide that adding the 200MHz offset wasn't guaranteed.
I guess that's their euphemism for "doesn't work at all".
Pretty much this.to be perfectly honest, I never expected it to work knowing how close to the edge these things were by the time I read that in the guide. Essentially, it's PBO+AutoOC with a 200MHz offset. When the damn things barely boost to their maximum stated boost clocks, it just didn't seem likely. But I get why people are so upset about it. When you read that you can set the CPU to do that, you expect that it should be possible.
Personally, I think AMD over promised and under delivered. These chips can often do 4.3GHz on all cores. Had these things been set at 4.4GHz max boost and been good for 4.3GHz all core, I don't think anyone would be complaining. That said, these frequent micro-boosts into the 4.4GHz+ range (and higher on the 3900X) are what give AMD the single-threaded scores that we see in all the benchmarks. AMD was simply too desparate to stick it to Intel that they lost sight of the fact that they were over extending themselves on what they could promise.
This bears highlighting. AMD must have known this as well! Why in the world would they release that video?to be perfectly honest, I never expected it to work knowing how close to the edge these things were by the time I read that in the guide. Essentially, it's PBO+AutoOC with a 200MHz offset. When the damn things barely boost to their maximum stated boost clocks, it just didn't seem likely.
I'm 99% convinced everyone with lower boosts have higher ambient, or they simply like a warm room where they use their PC, while those that did boost at advertised or higher live in colder climates.
And the reason most CPU's in the poll did not boost at advertised, is because probably most results come from Europe or USA, where right now it's a hot summer with plenty of heatwaves.
I guess that's their euphemism for "doesn't work at all".
I'm getting elementary school flashbacks. I'll get right on it after I become an astronaut.Then why dont you build a better chip?
Not one of these people are going to file Jack squat.
Millennials complain about anything and everything and produce NOTHING.
Calm down grandpa.Millennials complain about anything and everything and produce NOTHING.